By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager
The Population Reference Bureau's 2012
World Population Data Sheet is out, and it doesn't hold many surprises. The
world's population is still increasing rapidly -- there are nearly 7.1 billion
of us. Most of the growth is happening in the world's
poorest countries.
But a few of the statistics for the United States are
liable to cause a freakout:
- Between 2010 and 2011, the U.S. population grew by only .7%, down from a more-typical 1%.
- The number of people under age 18 dropped by 190,000.
- The number of older Americans grew by 917,000. In other words, the U.S. population is growing more slowly and aging more rapidly.
This is when right-wingers usually argue that American women
need to have more babies. Right now. For Social Security and Medicare, among other reasons.
An example of this reasoning was contained in a recent Wall Street
Journal op-ed by Ben J.
Wattenberg, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He
writes:
“Never-born babies are the root
cause of the ‘social deficit’ that plagues nations across the world and
threatens to break the bank in many. When a very large cohort of population (a ‘baby
boom’) is followed by a very small cohort (a ‘birth dearth’), there will be
relatively few working-age people to underwrite the benefits of the many
seniors who have paid into national retirement systems, such as Social Security
and Medicare.”
So whom does Wattenberg blame for this “birth dearth”? Selfish, hedonistic American
women, it seems:
“Women are pursuing education to
an extent never seen before, and women with advanced education have fewer
children than women with less schooling. …
As incomes go up—and they have gone way up over recent decades—fertility
tends to decline, and this is especially true as more women enter the
workforce. The additional family income is important. But pregnancies and
child-rearing interfere with that, and so are sometimes viewed as unacceptable
sacrifices to the good life.”
 |
| What are you doing, lady? You're supposed to be having kids! (Ralph and Jenny/Foter) |
So ladies: It appears that you're supposed to forgo an education and career in favor of staying home and pumping out babies in order to pay for Mr. Wattenberg's Social Security. Yeah. We'll get right on that.
We sent a letter to the editor in response to Wattenberg’s
op-ed, but the Wall Street Journal didn’t publish it (shocker!) So here’s our
take. Enjoy:
Editor:
Ben J. Wattenberg’s solution
(“What’s Really Behind the Entitlement Crisis,” July 12) to increase the
American birth rate seems a bit like solving the problem of 100 mice in
your home by investing in 100 cats. Sure, it might take care of the problem,
but you’re looking at much bigger problems down the road.
First of all, children are not
free. Society must ensure that they receive adequate nutrition, health care, and
– if they are to grow up to read the Wall Street Journal – education.
Adding millions more young Americans would require enormous investments in
roads, bridges, water systems and schools – where will the money come from? And
speaking of water, ask anyone in the West: They’re already running low.
Wattenberg also seems quite
dismissive of the desires of young American women. How can it possibly be a bad
thing that women are pursing higher education and careers and marrying later?
As for contraception, what’s wrong with people who don’t want a child at the
moment taking steps to prevent one? It seems that Wattenberg is criticizing
people for taking responsibility.
The only way we can expect to
meet future needs is through increased productivity – so that additional needed
goods and services can be produced. It stands to reason that smaller families
are in a better position to provide for each child. Investments in health and
education are critical to greater productivity. The old adage about “building a
better mousetrap” still applies. There really is no limit to what a healthy,
well-educated person can do to make the world better.
John Seager
President, Population Connection
