Demographic time bomb?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, jbarm said:

I have to chuckle at the proposed 'solutions' to declining birth rates in the Church or US.  If only some rich entity (Church or US Gov't) would give free housing, free education, free childcare -- then birthrates would increase............

Utah used to have the highest fertility rate in the US and is now in 4th place -- but Utah's rate is now below the replacement rate at only 1.99 births per woman.

You offer two cruel extremes:  Either a free ride, or nothing.

You chuckle, but reality says something far different:

Quote

The Great Recession played a role. Utah’s fertility rate held steady in the 2.8 to 2.5 range for 22 years (1985-2007), before plummeting during the Great Recession. Utah lost over 100,000 jobs during the downturn. Utah families responded to the uncertainty and economic hardship by having fewer children.  https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2019/12/5/20995810/utahs-fertility-rate-falls-below-replacement-level-for-the-first-time-but-theres-more-to-the-story

You overlook a normal response to the economy.  Only when people can look forward to the future with confidence, will they take on the huge responsibility of marriage and children.

1 hour ago, jbarm said:

Too bad people haven't looked at the results of such efforts to increase birthrates already attempted around the globe: Empirical evidence is these efforts do not make much of difference in fertility rates.  Sweden and Norway both are heavily socialized, offering generous paid familial leave, subsidized or free childcare, direct subsidies to parents who have children. Net result:  declines in birthrates despite these efforts well below replacement levels of 2.1 births per woman.

Singapore offers direct cash payments to parents of children to try to boost fertility rates, but has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world (1.1 births per woman). South Korea is offering something similar to new parents and they are below 1 birth per woman and their total population is shrinking.

Japan has offered such subsidies and their population is dropping by over 400,000 people per year..............

HIgher education, careers and later marriage ages for women are the primary cause of lower birthrates, not the lack of some gov't or Church subsidy.  Prime years for child bearing are taken up with those activities (which I am in favor of for my daughters), so basic math shows a lower potential number of children can be borne during a shorter available time period for bearing children.

'Children of record' total numbers have been declining in the Church for the last 5 years or so, thus reflecting the lower birth rates in the Church.

Social programs can't stop this decline as long as women are empowered to get educated, work outside the home and choose when and if they get married.  Nothing can stop this trend, especially superficial and ineffective subsidies favored by the 'government will save us' faction.

I can't see any way to turn the demographic tide either within or without the Church.............

People don't want freebies, and they don't want corporatists telling them what to do.  They want responsibility in a meritocracy (which is what Jordan Peterson has been saying for a long time).  It was once possible to raise yourself by your own bootstraps.  That is no longer possible.  The expenses of an education are out of control (not so when I was young), and purchasing a home is nearly impossible (not so when I was young).  Give young people reasonable expectations (not the ridiculous extremes you offer) and they will respond in reasonable ways.

As to your false claims about socialism, you completely overlook the actual beneficiaries of real socialism:  The corporations which are propped up with tax money from the common people, whose income has been stagnant in real value now for decades.  Young people don't need special privileges, but just need a little fairness.  The billionaire class doesn't want to make reasonable concessions, and they call the shots -- they own the levers of power both here and in Russia, and worldwide.  Face it JB.  We are a plutocracy.

[AtlanticMike]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Carbon dioxide levels are now the highest they have been in 3.6 million years, and quickly growing.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. First off, let me say, obviously I'm not a scientist. But for the past 12 years I've been monitoring CO2 levels myself with a handheld CO2 monitor because I couldn't wrap my mind around why people were so scared of the gas CO2. CO2 is an essential gas, when CO2 levels decline to 150 ppm plants start to starve. Today an average CO2 reading is around 420ppm. 

