Demography and Economy:

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

The release on March 18, 2009, of preliminary childbirth data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) for 2007 has yielded mixed news – some good but most providing troubling insight into potentially crippling problems for American society and the American economy. These data suggest that 2007 was a very bad year, indeed. While most media focused on the teen pregnancy data, they missed the bigger picture. Here is the bigger picture.

The Good news in the NCHS report is that more warm cuddly babies were born in 2007 than ever before in American history -- barely eclipsing the previous high exactly a half-century earlier in 1957. We will call 1957 Baby Boom I and 2007 Baby Boom II.   

The Bad news is the timing of these births. For the economic viability of our society, it would have been better had they arrived a quarter century earlier. Unfortunately, it will be at least 18 to 22 years before the Baby Boom II generation shifts from being an economic liability to an economic asset. This is relevant because Baby Boom II is needed to contribute to the support of Baby Boom I. Phrased in terms of baby booms and busts, what we have today is a bimodal distribution with the largest “modes” at the opposite ends of the life-span: Baby Boom I is on the cusp of retirement and Baby Boom II is on the cusp of the terrible two’s.

In fall 2007, the Social Security Administration made a big deal out of the first member of the Baby Boom I generation to file for Social Security. But fall 2007 also was the beginning of our slide into our current recession/depression. As the Baby Boom I generation prepares to retire, they are watching the value of their personal assets, 401k investment retirement plans, and the value of their homes plummet. More of this generation will require government assistance with their retirement health care, housing, and income than either they or the government ever had in mind.

The Ugly news is that 40% of the births in 2007 were to unmarried women. By contrast, in the 1950’s the unmarried birth rate hovered around 4% -- a tenfold difference. A large number of the unwed mothers and their children will require significant government financial support for unknown portions of their life-spans. And, despite claims for the delights of cohabitation and the joys of single motherhood by choice, the hard social science and economic realities are that children of unwed mothers – as a group – fare more poorly than their intact family counterparts on virtually all measures, including their eventual social and economic contributions to society.  The prospects for this 40% of the Baby Boom II generation, based on social science research, would be worrisome in good economic times -- and likely will be worse in hard economic times. As they enter adulthood, these children are much more likely to become criminals and unproductive economically than children of married parents. As always, dads matter.

In sum, the NCHS data show us where we are and where we are going as a Nation. The feet of Baby Boomers I and II already are on the ground. We ignore these demographic realities at our peril. Finally, and perhaps most critically, the last and current federal administrations have used deficit financing at unprecedented levels. If they are counting on Baby Boom II to pay back federal indebtedness, they are going to have to wait a very, very long time -- at best.

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami. 

Faculty web page: http://psych.fiu.edu/Faculty&StaffPages2/Finley/Finley.htm

Obama/Biden: Escalating the War on Fathers and Families

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

Tragically -- but true to the radical feminist agenda -- the Obama/Biden Democratic ticket portends an escalating war on boys, men, fathers, and families.  On Father’s Day 2008, Sen. Obama could have spoken on any number of topics.  His choice was to castigate African-American fathers and blame fathers, and fathers alone, for the ills of the African-American family. 

He called upon African-American fathers to be more involved in their children’s lives (certainly a worthwhile call) but he also castigated them for failing to endorse “responsible fatherhood” which essentially means signing up for 18 years of overly highly calculated child support.  Economists understand, but Sen. Obama ideologically overlooks, the reality that child support currently is calculated at a level far above what the majority of fathers -- including poor and unemployed fathers -- actually are capable of paying or that children require (see W. S. Comanor, The law and economics of child support payments, 2004). 

So, what then does Sen. Biden bring to the ticket?  Sen. Biden brings the divisive Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which he originated, expanded, and vigorously supported in subsequent years.  Unfortunately, substantial evidence now indicates that VAWA not only fails to protect women from domestic violence but in many cases increases their risk of harm and contains much fraud (www.mediaradar.org).  What VAWA does best, however, is squander billions of taxpayer dollars annually to finance the war on fathers and families.

As promoted by divorce lawyers (see The American Bar Association’s position on Domestic Violence at www.mediaradar.org) and domestic violence shelter operators, mothers are advised that the surest path to fortune and child custody is to obtain a restraining order through VAWA by telling a judge that they are “afraid” of their husband.  No physical evidence of violence or abuse is required, only her claim of “fear.”   Based on this “evidence,” judges routinely and immediately grant ex-parte temporary restraining orders against husbands.

With the restraining order in hand, Sen. Biden’s VAWA removes the father from his home at any hour of the day or night, separates him from his children, requires him to stay away from his wife, and immediately orders him to begin paying child support to his wife based only on her self-reported “fear.”  VAWA explicitly denies the father his Constitutionally guaranteed due process protections.  Children explicitly are denied the love and companionship of fit fathers.  In short, the feminist objective of destroying family life is achieved and the only real beneficiaries are the lawyers.

While Sen. Biden’s contribution to the war on fathers and families is clear, much remains to be learned about Sen. Obama and his attitudes towards fathers and families. The problem is that Sen. Obama’s book Dreams from My Father and material emanating in the media and on the web differ very substantially from one another. 

In closing, and of critical importance for the balance of the presidential race, it must be noted that “change” was the seminal issue which propelled Sen. Obama from obscurity to the Democratic Nomination. Is it then not fair to ask-- after three decades in the Senate -- where voters are going to find “change” in Sen. Biden? And, above all else, what does Obama’s selection of Sen. Biden portend for his future appointments and the future of the American family?

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami.