Aging Populations and Replacement Birthrate

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 28th, 2014

Economics 101

(Originally published July 8th, 2013)

Trying to follow a Baby Boom with a Baby Bust creates Problems in Advanced Economies with Large Welfare States

In the late 1960s began a movement for zero population growth.  It called for women to have only enough babies to replace the current population.  Not to have too many babies that would increase the population.  Nor have too few babies that the population declines.  Something that women could easily do because of birth control.  And, later, abortion.  The drive behind this was to save the planet.  By keeping large populations becoming like a plague of locusts that devour the earth’s resources and food until the planet can no longer sustain life.

China did these zero population growth people better.  By promoting a negative population growth rate.  Limiting parents to one child.  They did this because during the days of Mao’s China the country set some world records for famine.  Their communist state simply couldn’t provide for her people.  So to help their communist system avoid future famines they tried to limit the number of mouths they had to feed.  Of course, trying to follow a baby boom with a baby bust creates other problems.  Especially in advanced economies with large welfare states.

China’s one-child policy and the preference for boys have led to a shortage of women to marry.  Some Chinese men are even looking at ‘mail-order’ brides from surrounding countries.  But China is going to have an even greater problem caring for her elderly.  Just like Japan.  Japanese couples are having less than 1.5 babies per couple.  Meaning that each successive generation will be smaller than the preceding generation.  As couples aren’t even having enough children to replace themselves when they die.  Leaving the eldest generation the largest percentage of the overall population.  Being paid and cared for by the smallest percentage of the overall population.  The younger generation.

States with Aging Populations are Suffering Debt Crises because they Spend More than their Tax Revenue can Cover

As nations develop advanced economies people develop careers.  Moving from one well-paid job to another.  As they advance in their career.  Creating a lot of income to tax.  Allowing a large welfare state.  Which is similar to a Ponzi scheme.  Or pyramid scheme.  As long as more people are entering the workforce than leaving it their income taxes can pay for the small group at the top of the pyramid that leaves the workforce and begins consuming pension and health care benefits in their retirement.  And there is but one requirement of a successful pyramid scheme.  The base of the pyramid must expand greater than the tip of the pyramid.  The wider the base is relative to the top the more successive the pyramid scheme.  As we can see here.

Babies per Generation - Constant Replacement Birthrate

Generation 1 is at the top of the pyramid.  It is the oldest generation.  Which we approximate as a period of 20 years.  In our example Generation 1 are people aged 78-98.  They’re retired and collecting pension, health care and other benefits.  Some combination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, heating assistance, etc.  All paid for by Generation 2 (58-78), Generation 3 (38-58) and Generation 4 (18-38).  Each generation is assumed to bring 6 children into the world.  So these couples are not only replacing themselves but adding an additional 4 children to further increase the size of the population.  Which really makes running a pyramid scheme easy.  For if we assume each member in Generation 1 on average consumes $35,000 annually in benefits that Generations 2 through 4 pay for that comes to $555.56 per person annually.  Or $46.30 per person monthly.  Or $10.68 per person weekly.  Or $1.53 per person daily.  Amounts so small that Generations 2 through 4 can easily pay for Generation 1′s retirement.  Now let’s look at the impact of a declining birthrate with each successive generation.

Babies per Generation - Declining Replacement Birthrate

When all couples in each generation were having on average 6 children this added 1.9 billion new taxpayers.  Which greatly reduced each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1′s retirement costs.  But thanks to birth control, abortion and the growing cost of living each successive generation has fewer babies.  Generation 2 only has 3 children.  Enough to replace themselves.  And add one new taxpayer.  Generation 3 has only 2 children.  Only enough to replace the parents.  Providing that zero population growth that was all the rage during the late 1960s and the 1970s.  While Generation 4 only has 1 child.  Not even enough to replace the parents when they die.  Causing a negative population growth rate.  Which is a big problem in an advanced economy with a large welfare state.  For instead of adding 1.9 billion new taxpayers they only add 217.5 million new taxpayers.  Greatly increasing each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1′s retirement costs.  Instead of paying $555.56 per taxpayer they each have to pay $5,384.62 annually.  Or $448.72 per taxpayer monthly.  Or $103.55 per taxpayer weekly.  Or $14.79 per taxpayer daily.  Numbers that prove to be unsustainable.  The state simply cannot tax people this much for Generation 1′s retirement.  For if they did this and added it to the rest of government’s spending they’re taxing us to fund it would take away all of our income.  This is why advanced economies with aging populations are suffering debt crises.  Because their spending has grown so far beyond their ability to pay for it with tax revenue that they borrow massive amounts of money to finance it.

If you want a Generous Welfare State you need Parents to have More Children

If you carry this out two more generations so every generation only has one child the per taxpayer amount tops out at $14,736.84 annually.  Or $1,228.07 per taxpayer monthly.  Or $283.40 per taxpayer weekly.  Or $40.49 per taxpayer daily.  Amounts far too great for most taxpayers to pay.  This is what an aging population does in a country with a large welfare state.  It makes the population top-heavy in elderly people who no longer work (i.e., pay taxes) but consume the lion’s share of state benefits.  When couples were having 6 children each across the generations there was a ratio of 84 taxpayers per retiree.  When there was a declining replacement birthrate that ratio fell to 15 taxpayers per retiree.  If we look at this graphically we can see the pyramid shape of this generational population.

Generational Population - Constant Replacement Birthrate

With 84 taxpayers per retiree we can see a nice and wide base to the pyramid.  While the tip of the pyramid is only a small sliver of the base (Generation 4).  Making for a successful Ponzi scheme.  Far more people pay into the scheme.  While only a tiny few take money out of the scheme.  This is why Social Security and Medicare didn’t have any solvency problems until after birth control and abortion.  For these gave us a declining replacement birthrate over time.  Greatly shrinking the base of the pyramid.  Which made the tip no longer a small sliver of the base.  But much closer in size to the base.  That if it was an actual pyramid sitting on the ground it wouldn’t take much to push it over.  Unlike the above pyramid.  That we could never push over.  Which is why the above Ponzi scheme would probably never fail.  While the one below will definitely fail.

