Surprising Reason to Worry About Low Birth Rates They're linked to an increase in populist sentiment
A good article and I can support this reseach/reason
A Surprising Reason to Worry About Low Birth Rates
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/05/a-surprising-reason-to-worry-about-low-birth-rates/561308/
Theyre linked to an increase in populist sentiments.
A toddler hugs the legs of a man next to a palm tree outside
Marcelo Del Pozo / Reuters
Olga Khazan May 26, 2018 Health
Discussion about the great American baby bust often seems meant to induce fear. The concern is that with fewer babies, economic growth will plummet, and too-few workers will have to shoulder the burden of an aging population. But if Im being honest, the latest news about the drop in American births did not raise my blood pressure much.
Maybe its because I, myself, am kind of eh on kids in general. Maybe Ive just been...........................
Or at least, so I thought. I recently came across something thats made me sit up and pay attention to fertility rates: There is research linking falling fertility to rising populism.
Definitions of populism vary, but its often thought to be a political philosophy in which the people are pitted against elites and outsiders in a struggle for domination. The rhetoric of President Trump is often considered to be populist.
Heres how Philip Auerswald, a George Mason University professor, and Joon Yun, a hedge-fund manager, explain this connection in a recent New York Times op-ed:
In the worlds largest cities, where populations are densely concentrated and growing, economies are generally thriving and cosmopolitanism is embraced. Where populations are sparse or shrinking, usually in rural places and small cities, economies are often stagnant, and populism sells.
Why does it hold such appeal in these places? Nativist, nationalist rhetoricMake America (or Whatever Other Country) Great Againappeals because it promises to restore the rightful economic and cultural stature of common people ... Where populations decline, populists arisemore often than not, promising to reverse history and restore past glory if not demographic dominance.
The problems typically associated with falling fertility are a struggle to pay for Social Security and Medicare in the long run. Fewer babies today means fewer workers in the future, which means less money in the Social-Security pot.
These might seem like relatively manageable threats: We could simply raise immigration quotas to boost the number of missing workers, for example. But its the very arrival of these immigrants that might fuel populist sentiment. The way this would work, as my colleague Derek Thompson has explained, is in a sort of doom loop: Population plummets, immigration increases, people get scared by the influx of newcomers, they become more xenophobic, and thus more inclined to support nationalist parties..................................
no_hypocrisy
(46,025 posts)Populists will support:
1) criminalizing abortion (for white babies of course),
2) forcing women from the workplace to raise babies, and
3) exterminating the Aged.
tanyev
(42,516 posts)I bet there is a large chunk of pro-lifers that wouldn't care much about the rest.
raccoon
(31,105 posts)shanny
(6,709 posts)The "rhetoric" of President Trump is often considered to be populist, but his policies sure as shit are not. Nevertheless, populism is bad by association.
Igel
(35,274 posts)In the worlds largest cities, where populations are densely concentrated and growing, economies are generally thriving and cosmopolitanism is embraced. Where populations are sparse or shrinking, usually in rural places and small cities, economies are often stagnant, and populism sells.
So in Paris, London, Berlin, Rome, New York, Los Angeles there are huge birthrates?
And in less high-birthrate cities like Karachi, New Delhi, Lagos, Hanoi, Cairo, Istanbul, cosmopolitanism reins?
Utah has a low birthrate and Jersey has a high birthrate. That's the prediction, and I'm picking ahead of looking at any numbers.
In 2013, Utah at 17+ had the highest birthrate, Massachusetts at 10.7 was much lower (and, I guess, much more rural and less cosmopolitan). Jersey was 11.7. Jersey's should be higher. It's not. I don't buy that claim.
In fact, those with the highest birthrates were those where that precise fact is often proclaimed a sign of republican backwardness: Utah, Alaska. The top rates from 2013:
1. Utah: 17.6 2. Alaska: 15.5 3. North Dakota: 14.7 4. Texas: 14.6 5. South Dakota: 14.6 6. D.C.: 14.4 7. Nebraska: 14 8. Oklahoma: 13.9 9. Idaho: 13.9 10. Louisiana: 13.7 11. Hawaii: 13.5 12. Kansas: 13.4 13. California: 13.1 14. Georgia: 13.1 15. Wyoming: 13.1 16. Arizona: 13 17. Arkansas: 13 18. Mississippi: 12.9 19. Minnesota: 12.8 20. Kentucky: 12.7 21. Indiana: 12.6 22. Iowa: 12.6 23.
California has a large immigrant community, and each generation's birthrate declines (the same is true for Texas and to some extent Hawaii).
Those below a birthrate of 12 tend to be more urban and "cosmopolitan", although there are also outliers like WVa and I'm not sure I'd call ME either cosmopolitan or populist:
Delaware: 11.9 39. New Jersey: 11.7 40. Wisconsin: 11.6 41. Michigan: 11.5 42. Oregon: 11.5 43. West Virginia: 11.3 44. Florida: 11 45. Pennsylvania: 11 46. Massachusetts: 10.7 47. Rhode Island: 10.3 48. Connecticut: 10 49. Maine: 9.7 50. Vermont: 9.5 51. New Hampshire: 9.4
http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-states-with-highest-birth-rates-2014-5
Libloom
(31 posts)Cities are growing, rural...not so much.
bottomofthehill
(8,318 posts)Once the republican agenda fully takes hold, how will we ever be able to enact Swifts Modest Proposal to eat the poor. There may not be enough poor to eat.