From washingtonpost.com:
The U.S. birthrate plunged last year to a record low, with the decline being led by immigrant women hit hard by the recession, according to a study released Thursday by the Pew Research Center.
The overall birthrate decreased by 8 percent between 2007 and 2010, with a much bigger drop of 14 percent among foreign-born women. The overall birthrate is at its lowest since 1920, the earliest year with reliable records. Preliminary 2011 data suggest the trend will continue.
Whoa. Stop. I have heard nothing but shrieking and screeching for the past 5 or 6 years about all the anchor babies being dropped here in the United States so these babies can grow up and let their parents and all their relatives float in on the backs of the anchor babies. Damn! Tell me its not true!
Now that old Washington Post tells us that the birth rates are at an all time low, more significantly within the immigrant population? How will those figures ever support all the nativist-shrieking? What will Corey and Ken Cuccinelli campaign on? No “illegals” birthin’ babies to kick around? The birth rate amongst Mexican women dropped 23%.’
Actually all birth rates are low–the lowest since the 1920s. The decline is attributed to the recession. The long range implications of a low birthrate, should it not change, are significant as prognosticators of future trends:
“We’ve been assuming that when the baby-boomer population gets most expensive, that there are going to be immigrants and their children who are going to be paying into [programs for the elderly], but in the wake of what’s happened in the last five years, we have to reexamine those assumptions,” he said. “When you think of things like the solvency of Social Security, for example . . . relatively small increases in the dependency ratio can have a huge effect.”
The average number of children a U.S. woman is predicted to have in her lifetime is 1.9, slightly less than the 2.1 children required to maintain current population levels.
The falling birthrate mirrors what has happened during other recessions. A Pew study last year found that a decline in U.S. fertility rates was closely linked to hard times, particularly among Hispanics.
Perhaps we ought not be so eager to run off those who seek to build a better life in this country. We might have to start building a bridge instead of a wall. We also need to make sure that all of our american born immigrant children get as much education as possible.
Further reading: U.S. birthrate plummets to its lowest level since 1920
I proposed that argument years ago. That we would find ourselves in quite a pickle when the baby boomers, en masse, began to retire. We NEEDED more people to support the greatest generation whether we liked it or not!
I think my parents generation would claim the greatest. Mine is the largest. Be afraid.
I look forward to my blond gray panther years.
Maybe more of the newcomers are learning about contraception 🙂
Good one!!! I hope so. It helps my mantra out..only when women have total control over their own reproduction will they have economic equality.
If I say it enough maybe it will come true.
Or maybe the newcomers are learning about simple economics … unlike our government.
Increased immigration solving our Social Security and other financial woes is a myth. One of the best books on changing demographics (i.e. Baby-Boomers) and our fiscal problems is “The Coming Generational Storm” by Kotlikoff and Burns. They discuss this issue, and cite other studies. They conclude that even doubling current rates of immigration would have only a trivial impact on the solvency of Social Security, and would create other fiscal problems. That book was published in 2005. They published “The Clash of Generations: Saving Ourselves, Our Kids, and Our Economy” this year, which is an even more ominous update of the 2005 book. I haven’t read the 2012 book yet but plan to do so.
These writers are not Fox News commentators or anything like that, but an economics professor at Boston University and a financial journalist. I don’t agree with all of their prescriptions to address our fiscal problems, but think they do a good job of debunking some of the polemics going around about our fiscal problems, and immigration.
Many other independent research studies come to the same conclusion about immigration and the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. Even the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says essentially the same thing:
“The impact of immigration on Social Security’s finances is modest and should not be a major factor in setting either immigration or Social Security policy.”
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1272
What writers in 2005 could not have known is the impact of the lowered birth rate. There was no lowered birth rate. I would say that all their efforts to discredit immigration, both legal and illegal, are moot points now.
People are people and workers are workers, regardless of origin.
If more workers are needed and our population growth drops, things change.
I suppose those who work with furture predictions are scrambling now to produce models and paradigms that take these new facts into consideration as we plan for the years and decades to come.
Is it moot. Kotlikoff and Burns were saying that doubling the rate of immigration in 2005 (when it was high) would not have solved Social Security’s financial problems. More recent research confirms that conclusion. We still have drastic financial problems with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. My only point in the post above is that increasing immigration is not one of the potential solutions.
The solution I support most strongly is increasing the retirement age. We are living far longer lives now than when Social Security was created. Back then, at age 65 you had only a small number of years that you might expect to live in retirement. We’re living much longer now and the old model isn’t valid anymore. Why should I expect to retire at 66 or 67 (my current Social Security full retirement age), collect a pension in excess of the value of the contributions I made, and mooch off my kids expecting them to subsidize me?
I, and everyone else, should work at least a couple more years. The increased revenue from that change, and deferring when people start to collect benefits, would largely solve both the Social Security and Medicare financial problems. Even if I work until I’m 70, I would still have a longer expected retirement with greater Social Security and Medicare benefits than someone who retired at age 65 when the programs were created.
