Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Here is some more news:

 Germany dominance over as demographic crunch worsens -- The Telegraph

Germany's birth rate has collapsed to the lowest level in the world and its workforce will start plunging at a faster rate than Japan's by the early 2020s, seriously threatening the long-term viability of Europe's leading economy.

A study by the World Economy Institute in Hamburg (HWWI) found that the average number of births per 1,000 population dropped to 8.2 over the five years from 2008 to 2013, further compounding a demographic crisis already in the pipeline. Even Japan did slightly better at 8.4.

We can do the demographic transition so effectively now!

Let's look closer to the welcome demographic shift:

(birth rate per 1000 women, per year)

Whatever you think about dumb misogynist US conservatives, reproductively they are doing darned well. That is not exactly big news - but the numbers are really distinctive. Just when real natural selection game is starting...

The liberal baby bust -- USA Today (2006)

What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs [...]

It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future -- one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.

[...] Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens" are also less likely to have children.

Does anyone here break the trend?
by das monde on Wed Jun 3rd, 2015 at 11:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Anecdotal evidence suggests that in developed countries, educated, employed people will have children if they reasonably can. They will have extra children if it is financially and organisationally possible.

Statistically, this can be seen very clearly in the difference of fecundity rates between Germany and France. The difference is social engineering by the government : mandating maternity leave, with the obligation for the employer to take a woman back afterwards; organisation of schools and affordable childcare to make parenting compatible with full-time work; tax breaks for families with children; etc.

I suspect that Washington, Oregon etc. have increasing populations, because they are fine places to migrate to. But I think their state governments would do well to examine these policy areas if they are concerned about fecundity rates.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Jun 4th, 2015 at 04:54:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Conservative values" are hardly genetic traits. The gay bars of San Francisco are filled with the former kids of Utah and the Dakotas.

Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other. -- Dr Johnson
by melvin (melvingladys at or near yahoo.com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2015 at 06:40:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The social-genetic dynamics is worth more analysis, surely. Is it like in old times, a younger son was supposed to become a priest (now immigrate to a liberal place)? Are settled liberals yet more behind in procreation than newcomers? If nuture is the dominant factor, how attractive is the "liberal package" for personal lifes?

Seattle is the the most atheist US city, by the way.

by das monde on Thu Jun 4th, 2015 at 10:21:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the Seattle area it's only 52 percent. Reflecting the community's diversity, 10 percent of "believers" claim non-Christian faiths like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hindu.
I like those quotes around "believers".....
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Thu Jun 4th, 2015 at 10:40:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is not entirely new. Way back when, Seattle was heavily populated with immigrants from the Nordic countries. I personally know 5 "old" Finnish Seattle families. Every single individual is atheist.

Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other. -- Dr Johnson
by melvin (melvingladys at or near yahoo.com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2015 at 10:54:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well worth a visit if you are in the area: Seattle's Nordic Heritage Museum

Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other. -- Dr Johnson
by melvin (melvingladys at or near yahoo.com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2015 at 11:53:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The dynamics needs first and foremost be able to explain why the world has gone in a general liberal direction the last century, when conservatives has as a rule had most kids.

Removing genetics as a factor is imho the first step.

by fjallstrom on Sat Jun 6th, 2015 at 05:56:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Their kids go to schools. Education has a well-known liberal bias.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Sat Jun 6th, 2015 at 06:30:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I had mentioned Graves' values systems at ET. (Also here and here.) Individual core values are a big thing in transformational psychology (as in NLP, corporate training). Challenging them instinctively brings forth emotional resistance, denial.

Graves build up his general system from numerous interviews, inspired by Maslow's pyramid of needs. The progression of values fairly reflects available resources (individually or collectively). The odd-numbered values transpire to be ego-centric (so to speak), while even-number numbered are "society" centric.

The liberals (and socialists) fall neatly into the value level #6: humanistic values, human rights; opposing extreme inequality and hierarchy; providing satisfactory living standards to everyone; supporting sexual choice, etc. The conservatives are represented by a mixed bag in this system: #4 (traditional society values, religion); #3 (authoritarian leadership of various sorts); #5 (entrepreneurship, opportunistic autonomy). The reason that conservatism encompasses a few different value systems is that those systems co-existed for centuries already. Besides, the meta-level #7 (awareness that values are not absolute, and using that for personal benefit) generally favors conservativism as well.

