Historical novels have been written tracking a family through the centuries. When my children were in elementary school they had an assignment to place genealogical information in a time line of national and world events. We are all part of history, and that can make life interesting when we ponder some of the connections. For example, my siblings and I, along with our descendants, fairly well track the course of the both the baby boom generation and boomer echo generation. The US Census Bureau has the baby boom beginning in 1946 and lasting to 1964. My oldest sibling was born in early January 1948 (close enough) and my youngest was born in 1964 (dead on). In 1957 the nation had set a record for the highest number of births, a record that would last for fifty years. When surpassed in 2007, it was not by much. 1957 is the year of my birth, and my parents did their part to make it the largest population cohort in US history (until 2007) by giving birth to twins. Of course, in 1957 the number of live births per 1,000 women of child-bearing age (15—44) was much higher at 122.9 than it was in 2007 when it was 69.3. This post will focus on demographic trends, and a later post will focus on economic linkage to demographics. Baby boomers have for years dominated American cultural trends, and in so doing they get credit or blame for the workings of the nation. The boomers are now entering retirement and the consumer, cultural and social clout is switching to their offspring. This demographic movement is a first world problem.
The free-love and peace events of the 1960’s began a series of cultural movements that are still on-going today. Perhaps the introduction of the pill in the mid 1960’s placed an end to the baby boom, but it was also related to demographics as the WWII generation (the parents of the baby boomers) were nearing the end of their child bearing years. Some demographers have stated that with the rise of the pill, and other cultural shifts, children "lost" value in American society. Not only was the number of births at a record low for much of the 1970's, but the abortion rate climbed sharply in the 1970’s. The abortion rate would later decline by about half after the 1980’s. The same demographers say that children began to take on a renewed level of importance to young couples in the 80's. In the late 1980’s the live birth rate began to climb to near four million a year, and in taht decade would surpass the four million mark for the first time since 1964. The rise of the births in the 1980’s would lead to what is called the baby boom echo—children of us boomers, most of whom today are part of the millennial generation. Demographers seem to differ on the start date of the echo generation. Some say it began in 1977, others say it began in 1982, while others say it was 1985. Whatever the start date, they all seem to concur that the end date was 1994. As an aside, let me point out that it was just this year that the millenials overtook the Boomer generation as the largest in the nation. This was due to two things--the increase in mortality among the boomers (of which our family has unfortunately been apart), and immigration which increased the number of millenials.
Having been born near the middle of the boomer generation, but the last of my siblings to be married, my two children were born in 1991 and 1994. For the overall children of my siblings there is one of generation X, born 1970, one born in 1982, and all others in 1985 or after. Perhaps this shows why demographers do not know what date to proclaim as the start date, as to my knowledge they never studied this family. On the other end of the timeline, only one of my nieces and nephews was born after 1994. The Hovel family is well connected to the baby boom and the echo boom. Tracking the generations we can also see some of the common cultural dynamics attributed to the boomers and their offspring.
The echo boomers reflect dynamic changes that have occurred in American society. They were the first to grow up with computers, the first to have cell phones at a young age, they have made Facebook ubiquitous to where it is even used by their parents and grandparents. They saw the change in society from VHS tapes, to CD’s and now to streaming of movies and television shows. They own no landline for phone service. Can openers would be foreign to them, until the hipster resurgance of all things 50ish occurred. Think how record players and fifty-era furniture and styles are now in vogue. (I wonder if the fifty era revivial is brought on by boomers trying to gather items from their childhood, or if the things they grew up with are now thought of as cool.) Of most interest to the echo generation is that they are often thought to be over-managed. They were driven to most all places they needed to go. For example in 1969 over 41% of 5 to 14 year olds walked or biked to school; that figure dropped to less than 13% in 2009. It is rather ironic that their parents who came of age in the 1960’s and 1970’s, claiming independence from their parents and caused a major change in cultural values (e.g. pill, abortion, sex outside of marriage) were so overly protective of their children, producing what is now referred to as Helicopter parents. Parents, it could be argued, knowing what they were like as children did not want their children getting involved in similar activities. I think of the "Everybody Loves Raymond" episode where it comes out that Debra pulled off her shirt, and bra during Mardi Gras, and wondered if it not best to lock her daughter up to make sure she did not do the same. Let me say here, that not all of us boomers fit the common stereo-type of the boomer generation. The boomers, overall (and not in everey case), grew up with more independence than they probably allowed their children, as can be gleaned from this earlier post. At leat that is what all the experts assert. Us boomers are often referred to as the "Me" generation, but if they were so protective of their children, was it less about them and more about their kids?