The financial crisis will only be solved with such changes. To Obama’s credit, inflation-adjusted discretionary spending (that doesn’t include TARP or other temporary “stimulus” programs) actually went down or least was flat during his first four years. That’s not the problem. Raising taxes puts the brakes on economic growth and thus tax revenues. That’s not the solution. Reform of the Social Security and Medicare programs is the only alternative we have.
Pardon me if I bristle at the mention of touching social security funds. That seems to be the Republican past-time….getting a gleam in one’s eye at the mere mention of social security. Maybe some people don’t want to work. Do we have a one size fits all? Some people do, some don’t. It depends on what kind of work you do and your health.
I expect those who have done physical labor their entire lives are more than ready to cash in a little earlier than someone who has had a desk job.
If I were tweaking social security I would add additional plans to make it attractive to defer collection. Another innovative way to increase funds would be to take that ceiling off salaries rather than to make some poor bloke work 5 more years. Many people take their social security as soon as they can figuring they at least want some of it before they drop over dead.
Maybe we ought to sweeten that pot by making those who do the hardest labor get the biggest checks earlier and make all of the desk folks wait a while.
All I know that if someone comes after mine after all these years I might have to join the NRA real fast. They will become my new best friend.
Immigration is down, birth rates are down, deportations are at all time record high, so what’s the problem? Seems to me the Repugs are creating crises where none exists.
@Starry, I think that those who look toward the future and tweak things….are concerned because of the low birth rate in general. It is far lower than expected.
I tied it into all the ranting and raving about immigrants when I saw that population birth rate was down also.
@Starryflights
Who’s creating a crisis? Neither Moon’s post nor either of my comments referred to anything by any politician or party. I thought we were discussing ways of addressing the fiscal crisis and how immigration might impact that.
Starry – conversations with you would be far more mature and intelligent if you left out the name-calling.
FYI
Pew report article
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/29/u-s-birth-rate-falls-to-a-record-low-decline-is-greatest-among-immigrants/#src=prc-newsletter
@Moon-howler
Thanks for linking that report. I had read excerpts but not the entire report. It’s more evidence that immigration is not the solution to the financial problems of Social Security and Medicare.
@Moon-howler
Absolutely none of the proposals to reform Social Security will affect current retirees. You have nothing to worry about. Ryan’s plan didn’t even touch those who are currently 55 or older. Everyone recognizes that changes must be phased in to give people a chance to adjust. However, we must also realize that Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable in their current form in the long-run. I’d rather see constructive reforms now to ensure the programs will remain viable rather than ignore the problem and find one day that they have collapsed.
Those 55 are pretty darn close to the magic age to be retirement flipping on them.
that is part of the problem…there is simply too much of the “I got mines” mentality floating around
Pat, what is HCV?
I was simply agreeing with Moon about all the talk from righties about “anchor babies” we have been hearing about over the past 5 to 6 years. The facts simply do not support their argument that there is some sort of grave crisis wrt anchor babies.
I am glad someone remembers all the hysteria, Starry. Funny thing where we all ended up.
What does SS have to do with the general fund – it is funded through pay roll taxes, not income taxes. If the SS trust fund needs to be fixed, it has NoThInG to do with other taxes. It should be a separate conversation, as it would be with any professional.
People talk about means testing SS – it already is – I am a HCE, and I pay the max every year into SS, up to the limit – but my employer’s portion does not stop at $110K, it continues for all of my salary – in retirement, I will be paying income taxes on my SS, due to hopefully, high retirement income. So, I will probably get less out of SS than has been paid into SS on my behalf.
Should SS be in a solvent position, yes, but that should not be tied to other discussions like the cap gains, div tax, income tax, etc.
Sure, Ryan’s plan did not touch those 55 and older so that the changes did not take effect until after Romney was out of office.
I meant HCE. What does that mean?
Oh yea, SS is taxed. Some older folks don’t make enough money annually to be taxed is the only thing that saves them.
The Administration has successfully discouraged illegal immigration and lowered birth rates among immigrants by maintaining high unemployment and a bleak economic outlook. That’s a really novel approach to immigration policy.
But many would bitch and complain regardless. Immigrants here…bitch and complain. Immigrants not here…bitch and complain.
an HCE is a highly compensated employee – essentially it means that I gross over the SS limit for the year. It can limit the amount I can contribute to my 401k based on the contributions of the employees contributions below the limit. The point I was making, is that at 110K, my contribution stops but my employers portion does not, but I will receive the same amount as a person whose salary is at the limit – meaning that there are more contributions on my behalf. This is true for W-2 income – but the loop holes allow non W-2 people to avoid the contributions.
I guess there is an acronymn for just about everything now. Thanks.
