From Too Many People to Not Enough

Jonathan V. Last contributed a very interesting article in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal about America’s declining population rates and the negative consequences it’s generating.  Just when you thought that we were getting world population under control, you can now sleep uneasily as our country tailspins into zero growth for the foreseeable future. 

Today, America's fertility rate is at 1.93, below the replacement rate of 2.1, and according to Last, the United States has been leaning on immigrants and their higher birthrates for our continued growth and innovation over the past several decades.  This will eventually dry up, he claims, which means the United States will ultimately need to fix this mess.  How?  By having more babies, of course.

But fixing the problem isn’t as simple as just telling people to make more babies, because the author deduces – and this is a gem of a deduction – “the problem is that, while making babies is fun, raising them isn't.”  He writes, “A raft of research shows that if you take two people who are identical in every way except for childbearing status, the parent will be on average about six percentage points less likely to be ‘very happy’ than the nonparent. (That's just for one child. Knock off two more points for each additional bundle of joy.)”

Now they tell me.

But whereas Last is rather pessimistic about America’s future, (he concludes: "Can we keep the U.S. from becoming Japan? in the long run, the answer is, probably not."), I’m more optimistic, at least in this respect.

Last’s most interesting suggestion to help thwart the decline in population growth is revamping the University system, which is clearly broken and which has pushed off child-rearing years past what it was in the early twentieth century.  Last suggests encouraging education systems to respond to market demands and create opportunities for students to get basic “no-frills” degrees. 

This is already starting to happen.  Three-year degree programs are becoming more common, and on-line opportunities in education are spreading rapidly.  In Time Magazine’s October 29, 2012 issue, Amanda Ripley wrote about the influx of startup MOOCs (massive open online courses) like Udacity, Coursera and edX, who’ve put college-level courses on-line for – at least for now – free.  But even after these and other institutions rely on fees, Ripley concludes, “One way or another, it seems likely that more people will eventually learn more for less money.”

And what’s really cool is that on-line courses are teaching in ways that are more productive than the traditional methods universities have always relied on.  As part of her research, Ripley took an on-line physics course and was surprised to learn that the class was taught “according to how the brain actually learns.  It had almost nothing in common with most classes I’d taken before.”  The class included fast-paced videos, interactive opportunities for students to answer questions, positive reinforcement for answering correctly, opportunities to fix incorrect answers, and games to apply the lessons they just learned.

Regardless of where people get educated in the future - whether it's on-line or through brick and mortor establishments - the competition that on-line eduation programs provide will eventually have a big impact in how people are educated, how much it costs, how much debt they incur, and – ultimately – how many babies they have.

And look, even if we can’t fix our university system and if our current immigration dries up, we can consider the following: the United States National Research Council estimates that sea levels will rise 2 to 6 ½ feet by the end of this century.  If they're correct, perhaps we can rely on a new wave of immigrants to feed our need for population growth: the Polynesians.

Oh, The People You Know

About a decade ago, I met a man who went on a harangue about the moochers of society, and questioned why others felt they were entitled to receive assistance for things they could do themselves if they only set their minds to it.  He was a “pick-yourself-up-from-your-bootstraps” kind of guy who had gone to college, worked several jobs to pay for it, earned a degree and was now making a good living.

Whether this type of mentality and the politics associated with it have any merit is open to debate, but what I’ve kept coming back to after all these years is the degree to which we benefit from the lives we intersect with, and how a seemingly minor vicissitude can impact us in big ways.  Dr. Suess wrote Oh, The Places You’ll Go, but Oh, the People You’ll Know would probably have been a bigger indicator of our futures.  Anyone in Nashville and Hollywood certainly knows this, but you needn’t pursue dreams of stardom to recognize how who you know is a gift that keeps on giving. 

