Oxford College of London

Study Graduate and Postgraduate courses at Highly Trusted College.

Harvard University

Harvard University, which celebrated its 375th anniversary in 2011

Washington University in St. Louis

Washington University in St. Louis (Washington University, Wash. U., or WUSTL) is a private research university located in suburban St. Louis, Missouri, United States. Founded in 1853, and named for George Washington

Edith Cowan University Western Australia

Edith Cowan is a multi-campus institution, offering undergraduate and postgraduate courses in Perth and Bunbury, Western Australia.

Showing posts with label Cliff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cliff. Show all posts

Monday, April 22, 2013

The American Demographic Cliff

Over the last few years, we have been bombarded with apocalyptic phrases such as “fiscal cliff,” “sequestration,” “entitlement cliff,” and the persistent debt ceiling crisis.  All of these are real issues and reflect the unwillingness of our governmental leaders to address the serious financial condition of America.  But a recent article in the Wall Street Journal by Jonathan V. Last summarizes an even deeper crisis, one that captures one of the real causes of our nation’s financial crisis:  A serious demographic cliff—the declining fertility rate in the United States.  [The fertility rate is the number of children an average woman bears over the course of her life.]  The fertility replacement rate is 2.1.  Therefore, if the average woman has more children than that, the population grows; fewer children and it contracts.  Today, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the fertility rate in America is 1.93.  In fact, the fertility rate in America has not been above the replacement rate since the early 1970s.  The results of this demographic reality are obvious:  There are more old people than young and, over time, as the older population dies, the population contracts.  As Last argues, “This dual problem—a population that is disproportionately old and shrinking overall—has enormous economic, political and cultural consequences.”

Since the 1960s, we have been warned by some that we are facing dreadful dangers worldwide due to overpopulation.  The prophets of this doom followed the frightening language of Thomas Malthus, an English minister of the 18th century, who predicted that food production could not keep up with population growth.  The inevitable result, he argued, was calamity—starvation and malnutrition.  But this conventional wisdom has proved to be wrong.  (1)  The global population is slowing and will actually shrink within 60 years.  (2)  Economist Esther Bosercups and Julian Simon have demonstrated that growing populations “lead to increased innovation and conservation. . . Since 1970, commodity prices have continued to fall and America’s environment has become much cleaner and more sustainable—even though our population has increased by more than 50%.  Human ingenuity, it turns out, is the most precious resource.”  As Last argues, low-fertility societies do not innovate because their incentives for consumption tilt overwhelmingly toward health care.  Instead of investing aggressively in innovative projects, with the average age skewing higher, capital thereby shifts to preserving and extending life.  Social Security programs are therefore in danger of insufficient funding because there are not enough workers to sustain the program.  Therefore, civilizations facing this demographic shift begin spending less on defense and their position in the world begins to decline.  Thus, as Last’s article demonstrates, if the fertility rate of America were 2.5 or even 2.2, many of our problems would be a lot more manageable.

But this demographic challenge of declining fertility rates is also a worldwide problem.  In fact, 97% of the world’s population now lives in nations with declining fertility rates.  Indeed, Japan is a powerful and compelling example of how serious the fertility rate decline can be.  Its current fertility rate is 1.3.  You might recall that in the 1980s nearly everyone looked to Japan as the rising economic power of the world.  It was buying significant parts of American real estate as well as other American assets.  But that is not the situation today.  Few see Japan as an aggressive economic powerhouse ready to take over the world.  Because of its dismal fertility rate, Japan’s population peaked in 2008 and has shrunk by a million since then.  As Last shows, “Last year, for the first time, the Japanese bought more adult diapers than diapers for babies, and more than half the country was categorized as ‘depopulated marginal land.’  At the current fertility rate, by 2100 Japan’s population will be less than half what it is now.”  For America, there is hope that we will not be another Japan.  Our immigration rate is far higher than most nations and that has helped prevent the US from careening off the demographic cliff.  The source of this immigration is of course Latin America, but the fertility rates of these nations are in decline at a rate even more extreme that the US.  Last argues that “Many countries in South America are already below replacement level, and they send very few immigrants our way.  And every other country in Central and South America is on a steep dive toward the replacement line.”  Mexico has been the source of hundreds of thousands of immigrants—both legal and illegal—into the US.  But, for the last three years there has been a net immigration of zero.  There are, of course, many reasons for this, but it does demonstrate how immigrant numbers can shift quickly.