Today, among the echo boomers, the nation is grappling with a fertility rate at or near record lows. Although, in absolute numbers total births are near that produced in the early years of the baby boom (1946—1953). For example, in 2015, the number of live births was just below 4 million, a value somewhat comparable to that in 1953. The US currently sees about 2.6 million deaths per year, which is lower than the birth rate, although demographers point out that deaths will increase with the aging of the baby boomer population. Child bearing is occurring later and later in life. For example, forty years ago women in their 20’s had 2.5 times the births of women in their early 30’s. However, today women in their 30’s have more children than those in their 20’s. It is probably a good thing though that births among 18 and 19 years old females is half of what it was as recently as the early 1990’s.
These trends too can be seen in our family. Of the 16 Hovel cousins (sons or daugthers of myself and siblings), three are married, and of the those three, only two have children. The generation X niece has two offspring, both born after the end of the boomer echo (1999 and 2004), and the next oldest, born in 1982 has one child. Three others, who are at least thirty years of age are not married. All ten female cousins fall within the census based age grouping for fertility (15 to 44); three of the females are married, with two having produced three children total among them. I am not intending to make any judgements, only to point out how the family mirrors the demographic trends of the nation. One thing the family has not mirrored, which in my mind is a good thing, is the national demographic trends of out of wedlock births. All three of the grand niece and nephews were born to a wedded couple. Today, and for several years now, around 40% of the births nationally have been to an unmarried mother.
There is a certain irony that with the change in sexual mores of cohabitation, and births out of wedlock that the birth rate is near historic lows. However, largest population cohort in the nation is the 24 to 25 year old age group who are have recently entered the work force and establishing themselves in their careers. At some point, if current trends continue, they will marry and have children in their 30's.
Population cohorts are critical to the vibrancy of a nation. Demographers use population pyramids to visually show the demographic makeup of a nation. Historically, the population pyramid was, well a pyramid. But, today the one for the US is forming the shape of a population box. The Pew Research Center has noted as much, of which the Atlantic based on article on that research; The Atlantic has a web site that one can track the change from a pyramid to a projected box in 2060. [Scroll to middle image of the prior link to see the moving pyramid over time.] However, we do not need to wait to 2060 to see the forming of the box, as I said, it is starting to form at present time. A box, however, is better than an inverted pyramid that is being seen by some other developed countries. To me the population box, along with an inverted pyramid, is indicative of a post-modern world with minimal growth. A first world problem. Given this, expectations of growth as seen since the end of WWII will likely not be experienced, even with changes in technology. Births in the US and many European nations is well below the 2.1 births per woman (aka fertility rate) required for replacement, except for many immigrants. If Europe seems different now, wait 25 to 30 years when there will be few Italians, and Spaniards. (The CIA Factbook identifies the current Italian fertility rate to be a very low 1.47. It identifies the birth rate at 8.74 births/1000, and the death rate at 10.19/1000 persons.) Thye are not even replacing themselves. The 2015 US fertility rate was 1.87.
Why does all this matter? it is really quite simple. Growth of the first world has been essentially driven by the baby boom generation from spending by their parents to their spending on their children. Boomers are now nearing retirement and their peak spending yeras are in the past. It was their wealth that drove the nation to new economic levels. In driving up first world economies, it also aided many second and third world economies (think overseas production of goods, even if it is a sweatshop). Economies depend upon growth and growth is dependent on more than spending, it is it also dependent upon people. The US is a very wealthy nation, it is just that over the past several years wealth has become more and more concentrated in the hands of a few--the top 1 and 10%, if you will. The average citizen has seen more or less stagnant wages as globalization had reduced that part of the population to the lowest common denominator. A one percenter only needs so many homes, and can buy only so many items. A radio ad for workers at Stoughton Trailer promises a salary of up to $17/per hour for assembly line workers, or a annual salary of just over $35,000 per year. Demographics is part of what has driven the growth of the nation. Of course their are other factors as well, but some argue non as strong as pure demographics. A future post will talk about the relationship between demography and the nation's economic health.
 |
| Population Pyramids for 1964 with my family at that time and one for 2005 with my wife and children |
The free-love and peace events of the 1960’s began a series of cultural movements that are still on-going today. Perhaps the introduction of the pill in the mid 1960’s placed an end to the baby boom, but it was also related to demographics as the WWII generation (the parents of the baby boomers) were nearing the end of their child bearing years. Some demographers have stated that with the rise of the pill, and other cultural shifts, children "lost" value in American society. Not only was the number of births at a record low for much of the 1970's, but the abortion rate climbed sharply in the 1970’s. The abortion rate would later decline by about half after the 1980’s. The same demographers say that children began to take on a renewed level of importance to young couples in the 80's. In the late 1980’s the live birth rate began to climb to near four million a year, and in taht decade would surpass the four million mark for the first time since 1964. The rise of the births in the 1980’s would lead to what is called the baby boom echo—children of us boomers, most of whom today are part of the millennial generation. Demographers seem to differ on the start date of the echo generation. Some say it began in 1977, others say it began in 1982, while others say it was 1985. Whatever the start date, they all seem to concur that the end date was 1994. As an aside, let me point out that it was just this year that the millenials overtook the Boomer generation as the largest in the nation. This was due to two things--the increase in mortality among the boomers (of which our family has unfortunately been apart), and immigration which increased the number of millenials.
 |
| US Census pyramids for select years. If you look closely you can see where some 2030 generations will be smaller than those in 2010, mainly generation X |
Having been born near the middle of the boomer generation, but the last of my siblings to be married, my two children were born in 1991 and 1994. For the overall children of my siblings there is one of generation X, born 1970, one born in 1982, and all others in 1985 or after. Perhaps this shows why demographers do not know what date to proclaim as the start date, as to my knowledge they never studied this family. On the other end of the timeline, only one of my nieces and nephews was born after 1994. The Hovel family is well connected to the baby boom and the echo boom. Tracking the generations we can also see some of the common cultural dynamics attributed to the boomers and their offspring.
 |
| Not discussed, but an important factor is the dependency ratio, fewer and fewer to support more and more |
The echo boomers reflect dynamic changes that have occurred in American society. They were the first to grow up with computers, the first to have cell phones at a young age, they have made Facebook ubiquitous to where it is even used by their parents and grandparents. They saw the change in society from VHS tapes, to CD’s and now to streaming of movies and television shows. They own no landline for phone service. Can openers would be foreign to them, until the hipster resurgance of all things 50ish occurred. Think how record players and fifty-era furniture and styles are now in vogue. (I wonder if the fifty era revivial is brought on by boomers trying to gather items from their childhood, or if the things they grew up with are now thought of as cool.) Of most interest to the echo generation is that they are often thought to be over-managed. They were driven to most all places they needed to go. For example in 1969 over 41% of 5 to 14 year olds walked or biked to school; that figure dropped to less than 13% in 2009. It is rather ironic that their parents who came of age in the 1960’s and 1970’s, claiming independence from their parents and caused a major change in cultural values (e.g. pill, abortion, sex outside of marriage) were so overly protective of their children, producing what is now referred to as Helicopter parents. Parents, it could be argued, knowing what they were like as children did not want their children getting involved in similar activities. I think of the "Everybody Loves Raymond" episode where it comes out that Debra pulled off her shirt, and bra during Mardi Gras, and wondered if it not best to lock her daughter up to make sure she did not do the same. Let me say here, that not all of us boomers fit the common stereo-type of the boomer generation. The boomers, overall (and not in everey case), grew up with more independence than they probably allowed their children, as can be gleaned from this earlier post. At leat that is what all the experts assert. Us boomers are often referred to as the "Me" generation, but if they were so protective of their children, was it less about them and more about their kids?