Within this paradigm, the general liberal direction in the last century is well explained by unprecedented abundance of resources. Extrapolation to a bright liberal future is then reasonable only assuming the same abundance of resource further down. But if resources become tight instead, prevalence of the value level #6 is in deep trouble. Firstly, it will badly become a punching bag for the conservatives and #7, as they are more eagerly perceptive of resource limitations. Secondly, it will be tougher to sustain or buy #6 personally, with the personal share of resources and benefits becoming unsatisfactory. Liberals will prevail in the biggest cities pretty long, as this is where resources and services are concentrated. But the liberals (generally) find themselves already pretty low in the financial food chain and social influence. Habitually, they profess their values passively and have intrinsic leadership issues. No wonder that they were led by #7 wolves in the last two decades to wholesome irrelevance. The progress in LGBT rights only masks the lost ground on social-economic issues.

Genetics is surely not a dominant factor in the Graves value system. Rather explicitly, it is postulated that Graves' values "progress" pretty inevitably with a larger cake of resources. In particular, #6 is dependent on the level of education, and appearance of having enough to everyone. Genetics might play a role in flexibility, readiness to embrace or avoid particular value systems. For example, (non)stickiness to authority dynamics might be a genetic determinant for #6 acceptance.

What I notice is that there are several trends heralding a depression of #6 values. The brief rise and fall of #6 might be a recurrent story of great civilizations.

by das monde on Sat Jun 6th, 2015 at 11:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think this confuses cause and effect. Even if you accept the premise of the system - which is questionable - resources are perceived to be scarce because it's the in interest of #7s to make them so.

In reality resources are abundant, and with reality-based development there's no need for current and future constraints.

What there is a need for is a removal of resource use for pointless tribal wealth display - which directly and indirectly creates scarcity in the short term, and stunts resource development in the longer term.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jun 7th, 2015 at 08:04:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, we take it for granted that "in reality resources are abundant"? There will be "no need for future constraints"? No matter what the population on Earth? No bottleneck resources ever?!

The current average Western lifestyle is beyond Earth's carrying capacity (for today's 7 billion) already, many suspect. We are already flaunting our tribal display to the future generations.

Even if humanity is objectively safe with resources for this century, perceptions of the concerned may matter more. The current austerity regime for the masses is indeed artificially sharpened scarcity. Would this be the first time in human history that tribal elites prefer to experiment with artificial scarcity rather than risk a cannibalistic collapse? Would #9s agree to compromise their transhumanist hobbies just to allow a billion more of fit, happy, productive people live on Earth? What if we won't ever reach planets near other stars if we dig into planet's oil resources for another 50 years like now?

by das monde on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 04:15:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wait, you're lecturing the ET crowd that we're taking it for granted that resources are abundant? I do believe you win the Internet. Well trolled.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 05:20:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who else will troll "in reality resources are abundant"?
by das monde on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 05:39:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're both wrong :

Firstly, it will badly become a punching bag for the conservatives and #7, as they are more eagerly perceptive of resource limitations.

Excuse me, who are the people who are perceptive of resource limitations? Do you class the global green movement among the conservatives?

Conservatives are generally in deep denial about resource limitations, or they pretend to be (global warming denialists are rarely liberals, for example). They consider that the commons (fossil fuels, fish in the sea, an unpolluted environment) are theirs for the grabbing, and eagerly exploit them for individual profit, while the negative consequences are denied (and become a collective responsibility, that only liberals care about).

