Baby boomlet: US births in 2007 break 1950s record

[SomeGuyInEagan]

Source: Associated Press via Yahoo News

ATLANTA – More babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation's history, topping the peak during the baby boom 50 years earlier, federal researchers reported Wednesday.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_re_us/med_baby_boomlet

[Taverner]

1. Great! More folks who think the world owes them a living!

:P

[Deja Q]

59. Are you suggesting we're NOT a pro-life country or system?

:wow:

[Auggie]

2. I'll be hitting 70 when they start paying into Social Security.

Maybe that's good news (provided I make it that long).

[Taverner]

3. That is, if they have jobs - the GOP hasn't gutted SS

Otherwise, they'll just be playing on our lawn while we yell at them

[MilesColtrane]

53. Somebody better start building a hell of a lot of Taco Bells.

[Wizard777]

11. BINGO! The Saviors of Social Security have arrived.

7 is great number and great things usually come from it. :dunce:

[DainBramaged]

4. And more were born to single moms (abstinence don't work)

[Taverner]

6. It doesn't, but the people who push it don't care - they just want PUNISHMENT

[Iris]

21. good point. I saw a story today that says 40% of births occur outside of marriage.

[WriteDown]

5. This doesn't sound good....

"births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent,"

[Deja Q]

60. Well, anyone who speaks up against marriage or two-parent families is usually spat on.

Never mind the media.

Never mind peer pressure.

Never mind all the loose talk that condoms will do more than saving sex for somebody SPECIAL (the one part of "sex education" that always doesn't get discussed, oddly)...

Whatever. Kids DO pick up on their environment. That much I've observed. If we're to save society, never mind the point of this thread which is about unwed mothers and all that, then a lot needs to change and sooner rather than later.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Baby boomers babies are having babies.

What a surprise.

[Xithras]

24. Some of them. It's the Gen Y's having the babies. .

The Gen Y's are the children of the youngest Boomers and the Xers. The Xers, for some reason, had more kids than their parents.

The Gen Y surge is also the reason why many schools are shutting down nationwide right now. We had a second baby boom that required school districts to expand and build new campuses to accomodate them. Those Gen Y "kids" are now moving out of the educational system and into adulthood, and there's a large dip in the number of births following that generation (GenX redux). The population of school age kids across the country is dropping, but it sounds like those districts may want to hang onto those closed campuses...they'll need them again in another 5 years or so.

[Lost in CT]

54. Baby boomer babies are at least 40.... nt

[lolly]

57. No--only the oldest ones

I'm a boomer (1960) and my kids range from 9 to 22.

Boomers born in 1945 might have 40 year old kids; if the boom ended in 64, some of the boomers kids might be toddlers. Some of them might even be part of this 2007 boom.

[tomm2thumbs]

8. OCTO-MOM will break that record for us in 2009 nt

[hamsterjill]

25. Seriously!!!

Next time, she'll probably try for ten!!!

[Tyler Generation]

9. Ugh

That's why I'm probably going to have a vasectomy before I'm 30. Fuck having kids. Much rather have land and horses with my wife, who probably despises the thought of reproducing more than me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. "The U.S. population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend."

WRONG.

That is a very UNhealthy trend.

There will be 7 BILLION people on earth by the end of the decade. We do NOT need to be a contributor to that. It is unsustainable.

Want a quick solution to global warming? Kill off 5 billion humans.

All that having a "healthy" birth rate means is less capability to deal with the crises of the upcoming century.

[amandabeech]

12. I'm with you. We have more than enough people here.

I remember 180,000,000 and 200,000,000. That was enough.

No offense to any individual meant.

[Lost in CT]

55. And yet many areas of the country are empty and others continue

to lose population.

[Taverner]

13. Yes - and not only that, this means crime WILL go up

Hasn't anyone read Freakanomics?

[Dreamer Tatum]

15. One of the wrongest people in the history of the world was Malthus

Just food for thought.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. How so?

You think we really CAN sustain an ever growing population?

[Psephos]

16. The only chance that underfunded/pillaged SS and entitlements have is a population gain

If you do the math, of course.

If you don't, then nevermind.

[FiveGoodMen]

17. The only chance the long-term survival of the human race has is limiting the population

Don't agree with your priorities.

[Psephos]

19. Actually, I agree with your priorities - but the entitlement Ponzi scheme won't work w/o pop growth

In my view, about two billion is the right number for human population on Earth.