    Will what I'm about to say change anyone's mind about CO2, probably not, heck, I still don't understand CO2, but I'm not as "scared" of it as I used to be because I understand it a little better after monitoring it with my own CO2 meter. Here's some results I've come across in the past few years. On average where I live CO2 is around 390ppm. At the end of the day if I stand in my backyard amongst the trees and grass I'll get a reading of around 280 to 310ppm because the trees and grass have removed so much CO2 out of the air. In the morning I've had readings as high as 520 ppm. In sacrament meeting I've had readings as high as 600 ppm with probably 150 people breathing out CO2 in the chapel. I went to a monster truck show with around 3000 people and had a 740 ppm reading. A huge greenhouse down the street from me pumps in CO2 to help feed the plants in the spring and I've reached 1400 ppm readings inside a 10,000 sqft greenhouse.

     My little experiment has help me realize that CO2 isn't as "scary" as a lot of people think it is. Is the climate warming, yes, probably. Is that a bad thing, I don't think we know yet and I often wonder if the people we SEE pushing that climate change is going to be the end of the human race might be worshipping at the feet of a new worlwide secular religion. 

       

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, jbarm said:

I have to chuckle at the proposed 'solutions' to declining birth rates in the Church or US.  If only some rich entity (Church or US Gov't) would give free housing, free education, free childcare -- then birthrates would increase.

Too bad people haven't looked at the results of such efforts to increase birthrates already attempted around the globe: Empirical evidence is these efforts do not make much of difference in fertility rates.  Sweden and Norway both are heavily socialized, offering generous paid familial leave, subsidized or free childcare, direct subsidies to parents who have children. Net result:  declines in birthrates despite these efforts well below replacement levels of 2.1 births per woman.

Singapore offers direct cash payments to parents of children to try to boost fertility rates, but has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world (1.1 births per woman). South Korea is offering something similar to new parents and they are below 1 birth per woman and their total population is shrinking.

Japan has offered such subsidies and their population is dropping by over 400,000 people per year.

Utah used to have the highest fertility rate in the US and is now in 4th place -- but Utah's rate is now below the replacement rate at only 1.99 births per woman.

HIgher education, careers and later marriage ages for women are the primary cause of lower birthrates, not the lack of some gov't or Church subsidy.  Prime years for child bearing are taken up with those activities (which I am in favor of for my daughters), so basic math shows a lower potential number of children can be borne during a shorter available time period for bearing children.

'Children of record' total numbers have been declining in the Church for the last 5 years or so, thus reflecting the lower birth rates in the Church.

Social programs can't stop this decline as long as women are empowered to get educated, work outside the home and choose when and if they get married.  Nothing can stop this trend, especially superficial and ineffective subsidies favored by the 'government will save us' faction.

I can't see any way to turn the demographic tide either within or without the Church.

jb

Maybe we should make a livable wage mandatory so dual income households are not required for most families to survive beyond a bare subsistence level.

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

You say that as if it's a bad thing. First off, let me say, obviously I'm not a scientist. But for the past 12 years I've been monitoring CO2 levels myself with a handheld CO2 monitor because I couldn't wrap my mind around why people were so scared of the gas CO2. CO2 is an essential gas, when CO2 levels decline to 150 ppm plants start to starve. Today an average CO2 reading is around 420ppm. 

    Will what I'm about to say change anyone's mind about CO2, probably not, heck, I still don't understand CO2, but I'm not as "scared" of it as I used to be because I understand it a little better after monitoring it with my own CO2 meter. Here's some results I've come across in the past few years. On average where I live CO2 is around 390ppm. At the end of the day if I stand in my backyard amongst the trees and grass I'll get a reading of around 280 to 310ppm because the trees and grass have removed so much CO2 out of the air. In the morning I've had readings as high as 520 ppm. In sacrament meeting I've had readings as high as 600 ppm with probably 150 people breathing out CO2 in the chapel. I went to a monster truck show with around 3000 people and had a 740 ppm reading. A huge greenhouse down the street from me pumps in CO2 to help feed the plants in the spring and I've reached 1400 ppm readings inside a 10,000 sqft greenhouse.

     My little experiment has help me realize that CO2 isn't as "scary" as a lot of people think it is. Is the climate warming, yes, probably. Is that a bad thing, I don't think we know yet and I often wonder if the people we SEE pushing that climate change is going to be the end of the human race might be worshipping at the feet of a new worlwide secular religion. 

