Joel Kotkin writes about the growing trend amongst SWPL urbanites to forgo having children all together. America has been atypical compared to much of the west insofar as demographic population growth. While birthrates had dropped in America like everywhere else in the west the replacement rate has remained positive. But as it stands now, outside of population migration into the cities, urban Americans are not having families, and they don't seem to mind.
Many of us how absolutely foolish the urban cohorts flippant attitude towards having families are. Demographic decline is not a pretty sight and many of these individuals who are eschewing children now will regret it in old age. Japan, which in many ways has been the canary in the coal mine, is a perfect example of the most personal impacts of demographic decline. And that is the every growing instance of individuals dying alone and their bodies being found days if not months later. The Japanese call it Kudokushi, the lonely death, and it has been a growing issue in Japan.
So in the end, not only is progressivism demographically unsustainable, but their most ardent cohorts will find themselves personally betrayed by it in the end. You don't destroy the familial bond and not suffer unfortunate consequences, and for many those consequences mean Kudokushi.
Showing posts with label Demographics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Demographics. Show all posts
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
The Rise of Patriarchy?
While perusing various blogs I stumbled onto a link to this foreign policy article, an old one, that talks about the return of patriarchy. Can it be, that the West's intolerably low birthrates will be the harbinger of the end of feminized society?
Now before I go farther into this post I want to clarify some things to prevent any confusion. That is the definition of what patriarchy is. To most individuals when I say the words patriarchy they assume a society that is ruled by men and women are subordinate to them, by law and custom. There are historical precedences for this viewpoint, ancient Rome was a legally patriarchal society, but that isn't entirely what patriarchy is, and it is not what the author of the post intends when he rights about the return to patriarchy. Though at the same time the author doesn't discount that it has very much been a political system and that some of those political systems have been outright ghastly towards women, such as the Taliban.
In the Western sense, it would be an argument to a return of many, though not all, of the social norms and values that governed the west for the last few hundred years; for example I do not see the stigma of homosexuality returning to it's puritan influenced origins. Perhaps in the most important sense, would be the return to the concept as the father being head of the household, which in the last forty years has declined significantly and is near non-existent today as evident by the rise of single parent homes and baby mommas.
This concept will be meet with a lot of flak, especially in the bluer more urban parts of America. It is not considered proper to speak ill of single parent hood, feminized society, the disparagement of men or the decline of traditional values. But these items need, nay will, be addressed. Society as it stands cannot exist the way it does. It is a simple impossibility. One of the most troubling issues today is the lack of fathers for many families, the black community being the largest example of this issue.
Children need fathers in their lives, boys need it so they learn how to become functional men and girls need fathers to provide positive male role models from which they will later use as a template when selecting a suitable mate. Without a father, boys and girls are more likely to become dysfunctional adults. Father figures are better than nothing, but they don't come close to real Fathers. And like it or not, Fathers have been heads of households since our species first walked the earth.
Like I said, this doesn't men we will return to the days were women traded like chattel between families; though to be fair young men often had little say in these arraignments as well. Or that women will retreat from the workforce. But I don't expect the feminized husband to remain, it is an absolute contradiction of a man's fundamental nature. Nor do I expect the stigma attached to women who choose to be housewives to remain. Either way, whether you think the return to patriarchy is good or not, the author argues that it will return, and there is nothing to be done to stop it. There is something to his argument.
The globe has seen a precipitous decline in birthrates which will challenge humanity in the coming century. What is interesting though is that societies have dealt with replacement rates below what was considered ideal. Often times this resulted in, or from, social discord, like in Ancient Rome and others it marked the permanent decline of the society that was eventually replaced by more virile ones. This is being seen in America as well. Joel Kotkin writes that much of the democrats base, outside of minorities, are white childless individuals, which raises long term issues for democrats, and more importantly, progressives. Conservatives are out breeding liberals, and if you look at US state fertility rates, you will see that only two of the top 20 states in terms of fertility have reliably voted democratic in the last four presidential elections.
