The Population Scales Have Tipped

When World War II ended, there was a surge…of kids.  This generation, now known as the “Baby Boomers,” was partially due to the economic prosperity following.  It was feasible to keep so many children.  In 2013, we’re facing the opposite situation.  The economy is down.  We’re having fewer babies.

At first, it seems logical and fine.  The economy can’t support too many children, so we shouldn’t have them.  Because of the Baby Boomers, though, there’s a large increase in the population moving on to its elderly stages.  These elders need to be supported financially by the younger generation…which we now have less of.

An article from USA Today, titled “As U.S. birth rate drops, concern for the future mounts,” says, “In 1970, there were 22.2 Americans age 65 and over for every 100 working-age adults ages 25 to 64, Myers says. By 2010, that had gone up to 24.6 and based on Census projections, the ratio will rise above 40 by 2030.”  Essentially, the retired population is growing while the working population is shrinking.

This means that each of the younger generation will have to dole out more money than their predecessors.  Such a situation will further burden the economy.  After all, if these future-adults are spending large sums of cash on income taxes, they’ll be spending less to push along our capitalist economy.  As seen during the Great Depression, no one is happy once that starts happening.

What this seems to imply is that people should have more kids in order to stabilize things.  My personal opinion is that this won’t work.  Overall, our nation (and the world, which is following this trend) needs fewer people to support, not more.  We’re already nudging toward overpopulation.  2012 brought Earth’s population to 7 billion.  The Earth wasn’t really meant to handle 7 billion people!  We’re straining the resources.

When China realized it was facing overpopulation, it put into place new laws.  The main concept allowed only one child to each family.  Some women were told to abort an extra pregnancy.  Couples were often sterilized if they did have two children.  The U.S., as well as other countries, protested such laws.  The rules have since lost strictness.  However, the population did go down and, as a result, the standard of living did increase.

I’m not saying we should be like China.  (Besides, I don’t see us having a need to enforce any laws because people seem to be trending towards smaller families on their own.)  I’m saying that having fewer people in the long run could be a good thing.  It’s a problem now, but it may be a saving grace later.  In fifty years, we don’t want a future where half the population is starving, housing is cramped, and hardly anyone can afford anything but public transportation.

A restructuring may be in order.  There has to be a happy medium between proper retirement funds and not wringing the working force dry, therefore causing the capitalist economy to all but collapse.  Before that medium is reached, I have a feeling that things will get worse.  We’ll want to rage at the government and hate our president and blame whoever we can for making decisions that need to be made.  We’ll want to complain about how the world’s gone down the drain.  We’ll make movies with stories allegorical to increases in poverty, perhaps a few more dystopian sci-fi flicks.  Really, though, whose fault is it?

You could say “no one’s” I suppose.  There isn’t an individual to blame.  This kind of thing is something that couldn’t be foreseen or controlled—which raises the question: What would stop this from happening again?