       

This is the definition of anecdotal evidence.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No.  Bill Gates is not a useful or knowledgeable source on Global Warming science.  Like a lot of people, he means well, but it is too late to stop what is already in process.  I did my part:  Bought a Prius hybrid, and installed solar panels on my house, but most others among us are slow to do anything at all.  I am very sorry for the coming debacle -- Bangladesh and Holland will cease to exist.  Denmark will be a series of Islands.  Miami and most of Florida will be under water (plenty of swamp for the gators), and London and New York subways will be flooded (both cities will have to be moved inland).  There are electronic maps which show what will happen worldwide.

Gates is a prolific researcher and a smart man.  He has put $$ into a lot of into various renewable energy projects and I am sure will do more.  When I read his book it does some almost insurmountable to get where we need to be.  But the ideas are interesting.  I think he understands the issues well.  If is an idea book. What can we do about the problem. But I do fear as well what you say above.  I drive a hybrid, have solar and geothermal.  Personally I think the biggest obstacle is political bot domestically and geo-political.

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Teancum

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you pinpoint it more precisely? This decade? Next? At what point will it become clear to everybody that the alarmists were right? 

Why do you say alarmists? .

Edited April 25, 2021 by Teancum

[poptart]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Generally speaking, marriage and fertility rates tend to plummet when youth are saddled with huge student debt, can't find good paying jobs, and see no likelihood of improvement.  These are obviously not religious reasons.  One way to turn these problems around is to provide substantial tax credits or direct payments for having children, and to eliminate any marriage penalty taxes.  Same applies to the current housing crisis in which homes cannot be bought at reasonable prices, and rentals are skyrocketing.  Religion cannot ameliorate such problems.

Some countries provide free college education for those who are willing to study hard, and the results more than pay for that investment.  A religious group with lots of cash on hand could in fact subsidize such education for its youth, and thus keep the marriage and fertility rate at replacement levels.  Prayer and faith are less practical ways to prevent problems.  In other words, the Lord helps those who help themselves (God gave man a brain and expects him to use it).  For LDS, the way the Church works best is through orthopraxis, not orthodoxis.

A broad range of sociological reasons was provided here on this board at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68483-blogger-on-the-alarming-truth-behind-anti-mormonism/?page=19 .

However, I will mention here how this works for LDS also in other sociological ways:  Unlike the familiar pattern in which people with more education tend to be more likely to leave religion entirely, better educated LDS people tend to be more likely to stay in the Church.  Katherine Orgill, “Mormons more faithful with more education,” BYU Daily Universe, May 5, 2015, online at http://universe.byu.edu/2015/05/05/final-story-21/ ;  Joseph Walker, “LDS religious commitment high, Pew survey finds,” Deseret News, Jan 13, 2012, online at  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700215244/LDS-religious-commitment-high-Pew-survey-finds.html?pg=all ; https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/4bnont/as_mormons_become_more_educated_they_become_more/.

And there are other socioloigcal factors to consider:

 

 

Daniel Cox, “Most churches are losing members fast — but not the Mormons. Here’s Why,” Vox.com and MSN, March 6-7, 2019, online at  https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/3/6/18252231/mormons-mormonism-church-of-latter-day-saints .

Rodney Stark, "Why Religious Movements Succeed or Fail: A Revised General Model," Journal of Contemporary Religion 12 (1996): 133-157.

Nice to see someone on the other end of the religious divide say this.  It took the Catholic Church and later on Anglican/Lutheran etc. Doing stuff like this attracted non religious people, still does.  You can read old Sunday School manuals, it's the churches job to bring in stray lambs, educate and basically do what Christ did, care for them.   Afterwards then you "indoctrinate" Them.  You don't stay in power as a religion by siding with the privileged and blaming the poor for things beyond their control, that's how you get socialism and eventually violence as well as an apathetic male population that will usually take the socialist side because in the beginning they have the most handouts. 

Edited April 25, 2021 by poptart

[AtlanticMike]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

This is the definition of anecdotal evidence

We live anecdotally from the day we are born. If you don't like anecdotal evidence why are you a Christian?