Generational Population - Declining Replacement Birthrate

If you want a generous welfare state where the state provides pensions, health care, housing and food allowances, etc., you need parents to have more children.  For the more children they have the more future taxpayers there will be.  Or you at least need a constant replacement birthrate.  But if that rate is below the rate of a prior baby boom the welfare state will be unsustainable UNLESS they slash spending.  The United States has a replacement birthrate below the rate of a prior baby boom.  While the Obama administration has exploded the size of welfare state.  Especially with the addition of Obamacare.  Making our Ponzi scheme more like the second chart.  As we currently have approximately 1.75 taxpayers supporting each social security recipient.  Meaning that it won’t take much pushing to topple our pyramid. We’re at the point where a slight breeze may do the trick.  For it will topple.  It’s just a matter of time.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Postponing Motherhood may be good for Busy Women but not for their Children

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 17th, 2014

Week in Review

Once upon a time I was having a conversation with a consultant.  He was bald.  And not in the best of shape.  He looked older than he was.  He started a family later in life.  And one of the worst days of his life was when a waitress said how cute his grandson was.  Because he looked like a grandfather.  Even though he was only a father.

I had a coworker who died from a heart attack while on vacation.  Running around with his grade-school-aged children.  Another father who started his family later in life.  It was not a problem for him.  For men don’t have a biological clock ticking.  So they can start a family as late as they want to in their life.  But they may not live to see their children graduate from high school.  Which is a horrible thing for a child.

This was something women were spared.  Because they have a biological clock ticking.  And couldn’t put off becoming a mother until they were ‘grandmother age’.  Until now, that is (see Later, Baby: Will Freezing Your Eggs Free Your Career? by Emma Rosenblum posted 4/17/2014 on BloombergBusinessweek Technology).

LaJoie fits the typical profile of an egg freezer: They’re great at their jobs, they make a ton of money, and they’ve followed all of Sheryl Sandberg’s advice. But the husband and baby haven’t materialized, and they can recite the stats about their rapidly decreasing fertility as a depressing party trick. For LaJoie, now 45, it was demoralizing to see friend after friend get married and have kids, while she was stuck at the hospital without romantic prospects.

“You feel bad about yourself, like you’re the odd man out, and somehow you’ve messed up on your path,” says Sarah Elizabeth Richards, who spent $50,000 freezing several rounds of eggs in 2006 to 2008 and wrote a book about the experience, Motherhood, Rescheduled: The New Frontier of Egg Freezing and the Women Who Tried It. “By freezing, you’ve done something about it. You’re walking taller; your head is held higher. And that can pay off in both your work and romantic lives.” Richards, now 43, is dating someone promising and says she’d like to thaw her eggs in the next year or so. She’s also at work on a new book and plans on finishing it before she tries to get pregnant. “Egg freezing gives you the gift of time to start a family, but it’s also, like, here’s how many years I actually have left for my other goals—what can I do with them?”

LaJoie got married soon after she froze (she told her husband about it on their very first date: “I was upfront and said, ‘This is my plan.’ He was, like, ‘OK!’ ”) and had her first baby naturally at 39. A few years later, after briefly trying fertility drugs, she thawed her eggs. The implantation worked, and her second son is 2 years old.

This is great news for women who want to conveniently work in the burden of being a mother somewhere in their busy schedules.  But when you have a child at 43 you will be 51 at that child’s high school graduation.  Old enough to be a grandmother.  While the grandmother may be in a nursing home.  Who may only see her grandchildren on holidays when they reluctantly visit her.  For nursing homes are not places children want to be.

And you could be dead by your child’s graduation.  For a lot of health issues can plague you by the time you turn 51.  Especially when you’re having your children in your 40s.  The risk of breast cancer increases with age.  The risk of hypertension and pre-eclampsia/eclampsia increase with age.  The risk of gestational diabetes increases with age.  The risk of heart disease increases with age.  As does the risk of other cancers, lupus, diabetes, pancreatitis, etc.  Things not that common for women in their 20s and 30s.  But more common for women over 40.

And babies have risks, too, when their mothers give birth when over 40.  The risk of stillbirths and miscarriages increase with age.  As does the risk for birth defects.  So it’s all well and good for the mother to postpone motherhood but it’s not the best thing for her children.  Who deserve young and healthy parents.  Who can run with them while on vacation.  And they deserve healthy grandparents to spoil them.  Things you may not be able to do if you postpone motherhood until after you’re 40.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abortion and Tax Revenue

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 27th, 2014

Economics 101

(Originally published January 21st, 2013)

The Population Growth Rate fell during the Sixties and Seventies from 19% to 11% due to Birth Control and Abortion

Taxpayers are born.  Yes, immigration helped populate America.  But it was really the children of immigrants that made the country grow.  For a large population having babies will increase the population far more than immigration can.  Why?  Where do immigrants come from?  Babies.  Having babies is like compounding interest.  For babies grow up and have babies of their own.  So babies are good.  Especially for a government that wants to spend money.  Because the more babies we have the more taxpayers we will have.  So high-spending governments need a growing population growth rate.  To provide ever more taxpayers.  Who provide ever more tax revenue.  But sometimes the population growth rate doesn’t always increase.  Sometimes it even falls.  (See Population, Housing Units, Area Measurements, and Density: 1790 to 1990.  The population numbers are from the decennial census numbers.  The population growth rate is the percentage of population growth from one decade to the next.)

Although the population has always grown the population growth rate has not always grown.  In fact, the rate of growth has been falling over time.  Taking steep declines during war.  During the American Civil War the growth rate fell from 36% down to 23% by the time of the next census.  The census before and after World War I saw a decline from 21% to 15%.  The rate plummeted from 16% to 7% before and after the Great Depression.  With so many people out of work and struggling to survive the last thing families needed was another baby to feed.  The rate actually increased during World War II.  But that had more to do with people not having babies during the Great Depression for economic reasons.  After World War II the rate rose to 14%.  Which was still a point less than after World War I.

The following table shows the decrease in population due to war.  (Raw numbers are pulled from United States military casualties of war.)

Note that the most devastating of American wars was the American Civil War.  Where approximately 2% of the population died.  In terms of percentage loss of population the next costliest war was the Revolutionary War.  Then World War II.  Then World War I.  These wars saw millions of men in uniform (except for the Revolutionary War).  Away from their wives for years.  Which put a crimp in baby making.  And the large number of wounded and dead compounded that problem.  Resulting in large dips in the population growth rate during these wars.  Despite the large loss of life in numbers of America’s other wars those losses were all less than 0.10% of the population.  Making the impact on the population growth rate negligible.  One thing these numbers don’t explain, though, is the decline in the population growth rate after 1960.  During the Sixties and the Seventies the growth rate fell from 19% down to 11%.    But it wasn’t the Vietnam War that caused that decline.  So what did?  Birth control.  And abortion.

Couples having only 2 Children can’t Support an Expanding Welfare State but Couples having 3 Children Can

The U.S. approved the sale of the birth control pill in 1960.  Which corresponded with the era of free love and the sexual revolution.  People were having more sex.  While having fewer babies.  Then Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973.  Since then there have been on average about 1.4 million abortions a year.  Dwarfing the 156,250 killed a year in America’s most devastating war.  The American Civil War.  Which has brought the population growth rate to its smallest numbers that weren’t due to war or depression.  Because of that compounding nature of babies (growing up to have babies of their own).  And because babies become taxpayers this has a big impact on future tax revenue.  We can see this by looking at how 100 abortions ripple through the population.