[FiveGoodMen]

20. Ah. I feel better now.

Didn't quite understand what you were getting at the first time around.

:toast:

[defendandprotect]

29. That's r-w WSJ BS -- when SS began only males worked ...

and solely supported families --

We've more than doubled those who pay in --

Additionally SS is healthy, solvent -- runs surplusses ...

Unfortunately, it was not intended to run surplusses -- merely a "pay as you go" system.

However, FICA payments were increased to provide more surplus for Repug borrowing --

putting greater burden on poor and middle class --

We need to raise the FICA ceiling to include more wealthy in payments.

We can also return to old formula of FICA:- 2/3rds paid by employer and 1/3rd by employee ..

Changed in 1980 or so to 50/50.

[Psephos]

36. Calling my pov "RW WSJ BS" does not encourage confidence in your argument

If your argument is strong it doesn't need the attack dog to guard it. If it's weak, then just insult me so you can feel vindicated, and leave off the faux arguments. Save us both some hassle.

You do realize, btw, when you say "Additionally SS is healthy, solvent -- runs surplusses ..." that those surpluses have all been "borrowed" by the government and dumped in the general fund for decades. There's nothing there but a pile of IOUs. Guess who gets to pay for them?

If you tax everyone who makes more than $250,000/yr at 100% (i.e., simply take all their income), you get less than $2 trillion (about $1.4 trillion, IIRC, and that's using pre-recession figures). Good luck with that.

Total unfunded liability of the US government for entitlements (SS, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.) is currently 52 trillion dollars. That's more than the entire global GDP, or more than four times US GDP. Every last cent. If GAAP accounting was used, the government would already be literally bankrupt. But Congress thinks GAAP is only for businesses and corporations, so the US government gets to keep the Ponzi scheme going for now.

But we all know how those end, sooner or later.

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. THAT is bullshit.

Those numbers are absolutely bogus - they've been touted by the right for years, but they've never been substantiated. MAYBE, if nobody died before hitting 95, we MIGHT hit a quarter of that, but the fact is, people DO get old and die. We stop payments to those people, as a general rule. Social Security is solvent until 2042. And you know what? If we get to 2042, we're in the clear because by then 98% of us boomers will be DEAD.

YOU have never done the math - you let some RW crank do the math for you.

[Psephos]

39. Yes, I've done the math. My math degree helps, too.

I'd be willing to discuss this further, but need your assurance that you can put aside the insults and hold a discussion on the merits. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. Bring it on -

show me that you are not the right wing crank who is making up bullshit numbers to fit his half-assed ideology.

I dare you. But I make no promises to play nice. If you can't take it, fuck it.

[Psephos]

43. no civility - not interested n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. I see no reason to be civil with freeps. nt

[defendandprotect]

46. Calling Social Security "Ponzi Scheme" is directly from Wall Street Journal's campaign . . .

to move Social Security funds to Wall Street --

Wouldn't that have been sweet---!!!

and it come right out of the mouths of right-wing and their "think tanks" ---

You might check that anytime you wish ---

That corrupt government steals from the people is no fault of the Social Security program . . .

You're also paying for bailouts and bonuses ---

Meanwhile, Social Security is solvent based on Bush's own GAO reports thru 2039 and/or

even further. IF all IOU's were refunded to Social Security it would be infinitely soluable.

And, I certainly consider any debt to Social Security as valid as any debt to any government

who has lent us money or anyone else.

And what prompted this . . . ?

If you tax everyone who makes more than $250,000/yr at 100% (i.e., simply take all their income), you get less than $2 trillion (about $1.4 trillion, IIRC, and that's using pre-recession figures). Good luck with that.

Raising the ceiling on Social Security is not taxing anyone at 100% of their income -- not anyone!!!

And, again, we could return to the original FICA formula ... 2/3rds by employer and 1/3rd by employee.

Again, "entitlements" is right-wing framing . ..

Total unfunded liability of the US government for entitlements (SS, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.) is currently 52 trillion dollars. That's more than the entire global GDP, or more than four times US GDP. Every last cent. If GAAP accounting was used, the government would already be literally bankrupt. But Congress thinks GAAP is only for businesses and corporations, so the US government gets to keep the Ponzi scheme going for now.

But we all know how those end, sooner or later.