Now this is ignoring the shifts due to increased Latino migration, who have overwhelmingly voted democratic, but there is a reason why. The reason is that I am not focusing on the democratic party, or even the ideology of statism as a whole, rather, it is a particular coalition of the democratic party, urban SWPL progressives. They have ensured their own demise, and that of their world view, simply due to the fact that they aren't having children, while more religious individuals are. There is a very real possibility that the state will grow, and we will see more socialism in America, but it won't be the kind that the urban progressive imagines, a gender nuetral society. Conservative minded individuals are more likely to have traditional, i.e patriarchal, families, and if this trend continues, then the premise of the authors article could very well come true. There is more to this, but that is another puts, just remember, demographics is destiny.
Now before I go farther into this post I want to clarify some things to prevent any confusion. That is the definition of what patriarchy is. To most individuals when I say the words patriarchy they assume a society that is ruled by men and women are subordinate to them, by law and custom. There are historical precedences for this viewpoint, ancient Rome was a legally patriarchal society, but that isn't entirely what patriarchy is, and it is not what the author of the post intends when he rights about the return to patriarchy. Though at the same time the author doesn't discount that it has very much been a political system and that some of those political systems have been outright ghastly towards women, such as the Taliban.
In the Western sense, it would be an argument to a return of many, though not all, of the social norms and values that governed the west for the last few hundred years; for example I do not see the stigma of homosexuality returning to it's puritan influenced origins. Perhaps in the most important sense, would be the return to the concept as the father being head of the household, which in the last forty years has declined significantly and is near non-existent today as evident by the rise of single parent homes and baby mommas.
This concept will be meet with a lot of flak, especially in the bluer more urban parts of America. It is not considered proper to speak ill of single parent hood, feminized society, the disparagement of men or the decline of traditional values. But these items need, nay will, be addressed. Society as it stands cannot exist the way it does. It is a simple impossibility. One of the most troubling issues today is the lack of fathers for many families, the black community being the largest example of this issue.
Children need fathers in their lives, boys need it so they learn how to become functional men and girls need fathers to provide positive male role models from which they will later use as a template when selecting a suitable mate. Without a father, boys and girls are more likely to become dysfunctional adults. Father figures are better than nothing, but they don't come close to real Fathers. And like it or not, Fathers have been heads of households since our species first walked the earth.
Like I said, this doesn't men we will return to the days were women traded like chattel between families; though to be fair young men often had little say in these arraignments as well. Or that women will retreat from the workforce. But I don't expect the feminized husband to remain, it is an absolute contradiction of a man's fundamental nature. Nor do I expect the stigma attached to women who choose to be housewives to remain. Either way, whether you think the return to patriarchy is good or not, the author argues that it will return, and there is nothing to be done to stop it. There is something to his argument.
The globe has seen a precipitous decline in birthrates which will challenge humanity in the coming century. What is interesting though is that societies have dealt with replacement rates below what was considered ideal. Often times this resulted in, or from, social discord, like in Ancient Rome and others it marked the permanent decline of the society that was eventually replaced by more virile ones. This is being seen in America as well. Joel Kotkin writes that much of the democrats base, outside of minorities, are white childless individuals, which raises long term issues for democrats, and more importantly, progressives. Conservatives are out breeding liberals, and if you look at US state fertility rates, you will see that only two of the top 20 states in terms of fertility have reliably voted democratic in the last four presidential elections.
Now this is ignoring the shifts due to increased Latino migration, who have overwhelmingly voted democratic, but there is a reason why. The reason is that I am not focusing on the democratic party, or even the ideology of statism as a whole, rather, it is a particular coalition of the democratic party, urban SWPL progressives. They have ensured their own demise, and that of their world view, simply due to the fact that they aren't having children, while more religious individuals are. There is a very real possibility that the state will grow, and we will see more socialism in America, but it won't be the kind that the urban progressive imagines, a gender nuetral society. Conservative minded individuals are more likely to have traditional, i.e patriarchal, families, and if this trend continues, then the premise of the authors article could very well come true. There is more to this, but that is another puts, just remember, demographics is destiny.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
China Working Population Decreasing
Demographics is destiny, it is something that I believe is true, and have used one of the many reasons why China will not be the next super power. Their demographic outlook is poor, and no society ever thrived while in demographic decline. Essentially a lot of analysts have summarized China's situation as 'they will get old before they get rich.' This is a known problem in China, but like all governments, their own has failed to even try and mend the situation. But there maybe a reason why, they may have already gone over the edge.