Let’s assume those 100 abortions happen in Year 1 (Y1).  Had these abortions not happened these babies would have grown up and entered the workforce about 20 years later (Y1+20).  And split off into pairs to have babies of their own.  (If each couple has one baby they have a total of 50 babies.  If each couple has two babies they have a total of 100 babies.  Etc.)  Who would grow up and enter the workforce about 20 years later (Y1+40).  And so on.  The above graph adds up all the people for each 20-year period produced by the Y1 babies (children, grandchildren, great grand children, etc.) divided by 100 (those original babies not aborted).

If the Y1 people only have one baby they and their descendants disappear from the world in about 2 centuries.  If they have 2 children the population never grows larger than 4 times the original Y1 people.  Two children to replace two parents.  It’s not until you get to three children that you see an increase in population.  As well as an increase in tax revenue.

Assume each of the people, or taxpayers, at 20-year intervals earn a median income of $50,000.  They pay an effective federal income tax rate of 18%.  In addition to 12.4% for Social Security taxes (both employer and employee).  And 2.9% for Medicare.  Added together they total 33.3%.  This tax rate on total income at each 20-year interval produces the tax revenue in the above graph.  Note the revenue graphs are the same shape as the population graphs.  Showing a direct correlation between tax revenue and the population growth rate.  The tax revenue provided by couples having only one child disappears within two centuries.  Revenue provided by couples having only two children peaks out at $6,660,000.  As couples only have enough children to replace themselves.  Maintaining a constant of 4 taxpayers (2 parents and 2 children) after 80 years.  Showing that couples having 2, 1 or 0 children cannot support an expanding welfare state.  But a couple having 3 children can.  As long as it’s not too big of a welfare state.

You just can’t have an Expanding Welfare State with a Falling Population Growth Rate

The more children a couple has the greater the tax revenue.  For the more children they have the more people enter the workforce and become taxpayers.  If 50 couples have 3 kids each (as do their descendants) they will add $30.4 million in federal tax revenue in one century.  If they have 4 kids they will add $99.9 million in revenue.  If they have 5 kids they will add $264 million.  And if they have 6 kids they will add $599.4 million.

In two centuries these numbers are even more profound.  Couples having 4 kids will provide $3.2 billion in federal tax revenue.  While couples having 5 kids will provide $25.8 billion.  And couples having 6 kids will provide $145.6 billion.  If, that is, 100 pregnancies weren’t aborted 2 centuries earlier.

In the long-term revenue would soar if people simply started having babies again.  For birth control and abortion have greatly reduced the number of babies we’re having.  Causing tax revenue to fall.  We can bring revenue back up by having more babies.  But after some 30 years this baby dearth has pushed us into the flat part of these graphs.  Requiring up to a century or more to make large population gains.  And large gains in tax revenue.   And without these gains in revenue we simply cannot afford an expanding welfare state.

It is rather ironic that two tenets of liberalism clash here.  Liberals believe in both a welfare state.  And free birth control and abortion on demand.  They believe in one thing that requires women to have a lot of babies.  And another that helps women to have as few babies as possible.  Which is another reason liberalism will ultimately fail.  Paradoxes like this.  For you just can’t have an expanding welfare state with a falling population growth rate.  If you try you get trillion dollar deficits.  And $16.4 trillion in accumulated debt.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abortion is Good in the United States but Bad in China

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 26th, 2014

Week in Review

Advanced economies with expansive welfare states are incurring large budget deficits and growing national debt.  Why?  Because of birth control.  And abortion.

These massive welfare states were implemented before the Sixties.  When people were having more babies than they are now.  Following World War II there was a baby boom.  Following the baby boom, though, there was a baby bust.  Fast forward to today and a lot of those baby boomers are leaving the workforce and collecting taxpayer-financed benefits in retirement.  While the smaller baby bust generation is paying the taxes for those benefits.  Resulting in less money going into the welfare state than is going out in benefits.  Giving those deficits.  And that growing national debt.

A declining birthrate is the death knell of a welfare state.  So if you want a healthy welfare state you need people to have more babies.  So each generation is bigger than the one before it.  So there is always more money going into the welfare state than is going out.  Allowing the state to pay for those generous benefits without going bankrupt.

So birth control and abortion can bankrupt advanced economies with generous welfare states.  But abortion can do something else (see One-Child Policy Is One Big Problem for China by Susan Scutti posted 1/23/2014 on Newsweek).

Late last year, China’s National People’s Congress eased the one-child policy. The government didn’t exactly admit it was a mistake; according to Chinese officials, the guidelines helped avert 400 million births and in so doing, accelerated modernization…

Enforcement of the one-child policy during the early 1980s was controversial not only in China but around the globe. Early stories emerging from the rural villages focused on coercive practices, including forced late-term abortions and involuntary sterilization, as well as the “neighborly” snitching on pregnant couples who dared to conceive a second child…

…In China, there are currently 32 million more boys under the age of 20 than girls.

Medical advancements and technology have played a key role in creating this surplus of boys. “The Chinese government contracted with GE to provide cart-mounted ultrasound that could be run on generators so that the most obscure village had access to fetal sex determination,” said Hudson. Given the ability to know the sex of their unborn children, many parents aborted female fetuses…

It appears that the outraged cries from within and without have been heard. The Chinese government has spent millions of dollars in recent years to fund research into the implications of this radical skew in gender population numbers.

Having more men than women has led to a lot of single men who want to marry but can’t.  As there are not enough women to match up with men.  Which has caused a lot of these men to turn to prostitutes.  Something human traffickers are more than happy to supply them with.  Sending women there from neighboring countries to work in the sex industry.

The world is outraged over the number of aborted female fetuses in China.  Including the American left.  Yet they have no problem with abortion.  Aborting female fetuses is wrong.  But aborting male AND female fetuses is fine.  Apparently.  As abortion is sacred to those on the left.  Just mention that you want to revisit Roe v. Wade and see them go apoplectic.  For that is settled law.  And anyone who wants to take away a woman’s right to have an abortion is waging a war on women.  While in China abortion itself is the war on women.  So on the one hand abortion is the great liberator of women (outside of China).  While on the other hand it is the great exterminator of women (inside of China).  So it’s both good and bad.  When you use the imaginary logic of liberals, that is.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Birth Control and Abortion a factor in Premature Births

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 24th, 2013

Week in Review

Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election in part because of the Republican ‘war on women’.  Which started when George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney out of the blue if he wanted to take away women’s birth control.  The next thing we knew there were women who said college girls couldn’t afford their birth control and needed the state to buy it for them.  Then this snowballed into Republicans wanted their women barefoot and pregnant.  And were going to turn the hands of the clock back to 1950 for women everywhere if Mitt Romney won the election.  The left warned women that this was the worst thing that could happen to them.  For they knew what women wanted.  Birth control.  And abortion.  So their lives could revolve around their vaginas.  Becoming sexual objects.  To please a lot of different men.  While avoiding the disease of pregnancy.

