USAToday Perpetuates Population Myths

This article, which appeared in USAToday this morning, is a perfect example of the kind of shallow journalism that prevents any in-depth analysis of the root causes of our problems.  In this case, “journalists” Haya El Nasser and Paul Overburg take simple statistics from the Census Bureau and transform it into the kind of pap that’s designed to please their corporate benefactors, interested in nothing more than promoting never-ending population growth as a means of propping up sales volume and profits while driving down labor costs by further distorting the supply and demand equation for labor. 

The connection between the authors of the article and corporations is clear.  The authors didn’t take the census bureau data and come up with the “labor shortage” connection on their own.  It’s clear from the article that they were fed this baloney by the Brookings Institution, one of those “think tanks” that thinks exactly what it’s paid to think by their corporate benefactors.  It’s appalling to me these propaganda machines (and that’s all any of these “think tanks” are) are held in such high esteem by “journalists.”  But why not?  They make the jobs of lazy journalists easy by simply feeding them articles cloaked in a mantle of veracity and authoritativeness that they scarcely deserve. 

Here’s a sampling of their distortions:

“The number of Americans ages 25 to 44 has dropped 1.5% since 2000, shrinking the pool of young workers in some states despite a 7% increase in the country’s overall population, according to a USA TODAY analysis of Census data to be released today.

The influx of immigrants, which has contributed to more than half of the nation’s growth this decade, has not been enough to offset the aging of the nation’s 79 million baby boomers, which has depleted the ranks of young workers.”

How did immigration and the implication that we need more creep into this article?  It’s because the Brookings Institution is paid to promote high rates of immigration in order maintain our labor force in a state of over-supply.

“The drain on the workforce is most obvious in the Northeast and Midwest, where most of the 20 states that registered declines of 5% or more in the 25-44 age group are located.

‘Older industrial states are facing a double whammy: the loss of the younger, high-fertility workers and a diminished attraction of immigrants,’ says William Frey, demographer at the Brookings Institution.”

“High-fertility?”  Yet another plug for never-ending population growth by the corporate sponsors of the Brookings Institution.  And to suggest that this represents some kind of “drain of the workforce” suggests that employers are being left high and dry, unable to fill jobs.  That’s an outright lie.  Young people are leaving these states because there is no work.  Take my home state of Michigan, for example.  The article reports that the 25-44 population fell by 9.1%, among the highest in the nation.  It’s because unemployment in Michigan is also the highest in the nation at nearly 7.5%.

“That’s the case in Massachusetts, which experienced nearly a 10% drop among 25- to 44-year-olds.

‘We do suffer from outmigration, and outmigration is primarily among younger people,’ says Dana Ansel, the research director at MassINC, a non-partisan think tank in Boston. ‘Losing people in their prime working years is not positive.’”

Why, if there is no work for them? (Note the inclusion of another “think tank” quote.)

“The oldest baby boomers turn 62 this year and the youngest turn 44. The nation’s median age as of July 1 was 36.6, up from 35.3 in 2000.

The gaps in the workforce have been exacerbated by more early retirements, prompting a push to retain older workers. Several states have launched campaigns to lure retirees back to work by offering flexible schedules and work sites.”

Yet another lie.  These workers haven’t chosen to take early retirement.  They’ve been forced into early retirement by down-sizing programs and they’ve left these states to find work.  It’s not that the states who have lost these people need them back to work.  They need them back to prop up their sagging revenue base. 

“The big gains in the 25-44 age group occurred in fast-growing states in the South and Mountain West, where families and young singles can find jobs and affordable housing.”

Finally, a smidgeon of truth.

“‘We’ve got a smaller pool of young workers who will be counted on to support a growing pool of older non-workers,’ says Alan Berube, research director at Brookings and former policy adviser to the Treasury Department.”

I could have predicted that Brookings would be sure to make that point – that we need to sustain high rates of population growth to support the older workers.  Stoke fear among the elderly.  It’s a very effective way of garnering support for illogical positions.  Yes, a shift toward a stable or even declining population will yield some transient issues with funding social programs for the elderly, but since population stability has to be reached at some point, one way or another, further population growth only forestalls the day of reckoning when the problem will have escalated exponentially. 

“Think” tanks.  When did the word “think” become synonymous with “septic?”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: