-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
To Each His Own Audience (…or Enemy)
March 29, 2013 | 11 comments
-
They Say They Want a Revolution
March 20, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Senate Access Shutdown
March 12, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Just out of graduate school (for the first time), I had the privilege to serve as research assistant to the eminent Ben Wattenberg — senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute, and long-time host of PBS’s Think Tank. (I’d mention his son, Daniel Wattenberg, made a name for himself right here at TAS, when he teamed up with David Brock to expose the infamous “Troopergate” scandal that haunted the Clintons, for years.)
A true gentleman and scholar, Ben Wattenberg has a unique knack for humanizing American life through his encyclopedic grasp of social and economic data. I can honestly say I’ve never met a man so positive about the prospects for our future. If you’re ever in need of a jolt of confidence about this American experience, by all means, thumb a few pages of any of his eleven books.
Yesterday, he wrote in the Wall Street Journal — and hinted at some of the lessons gleaned in his 2004 work New Demography: How Depopulation Will Shape the Future. His column suggests a confidence in the buoyancy of America’s population and its bearing on geopolitical, economic and cultural consequence.
An instance of Wattenberg’s optimism:
Why is this so important to America? A hefty and growing population can yield power and influence. It’s been a long time since a nation with a small population influenced how the world works—think the 16th-century Dutch and Portuguese.
Size also yields vast economies of scale. As population grows, through fertility and immigration, a healthy housing market is inevitable. It’s either that or tens of millions of Americans sleeping on the streets. Bet on the boom.
There’s corporate growth too, across industries. Imagine an American corporation, XYZ, that wants to start doing business in Thailand. Only in a polyglot nation like America can XYZ search out and find the adult children of Thai immigrants who know America inside and out but also know Thai customs and language.
Few if any nations have all these advantages. The demography in play guarantees that the 21st century, like the 20th, will be an “American Century.”
Ever sanguine, Mr. Wattenberg remains a true believer in our exceptionalism. I thank him for his years of hard work, the opportunity he offered me and this most recent, and welcome reminder of what makes America great.
View all comments (39) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Reid Smith
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/05/25/regarding-americas-21st-centur
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
RJ| 5.25.12 @ 2:45PM
In the developing age of electronic intelligence, data storage and robotics, the historical reliance on demographics is overstated. Also, the values and culture of the population has always been more important to national prosperity than mere population numbers. During the height of classical liberalism, the English Empire was the strongest nation on Earth, even though there were other nations with much larger populations.
Jack in Wi.| 5.25.12 @ 3:50PM
The old line population is still in decline. If it wasn't for millions of immigrants and their kids this country would look like an old peoples home.
jppc| 5.25.12 @ 4:41PM
American women have 2 children per family. Allowing for a lower, more modest legal immigration inflow, that's all we need.
However, left and right liberals are balooning the country's population to half a billion because more people = more government. And that's good for the political class.
I say we cut all immigration in half for the next 20 years. It would be good for all of us. Why turn us into another China or India?
JP| 5.26.12 @ 11:56AM
The 2.0 birthrate you speak of is the over-all Total Fertility Rate of our nation. But, if you subtract Hispanics, our birthrate is no better than 1.7 live births per female.
Skippy| 5.25.12 @ 5:33PM
Tell that to Utah, Jack.
JP| 5.25.12 @ 4:04PM
The current TFR (Total Fertility Rate) of the US is somewhere around 2.0 live births per female. Broken down, the numbers gleam this bit of info: 1st generation Hispanic women generally have birth rates of 3.6 children, while the non-Hispanic population (mainly Caucasian, Blacks, and Asian) average 1.7 births per female. What is intersting is that 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics average about the same number of children as the national average of 1.7 . The 2010 Census also showed that despite millions of illegal aliens, the growth rate of our population is at its slowest since 1930. Yes, we continue to grow; but at a much slower rate. In other words, our population is rapidly aging. The median age of the US in 1972 was 24. Today it is almost 37. In other words, Hispanics are driving our positive birthrates.
But, our largest source of immigrants have come from Mexico and points south. Mexico in 1970 had a TFR of 6.1 children per female. Today it is just below 2.4 . In other words, within a decade, if trends continue, Mexico will no longer be producing excess population (a sustained TFR of 2.1 is needed to keep a population stable). Ditto for South America. Brazil has a TFR of 1.8 today; down from a high of 6.0 in 1970). In other words, the US will not be able to count on Hispanics to keep our population growth rates above water. And with the exception of the early Baby Boom years (1946-1960), the US traditionally depended upon immigration to grow its population.
If trends continue, the US will begin losing population sometime after 2035. The economic effects will hit us much sooner. As a matter of fact, they already are.
jppc| 5.25.12 @ 4:42PM
Total BS..........total.
JP| 5.26.12 @ 11:53AM
The numbers do not lie. Once you subtract Hispanic immigrants, our birthrates is now better than the UKs or Canada. Get use to it. "White America" stopped having enough children about 30 years ago.
Foxfier | 5.28.12 @ 2:49AM
Sure, that's something to worry about... if you extrapolate without change and ignore that humans always change... not to mention that the US has an unusually high rate of female children surviving to reproduce, and that SOME of us are working to fix that imbalance.
Also ignores that the demographic crisis has been on some folks' minds for over a decade now, and they had extra kids, who aren't old enough to have kid themselves. On the opposite side, those who think that there's NO problem have been avoiding children-- this depresses the birth rates while masking the possibility of those kids raised to be aware that "one for each parent" isn't replacement will have more than the average number of kids.
Yes, it needs to be be paid attention to, but please don't fall into the common mistake of thinking trends are more than simple patterns projected on complex ones.
BruceT| 5.25.12 @ 4:48PM
It greatly depends on one's worldview. If you think the US is a "nation of immigrants", you will be reluctant to stop or reduce mass immigration.
If you are more historically literate, you'll know that the US was not created by immigrant, nor have immigrants been much more than about 10% of the population (until today).
When the ratio of foeign born to native born grow closer together, you lose what it means to be a country. This is what the political class want, both in this country and around the world; they want to either destroy or greatly weaken nation-states.
On the path to (one) world government.....no borders. Everyone working for the collective, working for the government, getting their healthcare from the government, their pension from the government, their food from the government, etc.
richard ryan| 5.25.12 @ 5:07PM
It's not how many immigrants we have or how many births we have. The most important thing is exactly who is coming here and who is reproducing? Is our population of poor, uneducated, health-care/welfare soaking people growing? Immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Italy, etc were excited to be here. Excited to be Americans and learn English. Ambitious and determined to succeed and educate their children. Not so today with most immigrants. The productive, educated folks in this country are reproducing at a much lower rate than those who extract money from the government. This is yet another example of our ticking time bomb. Yet another reason we are going down the tubes.
l5j6f7| 5.25.12 @ 7:44PM
Numbers do matter........if a nation has too many foreign born (who often keep loyalties to their homeland), that is not conducive to having a united country. Does the nation soley exist as a place for foreigners to move to in order to make a little more money? I say no.
Bob K.| 5.25.12 @ 9:23PM
Sorry Mr. Smith.
As long as we have "diversity" and "affirmative action" these new immigrants will not assimilate. They will be better off keeping their culture and minority status.
JP| 5.26.12 @ 11:55AM
I'm a numbers person, and the demographics here suck. They're not as bad as Greece, Japan, Russia, or Germany. But, the sad fact is the non-Hispanic portion of our society isn't reproducing. Check the UN data; if you don't like the UN data, check our own Census information.
VHouston| 5.27.12 @ 6:52AM
Perhaps you should realize that birth rates like immigration politicy of heavily influenced by man-made policies.
Immigrants (legal & illegal) are incentivized by the US govt. to have babies when they get to A-mair-ee-ka. Native born Americans are not. Further, native born Americans have roughly 2 children per family, not a horrible birth rate.
JP| 5.27.12 @ 10:45AM
There are pockets where women have 2-3 children per family. And yes, currently the US has averaged about 2.0 children (based upon both US and UN demographic data). But, even a tenth of a percent is very important. Even with a fertility rate of 2.0, a society will lose population without immigration. And as I wrote earlier, our fertility rate of 2.0 is only as high as it is because of Hispanics. And it is 1st generation Hispanics that provide us with young women who will average 3-4 children during thier lifetimes. Causcasian, African American, and Asian women average no better than 1.7-1.8 children.