Resource limitations are real. Scarcity is both the result of confiscation, and of mismanagement by the confiscators, who don't care about optimising the global outcome as long as they get their share.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 04:27:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On the conscious level, the conservatives deny resource limitations indeed. But they never daydreamed (correctly or not, at different times) that there is enough for everyone on the planet. Generally, they do not take personal resources for granted, and they are ready to be adequately competitive. Their respect for hierarchy, territorial and private property forms a seamless way of dealing with resources. As rationalists, we still have to show that we have anything smarter than historical (or even nature's) territorial/hierarchical arrangements.
by das monde on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 04:41:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are these your personal fantasies, or were they dreamed up by some new-age pop psycologist? You seem to be extrapolating a lot from the basic notion of the conservative's respect for hierarchy : you appear to have created a personal system of values based on your perception of the fitness of hierarchical organization to automatically manage resource constraints.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 06:17:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
After a few encounters with some personal and (somewhat) corporate training, suggestive ideas do come to mind. It is then more fun to read ecological, evolutionary or political philosophy, Archdruid, watch "American sniper". I could appropriate those links between value sets and resource management, to some degree.

The NLP/transformational training industry (whether for persons organizations) has definitely gathered a lot of practical impactful knowledge that is guiding big organizations and their leaders. In particular, corporations build up their inner structure as "societies" of individuals with "complimentary" Graves value sets. Not too surprisingly, the industry is not particularly interested do disseminate its knowledge to public just so. An academic formulation is apparently not the most attractive option for those involved.

Hierarchical structures are anti-fragile (in Taleb's sense) with respect to resource limitations, almost tautologically. That is a better characterization than fit.

by das monde on Tue Jun 9th, 2015 at 04:25:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And as a philosophy of political and social organisation, this is distinct from fascism in what way?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Tue Jun 9th, 2015 at 09:00:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Fascism is just misunderstood. Probably the fault of the feminists.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 9th, 2015 at 09:24:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Fascism = corporatism, old news.
by das monde on Tue Jun 9th, 2015 at 10:37:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have a hard time believing those figures.

Even defining "women" as "women over 20" or so, and rounding down to 55, that is still 3.3 children per woman, in other words a runaway population increase. That does not seem right.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Thu Jun 4th, 2015 at 10:47:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I looked up the CDC source. Apparently, they mean "births per 1000 women aged 15-44 years".

The map is for the year 2011.

by das monde on Thu Jun 4th, 2015 at 09:54:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In other words, you cannot distinguish real effects from artefacts of the age distribution of women of childbearing age.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 04:04:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What does this alter in the relative comparison? I was just paying minimal attention to the statistics specification.
by das monde on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 04:18:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can easily get a factor of two in either direction.

Quantifying the effect in this particular case would require me to go dig around in BLS databases for an hour or two, which I don't feel like doing right this moment.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 05:55:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do not see what you still need.

The "replacement rate" of 2.0 children per women corresponds to 66.7 for the map data (=2.0x1000/(30 years)) - right in the gap between the blue and red numbers (apart from Hawaii).

by das monde on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 06:27:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Imagine a contrived scenario where all women have twins sometime during their 30th year of age, and no children in any other age bracket.

Now imagine that you have two states, one in which all the women are 29 years old, and one in which they are all 28 years old.

Now tell me what the absolute birth rate would be in those two states.

Now tell me what the absolute birth rate would be in the following year, for both states.

For extra credit, calculate whether the states in this example are over or under the replacement fertility.

In the real world, of course, both the demographics and the fertility distribution by age are much messier than in the nice, clean example above. Hence the need for spending an hour or two poking about in BLS data.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 08:02:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A long river in Egypt comes to mind.
by das monde on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 08:19:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Mississippi?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 09:58:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Checked the CDC, it is children per woman aged 15-44. So stable population.
by fjallstrom on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 08:06:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just to reinforce my earlier remarks.
Regardless of ideology, there are powerful economic drivers to the geographical trends. I'd bet that wages are generally lower in red states, but the cost of living is also considerably lower (you can buy a house for next to nothing in Topeka). The result is that it is often feasible to run a single-income family. Whereas in Seattle or Boston, you need two incomes just to pay the rent.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 02:57:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Economy is indeed a direct driver. But can this be a theory of "everything"? Texas is not cheap. The liberals could look at cheaper living options as well. Rentiers in Boston, Seattle must be doing great. And what about the proportions of singles?

The article with the map says:

When Lesthaeghe studied the map county by county, he found the link between family size and political leaning became even stronger.
It then acknowledges that (basically) your economic drivers increasingly pressurre the conservatives as well. It makes a guess that the fertility predictive power will last until 2020. A probable dominant factor for liberal optimism is mentioned (birth rates rise amongst women of color).
by das monde on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 04:26:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Cherry-picking, some, in that map?