What then are we to do as a nation?  There are political, financial and social solutions.  Changing tax policy is an important part of the solution, as well fostering innovation through sensible deregulating polices.  But these simple steps will not solve the real problem—the spiritual problem.  Biblical Christianity fosters the importance of the family and the inestimable value of children as a gift from God.  One of the key elements of human sexuality, according to Scripture, is procreation.  The Bible affirms the blessing of a man and woman whose “quiver is full of children.”  But there is one sobering and provocative issue that at its core is both ethical and spiritual—abortion.  American civilization has bought the lie that the rights of the woman are more central than the rights of the baby in that woman’s womb.  Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, the United States has sanctioned the murder of 53 million babies.  What would our demographic situation be if those 53 million babies were now adults?  Would our fertility rate be higher?  Would there be more workers funding Social Security and Medicare?  What inventions and creative, innovative solutions were not discovered or proposed because the persons who would have discovered those were killed as a baby?  America’s demographic crisis is exacerbating the debt crisis and the coming calamity of insufficient funding for both Social Security and Medicare.  But only the naïve ignore the other cause of this crisis.  The abortion holocaust has produced an unintended consequence for American civilization.  When our civilization made the ethical choice to justify abortion (the killing of a human life), it made certain that there also would be a demographic crisis.  Ethical choices such as abortion are never made in a vacuum.  Such choices have rolling consequences through the culture.  We are not only living with the shortsightedness of our leaders when it comes to the American financial condition; we are living with the consequences of placing the rights of the woman above the rights of her child.  Now there are fewer children to care for and pay the taxes to support those same women in their retirement.  Unwise and sinful ethical choices do indeed have profound consequences!

See Jonathan V. Last in the Wall Street Journal (2-3 February 2013).  PRINT PDF


View the original article here

Sunday, January 27, 2013

The Fiscal Cliff Deal: A Study in Leadership Failure

The deal to avert the fiscal cliff has been made, averting for the short term another fiscal crisis for America.  But there is little doubt that this deal represents one of the greatest failures of leadership in recent years.  It is nothing to be proud of.  Let me explain.

