July 23, 2014

"Births have slowed so sharply that researchers note that future economic growth could be stunted by a smaller labor pool."

"Immigration is often seen as a fix. But the downturn crimped supply lines for both babies and new foreign faces. The change was so dramatic that the Census Bureau in 2012 was forced to revise the 2050 U.S. population projection it made just four years earlier, dropping it by 9 percent, to just under 400 million."

Fewer people, slower economy... why isn't this exactly what those who worry about climate change ordinarily celebrate?

50 comments:

Brando said...

I would also think this would help solve the problem of low demand for labor bringing wages down.

Gubbler of the Society of Reformed Chechenistics said...

http://www.details.com/sex-relationships/sex-and-other-releases/200703/meet-the-mandingos

http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/ma/cuckold

Good to see racial progress.

One guy used to be a ‘bigot’ because he used to get beat up and robbed by blacks, but he’s much better now because… he gets off watching his white wife get banged by blacks on his own bed.

Just like the Roman Empire.

PS. Libs and globo-elites say there are no racial differences. They denounce the past when blacks were referred to as ‘bucks’.
But they seek out black men for their racial differences and refer to them as ‘bulls’.

This is the true implication of the Obama presidency. White sexual submission to blacks under globalist control.

“Hey, Mexican guy, pick my lettuce, and hey black guy, fuc* my wife.”

This is what’s become of the white race.

Is it any wonder ‘gay marriage’ is the biggest moral issue of our age?

Michael K said...

They have been immunized against logic. Read HuffPo some time.

Rumpletweezer said...

"slowed so sharply" seems an odd construction.

n.n said...

It's not just catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (aka anthropogenic global warming aka anthropogenic global cooling). Generally, it's a reduced problem set. However, in order to be well perceived and received; in order for good intentions to be considered credible; they have to play to both sides. Only a minority will ever take their positions for granted.

Anyway, the historical evidence is that progressive dysfunction in one population will be offset by a fit or fitter population elsewhere. I wonder if that will remain true with a new global and real-time reach of dysfunctional interests.

jimbino said...

No, the climate-change apocalypsists never consider putting a stop to all the breeding or at least licensing and taxing the breeders.

Every breeding woman who pops out two kids effectively doubles her carbon footprint.

SteveR said...

Birth rate decline plus "refugee" population growth nets positive for a dependent society. Hope and change

Alex said...

Mexico & South America will supply all our needs for advanced science and engineering positions. Open the borders, Reconquista.

traditionalguy said...

The maiting of a wife and a husband into a family entity that procreates and raises children creates 80% of the economic activity in any country. There is only so much playtime activities of singles can do. The Sheiks and other billionaires can not party 24/7 hard enough to make up the difference.

Ergo: Abortions and Birth Control are causes of depression in economic activity. The Chinese are just now waking up to this fact.

Climate change nonsense is dead now. Everyone knows that CO2 is a beneficial and totally harmless human emission into a CO2 starved atmosphere.

Anonymous said...

WaPo is speaking out from two sides of its anatomy: A propaganda piece to ease off criticism of Dear Leader's breaking down of our southern borders to admit illegals. The illegals are doing what Americans refuse to do, like producing the future work force to keep our economic engine chugging. "Births have slowed so sharply that researchers note that future economic growth could be stunted by a smaller labor pool. Immigration is often seen as a fix."

Another piece to claim "We’re heading into a jobless future, no matter what the government does" to ease off criticism of Dear Leader's jobless "recovery".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/07/21/were-heading-into-a-jobless-future-no-matter-what-the-government-does/

WaPo wasn't even decent enough to print the contradictory pieces on different days.

BDNYC said...

You know what else they should hope for? Increasing economic inequality. Think of all the energy-hogging consumer goods people purchase as they lift themselves out of poverty and reach the middle class. Cars, iPhones, computers, etc.

It's probably for the best if a select few get to use these products, while the masses satisfy themselves with a subsistence lifestyle.

mccullough said...

Welcome to Europe and Japan. Social welfare spending requires a larger percentage of workers than beneficiaries. But by all means let's continue to rely on old assumptions and programs designed for a much different demographic. That worked so well for Detroit. Reality doesn't follow progressive assumptions and projections.

n.n said...

Gubbler...

Homosexual unions are not the biggest moral issue of our age. While it is an issue because they are [selectively] normalizing a dysfunctional behavior, it is not the biggest issue for two reasons. One, it is not a progressive condition. Two, abortion/murder of wholly innocent human beings.

People can play their games, including indulging their sexual appetites, but individually, as a society, and as humanity, devaluation of human life is intolerable. The biggest moral issue of our age is abortion/murder, which has been normalized under the rubric of women's rights [to privacy]. Degrading human life to a commodity status is counter to everyone's interests.

Chris Low said...

They have reversed cause and effect. The lower birth and immigration rates reflect slower economic growth. Slow growth means lower living standards, which is a disincentive to have kids or come to the US for work. If the economy accelerates, wages will rise and immigration will pick up along with the birth rate. Really, it's not rocket science.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bruce Hayden said...

The obvious solution - for females to start getting pregnant at maybe 16 or 17, and let Uncle Sugar pay for them. They are much more fertile then, and don't have to worry about the money, since the rest of us are paying.

jr565 said...

At the rate we're going, if you want social security benefits you're going to have to work till you're 126.

n.n said...

They revised the "U.S. population". That is to say of "We the People". However, there is a progressive (i.e. annual) invasion by a productive alien people. Unless the aliens adopt the dysfunctional behaviors of the native people, the population within the legal jurisdiction of the U.S. will quickly surpass their estimates. Or the total number may remain stable, as the native population aborts its progeny or prevents its reproduction.

sojerofgod said...

If you look worldwide the statistics show that outside of Africa, the world is currently at "Peak Population" and it will begin to decline sharply over the next 20 years. In America even with the immigrants we are looking toward fields of abandoned subdivisions in the next 50 years or so.

C Stanley said...

Because we have a ponzi scheme for funding retirement income.

Nichevo said...

N.N, not that I disagree with you in any particular, but your strong voice is becoming a drone. Can you work on freshening your modes of expression? I mean this kindly.

tim maguire said...

The Malthusians are congenitally unhappy. The current complaint is simply the current focus of an existential dread that can't be fixed merely by solving problems.

Lonetown said...

sounds like wages are finally going to rise!

hombre said...

Small wonder after 50 million abortions and the tone set by Barack "Babies are punishment" Obama.

Fortunately, I guess, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/07/21/were-heading-into-a-jobless-future-no-matter-what-the-government-does/.

Skeptical Voter said...

That story is a personal tragedy--and the slow economy (with damn little done about it) means the story will be replicated over and over.

I've got a 13 month old granddaughter in London. Both parents work and they're doing quite well. But they need to. They have a three bedroom Edwardian era row house that would be considered moderate middle class in say Philadelphia. In London the house cost about $1.7 million US.

The London newspapers put a price tag of about $2 million as the cost of raising and educating a professional couple's child in London. My daughter is a management consultant with an international firm. Her husband is in senior middle management with a UK division of a US company.

The cost of higher education in England is rising so rapidly that a professional family--say of a solicitor or an accountant has as much difficulty paying for a "public" school education and University today as a plumber did in paying for that same education in 1990.

Kids are both a blessing and a great financial burden. My heart goes out to that young couple in Missouri.

RonF said...

“We don’t want to bring children into this world if we can’t provide for them,” Rick says, hitting upon his fear.

Which is why births are down among people with a work ethic and up among people without one. Rick isn't thinking "The government will pay me more if we have a kid."

Zeb Quinn said...

why isn't this exactly what those who worry about climate change ordinarily celebrate?

Maybe because those who ordinarily worry about climate change themselves know in their hearts that climate change is a hoax.

ngtrains said...

These are some of the most strange comments by several folks. What are they thinking? (or maybe not)

This becomes a real Social Security problem. The number of retirees in 2050 is essentially fixed - they are already alive. But there will be far less paid in FICA taxes if the working pop slows so much.

I don't expect to be here then, but my kids will.

Anonymous said...

You know that whole "we want people to wait to have kids until they're 'ready' for them" (sometime in their mid 30s+)? This demographic bomb is the result.

If we're going to make contraception policy based on "the needs of society", the last thing in the world we would be doing is providing it to people for free.

John Lynch said...

Have to have young workers to pay our pensions and Medicare.

You damn young folks not having babies so we can enjoy our childless retirement.

Michael K said...

"The Chinese are just now waking up to this fact."

They face a dreadful future as a result of their one child policy and the cultural preference for boys.

I have even seen a trend of Chinese girls marrying Caucasians, which used to be quite unusual. That further diminishes the pool of available wives for young Chinese men.

T J Sawyer said...

Is there any reason to think that this government bureau actually knew anything more about the 2050 population in 2012 than four years earlier?

Who would put any faith in a forecast of anything dependent on human behavior extending over forty years?

They can produce no more useful information about the 2050 population of the United States than they could forecast the number of slaves in the the country in the year 1900 on their 1860 forecast.

The only reasonable answer is, "we don't know." But no bureaucrat will ever admit that.

Jane the Actuary said...

Here's the catch: it's not enough to just import workers from the Third World to support us in our dotage.

If those workers are uneducated, they won't be able to contribute much to the GDP, let alone provide those ongoing increases in productivity that are necessary to make Social Security sustainable.

And once the sustainability of Social Security is in question, it's rather easy to imagine that, when it comes to supporting schools or supporting the elderly, those immigrants, especially if they are of a different ethnic background (say, just for kicks, Mexican/Central American), are much less likely to agree on the importance of caring for "our" elderly, as they will, ultimately, feel that they're not "our" elderly anyway.

Related blog post here: http://janetheactuary.blogspot.com/2014/06/demographic-unintended-consequences.html

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
I have even seen a trend of Chinese girls marrying Caucasians, which used to be quite unusual.



Asian women and white men, who knew? Whatever new newfangled idea will they come up with next?

Gahrie said...

I have a solution...make abortion easy to get and give women free birth control!

You know what is next right? Free child care. It will be mentioned by 2016, and demanded as a woman's right in 2020.

Gahrie said...

This is the true implication of the Obama presidency. White sexual submission to blacks under globalist control.

“Hey, Mexican guy, pick my lettuce, and hey black guy, fuc* my wife.”

This is what’s become of the white race.


What happened? Did Crack change his handle?

jr565 said...

The left has always been about population control in one way or the other. As usual they are oblivious to the side effects of their perverse policies.because they do to think about consequences just about their feelings.

buwaya said...

Asian women-white men is a fairly new thing in Asia.
In the old days a good Chinese family would find the idea of one of their daughters marrying a white man as bizarre and demeaning.

n.n said...

Nichevo:

We are discussing a fundamental principle: the right to life. By definition, there must be little pedagogical variability. For a principle to be logical, it must be internally, externally, and mutually consistent. The intrinsic value of human life cannot be subject to debate unless there is an extenuating circumstance (i.e. self-defense). Other interests, including: money, sex, ego, convenience, and population control do not justify a debate, unless it is to address policies which circumvent natural and social feedback mechanism, which mitigate negative progressive conditions.

Oh. All right. Let's try some fresh air.

Abortion. What is it good for? Absolutely nothin!

The issue we should be discussing is a universal, reconcilable morality. Not specifically whether women have a legal right to abort/murder their child for trivial causes, or that society will selectively choose to normalize dysfunctional behaviors.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Paging Mark Steyn, paging Mr. Mark Steyn...

chillblaine said...

"Free child care. It will be mentioned by 2016, and demanded as a woman's right in 2020."

Bullseye. The state is everything and everywhere and nothing exists without the will and consent of the state.

Or, to paraphrase Melissa Harris-Perry, All Your Kids Are Belong To Us.

Paul Ciotti said...

Anyone who thinks we don't have enough people in this country obviously has never tried to find a campsite in Big Sur over Memorial Day weekend, get a parking space in west LA before midnight or traveled the LA freeways ever.

Revenant said...

I have even seen a trend of Chinese girls marrying Caucasians, which used to be quite unusual.

Really? I've been listening to Chinese men complain about it since the early 90s.

Anonymous said...

"Women aren't breeding machines"
"We need immigrants for our pensions"
"No assimilation but integration"
(a recept for societal suicide)

Lefty logic.

Nichevo said...

Yes, but the twentieth time I read "money, sex, ego, convenience, and population control" I know it's another n.n piece and I skip. You will sink without a trace if you bore people.

Joe said...

Once you work through the baby boom, I don't see the issue.

When I see people making claims about direct and/or causative relationships between child bearing and economic growth, I see bullshit statistics.

Anglelyne said...

SOJO: As a female, the more I meditated on the meaninglessness of it all, the less likely I am/was to want to have babies. Not because of the lack of some edict from on High demanding that I reproduce, but simply because my love for my future offspring dictated that I would not willingly consign them to meaninglessness and death. Even if conditions are near-perfect genetically, psychologically, and economically, it still ends up in the same place.

And yet, here you still are. Alive and kicking in this vale of tears.

Anglelyne said...

RonF: Which is why births are down among people with a work ethic and up among people without one. Rick isn't thinking "The government will pay me more if we have a kid."

But Ron, I have it on the best authority that people like Rick are "too lazy and self-indulgent to have children". The children of the people who step up to the plate and let you finance their reproduction are our future!

Anglelyne said...

Joe: Once you work through the baby boom, I don't see the issue.

Keeping up the infinite growth necessary for the generational Ponzi scheme? Do-able, and imperative!

Adjusting to a temporary demographic overhang, or a decline in TFR that results in having a population of reproductive age quite large enough to survive and boom another day? Or a tighter labor market maybe being good for workers? Crazy talk!

When I see people making claims about direct and/or causative relationships between child bearing and economic growth, I see bullshit statistics.

I see people whose livelihoods depend upon people whose lifestyles depend upon the non-stop increase in the number of warm bodies who can be persuaded to go into debt to buy their stuff.

William Scott said...

Nice Tips! As an expert in web design I can surly say that these are really helpful for newbies. You have covered all the points which should keep in mind to create a good website.Home Nursing