But let's look at the total population picture (US Census Bureau for 2013:

Total Population of the cited "red" states: 42.4 mn

Total Population of the cited "blue" states: 94.3 mn

In other words, the "red" states don't get to even half the population of the "blue" states.

Which relativises the shock value of the chart.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 03:32:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What cherries don't you like? A better pick somewhere else?

Yeah, we can just go sleep well and never look at this subject.

by das monde on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 04:34:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What is the subject?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 04:40:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why no reply?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 02:52:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Even more: there are a lot of replies to your post, and I took the time to do the numbers on total population from the Census Bureau.

So please cut the crap about people are suggesting we just go to sleep.

So the cherries. There are a heap of red states in that CDC table that are barely higher than the blue states, and that are under the 62/1000 level that you tell us means population renewal. Why aren't these cited?

Alabama 60.6
Georgia 61.6
N Carolina 60.4
S Carolina 60.6
Virginia 60.9
W Virginia 61.5

And blue California (not cited) is spot on the 62/1000 level.

If the chart means that the top numbers in the table are pretty much all culturally-isolated conservative religious Mid-West states, well duh.

And secondly that the lowest levels are in the less isolated less conservative less religious heavily-populated regions, well double-duh.

If the point is to say that the rednecks are going to catch up on the bluebottles, then the total population figures show that it isn't going to be much of a thing any time soon.

So what is that chart about?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 03:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Firstly, the observation of discrepancy between "redneck" and liberal birth rates is not based on that one chart. I gave two other articles, one of them is statistics heavy. That is the broad subject we are talking about, if it needs to be spelled out.

Secondly, "cherry picking" the most extreme cases of birth rate and observing the color consistency is a totally fair game. Your can surely analyze further the middle pot, isolatedness. But your "double dough" is not on target. The less isolated, less conservative states are more mixed cases, thus their middle range birth rate is fully consistent with the supposed high discrepancy between conservatives and liberals. The researcher says, the discrepancy on the "county by county" level is only more clear.

So you will only worry when the absolute numbers even out? No discussion until then? Then I say, there is always sleep or the Nile.

by das monde on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 04:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I must admit I miss the Nile reference.

Is it a reference to Brave New World and the early attempts to teach kids during their sleep? A play on word with nil or nihilist?

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Sat Jun 6th, 2015 at 04:34:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a play on words. "The Nile" sounds like "denial".
by fjallstrom on Sat Jun 6th, 2015 at 05:24:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.", usually attributed to Mark Twain
by Katrin on Sat Jun 6th, 2015 at 07:35:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The chart is a "Wow!" chart. It relies on displaying outliers in a distribution to make a point. That is indeed a form of cherry-picking, especially when the other 27 states are considered, that present a much more ambiguous picture. Why present only 10 red states but 13 blue? Because 3 more red states would have muddied the picture presented? Why show Florida (not a particularly true-blue state) on 59.6, but not the neighbouring red states that are on 60-61?

das monde:

So you will only worry when the absolute numbers even out? No discussion until then?

  1. "No discussion" is a strawman. There's plenty of discussion. If it doesn't say what you believe, that's tough.

  2. Given the fertility rates cited across the whole distribution, and given the total population figures I gave for the outliers, it would seem that it'll be a long time before the population of those red states equals that of those blue states. And this is without considering mobility -- what will an increased population in the isolated interior have to build a life on? How many will leave for the exterior states? How many will then change their cultural and political attitudes (see melvin's comment)?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jun 6th, 2015 at 04:59:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By "No discussion until then?" I refer to your strongly dismissal tone, as if we should not even think about this matter (until overwhelmed by numbers, presumably). It does not mean I have no moles (with tight beliefs) to whack here.
by das monde on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 03:34:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
as if we should not even think about this matter

I've done enough discussion to show that you're wrong.

What I'm dismissive of is that chart. And, probably too, the notion that political demography is just a matter of birth rates.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 03:53:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You proved everything, surely.
by das monde on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 04:20:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series