The death toll from the forty-five year-and-counting abortion holocaust has reached an estimated sixty million people. Sixty million. That's the same number of deaths produced by the entirety of World War II, the to-date largest armed conflict in human history. That it has been spread over seven and a half times the time span and done a lot more quietly - and has enjoyed political protection, advocacy, and an unconstitutional U.S. Supreme Court edict - goes a long way in explaining why a holocaust that has slaughtered ten times the number of Jews slain in Nazi extermination camps isn't perceived with the shock and horror it richly merits.
Women in the United States gave birth last year at the lowest rate in thirty years, a trend that could weigh on economic growth in the coming decades.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics said Thursday that the number of U.S. babies born last year fell 2% from 2016 to 3.85 million, also a thirty-year low. Births have fallen for three straight years. The fertility rate dropped 3% last year to 60.2 births per thousand women ages fifteen through forty four.
An aging society has already weighed on economic growth in the United States in the past decade, with the vast baby boom generation retiring and fewer young people replacing them. Thursday's data suggests that the trend is likely to continue.
Imagine an America where Roe v. Wade never happened. Where those sixty million unborn children had not been immolated and/or dismembered, but allowed to live. The oldest of them would be in their prime earning years by now. Somewhere around half of them would be in the workforce, perhaps offsetting the steady erosion of the working population imposed by Obamanomics and exacerbated by Donald Trump's anti-trade obsession. And the pool of FICA taxpayers would be dramatically larger, and maybe, just maybe, the bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare would still be a future prospect instead of a visceral present-day reality.
I vividly remember this being one of the principle reasons for the Newt Gingrich-led GOP Congress pursuing Medicare reform in the teeth of Bill Clinton's opposition way back in 1995, only to crash and burn. Those were the footsteps in which now (and now-retiring) House Speaker Paul Ryan followed, also to no avail. Yet it was always a day-glo obvious conundrum: How do you keep an inter-generational wealth transfer program going if one generation kills off a large chunk of the one that follows? Entitlement programs are already Ponzi-schemes. Undermining their most obvious funding sources seems like running up the score.
The thing is, it doesn't do a whole lot for the broader economy, either:
Economic growth is generally driven by population growth and worker efficiency, both of which have slowed in the past decade in the United States.
Kathy Bostjancic, an economist at Oxford Economics, a consulting firm, said that roughly ten years ago, the number of Americans working or looking for work was growing about 1% annually. With birthrates declining, that figure has since fallen to about a 0.3% growth rate. That essentially acts as a 0.7% drag on the United States' long-run growth.
"Demographics have a really powerful impact on the economy," Bostjancic said.
Is this a bad time to point out that Donald Trump and the Trumplicans continue full federal funding of Planned Parenthood in an overall spending binge that is locking in trillion-dollar annual deficits in perpetuity and accelerating the national bankruptcy fueled by entitlement programs made all the more unsustainable by the continued abortion avalanche of which Planned Parenthood is the biggest champion, advocate, and defender? Well, too bad. Would you feel better if I pointed out instead that the U.S. hasn't enjoyed 3% or better annual GDP growth since 2005? Or that for all the bogus hype fueling Trump's boasts about "his" corporate tax cut "booming" "his" economy, the Federal Reserve's long term forecasts remain at barely more than half that rate? Probably not. But that's the reality. Sixty million fewer people mean sixty million fewer workers and sixty million fewer consumers buying homes, cars and other costly purchases, and less costly purchases as well. Plus sixty million fewer savers adding to the pool of private capital available for investing and lending. A significant shrinkage of the metaphorical economic "pie".
And a significant incentive for legal and illegal immigration:
The U.S. accepts many more immigrants than does Japan, and that influx has boosted population growth. The Labor Department released separate data Thursday showing that last year, there were 27.4 million foreign-born workers in the United States, the most since records began in 2005. Immigrants now make up 17.1% of the U.S. workforce.
27.4 million foreign-born workers in the United States. That's almost half of the number of U.S. births snuffed out since that day of infamy on January 22nd, 1973. That's hardly any kind of coincidence.
I'm as much an immigration hardliner as any Trumpie (more so, since I, unlike Trump, actually believe it and take it seriously). But let's be honest: Where would the U.S. economy be without those high levels of immigration since 1965? Demographics, as Mark Steyn once said, are destiny. Sure, the Dems have always known that and deliberately stacked the policy deck that way to eventually guarantee their political hegemony. But that doesn't make it any less true. The post-Christian West is depopulating itself by attrition. It's why Japan has been economically stagnant for twenty years and today adult diapers outsell their baby counterparts. It's why Europe is allowing itself to be overrun by the wave of Muslims pouring in from the Middle East. In the East, it's why Russia is arming itself to the teeth with an insufficient quantity of troops to wield the weapons, fueled by an all-the-eggs-in-the-same-basket energy economy house-of-cards vulnerable to the slightest dip in world commodity prices.
And it's why the U.S. would be in even worse economic shape were it not for the past thirty-plus years of open borders. But only because of the tens of millions of would-be Americans who were snuffed out in the womb to make room for the immigrants who replaced them.
An economy begins, first and foremost, with people. Preemptively kill a bunch of them off, and you either import them from somewhere else, or you kill off a bunch of your economy, ultimately. That dystopian fate we always thought of as way off in the future (whose Rubicon/point of no return I still insist we passed with Barack Obama's 2012 reelection)? Guess what? It's a lot closer than anybody (and especially any Trumpie) is willing to admit.