Posted on 08/21/2007 11:15:21 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Regular readers will recall that we are on the verge of a population problem. Fertility rates have been falling across the globe, and in nearly every industrialized country are already below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. Despite the appearance of a world bursting at the seams with an ever-greater number of people, the current growth rate is slowing and the world's population is likely to peak about nine billion and then begin contracting - precipitously - by 2080. Regular readers also will recall that there are convincing, if not certain, reasons to suspect that population contraction could be bad for civilization. So what is to be done? We've never had a population contraction in modern times, but it has happened before. The Greek historian Polybius wrote, circa 140 B.C., about his own civilization's fertility decline. The same fate eventually befell the Roman Empire, where birthrates became so low that Caesar Augustus instituted a "bachelor tax" to punish men who did not marry and produce children.
Such measures would be untenable today, but while population contraction won't become a global reality for 70 more years, the decline in fertility is already worrying some governments. In Poland, which has a deathly fertility rate of 1.26, the prime minister recently proposed tax exemptions for mothers. In Russia (fertility rate: 1.39), the government offered a bonus of $9,200 for women who had a second child and has begun running youth camps where young men and women are encouraged to procreate right then and there. Portugal (fertility rate: 1.48) is trying to change its pension system so workers with fewer than two children will pay more into it through taxes.
Elsewhere, the support for natalism has been more rhetorical. Before being elected prime minister in Turkey (fertility rate: 1.89), Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that contraception was "treason to the state" and that Turks should "have babies, Allah wants it."
Yet experience shows that it is easier to depress fertility - as the governments of China and Mexico have - than it is to goose it. For instance, Soviet Russia tried desperately to get women to have children as it faced collapse in the 1980s, going so far as to award a "Motherhood Medal." It didn't help. Sweden has also been struggling with dangerously low fertility. Through a series of incentives, officials managed to move the country's rate up to replacement level for a moment in the 1980s, only to see it plummet again in the 1990s. It stands today at 1.66.
Fortunately for us, the United States is in a better position than these other countries - for now. Buoyed in part by immigration, our fertility rate sits just below replacement (2.09). And the good news is that we have gotten rich before we will get old. (One of the demographic quirks about population contraction is that as the fertility rate drops, the average age increases; to put matters crudely, old people are more costly than young people.)
But this benign situation is not likely to last. More likely is that at some point in the coming years, pro-natalism will become a significant feature of U.S. politics, too.
So what will pro-natalist politics look like? The single most important factor in predicting fertility is what demographers unromantically refer to as "desired fertility" - the number of children a couple would like to have. This figure, however, is more restrictive than predictive. If the desired fertility rate is 2.0, for instance, the actual fertility rate may wind up lower, but it almost certainly won't be higher.
For instance, studies show that among Europeans, actual fertility lags noticeably behind desired fertility. German and Italian women born in 1960, for instance, had desired fertility rates of 2.0 and 2.1 respectively, but a real rate of only 1.65. Across the continent, if women had reproduced at the levels they wished for, Europe would not be facing a baby bust. There has been a similar gap between desired and actual fertility in the United States. U.S. women born in 1960, for instance, desired 2.3 children but produced only 1.9.
Desired fertility is particularly difficult to manipulate, as the failure of the Motherhood Medal demonstrates. But fortunately, in the United States that aspect isn't a big part of the problem: Desired fertility numbers are actually rising, with 42 percent of Gen-Xers - compared with only 29 percent of baby boomers - saying three or more children is the ideal size for a family.
A pro-natalist politics, then, seeks not to persuade people to have children, but rather tries to make having children more economically feasible. And it can start, as most everything in government does, with taxes.
In 1950, the Social Security tax rate was 1.5 percent for employees, with all wages above $3,000 tax-free. This meant a worker paid a maximum of $144 ($1,100 in today's dollars) in annual Social Security tax. By 2003, the maximum Social Security tax was $11,136 in constant dollars - a 1,000 percent increase. To put it more starkly, the median tax rate of a family with one earner in 1955 was 17.3 percent. By 1998, that median rate had jumped to 37.6 percent.
Since everyone is eligible for Social Security, these taxes are a transfer of wealth from those who create the next generation of human capital to those without children. Pro-natalist politicians will find ways to change this system, perhaps by cutting Social Security taxes for families with more than two children.
College is another problem. The unending spiral of college tuition both increases the costs for prospective parents and saddles with debt many young couples who might be contemplating starting a family. But just as important, the expanding timeline of college and the increasing necessity of graduate degrees continue to push back the age of entry to the workforce - and hence the financial ability to start a family. The problem is that nature has its own fertility boundaries. The entire college system needs to be changed to make it both more affordable and flexible to young couples who want to start families.