Social Security is not paid by government --- same with Medicare which is paid for by seniors.

Basically Medicare is a Single Payer system.

And, I note, you just can't resist that right-wing framing ....!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Actually, SS and medicare (or even complete universal health care)

would work just fine with 2 conditions: 1) stop looting it; and, 2) when there is a shortfall, simply fund that shortfall out of general revenues.

A constantly increasing population guarantees that there will be a continuing, growing shortfall. Your solution is the problem.

There are cycles in population growth. When the boomers were all working and putting money into the system, that money SHOULD have been accruing so the burden on paying for their retirement would not fall completely on the shoulders of the baby-bust generation. It was predicted, way back when, that the baby bust generation could NOT pay for the boomers. Fine. At that point, you pay for the boomers out of general revenue for the relatively small shortfall. Pretty soon, the boomer die off, and the smaller baby bust generation will be supported by the payment of THEIR offspring - the boomlet babies generation which was larger than the bust generation. The shortfall disappears, and the program is once again fully funded by its own revenues.

And so on, and so on.

As for the occassional shortfall, if we can afford to pay hundreds of billions for wars of choice out of general revenues, we can afford to pay tens of billions for our citizens' retirement supplements.

[defendandprotect]

30. "Shortfall" ... ? Sen Arlen Specter is trying to cut $1 Billion more from Medicare ..

and Bush has been using SS surplusses as petty cash for wars and tax cuts for rich ---!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. So we STOP the fuckers from doing it, and make sure the money

goes where it is intended to go.

It is NOT that the programs are insolvent by nature, nor that they are ponzi schemes - it is that the republicans have been doing their damndest to KILL those programs because they are SUCCESSFUL, and that success flies in the face of their twisted ideology.

More than a decade ago we were talking about a 'lockbox' for the funds behind these programs, and if they HAD been successfully implemented THEN, Social Security would be fully funded to 2070, and Medicare to 2040.

Anybody saying these programs can't work are people who have swallowed the swill the republicans have been dishing out for 30 years.

Look at the economy today - THAT is evidence of how good republicans are in handling OUR money.

[defendandprotect]

42. Wall Street wanted Social Security money . . . imagine where we'd be now --- !!!

Yes, you're correct about the programs --- but it didn't seem clear from your comments.

"Shortfall" isn't an accurate description and doesn't make clear that MEDICARE

have been STARVED of funds AND ripped off by corrupt corporations.

MEDICARE is, however, a single payer system -- paid for by seniors.


Social Security is FULLY FUNDED . . . it runs huge surplusses every year -- which have

been constantly taken as a "slush" fund for Bush, Sr., etc -- and Bush, Jr. has used

the surplusses for his wars and to cut taxes for the rich!!

Social Security is totally funded by citizen dollars --- not by government in any way.

FICA ratio used to be 2/3rds paid by employer and 1/3rd paid by employee. This was

changed in 1980 to 50/50.


And, unfortunately, I think they always had a loop hole where the LOCKBOX could be

broken open for anything miltiary!!!


We should raise the wage ceiling on Social Security to include more wealthy and then

we could probably cut the FICA rate which is a burden on the poor and middle class.

It was increased to provide a "slush" fund for Bush.

Not only are Republicans unable to handle money . . . they can't keep it out of their own

pockets. We have such high levels of corruption in Congress and government that we need

a total house cleaning -- beginning with ending lobbying and campaign contributions from

corporates/elites.

Criminal capitalism . . . !!! We need to move to economic democracy -- democratic socialism.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. Absolutely agree with all of that -

I may have been unclear about what I meant by shortfall - because of the size of the boomer generation there was going to be a period, about 5 years IIRC, when the accumulated 'lockbox' funds were depleted and the earnings of current workers would fall short of the payments needed for recipients - between 2042-2047. By 2047, enough of the boomers will have died off that receipts will once again fully fund payments, and from that point on will accrue surplusses again.

The fact that SS money has been diverted means only that other money will have to be diverted back to SS until it is in balace again. As you said, the way to do that is eliminate the cap on SS. The wealthy will, of course, bitch about it but the fact is their wealth comes FROM the 90% non-wealthy workers so they don't really have anything to bitch about. If their workers decided to stop working for them, THEN they would have something to bitch about.