As it turns out, though, avoiding the disease of pregnancy could have some side effects (see Premature baby steroids ‘may raise risk of ADHD’ by James Gallagher posted 11/22/2013 on BBC News Health).

Steroids given to help premature babies develop may also be slightly increasing the risk of mental health disorders, say researchers…

Being born too soon can lead to long-term health problems and the earlier the birth the greater the problems.

One immediate issue is the baby’s lungs being unprepared to breathe air. Steroids can help accelerate lung development.

However, the study by researchers at Imperial College London and the University of Oulu in Finland showed the drugs may also be affecting the developing brain.

A premature baby has a lot more health risks than one carried to term.  We’re doing things after the birth to help these children.  Is there anything we can do to help before the birth.  Well, we can try to reduce the number of premature babies.  So what exactly causes babies to be born premature?  According to the Mayo Clinic (see Premature birth) there may be a lot of factors including but not limited to the following.  Smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol or using illicit drugs.  Some infections, particularly of the amniotic fluid and lower genital tract.  Some chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure and diabetes.  Multiple miscarriages or abortions.

There are other risks.  But what’s interesting about these risks is that they grow greater with age.  A married woman having her children in her twenties will have smoked fewer cigarettes, drank less alcohol and used fewer illicit drugs than a woman in her thirties or forties.  She will have had a less active sex life which will reduce the number of infections in her lower genital tract.  She will be less likely to have high blood pressure or diabetes than a woman 10-20 years older than her.  And she may have fewer abortions than a woman who waits until she is in her forties to start her family.  For these reasons women having a baby when they are over 35 have a greater risk of having a premature birth.

Whenever there is another gun death the left says we need new gun control legislation.  To take guns away from law-abiding gun owners.  Even if it saves just one life.  Well, we can have more healthy babies if women choose to get married and start their families while in their twenties.  For it is what’s best for the children.  Instead of trying to have a career first and then start a family later in life.  And perhaps more would if the left wasn’t telling women that a woman should be strong, independent, enjoy her sexuality and use free birth control and abortion to avoid what they call the disease of pregnancy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Birthrates and Welfare States

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 22nd, 2013

History 101

Birth Control and Abortion hurt the Welfare State because Babies become Taxpayers

People typically have fewer children during bad economic times.  Because you have to feed and clothe kids.  Which is very hard to do during bad economic times.  Especially if you lost your job during a period of high unemployment.  Such as the Great Depression.  Or if you’re going through a period of high inflation.  Like during the Seventies.  We can see this if we look at the birthrate over the years.

Number of Children per Woman R1

(source: Population Reference Bureau)

Bad economic times (Great Depression) fewer births.  High inflation (the Seventies) fewer births.  Of course, there was something else happening during the Seventies.  Which followed the Sexual Revolution.  Women were having more sex outside of marriage.  But they were using birth control and recently legalized abortion to avoid having children.  Women were liberated.  The feminists were moving into careers once reserved for men.  And because they were having careers they were not being stay-at-home mothers raising a family.

Also during the Seventies there was the zero population growth movement.  Among many other movements.  As the hippies turned antiestablishment.  And anti-capitalist.  Preferring a communal life.  Where there was no greed or profits.  Where everyone was equal and had an equal share.  Like the communists enjoyed.  Or, rather, suffered.  The zero population growth movement protested against having babies.  And the threat they posed to the limited resources of the earth.  So they were quite happy to see the birthrate fall below the replacement birthrate (about 2.1 children per woman in the United States).  Because below this rate future generations will be smaller than previous generations.  Which will burden the limited resources of the earth less.  But it created a big problem for those who wanted a large socialist state to provide cradle to the grave welfare.  For babies become taxpayers.

Because of the War on Poverty it takes Two Incomes to raise a Family Today

We just emerged from a government shutdown that ended with an agreement to raise the debt ceiling.  Why?  Because they can’t raise tax rates high enough to pay for all of the government’s spending.  At least not without putting most everyone below the poverty line after taxes.  Which makes that declining birthrate a big problem.  For the fall in the birthrate coincided with the expansion of the welfare state in the Sixties.  As can be seen in the explosion in welfare spending following LBJ’s launching of his War on Poverty.

Total Welfare Spending 1950 - 2010 R2

(source: The Heritage Foundation)

So just as women were having fewer babies so following generations would be smaller LBJ’s Great Society gave us a new expanding welfare state.  That is, once our tax base began to grow smaller with each subsequent generation federal expenditures were growing larger with each subsequent generation.  Resulting in higher tax rates on the smaller tax base to pay for it.  And massive new borrowings to pay what our taxes won’t.  As the government took more of our earnings away median household income stagnated.

Federal Spending and Median Income

(source: The Heritage Foundation)

If you’ve ever wondered why we can’t raise a family on one income these days this is why.  It’s the growth of federal spending.  Paid for with a growth in tax revenue.  Leaving us less money to raise our families.  Requiring that second income.  This is what the Great Society gave us.  And it’s what birth control and abortion gave us.  But it gets worse.

This Year Adult Incontinence Pants outsold Baby Diapers in Japan for the First Time

The Sexual Revolution gave us a baby bust generation.  Following a baby boom generation.  Giving us an aging population.  Where more people are leaving the workforce than are entering it.  So more people are consuming taxes (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) than are paying taxes.  Causing a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old.  So an aging population makes it even harder to raise a family.  Especially for the young just starting their families.  Because of the higher tax rates on a shrinking workforce required to pay for that aging population.  Which can lead to worse things than a collapse of the welfare state (see Why have young people in Japan stopped having sex? by Abigail Haworth posted 10/19/2013 on The Guardian)

Japan’s under-40s appear to be losing interest in conventional relationships. Millions aren’t even dating, and increasing numbers can’t be bothered with sex. For their government, “celibacy syndrome” is part of a looming national catastrophe. Japan already has one of the world’s lowest birth rates. Its population of 126 million, which has been shrinking for the past decade, is projected to plunge a further one-third by 2060…

Fewer babies were born here in 2012 than any year on record. (This was also the year, as the number of elderly people shoots up, that adult incontinence pants outsold baby nappies in Japan for the first time.) Kunio Kitamura, head of the JFPA, claims the demographic crisis is so serious that Japan “might eventually perish into extinction”.