 |
| 2014 Population Pyramid |
Today, among the echo boomers, the nation is grappling with a fertility rate at or near record lows. Although, in absolute numbers total births are near that produced in the early years of the baby boom (1946—1953). For example, in 2015, the number of live births was just below 4 million, a value somewhat comparable to that in 1953. The US currently sees about 2.6 million deaths per year, which is lower than the birth rate, although demographers point out that deaths will increase with the aging of the baby boomer population. Child bearing is occurring later and later in life. For example, forty years ago women in their 20’s had 2.5 times the births of women in their early 30’s. However, today women in their 30’s have more children than those in their 20’s. It is probably a good thing though that births among 18 and 19 years old females is half of what it was as recently as the early 1990’s.
 |
| Pyramid from the Atlantic article |
These trends too can be seen in our family. Of the 16 Hovel cousins (sons or daugthers of myself and siblings), three are married, and of the those three, only two have children. The generation X niece has two offspring, both born after the end of the boomer echo (1999 and 2004), and the next oldest, born in 1982 has one child. Three others, who are at least thirty years of age are not married. All ten female cousins fall within the census based age grouping for fertility (15 to 44); three of the females are married, with two having produced three children total among them. I am not intending to make any judgements, only to point out how the family mirrors the demographic trends of the nation. One thing the family has not mirrored, which in my mind is a good thing, is the national demographic trends of out of wedlock births. All three of the grand niece and nephews were born to a wedded couple. Today, and for several years now, around 40% of the births nationally have been to an unmarried mother.
 |
| Italy's Population Pyramid is becoming inverted |
There is a certain irony that with the change in sexual mores of cohabitation, and births out of wedlock that the birth rate is near historic lows. However, largest population cohort in the nation is the 24 to 25 year old age group who are have recently entered the work force and establishing themselves in their careers. At some point, if current trends continue, they will marry and have children in their 30's.
 |
| Japan's Pyramid |
Population cohorts are critical to the vibrancy of a nation. Demographers use population pyramids to visually show the demographic makeup of a nation. Historically, the population pyramid was, well a pyramid. But, today the one for the US is forming the shape of a population box. The Pew Research Center has noted as much, of which the Atlantic based on article on that research; The Atlantic has a web site that one can track the change from a pyramid to a projected box in 2060. [Scroll to middle image of the prior link to see the moving pyramid over time.] However, we do not need to wait to 2060 to see the forming of the box, as I said, it is starting to form at present time. A box, however, is better than an inverted pyramid that is being seen by some other developed countries. To me the population box, along with an inverted pyramid, is indicative of a post-modern world with minimal growth. A first world problem. Given this, expectations of growth as seen since the end of WWII will likely not be experienced, even with changes in technology. Births in the US and many European nations is well below the 2.1 births per woman (aka fertility rate) required for replacement, except for many immigrants. If Europe seems different now, wait 25 to 30 years when there will be few Italians, and Spaniards. (The CIA Factbook identifies the current Italian fertility rate to be a very low 1.47. It identifies the birth rate at 8.74 births/1000, and the death rate at 10.19/1000 persons.) Thye are not even replacing themselves. The 2015 US fertility rate was 1.87.
Why does all this matter? it is really quite simple. Growth of the first world has been essentially driven by the baby boom generation from spending by their parents to their spending on their children. Boomers are now nearing retirement and their peak spending yeras are in the past. It was their wealth that drove the nation to new economic levels. In driving up first world economies, it also aided many second and third world economies (think overseas production of goods, even if it is a sweatshop). Economies depend upon growth and growth is dependent on more than spending, it is it also dependent upon people. The US is a very wealthy nation, it is just that over the past several years wealth has become more and more concentrated in the hands of a few--the top 1 and 10%, if you will. The average citizen has seen more or less stagnant wages as globalization had reduced that part of the population to the lowest common denominator. A one percenter only needs so many homes, and can buy only so many items. A radio ad for workers at Stoughton Trailer promises a salary of up to $17/per hour for assembly line workers, or a annual salary of just over $35,000 per year. Demographics is part of what has driven the growth of the nation. Of course their are other factors as well, but some argue non as strong as pure demographics. A future post will talk about the relationship between demography and the nation's economic health.
No comments:
Post a Comment