[defendandprotect]

48. You don't have to totally elimiante the cap . . .just raise the ceiling ...

I know there have been r-w statements about the generational/boomer problems,

but wherever I've found info, it's been counter to that. In fact, GOP administrations

were underreporting the stability of Social Security! And, yet, even Bush's own

Social Security people even extended the expected period of stability/solvency.

If the planet keeps turning -- and I'm not sure of that -- I expect Social Security to

be repaid just as any other creditor of our government will be repaid.

The wealthy seem to be bitching no matter how much we bail them out ---

capitalism is crap -- a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system.

And unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime!

:)

[Hannah Bell]

33. wrong. the question is who gets the fruit of increased productivity?

the ownership class wants us to believe it should all go to them.

That's what the SS crisis is about.

[caseymoz]

26. My thinking on this has undergone change.

I now think it's a good thing. Why? A few reasons. Mostly that birth restraints, even voluntary ones, are never distributed equally. One thing that happens is the "marching moron" effect, where the most intelligent people restrict their offspring, while the less intelligent ones do not, and the less intelligent ones would also tent to be worse parents.

The second can be seen in our immigration dispute: there's a shortage of workers now at every skill-level in this country. Basically, we have to import our talent. I hate to say this does create resentments and ethnic and religious frictions. A falling population why Europe has had to allow immigration from Islamic countries. Otherwise, there wouldn't be enough people to run the economy. Part of the reason why the Romans had to have barbarians fight for them is that the birthrate among Romans had fallen so much.

Third, yes, a higher population can crash, but we're doing what any species would do during "good times." We're creating as many numbers, but also as much genetic diversity as we can in our species, so that we have a better chance of surviving a crash and re-adapting the species.

Fourth, no country with a shrinking population has ever had economic growth. On paper it can be done, but it has never happened in the real world.

Apparently, we are going to have some kind of crash or catastrophe, but limiting population is not the solution. I'm convinced it won't solve the problem, and at most we'll delay the crash, a little. Population appears to be a driving force that invigorates a species. Not that I think people shouldn't make their own choice about it, but those are the facts as I see them.

[defendandprotect]

31. Economic growth is unnecessary -- capitalistic myth ---

We're about to lose humanity and possibly the planet to Global Warming and

pollution of air, water, soil --

The planet cannot support 7 BILLION ...

Neither do we need to "import" slave labor -- increase salaries ...

[caseymoz]

34. I'm sorry, the market, though regulated, is important.

Besides, whatever transition there is from the system we currently have will take hundreds if not thousands of years, and even if we have a revolution that changes it, it will take hundreds or thousands of years to put things together afterward.

And I'll add to my argument: the more people you have, the more minds are available to try to solve the problems-- it's called parallel computing. This argument has often been made, though. I've come to think it has some merit.

Maybe the planet can't afford 7 million people, but more than likely, IMHO, world population growth will reach a peak, and before then. But the reason will not be limiting births, the reason will be shorter life-spans, which is what limited human populations before the modern age. That sounds terrible, but it's more than likely the way nature meant it.

I don't think humankind has the level of social organization necessary to avoid the crash anyway. So, I'm sorry, I'm fatalistic. The world is going to change radically, and hopefully, humankind, will survive, or whatever we evolve into will survive (and I hope it's something better). We can put it off, but sooner or later, Darwin insists.

[defendandprotect]

40. Sorry, but what you think is "market" is myth . . .

So is our entire economy as you can see from the bailouts with hedge funds and
derivatives yet to come!!!

Simply end privatization of any government function and any program from any government
agency. End privatization of military. End privatization of utilities
After that, well if people still want to drink brown sugar water, let them.
The government already recommends a vegetarian diet -- educate the public as to the
harm done by animal eating -- the filth and pollution of rivers and lakes from factory
farming. Move on to organic farming and vegetarian diets. If the truth had been told
about tobacco, it would have stopped smoking decades ago. Take over the auto plants,
keep the workers and start building electric cars -- and turning gas-guzzlers into hyrbrids.
Expand mass transportation in every way --- from replacing parking lots at train stations
with trolley service, to high speed train service. Etc.

And, if you understand Global Warming, you understand we don't have "hundreds" or "thousands"
of years -- we're lucky if we have a decade or more.

And I'll add to my argument: the more people you have, the more minds are available to try to solve the problems-- it's called parallel computing. This argument has often been made, though. I've come to think it has some merit.


