Sunday, August 3, 2008 4:02 PM CDT
Danger lurks from aging of America
By DENNNIS CLAYSON
As I wandered through the College Hill Arts Festival this year there was one constant that could not be ignored. It wasn’t the art, or the weather, or the crowds of people. Almost every artist there had gray hair. Most all the patrons had gray hair
I attended a classical music concert on campus. The only people there without gray hair were the hired ushers. This is at a university in which the average age of students is about 20
Occasionally, I’m invited to talk to various organizations. Almost all the people at these functions are older. The average Rotarian is now about 58. At many veteran organizations, the honor guards and the groups who volunteer to help at funerals are averaging 70 years of age.
I have an older brother who is a good engineer. He tried to retire some time ago, but keeps getting called back to do work because his employer cannot find qualified younger workers with the proper skills. This would be no problem if the work could just be sent off to anther country, but in this case, that is a problem. He works for the Defense Department in a building with no address.
Where are the young people?
The answer to that question is both demographic and sociological and holds tremendous implications for the future of our culture and the world.
There has been a profound demographic shift. Population graphs have always looked like pyramids. There have been lots of young people and fewer and fewer people as age increases.
When government retirement pensions were originally introduced by Kaiser Wilhelm over a hundred years ago, they were offered at age 65 primarily because the average life expectancy was only about 58. In the United States, only 50 percent of children born in 1900 could hope to reach the age of 50.
The population graph now is starting to look like an apartment building (i.e., a rectangle) rather than a pyramid. There are fewer babies being born and people are living longer.
It is estimated, and these figures are very firm because the people have already been born, that within less than 20 years, there will be more than 71 million people in the U.S. over 65. That is larger than the entire population of France. It is equal to the population of Greece, Canada, Australia, and Austria combined.
Western governments have been playing a Ponzo scheme with their welfare programs based on the shape of the population pyramid. They could create all kinds of wealth transfers to people who were not working, as long as there were large numbers of young people who would work. Four or five workers could take care of each retired person, and would be willing to do so because another generation of younger workers could then take care of them if they were fortunate enough to become old.
In future Western societies, the number of workers per person not working will get dangerously close to one. In other words, a worker will have to take care of himself and his family, and a stranger whom the government has already selected. The government has also guaranteed the income of the stranger, but not the income of the worker or the standard of living of the worker&rsquo's family.
Even leftists who can do math realize that this is not going to work.
The solution is to cut programs and/or import workers from countries that still have children. Countries that still have children are those not overwhelmed by current Western culture. In other words, the socialist democracies, including the United States, can cease being socialist, or they can commit cultural suicide.
The Left has associated culture with racism, so they will commit suicide rather than face a reality not held within their parameters of political correctness.
Maybe a society could maintain its culture by enculturating the new workers? No.
A relatively benign socialism is a Western invention. European nations and the United States could not be both a Nanny State and a society in which people have lots of children and older people die in high numbers.
The younger generation, who spend 6 to 10 hours a day isolated in front of one screen or another, may not care as long as they have their phones, circuses, and remain willing to buy into whatever virtual reality is being successfully marketed in any given week.
More Stories from Columnists » Clayson
If you would like to comment on this story, please log in with the form below. If you are not a registered user, please
CLICK HERE to sign up.
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
If you are not a registered user, please
CLICK HERE to sign up.

DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our
Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
cross wrote on Aug 3, 2008 6:14 PM:
Because the demographics of this country have changed from many people supporting a few retirees to one where people paying into Social Security are about equal to the number of retirees, Prof. Clayson would have anyone who listens to him believe that the world as we know it will come to an end.
But, what he implies this time (but said straight out in earlier columns) is that Social Security is about to go bankrupt. But, that can NOT happen because people are still paying into the Social Security system. And, the amount collected each year is gigantic. The absolute worst that could happen if Congress never gets around to fixing things for future retirees is that the benefits paid out would have to be reduced. One of the best fixes for the system is to remove the cap on yearly contributions. Other fixes are available in addition. And, with the next Congress having a large Democratic majority and a Democratic President committed to fixing the system, it looks as if it will be fixed. (Unlike the Republicans who wanted to “privatize” the system so that investment firms could get their hands on Social Security money.)
Prof. Clayson also says, “the socialist democracies, including the United States, can cease being socialist, or they can commit cultural suicide.”
Calling the United States “socialist” is, at minimum, also factually wrong and, at worst, an attempt to scare people. Back in the 30s, there was a serious threat that there would be a revolution and socialism would be adopted. But, FDR, the best friend the capitalist system ever had, restored people’s faith that our government and economic system worked. And it worked mostly because a big government made it work. Having already faced the possibility of socialism and rejected it, it is now impossible that we are ever going to go that way. Capitalists need not fear that their capital will be confiscated. And a progressive, but not socialist government will make sure that our economic system won’t let people starve to death in the streets.
Prof. Clayson says, “The Left has associated culture with racism, so they will commit suicide rather than face a reality not held within their parameters of political correctness.”
I have no idea what he is talking about.
Prof. Clayson says, “A relatively benign socialism is a Western invention.”
I kinda enjoyed this statement. It’s about as close as Prof. Clayson will ever get to recognizing that what he calls “socialism” isn’t really “socialism” at all.
Prof. Clayson closes his column with this crack: “The younger generation, who spend 6 to 10 hours a day isolated in front of one screen or another, may not care as long as they have their phones, circuses, and remain willing to buy into whatever virtual reality is being successfully marketed in any given week.” That statement returns to the theme of the first half of his column. There, he noted the absence of younger people from all of the cultural opportunities.
In that regard, Prof. Clayson also returns to a regular theme of his columns. That theme is to insult the intelligence of some portion of his readership. In this case, younger people are apparently all clods. And the thing that gets me about that attitude is how does someone with such a dismal view of young people manage to interact with young people on a daily basis by teaching them? "