I think I have posted this before, but I was tracking this demographic trend in support of DoD since the early 2000s. It was ignored then; perhaps they will begin to take notice, but I tend to doubt it.
This is not a conspiracy but there is long standing movement among the humanitarian elites that Lasch talks about. This is the latest iteration of eugenics that began in the early 20th Century which is heavily influenced by Darwinian theory. The elites believe the future is best served in their minds by a genetically superior human race which they believe is them. That’s why they bankroll Planned Parenthood and associated organizations. They are culling the human race. They believe technology - AI in particular and genetic modification - will solve the population aging problem.
The "End of Job Growth" is a much-needed conversation, thanks for calling it out.
In the higher ed space, I think most people who are even remotely forward-looking are aware that the "enrollment cliff" is going to start hitting next year, as the supply of new high school graduates begins a decline that will extend as far as the eye can see.
But I wonder how many other planners, in government or in other industries, are ready for this effect. Of course, some of the gaps will inevitably be plugged with immigrants. Even if immigration is reduced sharply henceforth, I imagine there will still be a near-term effect from digesting the Biden immigration wave into the labor supply.
But something to think about is which industries are most reliant on young, non-immigrant labor, since those are ones that will most start feeling the pinch from shrinking class sizes over the next few years. And that in turn might translate to increased opportunities for those going into them.
Of course, there are going to be a lot more effects in the coming decades from the fertility collapse, but these are effects that we can expect to see in the next 5 years.
The embedded chart from the Financial Times is deeply depressing. Through about 1980, the increase in young women's incomes outstripped the decrease (if any) in young men's incomes. Of course, the chart doesn't take into account the losses in imputed income as women moved from the home to the paid workforce, but at least people's monetized incomes were increasing, which is something. Usually, a two-earner couple at that time would have had more take-home pay thanks to the wife's increased earnings vs. a single (male) breadwinner family or a two-earner couple in earlier times.
Since 1980, any increase in young women's incomes has been offset, if not more than offset, by a decrease in young men's incomes. I don't think it's as simple as saying that women are benefitting at men's expense, but it does mean that young people, as a whole, haven't seen an increase in real income, and it means that even two-income married couples may be no better off than they were forty years ago in real terms.
Regarding the theme in the FT article, "Young women are starting to leave men behind," I would state the situation differently. It's not that women are leaving men behind but that our corrupt social system is pushing women ahead and deliberately impeding men. From our school system that relentlessly encourages girls to pursue careers while taking every opportunity to discourage boys to our legal system that minimizes the risk of discrimination lawsuits by advancing women at the expense of men, the marginalization of men is inevitable. Most of these women that advance in business and academia are not very capable, but feminist ideology is so strong that this is rarely noted. Kamala Harris is a case in point. A man with her severely limited abilities would never have been given so many advantages.
If all men (and sensible women) recognized this mad state of affairs, it could be stopped very easily. Unfortunately, many men and most women support at least some form of feminism. The result is that well less than half the population would support the kind of reform that is needed, namely, the wholesale rejection of feminism and a return to the patriarchal system that served civilization so well for millennia. And if that sounds too radical and impractical, then fasten your seatbelts because the decline of our civilization with feminism as pilot and co-pilot is just getting started.
I've said this before here, but patriarchy was preserved effortlessly in times and places where a male provider was needed to provide sufficient resources to keep a wife and replacement number of children alive. It's not like we suddenly became stupid -- survival values just tend to decay in favor of personal freedoms when survival constraints are temporarily relaxed. Robin Hanson coined the term "cultural drift" for this phenomenon. This is and probably always will be human nature.
In all likelihood, survival values like patriarchy will return when they have no choice but to return, and not any sooner. Though we can probably do some things to smooth the landing and make things less bad in the interim.
I agree with you why patriarchy has eroded and also that we did not suddenly become stupid.
But I do think that we should be smart enough to realize that unless patriarchy is restored we can expect our civilization to continue downhill. I would argue that patriarchy is consistent with our mental and physical design and that discarding it leads to dysfunctionality. If someone believes that mankind was created through evolution, then surely he must acknowledge that patriarchy is of ancient origin, and therefore it is a part of our nature. It is unlikely that from the time of the apes until the present that patriarchy was a form of repression; more likely patriarchy was the social scaffolding that our minds and bodies evolved around. A need for it is implicit in our DNA. Likewise, if you are Christian, you will recognize in a careful reading of the Bible the promotion of patriarchy.
So regardless of one's belief about evolution and God, patriarchy is the system which we were designed for. Unfortunately, due to the destabilizing influence of technology and human ambition, the feminist genie has escaped from the bottle. If we cannot find creative ways for patriarchy to coexist with our technological advances (and thus remand feminism back into the bottle), then we can only expect more sorrow.
1. I don’t think that it’s really possible for human beings in non-patriarchal cultures to *choose* patriarchy en masse. It’s chosen for them by patriarchal cultures outcompeting the alternatives and then inherited.
2. The present order is breaking down and unsustainable, and this is true not just of Western civilization, but all civilizations, because we are not adapted culturally or biologically to the technologies we have. One day there will be a new order that is sustainable. Hopefully the transition will be a smooth one, and some of the best parts of our civilization will be inherited.
Lasch has influenced me immensely--True and Only Heaven, & The Revolt of the Elites are both particularly good for understanding our moment. Houellebecq is also known for his love of H.P. Lovecraft--someone I've written about and been influenced by. Here's a link to his Lovecraft book--https://www.bing.com/search?q=h.p.+lovecraft%3a+against+the+world%2c+against+life+michel+houellebecq&filters=dtbk
Good insights. I read Lasch's The Culture of Narcissism when it first came out and it had a profound effect on how I saw media (and thus its influence on popular opinion).