You mean like we've solved our problems with cancers? They've only increased. And we're still
stuck with "slash and burn" remedies!! Wasn't there a "War on Cancer" -- pretty much as good
a money-maker as the "War on Drugs"-!!!

Maybe the planet can't afford 7 million people, but more than likely, IMHO, world population growth will reach a peak, and before then. But the reason will not be limiting births, the reason will be shorter life-spans, which is what limited human populations before the modern age. That sounds terrible, but it's more than likely the way nature meant it.

Do you understand at all what is happening to the life and nature around you?
Population will not "peak" -- more and more of us will be dying due to chaotic weather and
disease/viruses. Let me ask you, how many more people can you fit in your home?
How many ducks on pond? How many birds in the sky? Limitless?

I don't think humankind has the level of social organization necessary to avoid the crash anyway. So, I'm sorry, I'm fatalistic. The world is going to change radically, and hopefully, humankind, will survive, or whatever we evolve into will survive (and I hope it's something better). We can put it off, but sooner or later, Darwin insists.

Evolution doesn't occur based on catastrophe . . . change, yes. Evolution takes time.
However, I'm encouraged to see that you have some sense that nature has been harmed and
humankind, as well. We have no guarantee that the planet will keep turning, either!

[caseymoz]

63. You don't actually know what I think the market is.

To all that you've said about getting rid of privatization, I absolutely agree with you. I'm talking about a regulated market, and by market, I mean trade of everything. We can't de-regulated it. One thing that has been demonstrated over the last 30 or so years, if the government doesn't interfere with the market (business), the market (business) will interfere with government.

Using your example of the war on cancer, the advances have been very great. Survival rates and cures have soared. I think the problem is that they are in a blind alley. I don't think they should be looking so much at the nucleus of the cells and the DNA contained there.

I said the idea has some merit. Apparently, not enough people are trained in the field.

Maybe the planet can't afford 7 million people, but more than likely, IMHO, world population growth will reach a peak, and before then. But the reason will not be limiting births, the reason will be shorter life-spans, which is what limited human populations before the modern age. That sounds terrible, but it's more than likely the way nature meant it.

Do you understand at all what is happening to the life and nature around you?
Population will not "peak" -- more and more of us will be dying due to chaotic weather and
disease/viruses. Let me ask you, how many more people can you fit in your home?
How many ducks on pond? How many birds in the sky? Limitless?

Maybe you didn't understand what I wrote: I meant that population will peak due to the very things you've cited. Environmental degradation and lack of food. What I expressed was not doubt as to the crisis, what I expressed was fatalism. This describes what I believe will happen very well:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/scientist-warming-could-cut-population-to-1-billion/

That's about what I think will happen, and there's not a damn thing we could do about it at this point. "Now, I know that's a shitty deal, but we're stuck with it."

However, I believe the human race will survive and with a population that's quite viable, as for other species, some will survive, most, I'm afraid, won't. We might be able to save a few.

I don't think humankind has the level of social organization necessary to avoid the crash anyway. So, I'm sorry, I'm fatalistic. The world is going to change radically, and hopefully, humankind, will survive, or whatever we evolve into will survive (and I hope it's something better). We can put it off, but sooner or later, Darwin insists.

Evolution doesn't occur based on catastrophe . . . change, yes. Evolution takes time.
However, I'm encouraged to see that you have some sense that nature has been harmed and
humankind, as well. We have no guarantee that the planet will keep turning, either!

Actually, we don't know how or when exactly evolution takes place. I'm not a creationist or an intelligent design person, but I can agree that the process of change cannot be explained by random mutation alone, at least not for organisms made up of eukaryotic cells. It isn't from the hand of God, however. One hint is: by far most of our DNA seems to be performing any task whatsoever. Is it there to be activated when the environment changes? Is there a way organisms "plan" and gather DNA that might be useful?

I just don't think our efforts will have any significant effect, and some of them seem absolutely wrong-headed to me. Call me skeptical and stubborn. Yes, you're right, not that the earth is going to stop turning, but there are cosmic calamities that might kill us at any time:

http://www.cracked.com/article_16817_5-cosmic-events-that-could-kill-you-before-lunch.html

Life is a fragile and precious thing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. That is SO wrong in SO many ways.