This is the zero population growth movement on steroids.  The Republicans in the United States shut down the government in an attempt to curtail federal spending.  As the public debt is approaching 100% of GDP.  Very dangerous territory to be in.  But if you think that’s bad it’s far worse in Japan.  As their public debt is approximately 214% of GDP.  To support a massive welfare state.  In a country where the taxpayer is fast becoming an endangered species.

This is the ultimate end of any democracy that learned it could vote itself the treasury.  As taxes rise people cut back on their spending.  And a big cost item is children.  So we have declining birthrates in developed countries with expansive welfare states.  And immigration problems.  Immigrants who come for those generous state benefits.  And governments that want to grant them citizenship.  To make them taxpayers.  To make up for that declining birthrate.  And prevent their own extinction.

 www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT178: “Birth control and abortion are the greatest threats to liberalism. ” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 12th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Liberals seem more Mainstream than they are because they hold Key Positions of Power

Liberals have one very unpleasant fact to deal with.  Theirs is a minority viewpoint.  According to Gallup (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. by Lydia Saad posted 1/12/2012 on Gallup), the American people identify themselves in 2010 as follows: conservative (40%), moderate (35%) and liberal (21%).  And the above referenced Gallup poll shows that the American people haven’t trended far from these numbers since 1992.

So the liberal cause is an uphill battle to begin with.  As 79% of the American people do not identify themselves with their views.  Which are basically a bigger, activist government.  More rules and regulations in our personal lives.  More fun and less restraint.  More casual sex and less traditional marriage.  Keynesian economic policies where the government plays with interest rates, creating large asset bubbles (such as housing bubbles) which give us very long and painful recessions to undo the damage an activist Keynesian government makes.  Like the subprime mortgage crisis.  Anti-energy policies that increase the cost of energy so they can subsidize more costly green energy.  Free birth control and access to abortion on demand.  And Obamacare.  To name a few.

Some may feel that liberalism is more mainstream than the poll numbers suggest.  But that’s only because though their numbers are small they hold key positions of power.  They control the public schools.  And our colleges and universities.  They control the mainstream media.  And the entertainment industry.  Giving liberals a very powerful bully pulpit.  When late-night television ridicules conservatives millions of impressionable people see it.  And see how cool it is to ridicule conservatives.   Reinforcing everything they’ve learned in our public schools, colleges, universities, mainstream media and, of course, the entertainment industry.  Yet despite all of this the best they can do is to get 21% of the people to think like them.  To want what they want.  And to do as they want them to do.

A Liberal Woman uses Birth Control and Abortion to keep her Fertility Rate Lower than a Conservative Woman’s

Why is this?  Because of parents.  Perhaps the greatest obstacle liberals have in transforming the country into the European social democracy they want.  With them sitting atop the power structure.  Much like the aristocracy of the Old World where they were free to tell people to do as they say, not as they do.  For while forcing their highly regulated world upon us they will exempt themselves from the less pleasant things.  Putting themselves above the laws they don’t like but feel are in our best interests.  Which we would understand if only we were as smart as them.

And every time they turn around there is some parent trying to undo all of their work.  For they only have our children for less than a third of a day, 5 days a week.  Worse, they don’t even get our kids into their education camps, I mean, schools, until they’ve lived exclusively with their parents for 5 or 6 years.  If you ever wondered why the Democrats are always pushing for state-funded childcare this is the reason.  To get to our kids sooner.  Before their parents can warp their minds with non-liberal viewpoints.  Like not to fear the coming apocalypse of global warming.  In fact some of these parents are such poor parents that they’ll load their kids into a gas-guzzling, carbon-polluting SUV and take them on a vacation.  Letting a child enjoy being in a big, comfortable and safe vehicle out on the open road.  Before liberals can teach them later that all of those things are bad.  And wrong.  But the real problem liberals have with parents like these is that there are just so many of them.  Ironically, because of liberal policies that have altered fertility rates.  Thanks to birth control and abortion.  And their attacks on the traditional family.

Fertility Liberals vs Conservatives R1

Earlier we discussed replacement birthrates (see Aging Populations and Replacement Birthrate posted 7/8/2013 on Pithocrates).  The current U.S. population is about 314 million.  Using the Gallup numbers we calculated the number of liberals and conservatives in that 314 million and entered them into the beginning populations above.  We assumed a generation lasting 20 years where couples will each bring in 1.5 babies if they’re liberals.  Below the replacement birthrate.  And 2.5 babies if they’re conservatives.  Above the replacement birthrate.  A conservative couple will have on average one more baby than a liberal couple.  Because a conservative woman will live a closer life to the traditional family.  While the liberal woman may pursue a career and not be interested in having children.  Using birth control and abortion to keep her fertility rate lower than the conservative woman.

The Liberals’ Rise to Power was Slow and Steady via Incremental Change all but Unnoticeable to Each Generation

If we add the number of liberals and conservatives together (we’ll call it the L/C Universe) they total approximately 191 million people.  Where liberals make up 34% of the L/C Universe.  While conservatives make up 66% of the L/C Universe.  As we move through 4 generations we see how the population increases.  The liberal population grows 838%.  While the conservative population grows 2,463%.  Because of that extra baby per couple on average the conservative population grows over 5 times more than the liberal population.  Dropping the liberals down to only 16% of the L/C Universe.  While increasing the conservatives to 84% of the L/C Universe.

If you ever wondered why the Democrats are pushing so hard for immigration reform this is why.  The liberal elite know their policies to encourage women to do anything BUT have babies threatens their long-term hold on power.  That’s why they pander to blacks, women, the young, etc.  They shower them with benefits and/or policies that make their lives a lot more fun.  Such as free birth control.  And accessible abortion.  Things that really appeal to the young voter.  Because that’s what they have on the mind most of the time.  Casual and consequence-free sex.  By treating pregnancy as a disease.  To be prevented (birth control).  Or cured (abortion).  But in the wake of these policies is a dearth of new liberal voters.  Which they hope to replace with immigration reform.  Hoping that those they bring into the population vote Democrat.  Grateful for their path to citizenship.  To make up for all the babies that never were.  Thanks to liberal attacks on the traditional family.