[poptart]

28 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

We live anecdotally from the day we are born. If you don't like anecdotal evidence why are you a Christian?

I'll play devils advocate here, maybe social, financial and other benefits?  I know of a few jack Mormons and cafeteria Catholics who fit that mold.  Can't say I blame them, if I was that privileged I'd do the same.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You offer two cruel extremes:  Either a free ride, or nothing.

You chuckle, but reality says something far different:

You overlook a normal response to the economy.  Only when people can look forward to the future with confidence, will they take on the huge responsibility of marriage and children.

People don't want freebies, and they don't want corporatists telling them what to do.  They want responsibility in a meritocracy (which is what Jordan Peterson has been saying for a long time).  It was once possible to raise yourself by your own bootstraps.  That is no longer possible.  The expenses of an education are out of control (not so when I was young), and purchasing a home is nearly impossible (not so when I was young).  Give young people reasonable expectations (not the ridiculous extremes you offer) and they will respond in reasonable ways.

As to your false claims about socialism, you completely overlook the actual beneficiaries of real socialism:  The corporations which are propped up with tax money from the common people, whose income has been stagnant in real value now for decades.  Young people don't need special privileges, but just need a little fairness.  The billionaire class doesn't want to make reasonable concessions, and they call the shots -- they own the levers of power both here and in Russia, and worldwide.  Face it JB.  We are a plutocracy.

This!

[CA Steve]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes.  Youth are central.  Have you any sense of what has replaced scouting now?  Are the youth fully engaged, or are they drifting?

No, my sons are all grown and out on their own. My opinion is that the Church needs to have programs that appeal to youth in a variety of ways. I did not enjoy Sunday meetings or Seminary as a teenager, but the appeal of the scouting program and the youth sport's competitions kept me fully engaged with Mormonism during that time. I think we have lost that now with what appears to me a more singular focus on religious instruction. I actually think the only way to re-engage younger generations is going to be through technology and social media. Perhaps the last couple of years where the Church was forced to move more online for local liturgy may be a start. Maybe rethink the term ward and stake so that it could include boundaries other than geographical, like forming units based on social networking  groups. I have no idea how that would work, but at least you would be grouping people together who self identified with others in that same group.

[poptart]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You offer two cruel extremes:  Either a free ride, or nothing.

You chuckle, but reality says something far different:

You overlook a normal response to the economy.  Only when people can look forward to the future with confidence, will they take on the huge responsibility of marriage and children.

People don't want freebies, and they don't want corporatists telling them what to do.  They want responsibility in a meritocracy (which is what Jordan Peterson has been saying for a long time).  It was once possible to raise yourself by your own bootstraps.  That is no longer possible.  The expenses of an education are out of control (not so when I was young), and purchasing a home is nearly impossible (not so when I was young).  Give young people reasonable expectations (not the ridiculous extremes you offer) and they will respond in reasonable ways.

As to your false claims about socialism, you completely overlook the actual beneficiaries of real socialism:  The corporations which are propped up with tax money from the common people, whose income has been stagnant in real value now for decades.  Young people don't need special privileges, but just need a little fairness.  The billionaire class doesn't want to make reasonable concessions, and they call the shots -- they own the levers of power both here and in Russia, and worldwide.  Face it JB.  We are a plutocracy.

Preach it!

[Chum]

On 4/23/2021 at 7:46 PM, strappinglad said:

 on a good day, pre-covid,  sacrament  attendance was about 60% of ward membership. Post covid I think that number will drop to 40%

PreCovid we were something like 30%.  Sunday meetings were sacrament, sit and listen to instruction and go home. During the week some groups would come to the building, get instruction and go home. Those of us who'd like a little more can help unload moving trucks.

Based on Zoom numbers, I don't think we dropped off much - but our ward experience isn't that far off what it was before Covid.

[Chum]

On 4/24/2021 at 10:11 AM, Tacenda said:

Internet and the youth aren't interested in large families or children at all.

The internet can't reproduce. At least it couldn't before but technology is ever advancing.

