Americans Having Fewer babies Hinders Economic Growth

Americans Having Fewer babies Hinders Economic Growth

Ever since the 2008 financial crisis, and the subsequent mismanaging of the economy under Barack Obama, Americans have been having fewer and fewer children. The National Center for Health Statistics Births said births fell to a 12-year low in 2011, the smallest rise in population since World War II.

This decline in the birth rate has dire economic consequences; as Chris Christopher, director of U.S. and global consumer economics research at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts, explained, “Population is a very strong motivation for consumer spending. Weak population growth due to fewer children will play itself out in years to come.”

Neal Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse in New York, agreed:

To the degree that family formation is being suppressed, we should be concerned. That holds back housing. It holds back all the spending associated with housing. Family formation is a very important motivator of economic growth.

CEO James Craigie of Church and Dwight Co., manufacturer of the First Response pregnancy tests as well as Trojan condoms, stated, “as far as pregnancy kit usage, it’s been a little bit tough lately … more people are depressed. So sex has gone done and condom use has gone down.”

Sociologist Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, chimed in:

Many couples are postponing or forgoing marriage until the financial foundations of their relationship improve. Given high rates of unemployment and underemployment for young adults, this pattern of postponing the wedding among many young adults is likely to continue until the United States sees a robust recovery kick in.

But this could very well be part of the overall agenda of the Obama administration. Obama appointed John P. Holdren as his Science Adviser while he was still in transition to the White House. Holdren once wrote a justification of compulsory abortion for American women. In his 1977 book Ecoscience, which he wrote with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, he stated, “The neo-Malthusian view proposes…population limitation and redistribution of wealth … On these points, we find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp.”

Thomas Malthus viewed overpopulation as the primary cause of the world’s problems. He once said:

All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons…if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use…and court the return of the plague.

In their book, Holdren and the Ehrlichs maintained:

… it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society … if some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility.

They also conjectured that if the United States government didn’t act, the UN could be authorized to take compelling force.

How much of Obama’s deliberate attempts to sabotage the American economy can be attributed to his desire to reduce the American population as a whole? A smaller crowd is more easily subjugated.