Another informative and interesting article from one of my favorite contributors, Mr. Greg Maresca. He raises some interesting statistics not often talked about. Thank you sir!
By: G. Maresca
As we observe the one-year anniversary of the World Health Organization’s proclaimed COVID-19 pandemic, one gratuitous prediction failed to materialize.
The combined effects of quarantines and lockdowns were supposed to result in a pandemic baby boom. The boom fizzled out quicker than wearing your mask while showering. As a result, the Brookings Institution reported the nation will experience an 8% decline or 300,000 fewer births.
The baby bust’s prevailing wave will wash over a generation and will have a greater effect on the future than the pandemic that spawned it.
Makes you wonder what else the “experts” got wrong throughout a pandemic that has yet to break the top 20 with the Swine Flu of 2009-2010 ranked 18th, according to LiveScience.com.
The reasons are as plentiful as disposable masks. School closures and public-gathering restrictions along with parents dealing with the stress of coalescing work and supervising their children, who no longer attend school five days a week, has taken its toll. The Institute reports 34% of women want to delay pregnancy, while a study from the IZA Institute of Labor Economics is predicting a double-digit drop in births this year.
According to a New York Times editorial, “Add these missing births to the country’s decade-long downward trend in annual births and we can expect consequential changes to our economy and society in the years to come.”
University of Southern California demographer Dowell Myers told CBS, America’s shrinking fertility rate is an economic crisis. For generations, the media and academia claimed overpopulation was wreaking havoc with the planet, taking the same line of reasoning as Ebenezer Scrooge who griped about reducing “the surplus population.”
Provided there are no people, what exactly is the planet being saved for?
Paul Ehrlich’s “The “Population Bomb” in 1970 wrongly predicted that “Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come … an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.” What did occur, however, was the Western world declared war on fertility and birth rates dropped below replacement.
Demographics have always been the canary in the coal mine. Low birth rates have historically resulted in a loss of population, less ingenuity and economic stagnation as the economy is fundamentally linked to the birth rate. Studies show that for every 1% increase in the unemployment rate is directly linked to a 1% drop in the birth rate. According to a study by the Federal Reserve in 2016, the decrease in fertility rates throughout the ‘60s and ‘70s was the largest factor for declining economic growth after 1980.
If the birth rate is higher than the replacement rate, a nation survives. If the birth rate is below the replacement rate, a nation is dying. The consequences of abortion, contraception, and disdain for the natural law coupled with an aging society has produced a cultural and demographic quagmire with no end in sight.
When the old outnumber the young, who will pay for Social Security and Medicare since existing workers fund those collecting? Moreover, there will be fewer in the work force to pay taxes and keep our economy growing among an aging population.
Throughout the West, governments have tried to increase birth rates through economic incentives like tax credits, paid childcare, and paid parental leave for not just the mother, but father, too. All have been met with little effect as the overall birthrate continues to decline.
Historically, we have solved many of our economic problems that derive from fewer births through immigration – a political football that politicians continue to fumble. One country can increase its demographics with immigration, but globally it remains a zero-sum game.
One of the most interesting and ironic statistics involving birth rates was the one developed country with twice the birthrate of the U.S.: Israel.
Obligation and sacrifice are both four letter words, and byproducts of our loss of religiosity. Many non-religious westerners care little about tradition and history.
Birth rates that have been precipitously dropping for two generations are now below replacement and not expected to increase. The West, having disregarded much of its Judeo-Christian footing, is not interested in reproducing itself as the command to be “fruitful and multiply” has been dismissed along with God who commands it.
Our country no longer recognizes Judeo-Christian values. God helps us.
Originally posted 2021-03-22 16:56:18.
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA – Revelations that the insurrection at the US Capitol included many former and current members of America’s armed forces have been met with alarm. And yet, as a 35-year veteran and retired commandant of the US Marine Corps, I saw the events of January 6 as the predictable culmination of a growing disconnect between the US military and civilian society.
Once home, many veterans joined organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, where they were surrounded by like-minded people who had served, suffered, and sacrificed together. Jobs were plentiful, and Americans took pride in their country and their military.