According to the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics, via Gordon Chang at Forbes, announced that 2012 saw a decline in the working age population from 2011 to 2012. And some demographers have postulated that 2010 was the year of peak employment numbers for China. This is not good, as it essentially means China has gone over the event horizon. While China had expected their peak population age to peak, it wasn't supposed to do so for another four years. The fact that it has happened earlier raises another specter.
It is estimated that China's population will start declining in absolute numbers around 2030, however, if peak employment as occurred before expected, then this means that peak population might occur sooner than anticipated. In fact, according to Gordon, some Chinese officials now expect the population peak to occur in 2020, fully 10 years before the official estimates.
The threat of a top heavy population distribution curve is well articulated in the United States, it is one of the reasons why we have unfunded liabilities around $ 80 trillion, but as bad as that is for America, Europe and Japan, wealthy industrialized nations, this is even worse for China. China, based off of 2011 statistics a per capita of just under $5,000, making it 114th according to the world Bank. Argentina, which just barely squeaks by into the highly developed category, had an income of just under $ 11,000 in 2011. And for nations that have traditionally been considered '1st world', Britain, with an HDI of .86 has an income per capital of over $ 38,000 in 2011.
To just reach the level Argentina is at now, China would have to double their income in the next 10 years. While China has experienced tremendous income growth over the last decade, it becomes harder to have exponential gains as time goes on, and given the global economic outlook. It would be very difficult for China to repeat its feat. Adding in China's real estate/infrastructure/government money bubble, and the outlook isn't good.
According to the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics, via Gordon Chang at Forbes, announced that 2012 saw a decline in the working age population from 2011 to 2012. And some demographers have postulated that 2010 was the year of peak employment numbers for China. This is not good, as it essentially means China has gone over the event horizon. While China had expected their peak population age to peak, it wasn't supposed to do so for another four years. The fact that it has happened earlier raises another specter.
It is estimated that China's population will start declining in absolute numbers around 2030, however, if peak employment as occurred before expected, then this means that peak population might occur sooner than anticipated. In fact, according to Gordon, some Chinese officials now expect the population peak to occur in 2020, fully 10 years before the official estimates.
The threat of a top heavy population distribution curve is well articulated in the United States, it is one of the reasons why we have unfunded liabilities around $ 80 trillion, but as bad as that is for America, Europe and Japan, wealthy industrialized nations, this is even worse for China. China, based off of 2011 statistics a per capita of just under $5,000, making it 114th according to the world Bank. Argentina, which just barely squeaks by into the highly developed category, had an income of just under $ 11,000 in 2011. And for nations that have traditionally been considered '1st world', Britain, with an HDI of .86 has an income per capital of over $ 38,000 in 2011.
To just reach the level Argentina is at now, China would have to double their income in the next 10 years. While China has experienced tremendous income growth over the last decade, it becomes harder to have exponential gains as time goes on, and given the global economic outlook. It would be very difficult for China to repeat its feat. Adding in China's real estate/infrastructure/government money bubble, and the outlook isn't good.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
California's Demographic Decline
It's only a small portion of Joel Kotkins essay, but he notes that Asian immigrants have stopped favoring California, and are increasingly heading to Houston, Fort Worth, Raleigh, and Nashville. California is facing demographic decline, and like China, Japan, Russia or other parts of Europe it means some difficult times are ahead.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
China Chooses Population Bust
Many individuals have talked about how the next century was China's century, and that they would overtake the United States as the sole super power of the world, however, this required numerous assumptions. First, it required the assumption that Chinese growth rates were continue as it had been for the last 20 years, and that is assuming that their growth rates were not tampered with show growth rates higher than what actually existed. Second, the assumption that technocrats call actually steer an economy or a nation, and history has shown us repeatedly the fallacy of thinking that way. Thirdly, it required turning a blind eye to the massive malinvestment driving Chinese growth numbers. Fourth, it requires us to ignore that even though the US imports energy, it produces more than twice the energy that China does. Lastly, there is the fact that China faces demographic decline.
