Sunday, February 19, 2012

St. Paul Explains and Yet Another Chart

Following up on yesterday's post concerning demographics, Brian "St. Paul" Ward is noting something similar over at Fraters Libertas:


No society has ever survived, let alone prospered, by eliminating it’s future generations. It is contrary to any conventional morality. As Mark Steyn has been pointing out for years, this ‘live for today, don’t think about tomorrow’ attitude is contrary to the principles of basic economics. And it’s contrary to an elemental survival instinct.

Yet those advocating this belief have yet to pay a political price for it. In fact, Obama’s approval ratings have increased since this controversy reared its gruesome head, evidence that this has become the dominant thinking of our culture. A sobering, depressing realization.

Lest anyone think there's some sort of misogynist theme developing here, let's also consider the role that young men play in this dance, which is substantial and maybe even decisive. Consider this chart (via Althouse):


As you will note, there's a strong correlation between the level of debt (and potential default) in the Eurozone  and the rate of young men (ages 25-34) who still live with their parents.

There was a movie a few years back called "Failure to Launch," which was a sort of dystopian romantic comedy, which talked a bit about this problem. And it does point out the dilemma that young women face: even if they wanted to start having children in sufficient numbers to keep the welfare state going, there aren't as many good marriage candidates out there as there once was. A man who can't maintain his own household might make a decent potential paramour, but he isn't a very good marriage prospect.

After I graduated from college, I spent a grand total of one month living with my parents, which was during the summer of 1987, before I moved to Chicago. I've been on my own ever since. For men of my generation, this was normal and expected behavior. There's a lot of evidence that it's not expected behavior any more. I realize that jobs are scarce now and for some young men that's a problem, but I get the sense that by turning the ages of 20-30 into an extended adolescence, we're making it a lot harder to keep things going.


7 comments:

Gino said...

a strong point. (i left home at 20 and never returned. it should have been sooner.)

part of the problem is the parents who dont kick their kids out. the generation (and i am one) that decided not to have more than 2 kids is the same generation that kept them as children by allowing ever longer leases at home.

i'm thinking... maybe we did want the children... we just didnt want children that we had to care for on any intensive long term level.

Brian said...

I think demographic collapse is the right's global warming. Maybe it's happening, maybe it isn't; if it is, it's another question as to whether anything can be done about it via policy, and yet another as to what, exactly. But it seems to be an article of faith among (many on) the right that it is real and we have to DO SOMETHING.

I'm not accusing anyone of misogyny, here (really, I'm not) but you cannot have this discussion intelligently without acknowledging that this affects women more than it does men. The most reliable predictor of a falling birthrate is increasing educational and economic opportunities for women. Given the choice, women (in the aggregate) choose to have fewer babies.

The notion of "eliminating future generations" is silly. Most abortions occur with the intent of forestalling pregnancy to another time, or to limit the size of an extant family. Ditto contraception. Nobody's eliminating a generation. They're just making them smaller.

(Note that this is completely separate from any moral arguments about abortion and contraception. If you think either or both are wrong, there's really no point in discussing it. The economics are rather beside the point.)

Anyway, if this is merely about demographic concerns and not dictating women's reproductive choices, I cannot help but notice that no one pickets vasectomy clinics.

A thought experiment is in order. Suppose every country (or nearly every country) in the world reaches a point where birth rates fall to a rate at or just below replacement. If the current economic assumptions hold (i.e., economies have to grow to maintain certain levels of prosperity) then a very interesting scenario occurs. Countries now have every incentive to compete for the world's most valuable commodity: immigrants.

People tend to immigrate to where they can be free and prosperous. A world of states trying to outdo each other along those lines--not because of some bullshit nationalism, but because of concrete economic incentives--is about as close to a global libertarian utopia as I can imagine.

I'm not saying that's what's going to happen. But I think there is just as much reason to think things could move in that direction as anything else. All the doom and gloom projections are based on extrapolation of current trends. But reality has a tendency to play out in much more stochastic terms.

Gino said...

i'll believe its the right's global warming when we start getting govt taxation and shit to combat it. or when somnebody wins an academy and nobel award for a not-very-accurate powerpoint presentation while making millions selling procreation credits.

but it is a fiscal issue, a damned serious one, that nations need to consider when buying votes and popular support with entitlement spending.

to me, its two sides of the same coin. the same mindset brought us here.