Unless the liberals can take our children away from us sooner and keep them longer (to countermand any conservative education their parents give them) their lower fertility rates will push liberalism to extinction.  How ironic indeed that the very policies that liberals and conservatives bitterly fight over the most may lead to their fall from power.  Birth control.  And abortion.  The greatest threats to liberalism.  Their rise to power was slow and steady through incremental change.  Almost unnoticeable to each generation.  As will be their fall.  Unless, of course, they use extralegal tactics to get around the will of the people.  Such as ruling by executive order.  And using the courts to make law the Congress won’t.  But what are the odds of that ever happening?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Aging Populations and Replacement Birthrate

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 8th, 2013

Economics 101

Trying to follow a Baby Boom with a Baby Bust creates Problems in Advanced Economies with Large Welfare States

In the late 1960s began a movement for zero population growth.  It called for women to have only enough babies to replace the current population.  Not to have too many babies that would increase the population.  Nor have too few babies that the population declines.  Something that women could easily do because of birth control.  And, later, abortion.  The drive behind this was to save the planet.  By keeping large populations becoming like a plague of locusts that devour the earth’s resources and food until the planet can no longer sustain life.

China did these zero population growth people better.  By promoting a negative population growth rate.  Limiting parents to one child.  They did this because during the days of Mao’s China the country set some world records for famine.  Their communist state simply couldn’t provide for her people.  So to help their communist system avoid future famines they tried to limit the number of mouths they had to feed.  Of course, trying to follow a baby boom with a baby bust creates other problems.  Especially in advanced economies with large welfare states.

China’s one-child policy and the preference for boys have led to a shortage of women to marry.  Some Chinese men are even looking at ‘mail-order’ brides from surrounding countries.  But China is going to have an even greater problem caring for her elderly.  Just like Japan.  Japanese couples are having less than 1.5 babies per couple.  Meaning that each successive generation will be smaller than the preceding generation.  As couples aren’t even having enough children to replace themselves when they die.  Leaving the eldest generation the largest percentage of the overall population.  Being paid and cared for by the smallest percentage of the overall population.  The younger generation.

States with Aging Populations are Suffering Debt Crises because they Spend More than their Tax Revenue can Cover

As nations develop advanced economies people develop careers.  Moving from one well-paid job to another.  As they advance in their career.  Creating a lot of income to tax.  Allowing a large welfare state.  Which is similar to a Ponzi scheme.  Or pyramid scheme.  As long as more people are entering the workforce than leaving it their income taxes can pay for the small group at the top of the pyramid that leaves the workforce and begins consuming pension and health care benefits in their retirement.  And there is but one requirement of a successful pyramid scheme.  The base of the pyramid must expand greater than the tip of the pyramid.  The wider the base is relative to the top the more successive the pyramid scheme.  As we can see here.

Babies per Generation - Constant Replacement Birthrate

Generation 1 is at the top of the pyramid.  It is the oldest generation.  Which we approximate as a period of 20 years.  In our example Generation 1 are people aged 78-98.  They’re retired and collecting pension, health care and other benefits.  Some combination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, heating assistance, etc.  All paid for by Generation 2 (58-78), Generation 3 (38-58) and Generation 4 (18-38).  Each generation is assumed to bring 6 children into the world.  So these couples are not only replacing themselves but adding an additional 4 children to further increase the size of the population.  Which really makes running a pyramid scheme easy.  For if we assume each member in Generation 1 on average consumes $35,000 annually in benefits that Generations 2 through 4 pay for that comes to $555.56 per person annually.  Or $46.30 per person monthly.  Or $10.68 per person weekly.  Or $1.53 per person daily.  Amounts so small that Generations 2 through 4 can easily pay for Generation 1’s retirement.  Now let’s look at the impact of a declining birthrate with each successive generation.

Babies per Generation - Declining Replacement Birthrate

When all couples in each generation were having on average 6 children this added 1.9 billion new taxpayers.  Which greatly reduced each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1’s retirement costs.  But thanks to birth control, abortion and the growing cost of living each successive generation has fewer babies.  Generation 2 only has 3 children.  Enough to replace themselves.  And add one new taxpayer.  Generation 3 has only 2 children.  Only enough to replace the parents.  Providing that zero population growth that was all the rage during the late 1960s and the 1970s.  While Generation 4 only has 1 child.  Not even enough to replace the parents when they die.  Causing a negative population growth rate.  Which is a big problem in an advanced economy with a large welfare state.  For instead of adding 1.9 billion new taxpayers they only add 217.5 million new taxpayers.  Greatly increasing each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1’s retirement costs.  Instead of paying $555.56 per taxpayer they each have to pay $5,384.62 annually.  Or $448.72 per taxpayer monthly.  Or $103.55 per taxpayer weekly.  Or $14.79 per taxpayer daily.  Numbers that prove to be unsustainable.  The state simply cannot tax people this much for Generation 1’s retirement.  For if they did this and added it to the rest of government’s spending they’re taxing us to fund it would take away all of our income.  This is why advanced economies with aging populations are suffering debt crises.  Because their spending has grown so far beyond their ability to pay for it with tax revenue that they borrow massive amounts of money to finance it.

If you want a Generous Welfare State you need Parents to have More Children

If you carry this out two more generations so every generation only has one child the per taxpayer amount tops out at $14,736.84 annually.  Or $1,228.07 per taxpayer monthly.  Or $283.40 per taxpayer weekly.  Or $40.49 per taxpayer daily.  Amounts far too great for most taxpayers to pay.  This is what an aging population does in a country with a large welfare state.  It makes the population top-heavy in elderly people who no longer work (i.e., pay taxes) but consume the lion’s share of state benefits.  When couples were having 6 children each across the generations there was a ratio of 84 taxpayers per retiree.  When there was a declining replacement birthrate that ratio fell to 15 taxpayers per retiree.  If we look at this graphically we can see the pyramid shape of this generational population.

Generational Population - Constant Replacement Birthrate

With 84 taxpayers per retiree we can see a nice and wide base to the pyramid.  While the tip of the pyramid is only a small sliver of the base (Generation 4).  Making for a successful Ponzi scheme.  Far more people pay into the scheme.  While only a tiny few take money out of the scheme.  This is why Social Security and Medicare didn’t have any solvency problems until after birth control and abortion.  For these gave us a declining replacement birthrate over time.  Greatly shrinking the base of the pyramid.  Which made the tip no longer a small sliver of the base.  But much closer in size to the base.  That if it was an actual pyramid sitting on the ground it wouldn’t take much to push it over.  Unlike the above pyramid.  That we could never push over.  Which is why the above Ponzi scheme would probably never fail.  While the one below will definitely fail.