Pro-natalism shouldn't be antithetical to either Democrats or Republicans. Certainly, both parties would face some internal resistance - Republicans from big-business types who care only about sucking the most out of employees, Democrats from those who see traditional families as patriarchal structures that should be destabilized. But at this moment, either party could claim pro-natalism as its own.
Sooner or later, one of them will. The 2008 election may be about Iraq and George W. Bush and the housing market. But the future of U.S. politics is going to be which party helps people have babies. And that's up for grabs.
AlbertMohler.com — rather counter-intuitively -— recently posted an article suggesting that the way it works may be just the reverse: that having less kids tends to make people less religious.
It’s a safe bet that spiritual and demographic sterility tend to be mutually-reinforcing cultural trends.
AlbertMohler.com — rather counter-intuitively -— recently posted an article suggesting that the way it works may be just the reverse: that having less kids tends to make people less religious.
It’s a safe bet that spiritual and demographic sterility tend to be mutually-reinforcing cultural trends.
Of course not. Nobody's suggesting that. This issue is at the center of a problem that I'm not sure we will survive. The problem, put bluntly, is the pill combined with feminist theology. Women have had drummed into them for forty years now, that they have to have careers to be worth anything and that they sell themselves short by just being a mother. That they should wait until after they are fulfilled career-wise (say, about 40) before they start having kids, if at all. No more being a breeder for (ugh) men! And, the pill has given women complete control over conception with which to implement this set of ideas.
Maybe the feminist theology is a good and moral one. Doesn't matter. Feminist ideology will be replaced by non-feminist ideology--either in our culture or by whatever culture replaces it through having more babies. It's not clear whether the pill and self-actualization for women, combined, will or will not bring down western civilization. My sense is it's going to be a very near thing.
We are slaves to our biology and all the pretending in the world that women can have it all doesn't change that one little bit. Women can't have it all and still have a civilization remain for their great-grandchildren. Whoops. They probably won't have any great-grandchildren, so maybe it doesn't matter to them.
This is impossible because Leftists assured us that overpopulation was going to kill Mommy Earth.
You went where I dared not, Don-o lassie!
[here comes whining] Why can’t the brainiacs be the ones having rampant sex and babies? Huh? Sheesh. Not kicking the dog. Honest.
One thing, though, is that young people build more infrastructure; old people use more infrastructure.
Internal balkanization, especially based on language, is a real challenge (ye gods, look at Quebec) so stopping the lawbreakers and englishing the legitimate newcomers should be a big priority.
I read where the birthrates for several countries (France, Sweden, Norway) are well below the replacement rate but are rising. I haven’t seen the demographics but would speculate that the increases may be attributable to the large number of Muslim immigrants they’ve welcomed.
and to think, no one here has mentioned the muslim multiplication factor yet.
Well, I’m a married papist, TBTG. (I just coined that to convey Thanks Be To God. Let’s see if this meme has legs!)
Just praying every day for my sons -— who are very promising young men -— to gravitate toward splendid fatherhood. In one sense or another. If they imitate their dad, Don-o, they’ll do fine!
But The Population Bomb predicted that we would overpopulate ourselves to death.
How can this be?
10% income tax cut per child.
25% income tax cut per child if one parent stays at home.
Yes! But I’d make it graduated: 10% for first child, 25% for two, 40% for three, etc. etc., and everything doubled if one parent stays home AND cares for children. No just “stays home” while outsourcing childcare.
And, as you say, applicable to the married only, since marriage tells the world you’re serious.
The government has been anti-family with their tax policies and pro-abortion with their politics. They will soon reap what they have sown. It will be a balkanized culture with great diversification leading to a weakened body politic complete with a subsidized breeding underclass ill-equiped to handle the challenges of leading the world.
I'm not just jigging you here. I'm sincerely interested.
And you're right about the ominous nature of out-of-wedlock childbearing. Among white Americans, 1:3. Among black Americans, 2:5. Among Mexican-Americans, 2:3. That spells big trouble down the line.
[~shudder!~] They’re invading the countryside, not the cities as much as they have in the past. Scary!
In a word, no.
I think feminism has a lot to do with it. But it seems that every society, even Rome, reaches a point where this happens.
It’s kind of funny that 50 years ago we were about to overwhelm the planet with our numbers at 3 billion, and now at 7 billion we are running out of people. This is no better than the Global Warming scam.
That works for me.
Why do I have the feeling though, that these immigrants aren’t having children out of their love for family and values, but simply because they can’t keep their pants on?
I do wonder why that is...perhaps the infusion of liberalism?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.