I think I have posted this before, but I was tracking this demographic trend in support of DoD since the early 2000s. It was ignored then; perhaps they will begin to take notice, but I tend to doubt it.
This is not a conspiracy but there is long standing movement among the humanitarian elites that Lasch talks about. This is the latest iteration of eugenics that began in the early 20th Century which is heavily influenced by Darwinian theory. The elites believe the future is best served in their minds by a genetically superior human race which they believe is them. That’s why they bankroll Planned Parenthood and associated organizations. They are culling the human race. They believe technology - AI in particular and genetic modification - will solve the population aging problem.
The "End of Job Growth" is a much-needed conversation, thanks for calling it out.
In the higher ed space, I think most people who are even remotely forward-looking are aware that the "enrollment cliff" is going to start hitting next year, as the supply of new high school graduates begins a decline that will extend as far as the eye can see.
But I wonder how many other planners, in government or in other industries, are ready for this effect. Of course, some of the gaps will inevitably be plugged with immigrants. Even if immigration is reduced sharply henceforth, I imagine there will still be a near-term effect from digesting the Biden immigration wave into the labor supply.
But something to think about is which industries are most reliant on young, non-immigrant labor, since those are ones that will most start feeling the pinch from shrinking class sizes over the next few years. And that in turn might translate to increased opportunities for those going into them.
Of course, there are going to be a lot more effects in the coming decades from the fertility collapse, but these are effects that we can expect to see in the next 5 years.
The embedded chart from the Financial Times is deeply depressing. Through about 1980, the increase in young women's incomes outstripped the decrease (if any) in young men's incomes. Of course, the chart doesn't take into account the losses in imputed income as women moved from the home to the paid workforce, but at least people's monetized incomes were increasing, which is something. Usually, a two-earner couple at that time would have had more take-home pay thanks to the wife's increased earnings vs. a single (male) breadwinner family or a two-earner couple in earlier times.
Since 1980, any increase in young women's incomes has been offset, if not more than offset, by a decrease in young men's incomes. I don't think it's as simple as saying that women are benefitting at men's expense, but it does mean that young people, as a whole, haven't seen an increase in real income, and it means that even two-income married couples may be no better off than they were forty years ago in real terms.
Regarding the theme in the FT article, "Young women are starting to leave men behind," I would state the situation differently. It's not that women are leaving men behind but that our corrupt social system is pushing women ahead and deliberately impeding men. From our school system that relentlessly encourages girls to pursue careers while taking every opportunity to discourage boys to our legal system that minimizes the risk of discrimination lawsuits by advancing women at the expense of men, the marginalization of men is inevitable. Most of these women that advance in business and academia are not very capable, but feminist ideology is so strong that this is rarely noted. Kamala Harris is a case in point. A man with her severely limited abilities would never have been given so many advantages.
If all men (and sensible women) recognized this mad state of affairs, it could be stopped very easily. Unfortunately, many men and most women support at least some form of feminism. The result is that well less than half the population would support the kind of reform that is needed, namely, the wholesale rejection of feminism and a return to the patriarchal system that served civilization so well for millennia. And if that sounds too radical and impractical, then fasten your seatbelts because the decline of our civilization with feminism as pilot and co-pilot is just getting started.
I've said this before here, but patriarchy was preserved effortlessly in times and places where a male provider was needed to provide sufficient resources to keep a wife and replacement number of children alive. It's not like we suddenly became stupid -- survival values just tend to decay in favor of personal freedoms when survival constraints are temporarily relaxed. Robin Hanson coined the term "cultural drift" for this phenomenon. This is and probably always will be human nature.
In all likelihood, survival values like patriarchy will return when they have no choice but to return, and not any sooner. Though we can probably do some things to smooth the landing and make things less bad in the interim.
I agree with you why patriarchy has eroded and also that we did not suddenly become stupid.
But I do think that we should be smart enough to realize that unless patriarchy is restored we can expect our civilization to continue downhill. I would argue that patriarchy is consistent with our mental and physical design and that discarding it leads to dysfunctionality. If someone believes that mankind was created through evolution, then surely he must acknowledge that patriarchy is of ancient origin, and therefore it is a part of our nature. It is unlikely that from the time of the apes until the present that patriarchy was a form of repression; more likely patriarchy was the social scaffolding that our minds and bodies evolved around. A need for it is implicit in our DNA. Likewise, if you are Christian, you will recognize in a careful reading of the Bible the promotion of patriarchy.
So regardless of one's belief about evolution and God, patriarchy is the system which we were designed for. Unfortunately, due to the destabilizing influence of technology and human ambition, the feminist genie has escaped from the bottle. If we cannot find creative ways for patriarchy to coexist with our technological advances (and thus remand feminism back into the bottle), then we can only expect more sorrow.
I agree with a lot of this. I’d only say:
1. I don’t think that it’s really possible for human beings in non-patriarchal cultures to *choose* patriarchy en masse. It’s chosen for them by patriarchal cultures outcompeting the alternatives and then inherited.
2. The present order is breaking down and unsustainable, and this is true not just of Western civilization, but all civilizations, because we are not adapted culturally or biologically to the technologies we have. One day there will be a new order that is sustainable. Hopefully the transition will be a smooth one, and some of the best parts of our civilization will be inherited.
Lasch has influenced me immensely--True and Only Heaven, & The Revolt of the Elites are both particularly good for understanding our moment. Houellebecq is also known for his love of H.P. Lovecraft--someone I've written about and been influenced by. Here's a link to his Lovecraft book--https://www.bing.com/search?q=h.p.+lovecraft%3a+against+the+world%2c+against+life+michel+houellebecq&filters=dtbk
Good insights. I read Lasch's The Culture of Narcissism when it first came out and it had a profound effect on how I saw media (and thus its influence on popular opinion).