First: the 'marching moron' is a myth. The fact is, there is only a marginal difference between IQ of the wealthy and the poor - it could, in fact, be argued that the poor are more intelligent than the wealthy because they are more stressed and must cope with more adversity to survive, so therefore those who survive MUST be the most intelligent - which fact is borne out by their survival. The rich, OTOH, are never stressed, never tested, and when under pressure they fold like a cheap suit.

Second: if there is such a shortage of labor WHY DO WE HAVE NEAR RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT? Europe didn't HAVE to let immigrants from the south come in. There was simply nothing in European culture that argued against it. And the Romans hired barbarians to fight for them because they were at war with the entire fucking world - and they hired mercenaries as they had ALWAYS done since the Punic wars when they hired hill tribes to attack Hannibal while he was crossing the Alps.

Third: Good times? When a quarter of the world's population is already on the brink of starvation, if they are not actually already STARVING?

Fourth: Europe, in the 2nd half of the 20th century. You have already talked about their falling population. You think the European Union, the power block which is a rival to the US and way eclipses Russia, is NOT experiencing economic growth? Ireland was once the poor man of Europe, and is now one of the strongest economies. Franco's poverty-ridden Spain is now a vibrant successful democracy with a growing economy. And falling birthrate.

I mean, really.

[caseymoz]

58. And I have answers to everything you've given.

First: the 'marching moron' is a myth. The fact is, there is only a marginal difference between IQ of the wealthy and the poor - it could, in fact, be argued that the poor are more intelligent than the wealthy because they are more stressed and must cope with more adversity to survive, so therefore those who survive MUST be the most intelligent - which fact is borne out by their survival. The rich, OTOH, are never stressed, never tested, and when under pressure they fold like a cheap suit.

In the short-term, there's some indication of it, and not from genetics but from socialization and culture. I'll explain how, using a current example I find compelling.

When effective birth control and then abortion were first introduced, it's reasonable to assume that their use was biased according to ideology and religion. Political and social liberals likely restrained their births much more than political and ideological conservatives, due to moral differences. Now, it is also reasonable to assume that both political/ideological groups socialized their children according to their religion/ideology. The results? Conservatives were once a fringe minority, their numbers became equal to liberals in two generations. It swung the politics of the whole country, and only now is it swinging back due to crisis. (People do learn.) It's a hypothetical example of how disparities in births have led to detrimental political and social changes, and have probably now undone liberal efforts of population restraints. Now that may be presuming that there was a disparity between liberal and conservative use of birth control/abortion, but that has been the problem. It is imaginable that since 1960, ideological conservatives have probably been having many more children than ideological liberals, perhaps 10-40 million more, and socialized their children accordingly.

Now, why isn't this realistic? It's hypothetical, I know, but worth looking into. Admittedly, it's probably not the argument you thought it was, but if the effect is actually social and not genetic, it can effect a country's policies within two generations.

Second: if there is such a shortage of labor WHY DO WE HAVE NEAR RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT?

Of course, you know we're in a deep economic downturn? Unemployment is not a steady figure, and we're in a time of major economic upheaval. The usual rules don't apply here. The dearth in labor comes in a specific age demographic distorted by restraining births: the 20-39 age bracket. This is the most productive age group, plus they are the ones most capable of doing the physical labor, like harvesting fruit, roadwork, landscaping, construction, some very necessary work that supports the rest of the population. Hispanics and other immigrants, legal and illegal, probably add about 20 percent to the labor pool in that bracket, and some of it in the underground economy. But they also have the rest of their working life ahead of them, and a lot to contribute at every stage.

Europe didn't HAVE to let immigrants from the south come in. There was simply nothing in European culture that argued against it.

You don't know much about European history. Europeans had a habit of bringing immigrants in from their colonies when there a shortage of labor at home, and then expelling them when the labor market turned bad. Now they allow immigration from those very countries, but they're humanitarian enough not to expel them en masse, and they try to be consistent about it, and so have overshot. Don't think for a minute that Europeans allowed that immigration out of kindness. Europeans have an even worse dearth in their 20-39 year old population demographic than we do without immigration. Otherwise, there's plenty in European cultural history that wouldn't have allowed Moslems to be permanently resident.

I don't think immigration is a bad thing, BTW, mass exoduses and uncontrolled immigration do worry me, however.

And the Romans hired barbarians to fight for them because they were at war with the entire fucking world - and they hired mercenaries as they had ALWAYS done since the Punic wars when they hired hill tribes to attack Hannibal while he was crossing the Alps.