Looking at demographic trends in Mexico, South America, and the US one finds that the future is rather bleak unless we have more children. And for us to forestall the coming demographic crash, US women (of all races) need to increase the number of children by as much as 25-30%. Seventy six million Baby Boomers will be retiring during the next 20 years. The fall off in women of child bearing years is significant. The Baby Boomers needed to produce at a minimum 80 million children in order to keep the population stable. They produced 60 million children, of which 32 million were women. And these women would have to average 3 children in order to make up for the drop-off of the Baby Boomers. Instead, they too have averaged less than 2 children. See how the numbers drop off so quickly generation to generation? Again, we can thank the Hispanics for at least slowing down the decline (off course, this has produced other problems). But, as I wrote earlier there will be fewer Hispanics in coming years and decades coming from the South. Immigration is mainly a young man's game.
I hope this cleared a few things up.
Conservative Not Republican| 5.26.12 @ 4:10PM
Reid, we'd be interested in your take on Michael Fumento's piece in Salon.
Reid Smith| 5.26.12 @ 7:15PM
Absolutely. Let's say it's forthcoming...
Occam's Tool| 5.26.12 @ 5:39PM
RJ: old folks don't make good soldiers, nor are they as productive as younger people.
Our problem with Hispanics is that we aren't acculturating them well, not the ethnic background. Both my adopted children are Hispanic, and they are flag waving Conservative homeschooled kids.
But demographics = destiny, and Islamofascists are having kids.
RJ| 5.27.12 @ 2:44AM
Hi Occam's Tool,
I realize I have a minority viewpoint on population growth relating to economic development, but let me offer this example of how modern technology changes things. Imagine how many B-17s (each with 10 man crews) it would take to equate what a single B-2 (two man crew) can do with conventional weapons. The pilots on the B-2s are significantly older than the young kids who flew the B-17s, too.
Young people can be more productive than older ones, provided they are well educated and have a good work ethic. My fear is that there is an increasing number of young folks who have gone through our public "education" system (and negatively impacted by our current culture) who may be missing some key essentials. Congratulations on home-schooling your kids. Its more work for the parents, but I am sure they are much better prepared for life.
God bless the Hispanics. From my experiences, I think the Lord has given most of them a better disposition on life than other peoples. I fully agree with you that a change in America values (away from personal freedom and limited government) is to be feared, not ethnic background.
I don't worry too much about population growth. China and India had the numbers, but they were mired in poverty until they changes their views on capitalism. Bangladesh still is impoverished, despite a large population. You may disagree, but my formula is cultural values = destiny.
l5j6f7| 5.27.12 @ 6:42AM
"God bless the Hispanics"? "Young people can be more productive than older ones"?
Geez, you make foolish comments that a kid would make. Plus, you're a total wimp.
JP| 5.27.12 @ 11:01AM
Economies cannot grow with shrinking or aging populations. Japan has been able to keep apace only because of its export driven economy. However, if you look at domestic demand for goods and services, there has been a huge drop-off since 1990. This has led to deflationary pressures. Thanks in large part to high demand for Japanese products Japan's economy continues apace. Due to a shortage of young workers wages in Japan wages are sky-rocketing. But, prices are falling. As a result life has been pretty good for young Japanese. But what happens if demand for thier products slows? What if the US and China no longer import as much as they did in previous years? The Japanese shall find out in due course.
RJ| 5.27.12 @ 11:52AM
Hi JP,
Historically, you are right. My thoughts are that we are at a stage of technological development that growing production can be accomplished without more people (and that depending on the cultural values of some people, they may be more of a negative than a positive). I understand your point as being directed towards the demand side of the equation. As a supply-sider, I think human wants will always supply enough demand.
l5j6f7| 5.27.12 @ 1:10PM
American women have 2 babies on average. No one, not Tancredo nor Buchanan, advocate having zero immigration. We immigration restrictionists favor reducing immigration across the board, for 10-20 years. The immigration cheerleaders say when in recession "we must have more immigrants" and when the economy is doing well, "we must have more immigrants". Immigration is a secular ideology for them (and I suspect for you too).
The Jorge & Jebby Bush, Juan McAmnesty, Beltway GOP types are right-liberals who are in concert with left-liberals, who want to weaken white middle class Americans politically by being swarmed demographically.
The country suffers from high unemployment and many, many Americans choosing not to work, as they have been trained to do so by the welfare state and Obama's policies as well. There is no need to be contantly bringing over a million people here annually (legally and illegally).
Besides, as much as economics is important, there is more to life than a forever growing economy. What does if profit a man to have 4% GDP growth if he loses his country and culture in the process?
