That a modern advanced society should not have its elderly destitute is a given. But how is that best handled?
One way is government welfare. Social Security, however, has proven too costly to maintain, provides an extraordinarily low return on the investment of the tens of millions of workers who pay into it (which doesn’t include government workers – surprise!), and is in the process of going broke.
The arguments for changing Social Security are many, but they all have a common thread: They rely on an intelligent and informed population.
Which brings us to the second way to deal with the elderly: more children.
An educated generation will take care of its parents. Arguing against this argues at the same time against Social Security, which is exactly the same, but on a coercive level. Educated children will not let their parents starve.
But two things are required here: 1, there must be enough children, and, 2, the children must be educated.
America has barely enough children, nor any serious education for them.
The result is the need for the government to provide welfare for the elderly. The tax to sustain these benefits for those who have retired from the workforce, in turn, adds to the cost or having and raising children. This, naturally leads to the decision by many young adults not to have children, leading to fewer children, more taxes per worker for welfare for the elderly, and fewer children.
Regardless of using educated children or coercion to provide welfare for the elderly, the common requirement is more children. We in America are perilously close to not having enough children to sustain our parents. And we are the only country in the West not in a net decline in population. This does not bode well for our future.
No government program – welfare, education, police/fire/military, healthcare – can sustain itself without children. The costs of the government services demanded by the Baby Boomers outstrip the ability of a declining population to support them. Simply, Baby Boomers demand everything, give back nothing, and yet vote in numbers and for legislation that only will continue to make the issues worse.
What are the political Right and Left issues in this context?
Well, every single Blue state is declining in population with the on-and-off exception of California due to the large influx of illegal immigrants. Red states, believing more in America and in the future, and in less government rather than more, show population increases.
Western Europe (the model so many Blue staters demand America implements) is an example of the future of an America that does not decide to educate its citizens, limit immigration (not curtail it; immigration is why America’s population is not in net delcline), lower its costs of government and rein in the huge amounts of welfare provided to the elderly.
Why? Because it is too inconvenient, too expensive to raise children.
Given the enormous welfare payments to those who have reached 55 or 60, Europe’s young adults simply have reached the conclusion that children are just not worth the inconvenience, the hassle, the late nights and all of the work and investment of time and money to raise. So why have them?
Europe already has committed demographic suicide and there is nothing they can do about it. All the voters who will set policy in 2030 have already been born.
What will be America’s choice?