Romans in their early and mid-history hired barbarians to fight in places which were far away from Rome, in places where moving legions would be impractical. It was only in the late empire, however, that they had barbarians guarding Rome itself. The drop in the actual Roman population is a matter of record.

Third: Good times? When a quarter of the world's population is already on the brink of starvation, if they are not actually already STARVING?

In the modern world, we've reached the end of the cycle, the good times are ending, but other population mechanics have been taking place. Good times is a relative term. Definitely the times are great for some people, greater for a species that evolved for a tribal existence. That level of comfort produces a different population mechanic than usual "good times." Where people in the wealthier countries can produce 1-3 offspring with a reasonable chance that they will survive into adulthood, the poor will produce 7-10 in hopes that two will survive. The fact that more than that survive to adulthood, says something. I conjecture that they will produce those offspring when times are relatively better for them. If you think about it, the likelihood of giving birth when you're actually starving is about none, the death rate among children his high. So, I'd guess that the people who are facing danger of starving or actually starving are more than likely not the same people from year to year. Otherwise, we would definitely see a population drop in those countries, like the Irish potato famine, and I assure you, the birthrate during that was not high and the mortality of children was also extremely high.

Fourth: Europe, in the 2nd half of the 20th century. You have already talked about their falling population. You think the European Union, the power block which is a rival to the US and way eclipses Russia, is NOT experiencing economic growth? Ireland was once the poor man of Europe, and is now one of the strongest economies. Franco's poverty-ridden Spain is now a vibrant successful democracy with a growing economy. And falling birthrate.

I said that no economy has ever grown with a falling population, not with a falling birthrate. The population of Western Europe and a few Eastern European countries has been growing through immigration, not birthrate (the immigrants are also having more children.) There are few exceptions, countries that have falling populations. Mostly in Eastern Europe, the population is dropping, and was dropping through restraining births under communism. Countries like Hungary and Slovenia with falling populations missed the recent economic boom.

Now the opposite isn't true. A growing population does not equate to a growing economy. In fact, things might get worse then.

I will end it here saying that we could try restraining births, but I'm doubtful that it will work and I'm doubtful

[Lorien]

38. Yep. Climate change will do us in if we don't turn on each other first

over dwindling resources. The realities of the situation are harsh. I've reposted this several times. It came from the Guardian.uk:

Earth 'will expire by 2050'

Our planet is running out of room and resources. Modern man has plundered so much, a damning report claims this week, that outer space will have to be colonised

The end of earth as we know it? Talk about it here

Observer Worldview


Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week.

A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.

In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades.

Using the image of the need for mankind to colonise space as a stark illustration of the problems facing Earth, the report warns that either consumption rates are dramatically and rapidly lowered or the planet will no longer be able to sustain its growing population.

Experts say that seas will become emptied of fish while forests - which absorb carbon dioxide emissions - are completely destroyed and freshwater supplies become scarce and polluted.

The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption now.

Systematic overexploitation of the planet's oceans has meant the North Atlantic's cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated spawning stock of 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

The study will also reveal a sharp fall in the planet's ecosystems between 1970 and 2002 with the Earth's forest cover shrinking by about 12 per cent, the ocean's biodiversity by a third and freshwater ecosystems in the region of 55 per cent.

The Living Planet report uses an index to illustrate the shocking level of deterioration in the world's forests as well as marine and freshwater ecosystems. Using 1970 as a baseline year and giving it a value of 100, the index has dropped to a new low of around 65 in the space of a single generation.

It is not just humans who are at risk. Scientists, who examined data for 350 kinds of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish, also found the numbers of many species have more than halved.

Martin Jenkins, senior adviser for the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, which helped compile the report, said: 'It seems things are getting worse faster than possibly ever before. Never has one single species had such an overwhelming influence. We are entering uncharted territory.'

Figures from the centre reveal that black rhino numbers have fallen from 65,000 in 1970 to around 3,100 now. Numbers of African elephants have fallen from around 1.2 million in 1980 to just over half a million while the population of tigers has fallen by 95 per cent during the past century.

The UK's birdsong population has also seen a drastic fall with the corn bunting population declining by 92 per cent between 1970 and 2000, the tree sparrow by 90 per cent and the spotted flycatcher by 70 per cent.

Experts, however, say it is difficult to ascertain how many species have vanished for ever because a species has to disappear for 50 years before it can be declared extinct.