Occam's Tool| 5.27.12 @ 11:28PM
RJ: you still need kids, for a variety of reasons, including mental flexibility. I was a lot more flexible at age 25 than I am at 49---I have a LOT more experience in my profession, and believe that I am a much better doc now than I was then, but I was capable of absorbing more data at that age, although I can integrate it better now.
Our major rival is not China and India, it is instead the Caliphate. One of the two mentioned above will be our greatest ally, and should be encouraged by us---the Indians.
RJ| 5.28.12 @ 1:45AM
Hi Occam's Tool: I always enjoy reading your comments. Yes, we certainly change as we get older. I am surprised that I frequently view things differently through different stages of life. In some ways we are the same, but in other ways we become different.
I am fully on board with you regarding India.
Best wishes.
VHouston| 5.27.12 @ 6:56AM
Lat-teen-Ohs, who the US governent has been importing heavily for some 25 years, have problematic "issues" such as:
1st or 2nd place in the following:
Out of wedlock births.
Very high High School drop-out rate.
Poor academic performance.
High gang membership.
Stubborn identificatioon with home country (Meh-hee-co).
Poor English language skills and usage.
I know, let's invite more to the USA!
Fiscal| 5.27.12 @ 10:53AM
Are you really saying that out of wedlock births aren't increasing for everyone? Are you saying that our educational system is getting better for everyone else? Are you saying that the mafia, Asian gangs, white supremacist groups, and the white motorcycle gangs don't exist?
With regard to language skills, isn't this true for most new immigrants?
They are willing to take the low paid jobs you and others refuse to take. They tend to be more religious than average (Catholic). In essence, they have relatively good family values in total.
The truth is that the vast majority of them come here to earn money. As long as we provide those low paying jobs, they will come.
VHouston| 5.27.12 @ 12:35PM
I am saying......when you fi9lter out Blacks and Laaaatinos, white American and Asian Americans kids do just fine in school.
Out of wedlock births are up for everyone but who leads in this category by a mile? Blacks and Laaaatinos.
Gang memnbership is led by whom? by Laaaaatinos.
Do you have trouble understanding English?
My point is, why import huge numbers of poor, grade school educated people? Why? Especially with our Obamanomics and high umeployment?
Mass exodus from Meh-hee-co is a function between both governments. Meh-hee-co wants their poorest, least educated "Indians" to leave, US companies welcome cheap labor, like any employer does.
But the American people, by a large majority want Jose and Mohammed to go back from where they came . Roughly 70% of Americans want all immigration reduced and even more want illegal immigrants deported.
Fiscal| 5.27.12 @ 2:17PM
You are conflating race with socio-economic status. Whites who earn at the same level as Hispanics have similar graduation rates. Thus, the real issue is income, not race. The same is true for gang membership -- however it is more skewed by race -- probably due to the Latin drug cartels.
Interestingly enough, the NUMBER of whites in gangs is more than blacks and only slightly less than Latinos. Again, this has a socioeconomic component.
Where I tend to agree with you, however, is that you don't see the educational motivation among blacks and Hispanics that you see with whites and Asians. This is a function of culture and is problematic. Muslims in the U.S., however, become quite educated. While part of this may be due to job availability for the unskilled, it is not an excuse.
The other factor is that the vast majority of immigrants do not cause problems and you are singling out the minority. That is an issue.
Now let me ask you this -- since Asians have the highest graduation rates, do you want to increase immigration for them? If the answer is yes, then your view is based on race alone and that is a problem...
Fiscal| 5.27.12 @ 10:44AM
The key to continued prosperity in America is a growing middle class. We have moved from a production economy to a consumption economy, and a strong middle class is necessary for our economy. Increasing manufacturing means we compete with low wage countries. We can accomplish some of that through mechanization, but most of it will be achieved with lower wages which reduces consumption.
Large corporations understand this which is why most of them have a much larger business outside of the U.S.
While in the shorter term, the next couple of decades, this will hurt the country, a growing middle class in China, India, Vietnam, etc., will demand more benefits and the playing field will level a bit. But this will require a fundamental restructuring of our government becoming leaner and more libertarian. This includes not only entitlements (where most of the answer is in rationing), but defense as well.
If we spend the next decade or so getting ourselves into fiscal shape, we will be in a position to grow again -- if not, well....
Unfortunately, we are not discussing the real issues on both sides of the ideological spectrum. The left wants more government entitlements so the poorer demographic segments will vote for them and the right wants more defense and wants further tax cuts which only increases the debt problem as we saw under Reagan and Bush. (Obama has continued this problem by keeping the tax cuts and growing the deficit even further). In addition, the right lets social issues get in the way of fiscal sanity.
