Re: "Evidently you have no concept of what the man is saying."
Funny... I was about to say EXACTLY the same thing about YOU as far as YOU not understanding my reply!
Re: "Taking JUST the two demographic areas he used, there will, in time, be a huge difference."
That's just it --- he doesn't provide any convincing numbers, nor reasons to believe that he has tweaked out the previously unsuspected functioning of any trend with 'legs'. The numbers would have to carry his argument (not idle speculation), and the article didn't offer the goods, just lots of 'wishing'....
Dream-on though, Pro, if it makes you happy to believe in the future he predicts. (Dreams are cheap entertainment, I would not dare to deny them to anyone... but, personally, I believe that the VERIFIED Census Department numbers are more likely to reveal societal trends with 'legs'. Still, any kind of future is 'possible'. He could turn out to be correct, even though he has no hard evidence yet of that.)
==================================================
Like I said, though, in my reply to your post:
1) Right now --- the statistics tell us that US society as a whole, (when measuring attitudes towards racism, sexuality, expectations of privacy, etc., i.e. 'social' attitudes) is moving generation-by-generation in the direction of greater, not lesser, societal tolerance. (Not that that is the only way societies can evolve.)
2) As to the 'other half' of the 'conservative/liberalism' spectrum, attitudes towards finance and government ('fiscal conservatiusm/liberalism') I don't believe I could say where American attitudes are trending... attitudes seem all over the board (maybe they are worse then that though... maybe I'm just being optimistic).
There ARE a few conclusions that can be generalized about the intersection of economics and demographics though... and these have much more solid evidenciary support then the <possibly idle> speculations of 'conservative children populating the United States' that your article attempted to draw:
3) All around the world, since the advent of the Industrial revolution, INCREASING WEALTH results in FALLING BIRTH RATES. (The so-called 'wealth effect'.) Italy, to name just one example, is now at below replacement birth rates.
Alternately, *lower birth rates* (freeing up women for the work force, and increasing family retained wealth, thus investable capital in the society), increase the rate of economic growth... ceuterus paribus.
But, there IS a counter-vailing effect.
4) To the extent that a society is EITHER 'information-based' (i.e., economic growth depends upon innovation, brain-power) --- and that society is capable of adequately EDUCATING it's children so they are capable of suceeding in the work force... OR if a society is low-tech, essentially agrarian, and it's national product is dependent upon the availability of manual labor, in *either* of these examples economic growth is (to a point...) positively influenced by higher birth rates.
One current example of this could be China and India. (Because of China's 'one child' rule, India is expected to surpass China's population by 2030 or so.... And, by 2015 or so India's GROWTH RATE might exceed that of China.)
Note however, that even then... China will still be RICHER then India will be, and the per capita income of China's families will still be *higher*... because of the earlier mentioned effects.
|
