Social Policy - February

Policy Digest

February 1997

Second Baby Boom's Demographic Impact

Demographers note the largest population burst since the baby boomers is upon us and its impact on business and society will be immense.

The number of U. S. births started rising around 1980, and in each of the years from 1989 to 1993 exceeded four million for the first time since the early 1960s.

Today there are roughly 57 million Americans under age 15 -- including a high of 20 million in the four-to-eight-year-old group.

The earlier baby boom lasted 20 years and produced 78 million children.

Specialists say this new generation will differ from earlier generations in that they will be accustomed to highly advanced technology. According to one social historian, "Technologically, this generation is going to make the Gen-Xers look like fuddy-duddies. They're on fast forward."

Some differences:

Sixty percent of their mothers work outside the home versus 18 percent in 1960, and 61 percent aged three to five attend pre-school compared to 38 percent in 1970.

A significant portion of this population will spend at least a part of their childhood in a single-parent home.

One-quarter of them will grow up in poverty.

By the year 2050, "minorities" will make up a majority of the population.

And much like their parents who never knew a world without television, "Gen-Y" kids won't know a world without computers. On the other hand, the educational system isn't ready for them: analysts note that there is no building boom for schools to match that of the Baby Boom generation. And they fear that the gap in technology and education between Gen-Y haves and have nots could have a dramatic impact on the nation's economy in the 21st century.

The good news: according to one social scientist, contemporary teenagers aren't as angry as they used to be, and the generation behind them shows much less hostility and nihilism.

Source: Melinda Beck, "Next Population Bulge Shows Its Might," Wall Street Journal, February 3, 1997.

Corporate Funding for Advocacy Groups

Major American corporations gave almost $27 million in 1994 (the latest year for which data are available) to advocacy groups that promote public policies calling for higher taxes, more regulation and less economic freedom for corporations. This was more than three times what they gave to right-of-center and pro-free-market groups. The disparity has grown over several years:

In 1986 the ratio of corporate giving to public policy organizations on the left was $1.64 to each $1 contributed to organizations on the right.

During the ensuing years the ratio rose steadily, reaching $3.42 to $1 in 1992.

In the first year after President Clinton's election, the ratio peaked at $4.07 to $1, with contributions to advocacy groups favored by the Administration, such as the Children's Defense Fund and Planned Parenthood, particularly pronounced.

In 1994 the ratio dropped to $3.43 to $1.

Twenty-eight public policy organizations received at least $250,000 in corporate funding in 1994 -- 22 of them considered liberal or left-of-center. Many of the recipient organizations strongly supported the Clinton health care proposal, which would have coupled an immense and complicated bureaucracy with mandated heavy costs on employers.

Major corporations also gave prominently in 1994 to environmental groups that supported the Administration's ill-fated BTU tax on energy the previous year. The tax would have increased the price of oil by an estimated 17 percent, coal by 15 percent and natural gas by 11 percent.

Based on the number of grants made to recipients and the dollar amount of grants, among corporations contributing $250,000 or more:

Anheuser-Busch, Fannie Mae, BankAmerica, May Department Stores and Hewlett-Packard (in order) had the worst records of contributing to liberal or left-of-center groups.

Behind the worst five came Freddie Mac, Travelers Corporation, WMX Technologies, General Mills, US West and Dayton Hudson Corporation.

Corporate CEOs and managers of grantmaking departments may be ignorant of the agendas of nonprofits applying for grants in some cases. Other organizations trade on their reputations to disguise their current policy activism. And some corporations may contribute to organizations in favor with the administration in power, concluding that their well-being ultimately depends on it.

Source: Patterns of Corporate Philanthropy, Tenth Edition (Washington, DC: Capital Research Center, 1996).

World Population Drop

Demographers are stunned by the current dramatic slowdown in the world's population growth.

The globe's population grew by only 79.6 million in 1996 -- seven million fewer than the 86-plus million of 1994, according to U. S. Census Bureau figures.

Shrinking family size is reflected in the fact that the number of children born per woman in her lifetime is down to 2.9 -- from 4.2 as recently as 1985.

There are now 79 countries -- representing fully 40 percent of the world's population -- with fertility rates below the level necessary to stave off long-term population decline.

There are now 27 developing countries where women are averaging fewer than 2.2 children.

While the populations of parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America are expected to grow for several more decades, the rest of the world will soon be in demographic free fall, experts predict.

Population will peak at seven billion or so in 2030, and then fall.

Some economists are concerned that the implications of a decreasing world population are labor shortages, declining economic demand and stagnant housing markets.

Source: Steven W. Mosher, "Too Many People? Not By a Long Shot," Wall Street Journal, February 10, 1997.

