I wouldn't be so sure of any of this. Not in the US. (I have no idea about Europe). Are you familiar with the term "notch babies"? The "Baby Boom" after WW II was not the first event of it's kind. After WW I, the same thing happened. Those children (who are now about 80 years old, (give or take) if still alive were, for Social Security purposes, put into a "notch". Meaning if they were born between certain years (don't know the exact years, but somewhere around 1920), they receive less in SS benefits than people born just prior to them, or just after them. It is highly likely the same can happen to the baby boomers of the late 40's and 50's. The money can either be distributed more evenly (lesser benefits), or, as pointed out, an unfair burden will be put on younger generations. Is it fair to be penalized for being born at the wrong time? Too soon? Too late? People will get screwed one way or the other. No way to satisfy everyone. But history does have it's "notch babies", and since even the oldest of the post WW II baby boomers are still (I believe) about 11 or 12 years away from full SS retirement eligibility, there is still time for surprises. One thing is for sure. Being bitter about being born too soon, or too late doesn't help anything. No one ever had a choice as to when they were born, or to whom, or where, as far as I know. Peace, RS
This is nuts. I think it will be a little while before folks start to come back to reality. It amazes me how the "boomer" generation is able to engineer circumstances to their own gain. What was it that programmed them to be so self serving? The politics never fail to amaze me either. Policies often seem to be written so that they can continue living a pretentious "look at me" life style and go out with a bang. But then they preach environmental conservation while driving SUV's and building monolithic suburban dwellings. In other words, all of the younger folks need to learn how to live frugally so that they can make up for the boomer's self indulgence. There something that appears to be overlooked, as future generations come into roles of responsability, they are able to effect change. It is possible to legislativly realign these social imbalances, unless of course younger people are allowing themselves to fall prey to a destructive defeatist mentality. Which, evidenced in the social culture, appears to be the case. Oh, it'll be interesting. good trading, gordo
What is "nuts" is pretending that all the Boomers somehow colluded to rob the next generation. They were a product of their environment, just like every other generation. Only the Boomers grew up in a "America is the greatest thing ever! Spend all you like man, spend I tell ya! This is the land of opportunity! Yee Ha!" kind of environment, went through a "Hmm, maybe it ain't" patch in the 70s, and hit their stride in the "Oh yes it is!" go-go 80s and the "We're all gonna be rich!" 90s.
Believe me it is not the poor, per se, that I am worried about. It is overpopulation, a problem we seem to be absolutely incapable of coming to grips with. I'm just as pissed off at the well-to-do Mormons and others who are reproducing at a ridiculous rate. Unfortunately, the arguments you and so many others make, are simply a diversion. It's another way of avoiding confronting the inevitable bottom-line problem of TOO MANY EFFING HUMANS on this small planet. The diversionary argument that poor people consume less really isn't to the point. All around the world people have been infected by the developed worlds lust for STUFF. So all those poor people are going to pursue the same materialistic ends. Look at China. Imagine the global impacts of all these people living like the gluttons of the west do. It's headed that way. Any attempt to rationalize population growth is insane. If you want to read the most whacked out stupidity, look at Julian Simon's books. But many people take these bromides and continue about their lives in happy ignorance. All one has to do is study even a little natural history to see what a goddamned mess we are making of things. I suggest E. Wilson's "Diversity of Life" or Quammen's "Song of the Dodo". The crowning acheivement of idiotic behavior has to be the current conservative US administration doing all they can to limit birth control in the third world and even in the US. g
Ok, but when you say it's "frigtening how those at the lowest economic rungs reproduce without at thought to the consequances... look at the developing world...what a mess", how else am I supposed to take it except that you regard the poor -- the real poor, the $1/day folks -- as some kind of unthinking parasites for daring to have offspring? Overpopulation isn't yet, I don't think, that much of a problem, nor will it be for another good fifty years yet. Apart from the third world (you're right, they do have a lot of kids, but there are reasons though) population levels, with some planning, could be kept at simply replacement, or below replacement levels; like what is happening in Europe right now. You're right that it's the developing countries we need to focus on, but I'm not sure you can (have the right to or the means to) dictate terms to them; especially tricky in the Muslim world, where having plenty of children is encouraged. When population does become a problem, or a bigger problem, is, as you say, when a billion Chinese, or a billion Indians, (and I think it's much more of a "when" with the Chinese and more of an "if" with the Indians, at least in our life times) start wanting to live the way the American of 2003 does. I agree that guys like Julian Simon, the Henry Blodgett of economists, have an irrational blind faith in the ability of technology to continually keep getting us out of jams. (And in Simon's case, I'm bewildered by his apparent lack of understanding of very real problems we even have today, let alone tomorrow. It's permanent sunshine in this guy's world.)
My remark about the poor was not thought out well...it did sound like I was dumping on the poor. That wasn't the intent. I understand there are reasons for the poor often having large families. Some of those reasons make 'sense', others are not really all that rational, eg, following the teachings of certain religions in this regard. But the end result is the same...too many people. As for population not being much of a problem...I absolutely disagree! It is a real problem now, but we are just buying time. Much of how you see this problem depends on your values, education, culture, etc. But there are some inescapable facts about human overpopulation. We ARE making changes in the world environment that cannot be 'repaired'. True, many people could care less about species diversity and it may take a long time for the true impact to be known, but we are destroying a huge amount of biological diversity and at an ever increasing rate. For my life, it may not matter much, since I am nearly 60. But for those who come after it is a terrible tragedy. I really don't understand how people can see this any other way.
What I meant to say was " this is nuts" in response to the policies in Belgium and France. It seems to me to be an incredible period to be repsonsible for full benefits to employees.