Mr. D said...

But it seems to be an article of faith among (many on) the right that it is real and we have to DO SOMETHING.

I don't know that I agree with that. All I'm saying is that this has been happening, and for a very long time now. And now we're seeing the changes.

Anyway, if this is merely about demographic concerns and not dictating women's reproductive choices, I cannot help but notice that no one pickets vasectomy clinics.

That's because there really isn't such a thing as a "vasectomy clinic." You can get one from a variety of different sources. Abortion, historically, has been a different matter.

People tend to immigrate to where they can be free and prosperous. A world of states trying to outdo each other along those lines--not because of some bullshit nationalism, but because of concrete economic incentives--is about as close to a global libertarian utopia as I can imagine.

And like most utopias, it doesn't materialize. The evidence is legion, but you can start with the banlieus of Paris.

Here in Minneapolis, we have received thousands of Somali immigrants in recent years. There are some who have wanted to assimilate and a lot of others who have not. We'll see what happens.

All the doom and gloom projections are based on extrapolation of current trends. But reality has a tendency to play out in much more stochastic terms.

Hope you're right, Brian. I really do.

Night Writer said...

Robert Heinlein, via Lazarus Long: "All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury or folly which can--and must--be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a 'perfect society' on any foundation other than 'women and children first!' is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly--and no doubt will keep on trying."

Anonymous said...

"Here in Minneapolis, we have received thousands of Somali immigrants in recent years. There are some who have wanted to assimilate and a lot of others who have not. We'll see what happens."

Mark, here is what happens: They assimilate.

Can you show me an example of a group of immigrants in the U.S. that has no assimilated by their 2nd generation? I live in one of the most ethnically diverse areas of this country. I have friends and family from so many different groups I cannot even begin to count them. And I don't know of a single group that hasn't completely assimilated before the 2nd generation is half way to adulthood. Do some of my friends grandparents or parents rely on them a little too much because they haven't fully assimilated? Absolutely. But I don't know a single person who came here as a child who or who was born here that hasn't fully assimilated.

America will survive, it will thrive, and it will change. But it will not collapse in a demographic heap anytime soon. Mark Steyn is a jackass and thity or forty years from now, we will cite his idiotic tomes the same way we cite crap like "The Late Great Planet Earth" today: As examples of the doom-and-gloom cultural pessimism that momentarily thrived in our post-9/11, Great Recession epoch.

Every era has its cynics and misanthropes who decry the imminent decline of civilization, typically from a comfortably elevated middle- or upper-class perch. Steyn is one of ours righ now. He's just carrying on a long tradition of populist doom-saying (and is making a small fortune from it).

When did Conservatives become such wimps?

Regards,
Rich

Mr. D said...

Can you show me an example of a group of immigrants in the U.S. that has no assimilated by their 2nd generation?

Yeah, actually I can. The Hmong are struggling mightily with it. I'm hopeful that will change by the 3rd generation.

I live in one of the most ethnically diverse areas of this country. I have friends and family from so many different groups I cannot even begin to count them. And I don't know of a single group that hasn't completely assimilated before the 2nd generation is half way to adulthood. Do some of my friends grandparents or parents rely on them a little too much because they haven't fully assimilated? Absolutely. But I don't know a single person who came here as a child who or who was born here that hasn't fully assimilated.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. We have a number of other immigrant populations here in the Twin Cities that are assimilating nicely, including a large number of immigrants from western Africa, especially Liberia. I can only tell you what I see happening.

The Somalis are a different case, and the primary reason is because a significant portion of them, especially among the second generation, are rejecting assimilation. The first generation Somalis are actually the ones who are trying to drive assimilation, because they really want to be here and make it work. And they have really worked their butts off trying to make it happen. We're seeing increasing numbers of second generation Somalis getting involved in supporting terrorism. In some cases, the second generation is going back to Somalia to fight.

America will survive, it will thrive, and it will change. But it will not collapse in a demographic heap anytime soon.

That's mostly a strawman argument, but I'm glad you left in the "soon" as an escape hatch.