Generational Population - Declining Replacement Birthrate

If you want a generous welfare state where the state provides pensions, health care, housing and food allowances, etc., you need parents to have more children.  For the more children they have the more future taxpayers there will be.  Or you at least need a constant replacement birthrate.  But if that rate is below the rate of a prior baby boom the welfare state will be unsustainable UNLESS they slash spending.  The United States has a replacement birthrate below the rate of a prior baby boom.  While the Obama administration has exploded the size of welfare state.  Especially with the addition of Obamacare.  Making our Ponzi scheme more like the second chart.  As we currently have approximately 1.75 taxpayers supporting each social security recipient.  Meaning that it won’t take much pushing to topple our pyramid. We’re at the point where a slight breeze may do the trick.  For it will topple.  It’s just a matter of time.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Marriage, Babies and Taxes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 28th, 2013

Politics 101

The Women’s Movement encouraged Women to Choose a Career over Having Babies

It is common for a married couple planning to have children to both work.  To put as much money into the bank for a down payment on a house to raise their family in.  In a nice neighborhood with good schools.  After they buy that house and have their first child it is common for the woman to quit working to stay home and take care of their newborn child.  And the other children they have.  While the husband continues to work.

The women’s movement changed that.  It encouraged women to have fewer babies (or none at all) and to have a career instead.  Those who had children were encouraged to return to work as soon as possible.  To just dump their kids into daycare and continue their careers.  But it doesn’t always work that way.  Sometimes a woman determined not to let her children interfere with her career has a change of heart after having her first child.  Deciding not to return to work.  Choosing to, instead, stay at home and raise her children.  And not dump them into daycare.

This, of course, causes problems for employers.  Making it more risky to hire women.  Especially in this litigious world.  They have to hold a woman’s job for her when she goes on maternity leaves.  And if her job is a critical job, like doing payroll, others will have to split up her job responsibilities.  Perhaps hiring a temp to pick up the less critical tasks (filing, answering phones, etc.).  For mistakes in payroll do not make happy employees.  And mistakes in payroll taxes can cause some very costly problems with the government.  If a woman doesn’t plan on returning to work after having her baby the business can hire a new employee.  And in her last weeks before leaving to have her child she can train her replacement for an orderly transfer of her responsibilities.  Something she can’t do if she changes her mind while on maternity leave.

In the Marriage Contract the Wife gives up her Career to Raise the Children while her Husband provides Financial Support

This can be a reason why men earn more than women.  Because there is less of a chance of his changing his mind to be a stay-at-home parent.  It happens.  But not as often as it happens with women.  Because women have a biological clock ticking.  Which can greatly influence her thinking on her long-held career plans.  For a woman has to leave work to have a child.  And to recover from the birth.  Men don’t.  Their lives can go on with little change.  And because a woman has to take time off she spends more time bonding with her newborn child.  Which is a powerful force.  Mothers are very protective of their babies.  And even though she had all intentions of returning to work having the welfare of her newborn dependent on her can change her best laid plans.

Of course, leaving the workforce not only affects her employer it affects the household budget.  For that lost paycheck can make life more difficult at home.  Forcing the new family to get by on less.  Government understands this.  And they design the tax code to help families raise children.  Because the government needs people to have babies.  And they need them to have more than two.  For if they only have two the population will not continue to grow.  These children will only replace their parents.  Not expand the tax base to help pay for an expanding menu of government benefits going to an aging population.  But having more than two children is very expensive.  Which is why married families get a lot of deductions and credits in the tax code.  To help offset the high cost of having children.  So they will have more children.

And there are other legal issues and traditions to help families.  Such as the baby’s last name.  A woman may hyphenate her name when married.  But you can’t do that with children.  For in a generation or two a person’s name will grow so long with multiple hyphens that it will make it difficult to use on forms, to sign a contract or a check.  Put on a nametag.  Tradition has the father being the financial provider.  As the father is not physically impacted by pregnancy.  He can keep working.  And providing.  So giving the child the father’s last name makes it easy for the child to go through life.  And makes it clear that the father is financially responsible for that child.  Just like it’s a man’s work benefits that cover his wife and children.  Because in the contract of marriage the wife gives up her career to do something more important.  Raise their children.  But she can only do that if her husband provides the income, the health care benefits, house, car, groceries, etc., the family needs.

If Same-Sex Marriage is about an Unfair Tax Code the Left could just vote Republican so we can Lower Taxes for Everyone

The institution of marriage developed to help a man and a woman raise children.  Having children came first.  People have been having children long before they even talked or used tools.  Then civilization advanced.  The economy grew more complex.  This advanced civilization was costly.  Especially when raising children. Then the institution of marriage came along to help families have children.  Governments and business help families have and raise children.  For we need families to have and raise children.  Businesses need an expanding population.  For a business needs more people to grow.  To buy the goods and services of their expanding business.  Just as government needs an expanding population.  To pay the taxes to fund an expanding government.  An expanding population translates into a growing and prosperous economy.  And a growing and more generous government.  Because the more people there are the more people government can tax.

Men and women have married without raising a family.  Yet they still get some of the benefits we developed to help married people raise children.  Such as one spouse being covered under the other’s employer’s health insurance benefit.  Raising the business’ costs without providing an expanding population benefit for this additional cost.  And it’s the same for government.  A married couple may get some favorable tax benefits that cost the government while not providing an expanding population benefit for this additional cost.  So there is a short-term benefit for a childless marriage.  The woman doesn’t leave the workforce.  She builds her career and earns more income.  Providing more tax revenue.  But there is no long-term benefit.  For when this couple leaves the workforce there will be no one to replace them.  So while they start consuming Social Security and Medicare benefits they have not added new people to the workforce to pay for these.

Understanding how and why we have the institution of marriage makes the current same-sex marriage debate puzzling to say the least.  For marriage is not about civil rights.  It’s about lowering the cost of raising children.  Which both business and government needs.  For if couples don’t have more than two children then the population will no longer expand.  And it will age.  Making it more costly for government.  While providing a shrinking customer base for businesses.  A couple that does not bring new children into the world provides no return on the cost of the marriage benefits they receive.  And a same-sex marriage will be no different than a childless marriage between a man and a woman.  From an economic/government funding point of view. They will not help grow the economy.  They will not lower the future cost of government.  And there won’t be a legal or traditional need for giving a newborn child a last name.  As they can’t procreate.

If procreation is out of the equation people can enter committed relationships without the institution of marriage.  During the sexual revolution the Left belittled the institution of marriage and asked why anyone needed a piece of paper to sanction their love.  And these people lived together flaunting convention.  And tradition.  Using birth control and the recently legalized abortion to make sure no children resulted from these new living arrangements.  These marriage-less committed relationships.  Now marriage is the number one issue of the Left.  If it’s for same-sex couples the institution they hated and worked so hard to destroy is now the greatest thing in the world.  And on top of everything else the Left, who supports higher taxes, are arguing that the tax code unfairly discriminates against same-sex couples.  If that is the basis of this being a civil rights issue the Left could just vote Republican so we can lower taxes for everyone.  Then they could have everything they want.  The free love of the sexual revolution.  Low taxes.  And no reason to get married.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT155: “We don’t blame boys for high school kids having sex but we will blame men in combat units once women join them.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 1st, 2013

Fundamental Truth

The Left empowers High School Girls by Encouraging them to have Lots of Sex

The War on Women is all about trying to prevent women from having as much sex as they possibly can.  At least that’s what you’d believe listening to those on the Left.  For the only thing important to women in the last election was preserving their birth control.  And their access to abortion.  So they can have as much sex as possible without having babies.  For if Mitt Romney had won that election, the Left claimed, he would have relegated women to second-class status.  Forcing them into marriages against their will.  The worst fate that could befall any modern women.  Forcing them into loveless marriages.  Having nothing but babies.  And being a sex-slave for her husband.  While he goes out and lives life.

This is the message the Left tells women.  That marriage is horrible.  Unless you’re gay.  Then it’s the most beautiful thing in the world.  But heterosexual women are to avoid it like the plague.  Which birth control and abortion help a woman do.  So they can avoid sex in marriage which is little more than rape to those on the radical Left.  So they can enjoy sex outside of marriage.  A lot of it.  Because it empowers them.  According to those on the Left.  Being a sexual being.  Pleasing multiple sex partners.  Even if it objectifies them.  By allowing men to satisfy all of their sexual fantasies.  Where these men go from woman to woman.  Bedding them and then leaving them.  Using these women for nothing more than sex.  Allowing the modern man to have more sex with more women than ever before.  Without ever having to put a ring on it.  To quote Beyoncé.

Having lots of sex with lots of different partners is so important for women that the Left helps them at every level.  Even in high school.  By providing free birth control.  And access to abortion.  Even without letting their parents know if possible.  And trying to tell these girls to wait until marriage is just another way to try and oppress women.  Taking them back to the Fifties.  When life was horrible for women.  Because they were married and raising families.  A fate worse than death.  Unless you’re gay.  Then it’s the most beautiful thing in the world.  So we help high school girls have sex.  And don’t blame high school boys for encouraging these girls to have sex.  For this is how the Left empowers these girls. By giving them the tools they need to have as much sex as possible.  Because nothing we say will prevent these kids from having sex.  So the responsible thing to do is to help them.  By objectifying these high school girls.  So high school boys can give in to their surging hormones.

Men can Open their Fly and Quickly Urinate when Paused on a March in a Combat Zone

Before military personnel shipped overseas to fight in World War II they watched films teaching them how to avoid catching a venereal disease.  Because these men had just graduated from high school.  And had surging hormones filling them with sexual desires.  Just like high school kids today.  These boys were leaving home for the first time.  And they knew that they may not come back home alive.  A very dark and foreboding feeling.  A sense of your own mortality.  So a lot of these boys facing death in a combat zone thought about dying.  And these boys didn’t want to die as boys.  If they were going to die they wanted to die as men.  And there were women near these combat zones that could help them become men.  And the military bosses knew these men were going to have sex.  No matter what they said.  So they tried to educate these men on how to be safe.  So they wouldn’t catch something from these women.  Who were helping so many other boys to become men.

So what is life like in a combat zone?  It’s long periods of boredom filled with moments of absolute terror.  In the large-scale combat operations of World War II there were great battles.  A lot of marching.  And a lot of waiting to march.  As bad as the terror of combat was the long waits when they did nothing but think about the coming terror of combat were just as bad.  For your mind can wonder to all the horrible things that can happen.  But apart from this dread they were bored.  And looked for things to occupy that boredom.  And these were the times these boys became men.

While in a forward position these men leave propriety back at base camp.  If they pause in a march they can open their fly and quickly urinate.  And button up before the column goes back on the march.  Easy for a man to do.  For they can pee without dropping trou.  For there is nothing worse than having your pants around your ankles taking a squat when incoming mortars start raining down.  Or artillery.  You can drop down and take cover with your pants still around your ankles.  If cover is available.  But if you need to run to take cover you first have to pull up your pants.  The extra time needed may just be enough for an artillery round to find you.  Wounding you.  Causing another soldier to risk his life to pull you to safety.  Which a soldier won’t hesitate to do.  But thankfully men don’t have to poop as much as they pee.  So they don’t often have their pants around their ankles while in a combat zone.

Women in a Combat Zone will present an Alternative to the Unbearable Boredom when not in Combat

Of course, women have to drop trou to pee.  So while a man can turn to his back to the column, unbutton his fly and urinate a woman will have to pull her pants down and squat.  Will she do this in front of her fellow soldiers?  Or will she move off a little for some privacy?  Will other women go with her to stand guard while she pees away from the main body of troops?  Or will she pee alone.  And risk being captured by the enemy?  And what about her menses?  How will she address this while on the march during her period?  Will the column have to pause so she can dig a hole to bury her soiled tampon or pad?  Or will she just cast it aside and let it be discovered by the enemy?  If operating behind enemy lines something like that could tip off the enemy of her presence.  And her fellow soldiers.

But what about the time they are not in combat?  Or on a march?  Or behind enemy lines observing and evading the enemy?  What if they are in a rear camp?  Bored.  Men and women together.  Looking for something to do to kill time.  These men and women away from home.  Away from their sweethearts.  With a heavy sense of their own mortality.  After having recently been in high school where there was free birth control and access to abortion.  So high school girls could have as much sex with as many people as possible.  Where boys enjoyed this empowering of these girls.  Would all that change in a combat zone?  Will they stop having sexual desires?

Of course they won’t.  Only it won’t be like in high school.  Where kids were just going to have sex no matter what their parents or teachers said.  So we had to give them birth control and access to abortion to let these kids be kids.  But after teaching high school kids that it was okay to have as much sex as possible with as many people as possible how do you un-teach them that in the military?  When they are but a few years out of high school?  When all of a sudden it’s just not boys and girls just being boys and girls.  But women presenting an alternative to the unbearable boredom when not in combat.  No, then these boys aren’t just being boys.  They become predators.  Who have to learn to keep it in their pants.  Lest these women end up pregnant.  This is the problem of having women in combat.  (Well, one of them.  Men are typically stronger.  Taller.  They don’t have breasts so body armor fits better.  They don’t need tampons or pads.  And the enemy is less likely to rape men if captured.)  For men and women are different.  As celebrated by the Left when these kids are in high school.  But once women move into combat positions women will have to fight two enemies.  The one the state is at war against.  And the one trying to get into their pants.  Men who will have to be reprimanded for acting like a base animal in a combat zone.  Normally a good thing when you have to kill people.  Which is what soldiers do in a combat zone.  But not a good thing when you have ladies in your platoon.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries