Posted on 04/18/2009 6:50:22 AM PDT by WayneLusvardi
David Goldman
Demographics and Depression - First Things Magazine
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6564
The number of two-parent families with children, the kind of household that requires and can afford a large home, has remained essentially stagnant since 1963, according to the Census Bureau. Between 1963 and 2005, to be sure, the total number of what the Census Bureau categorizes as families grew from 47 million to 77 million.
In place of traditional two-parent families with children, America has seen enormous growth in one-parent families and childless families. The number of one-parent families with children has tripled.
If capital markets derive from the cycle of human life, what happens if the cycle goes wrong? Investors may be unreasonably panicked about the future, and governments can allay this panic by guaranteeing bank deposits, increasing incentives to invest, and so forth. But something different is in play when investors are reasonably panicked. What if there really is something wrong with our future—if the next generation fails to appear in sufficient numbers? The answer is that we get poorer.
The declining demographics of the traditional American family raise a dismal possibility: Perhaps the world is poorer now because the present generation did not bother to rear a new generation. All else is bookkeeping and ultimately trivial. This unwelcome and unprecedented change underlies the present global economic crisis. We are grayer, and less fecund, and as a result we are poorer, and will get poorer still—no matter what economic policies we put in place.
We could put this another way: America’s housing market collapsed because conservatives lost the culture wars even back while they were prevailing in electoral politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at pasadenasubrosa.typepad.com ...
We could.
We could also tell the truth and say that because of an era of perception that the price of houses would always increase 20% a year, and that the more houses you bought the richer you would be, we ended up with a lot more houses than occupants.
A silly argument.
I work in homes, and there are an astonishing number of one-child families with five bedroom, six bathroom homes.
Please go to the full length article posted online at First Things Magazine and read the whole thing. This is an important article which touches on the financial meltdown both nationally and what is happening in California, on the contentious gay marriage issue, and the culture wars. Demography is destiny.
The next generation can then kill off the old generation, which thought it was peachy keen to allow abortion, thus subtracting 50+ million taxpayers from the population. Poetic justice.
Which is a silly argument - mine or theirs?
I get emails from GreenWatchAmerica. They are good and mostly concentrate on man-made global warming. They also sent me an e-mail about a movie, Demographic Winter:
http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html
I’ve been hit with propaganda for years (decades) about the danger of overpopulation. The fear of overpopulation directly supports such policies as abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia. It even harmonizes with global warming and anti-capitalism.
What if the left has it backwards? It would hardly be the first time. What if a lack of children (in the US and Europe) is the problem? Even if one isn’t ready for a totally apocalyptic view, it may be worthwhile to familiarize oneself with the facts and the implications.
Sorry. I was referring to the author’s claim that demand for large homes dropped because people have smaller families.
A little common sense will show that people with no kids have more disposable income that they can apply to a larger home if they wish. IOW, DINKs can afford a larger home than people with kids.
Personally, I think a couple living in a 10,000 SF six bedroom home is a little strange, but I can guarantee you there are a great many of them.
It's also worth noting that a major influence in the housing boom of the last 10 years was this bizarre scenario involving illegal aliens building new homes for other illegal aliens who were willing/able to pay exhorbitant prices for them because of lax lending standards.
The Catholic sociologists have had it right on this issue for some time - underpopulation is the problem; at least underpopulation of families.
See
Steven W. Mosher is president of Population Research Institute (www.pop.org) and author of the book Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 2008). Michael J. Miller interviewed him on the subject of his book.
Go here for book review
http://www.ignatius.com/magazines/cwr/miller_aug-sept08.htm
It's NOT just about housing.
It's more in this neighborhood: We geezers need to have relatively secure income producing places in which to park our assets. TWO parent families with at least one decent job with children tend to need sources of capital so they can take out mortgages, education loans, and so forth. It's a match made in heaven! Our kids have left home and are earning. We lend them money so they can build capital and in exchange we get income.
But if people stop having kids or if they have them while they live on the dole because they aren't married, or if they just don't work, they don't need to carry as much debt or they aren't able to carry much debt.
The single parent and the non-income earning adult needs transfer payments and seems to have the political clout to get them. This tends to make it harder for everyone to build capital. It also makes is harder for those who have managed to build capital to find relatively safe places to park it and use it to produce income.
THis was the wakeup call for me:
Now, consider this fact: America’s population has risen from 200 million to 300 million since 1970, while the total number of two-parent families with children is the same today as it was when Richard Nixon took office, at 25 million.
That’s all true, but not directly related to the problem of “more housing than occupants”.
I think the writer of the First Things article might answer something like, “Maybe not yet. The disturbance of the demographic/financial cycle is just beginning to make itself felt.”
I don’t think social conservatives should fear the authors demographic alarms; it is the uber-liberals who are not “breeding” as much, while family size among many social conservative groups is either not declining or growing. For instance, if the Orthodox” Jews keep their current family size patterns, I think they stand a good chance of becoming the “mainstream” Jewish sect in America.
This lends support to one of my wacko ideas: That only the fathers in intact, two-parent famiies (with children) should be allowed to vote. Result: No Jimmy Carter, no Clinton, no Soetoro. And probably no Bushes, no Dole, and no McCain.
Uh, okay...
That is an interesting idea, with absolutely no chance of being realized. Perhaps in a related vein, I've considered the following as a definition of an adult. An adult is financially independent (e.g. a taxpayer), successfully married, raising (or having raised) at least one child. Men and women both meet the definition. Only adults would have the franchise.
A possible additional criterion for voting would be to not be a government employee, or receive primary funding from government contracts. Members of the military would be excluded from this additional criterion. By the way, this would give a boost to the school voucher idea, and could change education, and the character of future generations.
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.