Attention is now focused on next month's Earth Summit in Johannesburg, the most important environmental negotiations for a decade.

However, the talks remain bedevilled with claims that no agreements will be reached and that US President George W. Bush will fail to attend.

Matthew Spencer, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said: 'There will have to be concessions from the richer nations to the poorer ones or there will be fireworks.'

The preparatory conference for the summit, held in Bali last month, was marred by disputes between developed nations and poorer states and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), despite efforts by British politicians to broker compromises on key issues.

America, which sent 300 delegates to the conference, is accused of blocking many of the key initiatives on energy use, biodiversity and corporate responsibility.

The WWF report shames the US for placing the greatest pressure on the environment. It found the average US resident consumes almost double the resources as that of a UK citizen and more than 24 times that of some Africans.

Based on factors such as a nation's consumption of grain, fish, wood and fresh water along with its emissions of carbon dioxide from industry and cars, the report provides an ecological 'footprint' for each country by showing how much land is required to support each resident.

America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.

The report, which will be unveiled in Geneva, warns that the wasteful lifestyles of the rich nations are mainly responsible for the exploitation and depletion of natural wealth. Human consumption has doubled over the last 30 years and continues to accelerate by 1.5 per cent a year.

Now WWF wants world leaders to use its findings to agree on specific actions to curb the population's impact on the planet.

A spokesman for WWF UK, said: 'If all the people consumed natural resources at the same rate as the average US and UK citizen we would require at least two extra planets like Earth.'

The world's ticking timebomb

Marine crisis:
North Atlantic cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

Pollution:
The United States places the greatest pressure on the environment, with its carbon dioxide emissions and over-consumption. It takes 12.2 hectares of land to support each American citizen and 6.29 for each Briton, while the figure for Burundi is just half a hectare.

Shrinking Forests:
Between 1970 and 2002 forest cover has dwindled by 12 per cent.

Endangered wildlife:
African elephant numbers have fallen from 1.2 million in 1980 to half a million now. In the UK the songbird population has fallen dramatically, with the corn bunting declining by 92 per cent in the past 30 years.

[truthisfreedom]

14. Well, at least 45 years from now the stock market will be healthy.

[slackmaster]

23. Is it possible that the birth RATE is nowhere near what it was in the 1950s?

And that the much higher POPULATION has something to do with the NUMBER of babies being born?

:argh:

[mainer]

27. Yep, that's what it says.

Birth RATE in 2007 was 2.1.

Birth rate in 1950 was nearly 4.

We've got a larger population of fertile women -- thus, more babies total. But it's also true that the birth rate itself has gone up since the 1970's.

Interesting that the teen birth rate has gone up this decade, after hitting a low during the 1990's -- due to more logical and fact-based efforts by the Clinton Administration, maybe?

[defendandprotect]

28. Pushing us along to 7 BILLION shortly--!!!!

[Lost in CT]

56. Plenty of room in "this" country. nt

[8 track mind]

32. abstinence perhaps? n/t

[Dumak]

49. A healthy trend?

the guy must have no concept of a healthy environment, of our dwindling wildlife habitat, and the horrible consequence of a sudden loss of food supply. too intellectually incurious to even flip on a science channel for a few minutes

[No Elephants]

50. Cleaning up the mess the Baby Boomers leave will take lots of people.

[FiveGoodMen]

51. ...making an even bigger mess.

[Deja Q]

61. Not all boomers. I blame mostly the hippies.

:evilgrin:

[Mari333]

62. define your argument. nt

[MisterP]

52. where's self-proclaimed-expert natalist cheerleader Phillip Longman?

he needs to assure us that our economy is good and our future assured because we have high birthrates...

[KillCapitalism]

64. Maybe we need a one-child policy like China has.

Seriously. I bet we'll surpass 1 billion people in the US in 75 years or so.

Oh, and birth control has been around for nearly 50 years, why are people still so ignorant of it?

[4dsc]

65. I wonder how they will survive??

Given that most people under the age of 30 will witness the end of the age of oil, I don't see these people having much of a good future.

Its amazing that we are not thinking about these future generations as we use oil with no regard to future generations.. Oil is finite and with about a 35 year supply, no way this new generation has a snowballs chance in hell of experiencing what we have today..

[fasttense]

66. Quick, reanimate Raygun and get him to double their Social Security Taxes. n/t