I've been closely watching youth enter the job market for a couple of decades. One small slice of a typical life is overcoming a labor system that won't hire without a job history in order to score a job that pay a fraction of minimal bills. The technology contributing to that isn't the tech in their homes or hands. 

When considering a life that grows exponentially more complex from one generation to the next, with little to no extended family available to help day to day, I think rising generations reasonably wonder how they could be engaged parents for their children - who's lives (school work, etc) are also vastly more complex.

[Chum]

I'm fairly confident we need to compete with reality by offering something more fulfilling than growing our own numbers.

Some conference talks do that but they feel fairly directionless compared to stuff like anti abortion narratives. The balance leads to Sundays meetings where abortion comes up again and again and again and again - which is the opposite of a fulfilling experience.

edit: I guess anti-abortion Sundays stops us from going home and having recreational abortions, so maybe we should keep that fire stoked.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Chum

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

We live anecdotally from the day we are born. If you don't like anecdotal evidence why are you a Christian?

Yes, but then we learn that in macro problems we should learn that we have to use the results shown by larger sample sizes to get good data on dealing with macro problems. If there is a global famine but my farm is doing fine that is great but no one should take my farm as the baseline and argue that if everyone just copied my approach it would solve the problem.

I have seen the anecdotal approach taken on Covid where it is not real or serious until it effects me personally or someone I know. It possibly killed someone I knew.

Religion rarely operates on a macro level. Nor should it. God designed it so it almost has to be iconoclastic. God isn’t revealable by studies and whatever else.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Chum said:

I'm fairly confident we need to compete with reality by offering something more fulfilling than growing our own numbers.

Some conference talks do that but they feel fairly directionless compared to stuff like anti abortion narratives. The balance leads to Sundays meetings where abortion comes up again and again and again and again - which is the opposite of a fulfilling experience.

Am I understanding right that your church talks about abortion all the time? I can’t think of the last time it was even mentioned in a regular meeting I attended.

Edit: I also don’t think it is a marketing problem. Sometimes people act like if we just came up with a better missionary training program or a better approach or a better PR campaign we could see mass conversions. I don’t believe. The Son of God who lived and taught perfectly couldn’t convert most of those He interacted with. Some portion of the hosts of heaven could not be convinced by the Father Himself. While we should try to improve as we can the idea that there is a genius method to make the gospel attractive to a fallen world is dubious.

Edited April 25, 2021 by The Nehor

[Chum]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Am I understanding right that your church talks about abortion all the time?

No. In considering talks that weren't about growing the Church - I was saying they tend to feel ambiguous and directionless compared to abortion which is so clear that the result is Sunday meetings are guaranteed to have abortion come up again and again and again.

I know zero people who want to join a church and experience that.

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Maybe we should make a livable wage mandatory so dual income households are not required for most families to survive beyond a bare subsistence level.

I saw this post and the one below just today on FB. 

[Tacenda]

If the previous meme doesn't get me in trouble, I'm sure this will!

Edited April 25, 2021 by Tacenda

[poptart]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

If the previous meme doesn't get me in trouble, I'm sure this will!

You and now Robert are part of the reason why I stay here.  

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

If the previous meme doesn't get me in trouble, I'm sure this will!

While clever taxing all the churches wouldn’t come close to covering the cost of universal healthcare.

[AtlanticMike]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

If the previous meme doesn't get me in trouble, I'm sure this will

😂. You're a rebel, I like it! I might not agree with the statement in the sign but I'm glad you posted it. Did you at least smile a little bit when you pushed the submit button? 😁

Edited April 25, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[Chum]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

While clever taxing all the churches wouldn’t come close to covering the cost of universal healthcare.

Hmmm. Okay. Toss in the F-35 program and taxes on the funds that FAANG corps stash outside the country.

edit: Oh Oh I know!  Add the trillions spend on anti-terror measures, outside the scope of what was recommended by the 9/11 commission.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Chum

[Tacenda]

47 minutes ago, poptart said:

You and now Robert are part of the reason why I stay here.  

People like you keep me feeling less alone!