This is a big deal for China because, up to this point in human history, no economy has ever grown when it's population has declined. Yes, the case of Japan illustrates that individual wealth growth can continue for a short time as economic decline lags behind demographic decline. But history has shown us that this is a near certainty. Computers, technology, robotics, this could be the means to break that cycle, however, these it will most likely be relatively wealthy nations that will be the first one's to develop these capacities. And China, with over 100 million living in poverty, and not the American version of poverty, doesn't have a lot of funds to spare.
You then also have the problem which faces Japan, America, and Europe, an elderly population dependent on a social safety net whose needs outstrip the youths ability to provide. China is going to get old before it gets rich. China has the double trouble of dealing with a large population that can barely scrap buy and an old population demanding that it be taken care of. It's like being tied to the train tracks with two trains coming at you head on.
Now some Malthusians would argue that this policy is a good idea, though my points before should start to illuminate the fact that assumption number two is absurd, given the fact that China is a net importer of food. They would argue that a declining population could help ameliorate the situation illustrated below:
China's Population Density
China's Farming Land Output
As you can see China has to deal with their people competing for the very same land that is used to generate their foodstuffs. As seen below the United States does not have this problem.
America's Population Density
America's Farming Productivity
The United States does population isn't vying for the same land where we grow most of our food. Moreover, much of China's eastern interior is incapable of any sort of real agricultural production. in America, outside of the southwestern deserts, the bayous, and the mega population centers, we do not have this issue. Though it should also be noted that California benefits from a very advanced system of agriculture that allows us to extract yields that would not be possible otherwise.
Where China has to import massive amounts of food, America is the largest exporter in the world. The US has the most arable land in the world and the most cultivated land. Even though, in my opinion, America is facing a terrible economic collapse, as is the rest of the world, America has the capability to at least feed her people and then some. China does not. And while China could develop the agricultural infrastructure to meet its needs just like America did. America was able to do so because it had an abundance of wealth, China will not have that wealth, not in time any ways.
There is a lesson to be learned here, and it is a simple one. Technocratic rulers are no more smarter, principled or farsighted than the average man. The leaders of China are not blind to the problems they face, however, they chose to keep their current course even though it spells demographic disaster. They did so simply because the have decided that they will better be able to keep power by doing so. For the technocrat, the state is of first importance, a countries economic well being is a secondary consideration. They might not even be cognizant of that fact, but that is exactly why they have elected to keep the one child policy.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
The 5 Nations Of America
As I have said in my blog post, and in numerous other posts in other blogger's blogs, I would expect the partition of the United States to be a disaster for a variety of reasons; none the least being that the real divide in America currently is rural versus urban, but I am digressing.
Here interesting article by Joel Koetkin were he writes about the '5 nations' of America. Now these nations aren't based on any racial cultural demographics, and really aren't multiple nations like there are say in the United Kingdom, and we should probably add a few more nations for the increasingly Latino southwest and mix raced Hawaii if we added a demographic view to it, rather they are based on geographic, economic, and political guidelines.
The nations, while mostly ignoring racial, religious, and urban versus rural make ups, are generally split into who they voted for in 2008 and their economic prospects. Joel Koetkins essentially makes these points:
The larger than normal growth for the red states may simply be conservative and libertarian leaning individuals leaving the states that they tolerated only because of economic incentives. Liberals are also leaving for the red nations, but I am willing to wager that they generally have been moving to states that have always leaned somewhat less right than others. If the growth of the red states is predominately a shifting of individuals with differing political opinions, then this could possibly change the divide from an urban and rural one to an actual geopgraphic one; which would make Vox's prediction more likely.
