Don't make it a competition

Topic: Facts or debatable research?

I have noticed that authoritative people, news, and social media have given us data and research that have shown the effects on certain topics. Topics like high population numbers, low stability in the economy, family size and immigration negatives. All of these topics seem to be on the negative view rise. Likewise, all of these factors can be connected to each other. Because immigrants are known for contributing to overpopulation, in return, overpopulation is ruining the human footprint. Less human footprint equals to less resources for the family. Less resources means there is an economic instability. The solution that is given? Stop having so many kids, and stop promoting immigration, so that we can have enough resources.

Is this really how we should be thinking? How are all these factors related to the importance of family? Well, let me tell you.

In this week’s post, I would like for us to consider some of the definitions and facts that we should be focusing on, instead of going straight into attacking the family. Let us consider the problem (Economy Risk) and stop misdiagnosing the cause (what some people believe to be, the family).

First Point: Where is the data coming from? Where is the evidence coming from?

It all started when the Baby Boom event in the Unites States happened through the 1930's till the 1960’s. A lot of people started to have many children in the family which rose the United States population to 3.76 Billion people. It was an unexpected event that not only improved the economy but it improved living standards. The fertility rate was about 3.7 children per women. Additionally, this fertility increase was happening in various part of the world as well. However, this unexpected rise in population got economists thinking, and they sought to seek if the rise would affect the United States in a major way. As they believed, they thought that population would keep rising and resources would decrease. There was a fear that many people would starve because of the “unnecessary growth”.  An economist, named Paul R. Ehrlich, wrote a book with these concerns. The book “The Population Bomb” gave these specific predictions of overpopulation. What did he use as evidence? He went to observe an overpopulated city in India and saw that there was poor living conditions and low resources for its citizens. Because of this, he compared Bombay, India’s situation to the future of the United States. The problem with this comparison?

The problem with this comparison is that India is very different compared to the United States in many ways. Some ways they are different is that India is not a united country compared to the United States, which can bring a bigger portion of less resources that each state has. Second, India is not as developed as the United States, they may have already different standards of living than in the U.S. There is different building structures and less buildings and homes for citizens. Another factor to consider is that the Baby Boom was a onetime event, not a recurring event. What I mean by this is that, if this event would compare to other times, it would be the highest in fertility rate, always. One cannot compare the highest point in history to moderate ones.

Ehrlich's research was so well known that everyone in the 70’s started to traumatize themselves with an unstable economy, so the riots against family growth began. Even though Ehrlich’s research and showings were pulled for good intentions, his economic Indian observations and history viewings cannot be generalized for every point in time.

Second Point: There is an economic term that is defined as "human capital". Human capital means that if we have more humans, there is more resources. Likewise, the fertility rate contributes to this human capital. Just like during the Baby Boomer event, the fertility rate went up to 3.7, in this moment in time, we are about 2.05 children per child. And according to economists, we need the fertility rate to stay at 2.1, in order to have a stable economy. However, if the fertility rate were to be pulled from only white American women, it would be 1.8. Thanks to immigrants, the fertility rate is higher, and is maintaining it to 2.05. Because of this ,an economy that thrives has a high fertility rate and has enough resources for everybody. However, we are seeing a decrease in fertility rates all around the world. 

Fear that the world is overpopulating is one of the topics being focused on. But what we need to focus on is in the lower fertility rate, because this is what determines future work force and resource providers. With the population we have now, 7.6 Billion, and the population that is coming in as we speak, there is not enough to balance the economy. For example, the Social security program pays for retirement and workers right now are contributing to that fund. However as retired workers rise, less workers come in (due to less children who are future workers).Because of less workers, the work load adds on to that rising population and gives them more responsibility to provide for the Social Security fund. There is not much of a balance.

In conclusion, these two topics show that the family contributes many positive aspects to the economy, than what we thought.