This was penned by Michael Barone and appeared in the Wall Street Journal on December 19, 2018. Consistent with words of warning contained in Hans Rosling’s book Factfulness and in another wonderful book entitled, What We Should Be Worried About, this article is one of many we are sure to see in the coming months and years. I am posting it here for the benefit of my MBA students
Numbers., numbers, numbers …
In 1957, 4.3 million babies were born in the United States — 4,316,233, to be exact. In 2017, 60 years later, the number was 3,853,472. That’s an 11 percent decline, in a nation whose population has nearly doubled over those six decades. And although there are a few days left in 2018, the number for this year is sure to be lower still.
That’s the dominant finding from a thorough and alarming American Enterprise Institute report on Declining Fertility in America by Lyman Stone of the Institute for Family Studies.
In recent years, demographics journalists have focused on slivers of the population — the increasing percentages of Hispanics and Asians, the decline in births to teenage mothers, low birth rates in high-cost coastal metropolitan areas. Stone looks at the larger picture, that of total population, and finds that “the specter of low fertility, and ultimately of declining populations, has come to America.”
That’s a different picture from that of a decade ago, when American birth rates hovered around, and sometimes just above, replacement level. That was a vivid contrast with substantially below-replacement-level birth rates in most of Europe and Japan, especially Japan where things are completely upside-down age-wise.
Those birth rates were buoyed upward by immigrant mothers, after a quarter-century of mass migration from Latin America, especially Mexico. But Mexican migration fell toward zero in the 2007-09 recession, and births to immigrants in the U.S. sharply declined, too.
Some Americans might see that as good news. It suggests that a lower percentage of babies are born to mothers in disadvantaged households.
And just about everyone, as Stone notes, takes the continuing sharp decline in births to teenage mothers as good news too, considering that such children have tended to suffer negative outcomes.
But the negative outcomes of increasing infertility – and eventual population decline – have even greater implications. To put it bluntly:
Who is going to pay for Social Security and Medicare when there are fewer working-age adults paying taxes for every oldster receiving benefits?
Welfare states assume expanding populations, and America’s potential parents don’t seem to be providing one any more. Why?
Stone rules out one cause. Surveys show that women want more children than they’re having. That was probably not the case, or less so, when American’s fertility rate dropped in the mid-1970s.
The culprit this time is something that scarcely existed then: student loans for college. Yep, student loans. The top three items on Stone’s list of five causes are:
“increased young adult debt service costs due to student loans.”
Number two is:
“decreasing young adult homeownership” due to higher prices and — here it is again — “student loans.”
Number three is:
“increasing years spent actively enrolled in educational institutions, which tends to reduce birth rates dramatically.”
Government efforts to encourage higher education have, for many intended beneficiaries, backfired. Nongraduates still have debt. Graduates with politically correct degrees can’t find jobs. College costs have been inflated by administrative bloat and country club campuses.
“The entire educational complex is presently structured in such a way as to discourage family formation for young adults.”
The result is “delayed marriage,” which “explains the vast majority of changes in American fertility over the past 10 or 20 years,” Stone writes. And though he doesn’t mention it, the increasing number of noncollege whites who never marry surely explains some of the rest.
What are policymakers doing to respond to this abrupt demographic challenge? Approximately… nothing.
Stone notes that the Congressional Budget Office, the Social Security Administration and Medicare’s actuaries have not “even published stress-test scenarios of long-term fertility at 1.5 or 1.6” — just below the current 1.7 — “an incredible collective failure of foresight by almost all the economic bodies whose job it is to anticipate this kind of problem.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan, the one politician who gets it and who has worked strenuously to address such problems, and at one point got all his Republican colleagues to go along with entitlement reform, has just delivered his farewell speech. Therefore, he’s gone, and no one is talking about the issue in his wake. House Republicans will be in the minority next month, and they have no appetite for taking up the issue again. Especially since President Trump has promised to leave entitlements entirely in place.
And no significant number of Democratic officeholders is seeking to give up what they consider one of their party’s chief political advantages.
It’s quite a contrast with the late 1990s, when American fertility was higher, and Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were working on entitlement reform until the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.
One answer, of course, is to let in as many young – very young – immigrants as we can. They ought to come with skills, but as long as they come with a desire to procreate, well, then, we might have hope.
Something to worry about in the years to come.