First the deal itself.  The deal leaves income tax rates where they were for 99% of households while raising them sharply for the top 1 %.  It did nothing to arrest the escalating national debt.  The Bush tax rates of 2001 and 2003 are thereby made a permanent part of the tax code, except for those making $400,000 for singles and $450,000 for couples, with the rate rising to 39.9% from 35%.  Rates on capital gains and dividends will rise to 20% from 15%.  The deal also raises estate taxes.  The alternative minimum tax, a supplemental tax for the wealthy, has been presently fixed.  The deal cuts $737 billion from deficits over the coming decade, primarily because of the higher tax rates on the rich and the resulting interest savings.  But that barely dents the $10 trillion in deficits the US was already on track to add to its already huge debt of $16.4 trillion.  For those who are intellectually honest, this is an abysmal deal!  Our leaders did not approve a deal that balances taxes and spending cuts.  As columnist David Brooks correctly observes, “It doesn’t involve a single hard decision.  It does nothing to control spending.  It abandons all of the entitlement reform ideas that have been thrown around.  It locks in lower taxes on families making less than $400,000; it is simply impossible to avert catastrophe unless tax increases go below that line. . . It sentences the country to another few years of trench warfare.”  Our leaders once again avoided making a single difficult decision that calls for anyone to sacrifice or anyone to come to terms with the cataclysmic future we face as a nation.  That is not leadership.  That is a failure of leadership—and both the president and the Congress must accept that responsibility.Second, the deal ignores completely the absolute need for the US to reform its entitlement programs.  Permit me to review some basic facts about our future as a nation:  In 1900, 1 in 25 Americans was over the age of 65, but in 2030, 1 in 5 will be over 65.  As columnist Fareed Zakaria says, “we will be a nation that looks like Florida.”  In 1960 there were five working Americans for every retiree, but by 2025, there will be just over two workers for every retiree.  In 1975 Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid made up 25% of federal spending, while today they add up to 40%.  Within a decade, they will take up over half of all federal outlays.  To deal with this dilemma, our leaders have taken the amazing step of postponing the problem by borrowing heavily for three decades, with our debt approaching 100% of GDP.  [In 30 years it will be a cataclysmic 247% of GDP.  By 2025, entitlement spending and debt payments are projected to suck up all federal revenue.]  Thus, federal spending on everything other than entitlements and defense has been steadily shrinking for decades.  Furthermore, the federal program of Medicaid is an enormous burden to the states.  Zakaria points out that a recent report from the National Governors Association demonstrates that Medicaid is now the single largest item in state budgets and has grown by over 20% each of the past two years.  Thus, spending on everything else from police to poverty programs and public education is being slashed.  For the foreseeable future, this trend will not end!!  Zakaria asks this poignant series of questions:  “The left must ask itself why it is tethered to a philosophy that insists that government’s overwhelming responsibility is for pensions and health care even when, as an inevitable consequence, this starves other vital functions of the state.  Is insurance for the elderly the only important function of government?  Above education?  Above scientific research?  Above investments in infrastructure and energy?  Above poverty alleviation?  And yet that is where we are headed.”Third, we must ask this hard question as well:  Are the American people to blame in any way for this mess?  As difficult as this is, I believe the America voter must accept some responsibility.  Brooks comments:  “Ultimately, we should blame the American voters.  The average Medicare couple pays $109,000 into the program and gets $343,000 in benefits out, according to the Urban Institute.  This is $234,000 in free money.  Many voters have decided they like spending a lot on themselves and pushing costs onto their children and grandchildren.  They have decided they like borrowing up to $1 trillion a year for tax credits, disability payments, defense contracts and the rest.  They have found that the original Keynesian rationale for these deficits provides a perfect cover for permanent deficit-living.  They have made it clear that they will destroy any politician who tries to stop them from cost-shifting in this way. . . The country either doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the burdens we are placing on our children.  No coalition of leaders has successfully confronted the voters, and made them heedful of the ruin they are bringing upon the nation.”  Neither the current President of the United States nor any major Democratic leader has proposed any significant benefits cut or reform of either Social Security or Medicare.  As Republicans refuse to consider raising taxes, Democrats refuse to consider cutting spending.  We are looking at a colossal failure of leadership in this nation!  No matter how significant the accomplishments of President Obama, history will consider his presidency a titanic failure if he does not lead the nation through this crisis.  As president, he must present a plan for long-term solvency of the United States.  At a minimum, he must do three things immediately:  (1)  He must lead his own party in meaningful and very serious reform of the entitlement programs, specifically Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  (2)  He must champion a clear plan for fiscal reform of this nation.  (3)  He must lead the nation by telling the American citizens the truth.  This nation is in a crisis and everyone, including the elderly, must sacrifice.  We must stop borrowing from our children and grandchildren.  This nation can no longer follow the perilous path it is on.  Only the president can and must lead us.  Currently, he is not leading and consequently history will be devastating in evaluating his lack of leadership on fiscal, tax and entitlement reform.  That will be his legacy!Finally, on what issues should he lead the nation?  What should be the elements of leading the nation out of this morass?  Most thoughtful economists agree that at least four major initiatives should characterize meaningful reform.  Harvard Business School’s Michael Porter and Jan Rivkin offer a sensible approach:

1. Simplify the tax code.  The US has the highest tax rate among industrialized nations, but actual tax revenue is low.  Part of this is due to corporations seeking offshore tax havens and locating jobs abroad.  The US needs a system with a much lower rate but without loopholes.  This will then generate more revenue than we do today.

2. Create a sustainable federal budget, which includes both revenue increases and spending reductions.  This mandates that the US address entitlement reform—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  As the above points have shown, the US is on a path toward insolvency.  We simply cannot meet future Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid commitments.  There must be reductions in benefits and/or changing qualifications for these benefits.  The president must be honest with the American people about this—that is a mark of leadership.

3. Simplify regulation.  Reliable surveys of American business indicate that the greatest impediment to investing and creating jobs is regulation.  The priority is not to necessarily lower standards but to regulate more intelligently by focusing on outcomes, rather than compliance methods and employing rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

4. Enact a multi-year program to improve infrastructure.  America’s roads, ports, telecoms and energy infrastructure fail to match the world’s best.  A new federal policy should allocate funds based on what will most boost economic growth.  If we are to remain competitive in this global economy, this cannot be ignored.  Unless we deal with entitlement reform and tax reform, there will simply not be sufficient funds to deal with this infrastructure need.

As this Perspective has argued, the United States needs strong, bold and determined leaders, and this includes both the president and Congress.  We do not have much time and our leaders must be brutally honest and forthright in presenting all of this to the American public.  If our leaders do not do this soon, history will judge them harshly.  May we pray that God gives them the temerity and courage to act—and act now!

See Porter and Rivkin’s article in The Economist: The World in 2013, p. 50; David Ignatius in the Washington Post (2 January 2013); David Brooks in the New York Times (1 January 2013); Fareed Zakaria in Time (24 December 2012); and The Economist (5 January 2013), p. 21. PRINT PDF


View the original article here