For more on International issues go to http://www.ncpa.org/pi/internat/intdex1.html

Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security | NCPA | Contact Us

Dallas Headquarters: 12770 Coit Rd., Suite 800 - Dallas, TX 75251-1339 - 972/386-6272 - Fax 972/386-0924
Washington Office: 601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 900 South Building - Washington, DC 20004 - 202/220-3082 - Fax 202/220-3096
© 2001 NCPA

Policy Digest
February 1997
Second Baby Boom's Demographic Impact	Demographers note the largest population burst since the baby boomers is upon us and its impact on business and society will be immense. The number of U. S. births started rising around 1980, and in each of the years from 1989 to 1993 exceeded four million for the first time since the early 1960s. Today there are roughly 57 million Americans under age 15 -- including a high of 20 million in the four-to-eight-year-old group. The earlier baby boom lasted 20 years and produced 78 million children. Specialists say this new generation will differ from earlier generations in that they will be accustomed to highly advanced technology. According to one social historian, "Technologically, this generation is going to make the Gen-Xers look like fuddy-duddies. They're on fast forward." Some differences: Sixty percent of their mothers work outside the home versus 18 percent in 1960, and 61 percent aged three to five attend pre-school compared to 38 percent in 1970. A significant portion of this population will spend at least a part of their childhood in a single-parent home. One-quarter of them will grow up in poverty. By the year 2050, "minorities" will make up a majority of the population. And much like their parents who never knew a world without television, "Gen-Y" kids won't know a world without computers. On the other hand, the educational system isn't ready for them: analysts note that there is no building boom for schools to match that of the Baby Boom generation. And they fear that the gap in technology and education between Gen-Y haves and have nots could have a dramatic impact on the nation's economy in the 21st century. The good news: according to one social scientist, contemporary teenagers aren't as angry as they used to be, and the generation behind them shows much less hostility and nihilism. Source: Melinda Beck, "Next Population Bulge Shows Its Might," Wall Street Journal, February 3, 1997.
Corporate Funding for Advocacy Groups	Major American corporations gave almost $27 million in 1994 (the latest year for which data are available) to advocacy groups that promote public policies calling for higher taxes, more regulation and less economic freedom for corporations. This was more than three times what they gave to right-of-center and pro-free-market groups. The disparity has grown over several years: In 1986 the ratio of corporate giving to public policy organizations on the left was $1.64 to each $1 contributed to organizations on the right. During the ensuing years the ratio rose steadily, reaching $3.42 to $1 in 1992. In the first year after President Clinton's election, the ratio peaked at $4.07 to $1, with contributions to advocacy groups favored by the Administration, such as the Children's Defense Fund and Planned Parenthood, particularly pronounced. In 1994 the ratio dropped to $3.43 to $1. Twenty-eight public policy organizations received at least $250,000 in corporate funding in 1994 -- 22 of them considered liberal or left-of-center. Many of the recipient organizations strongly supported the Clinton health care proposal, which would have coupled an immense and complicated bureaucracy with mandated heavy costs on employers. Major corporations also gave prominently in 1994 to environmental groups that supported the Administration's ill-fated BTU tax on energy the previous year. The tax would have increased the price of oil by an estimated 17 percent, coal by 15 percent and natural gas by 11 percent. Based on the number of grants made to recipients and the dollar amount of grants, among corporations contributing $250,000 or more: Anheuser-Busch, Fannie Mae, BankAmerica, May Department Stores and Hewlett-Packard (in order) had the worst records of contributing to liberal or left-of-center groups. Behind the worst five came Freddie Mac, Travelers Corporation, WMX Technologies, General Mills, US West and Dayton Hudson Corporation. Corporate CEOs and managers of grantmaking departments may be ignorant of the agendas of nonprofits applying for grants in some cases. Other organizations trade on their reputations to disguise their current policy activism. And some corporations may contribute to organizations in favor with the administration in power, concluding that their well-being ultimately depends on it. Source: Patterns of Corporate Philanthropy, Tenth Edition (Washington, DC: Capital Research Center, 1996).
World Population Drop	Demographers are stunned by the current dramatic slowdown in the world's population growth. The globe's population grew by only 79.6 million in 1996 -- seven million fewer than the 86-plus million of 1994, according to U. S. Census Bureau figures. Shrinking family size is reflected in the fact that the number of children born per woman in her lifetime is down to 2.9 -- from 4.2 as recently as 1985. There are now 79 countries -- representing fully 40 percent of the world's population -- with fertility rates below the level necessary to stave off long-term population decline. There are now 27 developing countries where women are averaging fewer than 2.2 children. While the populations of parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America are expected to grow for several more decades, the rest of the world will soon be in demographic free fall, experts predict. Population will peak at seven billion or so in 2030, and then fall. Some economists are concerned that the implications of a decreasing world population are labor shortages, declining economic demand and stagnant housing markets. Source: Steven W. Mosher, "Too Many People? Not By a Long Shot," Wall Street Journal, February 10, 1997. For more on International issues go to http://www.ncpa.org/pi/internat/intdex1.html