I didnt realize the employer had to keep paying. At least no one can say it will hurt business when employees get hit with the same lifting of ceiling.
@Moon-howler
It’s kind of a good news/bad news story, right? The good news is that illegal immigration is under control and the “anchor baby” issue has gone away for the time being. The bad news is that the economy is so bad that potential immigrants (both legal and illegal) no longer want to come here and start a family.
I think it might be that people in general wait until they can afford kids. (or at least I tell myself that, knowing full well it isn’t always true, first hand experience)
The economy is chugging along. You want over-night cures? That just isn’t very realistic.
Three to four years to get the economy back in shape is not exactly overnight. In your view, when does ‘overnight’ end for Obama? >5 years? >7 years? Will he ever ‘own’ the performance of the economy?
In your eyes, probably not. I think that is a given.
I am looking at it in my own terms and asking myself if I am better off today or in fall of 2008. Many people are.
The economy is chugging along. It is showing growth.
Remember reading about the Great Depression? That one took quite a while also.
I actually don’t think that presidents own the economy. There is only so much they can do in a capitalist society.
You don’t seem to want Bush to have any culpability in the entire 2008 mess. That’s why I am over here smiling to myself.
I actually like Hank Paulson. He and Bush probably saved the day in the long run. But damn…you don’t want him to take any credit do you? I mean Bush. Let’s see…2 wars awnd then the frigging bottom blowing out of the economy. Then we get another prez in there and you folks wanted the problem fixed overnight.
You all bitched and moaned and got a bunch of clowns…yes CLOWNS in there to fix the problem in 2010. they haven’t done crap other than throw the stock market into a tizzy and have us on the brink…again, of another financial freak out.
Yet they got in to office on the promise of fixing it and blaming Obama because he hadn’t. Well, they have had just as long as he had. Where is the fix? Where is it?
Congress controls stuff like this. Where is it? Where is the fix?
The last time I checked, the Republican-controlled House (since 2010) submitted budgets every year that would have kept us away from the financial cliff. True, the Republican budget had significant cuts in it. The Democrat alternative would have been to remove those cuts, which would have left trillion-dollar deficits. To avoid taking responsibility for the huge deficits, the politically adept solution adopted by the Senate and president was to avoid voting on the budget at all.
Bull snort. Give in to draconian cuts that ravage our way of life or forever be damned by the Republicans. I think I will take the latter.
The plan wasn’t acceptable to most of us.
@Moon-howler
So…you’re going for the sequestration then. Good for you!
Personally, I want the fiscal cliff to happen. I mean, it was good enough for Congress to implement…why isn’t it good enough now? To stop it, all they have to do is REPEAL IT. It’s an artificial construct. But the powers that be want the political football to continue. That’s why President Obama wants to delay the sequestration to next year…so he can beat and blame Republicans TWO years in a row for not “compromising.” Screw that. Let it all go. Congress and Obama wrote it. They own it.
As for “giving in to draconian cuts” because the House wrote a budget is wrong. They present the budget to the Senate. The Senate reviews and amends. Real compromise happens. But the do-nothing coward Democrats in the Senate won’t write a budget, breaking the law.
I also blame the House for voting on the spending bills. If the House was truly concerned, we would table every spending bill until the Senate did their jobs. If spending was a concern, and budgets were a concern, then the House would have started on this months ago and would have refused to consider any spending bills. If the Democrats were truly worried about the ‘sequester” they would have started working on this months ago.
I believe that the Democrats, through their refusal to compromise, WANTS the sequester to go through. They would love to use the destruction and harm caused by this to blame the GOP with the aid of their complicit allies in the press. Remember, in the press, Democrats do no wrong.
I say let it all go. The House should go on TV, announce that in the interest of the the nation, since the voters voted for higher taxes, they were going to send a bill agreeing to the non-renewal of the Bush tax cuts and agree to the Obama Tax Hikes. And don’t send any budget cut idea. If the Senate wants to change the sequestration cuts…let them do it.
They have compromised. They aren’t raising taxes on 98% of all Americans. That’s pretty good for Democrats, wouldn’t you say? (especially since you name-call and think they are all cowards)
What compromise? That’s not a compromise. The House agreeing to tax raises is a compromise…now the Democrats need to show some real cuts. But..hey….if you want that to be the only compromise…. I say we save them the heart ache. If leaving the 98% with their money is a compromise…let the sequestration go through and they won’t have to compromise. I don’t want them to compromise their principles.
I think that the Senate Democrats ARE cowards since they won’t do their jobs and present a budget. They are hiding. They don’t want to go on record for spending. If the Senate Democrats under Reid weren’t cowards, then they would present a budget and hash this budget thing out in the open. They don’t even discuss Obama’s budgets, killing it as soon it shows up. Both Obama and the House present budgets and Reid kills them and refuses to negotiate or accept either side. Wouldn’t you call that cowardly?