This is going to sound very harsh -- but we are prolonging
life well beyond what we should. We are saving babies we should not. Through humanitarian efforts we have reduced
the death rate in a country like Niger from 23.17 deaths per 1000 people in
2000 to 13.76 per 1000 people in 2012 but we have done NOTHING to quell the
birthrate of over 50 per 1000 people. We
cannot address one end of life while ignoring the other.
In developed countries, the necessary replacement rate is
about 2.1. Since replacement cannot occur if a child does not grow to maturity
and have their own offspring, the need for the extra .1 child (a 5% buffer) per
woman is due to the potential for death and those who choose or are unable to
have children. In less developed countries, the replacement rate is around 2.3
due to higher childhood and adult death rates.
With total fertility rates of 7.37 in Niger (as of
mid-2007), the resultant growth in these countries' populations is expected to be
phenomenal over the next few years, unless growth rates and total fertility
rates drop. The total fertility rate in the US in 2010 was only 1.931. We are
not replacing ourselves. Our increase in
population now (and this started in about 2002 when the birthrate dropped below
replacement rate) is due to immigration. If we really do want to take care of ourselves
immigration policy has got to change.
The number of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the country
hit a new record of 40 million in 2010, a 28 percent increase over the total in
2000. In 2010, 23% of immigrants and
their U.S.-born children (under 18) lived in poverty, compared to 13.5% of
natives and their children. Immigrants and their children accounted for
one-fourth of all persons in poverty. The
children of immigrants account for one-third of all children in poverty. In 2010, 36% of immigrant-headed households
used at least one major welfare program (primarily food assistance and
Medicaid) compared to 23 percent of native households.
Of adult immigrants (25 to 65), 28 percent have not
completed high school, compared to 7 percent of natives. The large share of immigrants with relatively
little education is one of the primary reasons for their lower socioeconomic
status, not their legal status or unwillingness to work. New immigration (legal
and illegal) plus births to immigrants added 22.5 million residents to the
country over the last decade, equal to 80 percent of total U.S. population
growth.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless,
Tempest-tossed to me!
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
This was written by Emma Lazarus as a sonnet in 1883; its
lines appear on a bronze plaque in the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty placed
there in 1903. It is a wonderful creed and it does describe the fabric of Early
America. The welfare system in the United States didn't begin until in the 1930s
during the Great Depression -- three decades after this sonnet was included as
a part of our informal immigration philosophy. The start of the American
welfare state found expression in the work-creation policies of the New Deal.
Love the New Deal or hate it -- it was "work fare". It was at least molded
in creating jobs and engaging people in WORK. It was believed then that
character and self confidence was supported by feeling useful. That part of the New Deal is hard to argue
with. Today we reward sloth and we do little to encourage people to discover
what they are capable of. We give them
no incentive.
Times have changed and so must we. The United States has ceased to be a land of
opportunity where one can achieve based on what an immigrant is willing to
invest -- be it financial or sweat. It
is a land of hand outs. We are allowing
native born people to not only subsidize other native born people but to
heavily subsidize immigrants. If you
come here you come to work. If you can't
afford to bring your family then you bring them when you can afford it. I would
not expect it any other way were I the one immigrating. When I lived in Mexico as a kid, I never
dreamed to speak English to anyone. I was on their turf and I respected that. A
bleeding heart will more often than not bleed out. Hard decisions are hard.
Malthusian economics is often called the "economics of
death" and it gets a bad rap for being focused on pessimism; it is brutal
in a "nature" sense. The great
Malthusian dread was that "indiscriminate charity" would lead to
exponential growth in the population in poverty, increased charges to the
public purse to support this growing army of the dependent, and, eventually,
the catastrophe of national bankruptcy. Though Malthusianism has since come to
be identified with the issue of general over-population, the original
Malthusian concern was more specifically with the fear of over-population by
the dependent poor!
In the United States in 2010 the birthrate to women whose
household income was under $10K was 98.30 babies per 1000 people. The rate for household incomes over $75K was
54.80 per 1000, just at half the rate of those earning under $10K. As the
income increases on the chart the birth rate declines in a unbroken
trajectory. So have we created a perfect
Malthusian storm? I would argue, yes we have.
And the programs and the trajectory that the United States in on only
projects worse.
We can't reward people for having babies they can't afford.
I was in line one day at a store and the cashier and the lady at the register
were bragging about how many babies their daughters each had and how much free
stuff they were each getting because of it.
We shouldn't prolong life just to have our heartbeat a little longer;
give me the right to end my life when I want to and I will! We can't bring aid
to countries that refuse to change their behavior. If people could keep their
own earnings and not allow the government to redistribute it -- yes, there
would be a generation of suffering.
There would. But until something changes we are all going to fail and suffer
in ways you have yet to imagine. The birthrate in poverty is growing and it is exponential. It will kill all of us or reduce us to tribes
and bands of survivalists. I wish I had
been born in the 40s. Those of us who
are now reaching middle age did enjoy a wonderful childhood; for that I am
grateful. Our aging is going to get harder and harder. I am happy to take care
of myself if my government will let me keep what is MINE and allow me to do
that.
For those of you reaching your twilight years -- good for
you! You had a blessed generation rife
with opportunity; you all had the chance to do very well for yourselves and
even if you did not, you have some safety nets in place that will probably
outlast you. For you young people, I am
sorry this has happened to you. I am
sorry that you will carry the burden of bad government decisions. I am sorry that you will have only two
outcomes: 1) you will live in what amounts to be a communist society where each
of you pools everything and a centralized government will hand back to you an
"equal" share regardless of how much you contributed or 2) you will
live in warring tribes, fighting to keep what is yours from marauders and thieves.
It is my hope that you will take pity on the elderly like I will be and allow
me to fend for myself unattacked and unassaulted. If you really NEED it, I will share and we
can work together. I will teach you with my experience and you can help me with
your youth. If you demand to take it
from me and insist on leaving me with nothing, I will gladly die trying to
protect myself and my well-being and mine will be a "good death".
No comments:
Post a Comment