Similarly, in the Korean War less than a decade later, though America was never “all in,” it nonetheless had clear strategic goals. As in WWII, US servicemen and women did a remarkable job and came home to an appreciative country.
But then came Vietnam, where most Americans never really knew what their country was fighting for. When the conflict finally came to its ignominious end in April 1975, there was no victory to celebrate (and it certainly was not fireworks that flew from the roof of the US embassy in Saigon). Unlike previous generations, those who fought in Vietnam were not honored for their service and sacrifice. Equally important, the public backlash against the war led to the end of military conscription, which fundamentally transformed the relationship between the military and the American people. The rift created by the shift to an all-volunteer military has grown wider ever since.
After Vietnam, America’s next major war was Desert Storm, in 1990. Again, clear strategic goals were met in a dramatic fashion, and US servicemen and women returned to a proud country – on the cusp of becoming the world’s only remaining superpower with the collapse of the Soviet Union the following year.
Yet by the end of the Gulf War, globalization and technological change had already begun to reshape American society. Old-line industries were being upended, and many manufacturing jobs were disappearing. Although immigration had only a minor effect on the big economic picture, it became a hot-button political issue for those who found themselves out of work. At the same time, a new wave of social-justice issues also started gaining momentum during this period. As a microcosm of America, the US military was not immune to these political dynamics.
It was against this political, social, and economic backdrop that America embarked on its “long war.” Much like Vietnam, the “War on Terror” lacks clear strategic goals and has lost public buy-in over time. Many of those who have fought it subscribe to the apocryphal refrain that while the military was at war, America was at Walmart. After serving multiple tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, servicemen and women who sacrificed years of their lives have received little recognition.
In his 1973 book, The American Way of War, the historian Russell F. Weigley quoted US General George C. Marshall as saying, “a democracy cannot fight a Seven Years’ War,” because any protracted conflict eventually will lose the support of the electorate. The longer a war runs – particularly when it becomes cross-generational – the greater the disconnect between the typical citizen and the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who serve.
he War on Terror is an abiding case in point, helping to shed light on the unrest and extremism that burst into public view at the Capitol. A small minority of alienated former and active service members have concluded that something is wrong in the America for which they fought and sacrificed. The past two presidential elections have fueled this discontent and convinced some that they have a duty to confront perceived domestic “enemies.” Political leaders, meanwhile, have exploited these sentiments for their own advantage.
The COVID-19 pandemic also contributed to a perfect storm. As the economy shed jobs – particularly at the lower end of the income distribution – face-to-face interactions were no longer possible. With deepening social atomization, it has become more difficult to experience solidarity. Angst or boredom have afflicted many, and some have found refuge in online communities espousing extremist ideologies. The 2020 presidential election brought the situation to a boiling point. A sitting commander-in-chief openly sought to overturn a free and fair election with lies and intimidation, and a small minority of his acolytes answered his call to action. Really?
But Americans should have faith. Notwithstanding a few outliers, the US military is unwavering in its support of, and dedication to, the US Constitution. Those in its ranks who harbor extremist views will be discovered and dealt with appropriately. Looking ahead, recruitment methods will be strengthened to weed out extremists. Recruiters will have to look not only at candidates’ social-media activity but also at their “body paint” (tattoos) and other potential indicators of extremist or racist sympathies. Interviews will need to be more pointed, and education for active members improved.
While the troubling trajectory of US military-civil relations has created fertile ground for some members to be radicalized, it is important to remember that the insurrectionists represent an exception. The US military has defended American democracy for centuries and will continue to do so, in keeping with our noblest traditions. Yes, I agree general, you can bet on it!
CHARLES C. KRULAK
Writing for PS since 2020
4 Commentaries
In sum, I categorize this fellow in the same company as Mattis, Allen, and all the other Kool Aid drinking generals viewing the military through their woke eyes and ears. Krulak says the recruiters will take care of this supposed problem. LOL What does he know about recruiting — Nothing!