On the other hand, if it is simply a migration of individuals, regardless of political creed, to better performing areas, then the divide that currently exists doesn't change. Moreover, what happens to blue states as their population drops? Will they remain blue, or will they undergo a metamorphosis? I think it would be a mistake to assume, as so many do, that once a state goes blue, it remains blue. Once again, I will stress that this discounts certain demographic trends due to immigration and individuals varying beliefs on immigration, but the other point that needs to be taken into account, and which Joel Kotkin has pointed out before, is that conservatives are out breeding liberals.
It is entirely possible, however improbable it may appear, that even if red states start to blue we could see a general reddening of the country. Demographics is destiny, it is why China is in deep trouble, Why the Russia 100 years from now may not look like Russia today, why Japans civilization itself is threatened, and why the American progressive agenda might not survive the 21st century in America.
Now whether that means that America by virtue of demographics returns to a more constitutionally oriented society, assuming that either republican assumptions about the social conservativeness of Latinos are correct, or that if they are wrong and Latino immigration rates fall, or increased civil strife, like Vox predicts, remains to be seen. But one thing stands clear in my mind, the future of the United States, as a nation, as a society, and a civilization, depends on who is right about the effects immigration and immigrants; and what we as a nation do depending on who is right.
Here interesting article by Joel Koetkin were he writes about the '5 nations' of America. Now these nations aren't based on any racial cultural demographics, and really aren't multiple nations like there are say in the United Kingdom, and we should probably add a few more nations for the increasingly Latino southwest and mix raced Hawaii if we added a demographic view to it, rather they are based on geographic, economic, and political guidelines.
The nations, while mostly ignoring racial, religious, and urban versus rural make ups, are generally split into who they voted for in 2008 and their economic prospects. Joel Koetkins essentially makes these points:
- Given that both parties can reliably count on the two nations, each one is generally seeing larger and larger control of their respective regions, the rust belt becomes the fulcrum point on how national elections, and from there policy, will turn.
- The conservative nations are seeing far stronger economic and population growth relative to the liberal nations. Kotkin has said that despite short term set backs for republicans the long term state population growth demographics favor republicans; someone like Vox would disagree.
- Depending on what the president does on fracking, which heavily affects the rust belt states, it could evaporate democrats gains in this region of the country.
The larger than normal growth for the red states may simply be conservative and libertarian leaning individuals leaving the states that they tolerated only because of economic incentives. Liberals are also leaving for the red nations, but I am willing to wager that they generally have been moving to states that have always leaned somewhat less right than others. If the growth of the red states is predominately a shifting of individuals with differing political opinions, then this could possibly change the divide from an urban and rural one to an actual geopgraphic one; which would make Vox's prediction more likely.
On the other hand, if it is simply a migration of individuals, regardless of political creed, to better performing areas, then the divide that currently exists doesn't change. Moreover, what happens to blue states as their population drops? Will they remain blue, or will they undergo a metamorphosis? I think it would be a mistake to assume, as so many do, that once a state goes blue, it remains blue. Once again, I will stress that this discounts certain demographic trends due to immigration and individuals varying beliefs on immigration, but the other point that needs to be taken into account, and which Joel Kotkin has pointed out before, is that conservatives are out breeding liberals.
It is entirely possible, however improbable it may appear, that even if red states start to blue we could see a general reddening of the country. Demographics is destiny, it is why China is in deep trouble, Why the Russia 100 years from now may not look like Russia today, why Japans civilization itself is threatened, and why the American progressive agenda might not survive the 21st century in America.
Now whether that means that America by virtue of demographics returns to a more constitutionally oriented society, assuming that either republican assumptions about the social conservativeness of Latinos are correct, or that if they are wrong and Latino immigration rates fall, or increased civil strife, like Vox predicts, remains to be seen. But one thing stands clear in my mind, the future of the United States, as a nation, as a society, and a civilization, depends on who is right about the effects immigration and immigrants; and what we as a nation do depending on who is right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Cogitans Iuvenis
- Seattle resident whose real name is Kevin Daniels. This blog covers the following topics, libertarian philosophy, realpolitik, western culture, history and the pursuit of truth from the perspective of a libertarian traditionalist.