One side note.... The way to communicate to the new demography is to show you understand them. The best way to show that is to be inclusive to new demographic trends. You show that in your major contributors. Take a look at the contributors today and you'll only see white men. Aren't there any brown conservatives, or even women, who will post on a continuing basis. (Please don't point to the occasional exceptions to this).
Bob K.| 5.27.12 @ 8:48PM
Your "While in the shorter term, the next couple of decades," sound suspiciously like John Maynard Keynes "The Long Term," of which he said: "In the long term we all are dead."
Good luck with that, Fiscal. But you should live so long to see how it turns out.
Selwyn Duke| 5.27.12 @ 1:44PM
People make the culture -- not the other way around -- and then the culture makes the government. If you imported enough Mexicans or Muslims to America, you'd no longer have American/Western civilization. You'd have Mexico Norte or Egypt West.
I don't expect the USA to ever become majority non-white.
Our republic won't last that long.
This is why the answer to the question "Do you support immigration?" should be "not enough data." Since people do get the government they deserve, it matters very much what species of immigration it is. How high are the immigrants' numbers? What is their cultural nature? How compatible are they with our cultural ecosystem? Will they blend into it or supplant native cultural elements? Of course, some will say that the latter is fine, that change is good. And, actually, they could possibly be right -- except that "change" is another vague term. If those cultural elements are superior, then, by all means, embrace them; if they're not, avoid them like the plague -- which, incidentally, came to Europe from Asia. Those who trumpet immigration, diversity, and change are the last ones to judge such matters, however, because they tend to be cultural relativists whose moral foundation is even vaguer than the slogans they disgorge.
What they do know, though, is how to import leftist voters. When I crunched the numbers a few years back, I found that the groups represented by that 85-percent third-world/Asian immigration block vote Democrat approximately 79 percent of the time. Is this a surprise? People don't come here as blank slates; they bring their religion and ideology with them, and these things don't magically change upon contact with American terra firma. And remember that most new immigrants hail from Mexico and Central and South America (50 percent from Mexico alone), where socialism is the norm. Sure, sometimes they may elect one of their "conservatives," but "conservative" and "liberal" are relative terms. A conservative south of the border -- or in Europe, for that matter -- is much like our liberals. Their whole political spectrum is to the "left" of ours, and the more voting-booth levers they pull here, the more our spectrum will be pulled left, too.
Fiscal| 5.27.12 @ 2:24PM
We need to take into account assimilation. Why we count half-black or half-Hispanic people as blacks or Hispanics, respectively, is one of our problems. There is a huge percentage if inter-racial marriage. Pew estimates that the percentage of NEW marriages that are interracial is 15% and growing. Do we know the effect of this on society?
Bob K.| 5.27.12 @ 8:52PM
There will be no assimilation worth speaking of as long as our cult of diversity and active practice of affirmative action continues. There will be no reason for these minorities to assimilate if they move to the head of the line because of their status.
Occam's Tool| 5.27.12 @ 11:29PM
Out of wedlock births are not a major problem for upper middle class, upper class Whites. Unfortunately, they do not preach what they practice.
sweeterjan| 5.28.12 @ 2:45AM
erage of 1.7 . The 2010 Census also showed that despite millions of illegal aliens, the growth rate of our population is at its slowest since 1930. Yes, we http://www.vendreshox.com/femm.....-c-15.html continue to grow; but at a much slower rate. In other words, our population is rapidly aging. The median age of the US in 1972 was 24. Today it is almost 37. In other wo
Gerry| 5.28.12 @ 2:21PM
Yeah, having more people with the "gimme" mentality and allegiance to other countries is the ticket.
bookwarren| 5.29.12 @ 11:12AM
"His (Wattenberg's) column suggests a confidence in the buoyancy of America's population and its bearing on geopolitical, economic and cultural consequence."
So "how come" out of a nation, close to 315,000,000 in population, the best we can do is fund elected and seated, often for decades, legislative representatives that are unwilling to put the people's business first? It's hard to be a believer in national "exceptionalism" when from within, the enemy is is political opportunism, power mongering, fawning political populism and the unforgivable perpetuation of power and fiscal irresponsibility, which if ever, will be paid back by endless generations to come. We all should shudder at such an "American experience" which plays before our eyes.