Baby "drought" baby boomers and the elephant in the cobra

[question everything]

This morning on CBS Sunday they were talking about women who chose not to have children. And at some point someone mentioned the term "baby drought" adding how lack of new generation will hurt our society: not enough young people to take care of seniors, not enough young people to sustain Social Security, etc. Several weeks ago LA Mayor pointed out that we need to allow undocumented workers to become documented so that they will contribute to Social Security and Medicare funds.

All true. But I am reminded of the description of the baby boomers as the elephant moving inside the cobra. Yes, we caused the opening of new schools, spiked new home constructions, new furniture, increased college enrollment and now senior population.

But how long will this last? The elephant eventually will traverse the length of the cobra and in 20 to 40 years, all this great demand will subside, no?

So why the alarm? Many new schools that opened in the 50s had to be closed in the 80s. Some wonder who would purchase all the houses now occupied by the baby boomers. Thus, I would think, at some point we will balance the different populations.

No?

What do DUers think?

[Fumesucker]

1. Plenty of undocumented workers contribute to Social Security

They just don't get to draw anything out ever.

If they are using fake SS numbers the employers still withhold their taxes and SS contributions.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Growth is unsustainable. And I'm not going to get the SS that I hoped for.

Others disagree, but SS was fat while the population was growing but now the shit's going to hit the fan.

Ah well, in the long term our numbers will balance, I suppose, but not while I'm alive.

[Iris]

8. You know, that's a myth that's been spread by libertarians and right wing conservatives for a couple

of decades now. There's no real evidence that SS is in danger unless we make it so.

Here's one alternative viewpoint that doesn't get a lot of attention in the media:

http://www.plymouth.edu/magazine/faculty-forum/how-secure-is-social-security/

[NYC_SKP]

10. We are making it so.

I'm not arguing its solvency, I'm arguing whether or not it will be fairly distributed and I maintain that it will not, it will not be adjusted for inflation and cost of living and what it pays me will be worth less than half what my parents received.

You aren't in my situation, either.

Having been in a classroom for some years and drawn SS in other years, I'm likely to be screwed and disallowed by one to collect the other.

At least that's what a lot of people have told me.

[WinkyDink]

3. Raise the SS limit.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

4. I'm trying to wrap my head around the metaphor. Can you explain?

This is a serious question. It might help me better understand what you're asking.

Thanks

[question everything]

12. I think it is sometimes refered to as "Pig in a snake"

Mostly, a bulge moving along a flat container. The baby boomers changed many social and demographic trends. But then moved farther. The example that I gave is the schools. In the 50s, many new schools and kindergartens were built to accommodate the new kids. But 20 years later, the population of school kids declines and the schools closed.

Same with new housing, expanding jobs, large college classes that ballooned as the baby boomers entered this stage. But at some point there are fewer college bound kids, fewer home buyers. For example. I've heard that some fear that once the baby boomers will start retiring, there will not be enough younger workers to take their places.

I've even heard that once baby boomers start cashing out their retirement funds, that this could affect the stock market.

I hope this explains.

[winter is coming]

5. If TPTB want people to have more babies, they're going to need to pay workers more.

50 years ago, you could raise 4 kids on one salary. These days, it's a struggle to raise 2 on two salaries.

[enough]

6. There is no baby drought. It's only a small number of women who aren't having

babies. Every day I go to the gym (a very diverse place) and it is PACKED with young women bringing their children to the drop-off daycare so they (the mothers) can work out. Most of them have at least two small children, many have three. A lot of these mothers also have older kids in elementary school. At any given time there are many pregnant women taking classes, and many who have just given birth.

The world has PLENTY of new babies coming along, and I mean PLENTY!

[moondust]

7. Boomlet.

A record number of babies were born in the USA in 2007, according to early federal data released Wednesday that some demographers say could signal an impending baby "boomlet."

~

The last time the number was this high was in 1957, in the middle of the baby boom years; about 78 million Americans were born from 1946 to 1964.

~

"I suspect this is the beginning of a new kind of baby boom, although it's going to be nowhere near the baby boom of the 1950s or '60s," says demographer Arthur Nelson of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. "It will be sort of a boomlet."

~

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-16-baby-boomlet_N.htm?csp=34

[mzteris]

9. as long as they're aren't feathers

from the full quiver movement.

[question everything]

13. One year, or even five years boomlets

cannot be compared with the 16-18 years that generated the baby boomers. And, I think that this 2007 boomlet was followed by a baby "drought" of the 2009-2011 recession.

[moondust]

15. The link I posted

Last edited Mon May 13, 2013, 01:05 AM - Edit history (1)

has a chart at the bottom that makes things look maybe not so bad.

And, incidentally, I've usually heard it referred to more as a pig moving through a snake rather than an elephant.

[customerserviceguy]

11. Yes, it will subside

It's getting through that 20 to 40 year period that is the tough thing. As you properly point out, the parents and the grandparents of the baby boomers were willing to invest in schools for these children in the 1950's through the early 1970's. Will the grandchildren of the boomers be willing to bear the burdens of the tax increases that will be necessary to fund the baby boomer Social Security checks? I'm not holding my breath waiting to see how charitable they're going to be.

I've been noticing that for just about every year since the start of the Great Recession, the Social Security Administration trustees have moved back the day of reckoning for Social Security by three years. The most recent estimate (from 2012) is that by 2033, the trust funds will be depleted, and that's projecting today's low inflation rates. Chained CPI or not, inflation in the levels seen in the 1960's and most of the 1970's will certainly accellerate that pace of depletion. Continued slow job growth, or the replacement of decent paying jobs with crappy McJobs will also keep the slide going.

If that every year forward, we slide back three years trend continues, 2017 or 2018 is where the day of reckoning comes. I hope that doesn't happen, but if you reflect on the fact that the peak of the baby boom was 1957, and they all hit 67 in 2024, then it's very hard to be optimistic. The majority of the boomers born between 1946 and 1956 who hit retirement age will still be alive, too. And the tsunami waves crashing against the shores of Social Security will not wane until the last of the boomers born in 1964 turn 67 in 2031. Yes, it will all pass, but what damage will we see along the way?

[bhikkhu]

14. The US birthrate is fine

I think, in the medium term, those countries with the lowest birthrates are going to be best set for a difficult future.

[question everything]

16. I agree

Whenever I hear "leaders" complaining about birthrate, demanding to increase immigration to sustain our "growth" I am thinking of the natural resources. Where are we going to have all the water to sustain the required increase in population? Especially in the SW where growth has been.