Just last week I went on a free trip to the Caribbean thanks to my wife’s employer – the wife I would never have met had I not had the money and education to get into grad school.  And grad school was largely the result of my parents’ ability to raise me in an upper middleclass neighborhood in Brookfield, Wisconsin with high quality schools and safe streets.  The people I met during this time have, over the years, assisted me in ways large and small.  They’ve gotten me tickets to Packers and Brewers games, provided legal and financial advice, walked me through home improvement projects, offered lodging in interesting places, given me tips on purchases, doctors, technology – you name it.  Sure, I had a job at sixteen and worked relatively hard during high school, but my grandmother’s inheritance paved the way to a loan-free undergraduate degree, which resulted in a modest loan from grad school, which allowed my wife and me to pay off our car loan sooner, which gave us an opportunity to save more for my children’s college funds…

It’s all connected.  There’s no getting around the fact that I’m still benefitting from the relationships I established well over twenty years ago.

I think of the free air conditioning maintenance my generous neighbor has given me, the major discount my wife and I received from an old friend when we set up a will, the crazy talented musicians who’ve helped me record numerous CDs, the friend who created my website, and the computer geniuses who’ve resuscitated my desktop from certain death a number of times.

This list goes on and on.  And while I’ve dug myself out of a few holes in my lifetime, to think that I’ve lived in some sort of cocoon and didn’t benefit – and benefit dramatically – from the people I’ve met would be absurd. 

But here’s the kicker: how much different would these benefits had been had I grown up ten miles east of my childhood home?

How Good do we Have to Be?

While my family endeavors to single-handedly revive the economy this holiday season with frivolous gifts, and while we attempt to meet our charitable goals for the calendar year, a question keeps entering my mind: how good do we have to be?  Can we spend money on unnecessary items knowing that it could instead improve or even save another’s life?  Should we in effect take a vow of poverty, agreeing to forgo any of our own pleasures while others are in need?  If not, where do we draw the line?  How much should we devote to helping others while we pursue our own security and interests?

I suspect that a couple of hundred years ago giving was easy.  Living in the relative isolation of a small farming town in Europe, a charitable person would probably have given to their church or synagogue, nearby families enduring hardship, and the local beggar.  They you’d have it.  You’d be good to go.

Nowadays, when the woes of the entire world make headlines daily, it’s impossible to confine your giving to local needs without wondering about the atrocities occurring half a world away.  There is always more to do.  In 1800, a tsunami in Japan would hardly have been a concern for a person living in America.  Today, it’s another tug on our consciences.

Or at least some of our consciences.  A woman I met in 1995 said to me once, “Charity starts at home.”  The problem is, for many people, that’s exactly where charity ends.

A recent article in the Sacramento Bee discussed charitable giving and highlighted the One Percent Foundation, an organization whose members give one percent of their annual income on-line and vote for a cause quarterly to donate to.  They attract young adults primarily – those still in school or still paying off student loans and getting their career paths set – and while it’s a nice start to be sure, one would hope that it instills a habit of lifelong giving that grows as incomes rise, because one percent hardly seems enough.

Mitt Romney’s run for the White House this year highlighted the Mormon Church’s practice of tithing, whereby 10% of one’s income is devoted to the church.  This is similar to the tithing Jews set into law in the Torah, but after the Temple was destroyed, Jewish tithing was amended to giving at least 10 percent of net earnings to helping those in need.  This is somewhat ironic, since in fifteen years of attending Shabbat services, I've rarely heard that tithing is a goal Jews should be aspiring to.  By contrast, the Presbyterian church where I’ve played piano for the last year has already devoted a sermon on tithing and how we are not doing nearly enough to help those in need.

Then there are the mega-wealthy – Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and the like – who’ve committed to The Giving Pledge, a promise for billionaires to give at least 50 percent of their wealth to charity in their lifetime or after.  Nice, I suppose, but not nearly as charitable as my 10 year-old son would be in similar circumstances.  I was overcome with pride last summer when he concluded that if we won the lottery, we should keep about ten percent and give the rest away.  I couldn’t agree more.

But we are not lottery winners.  We are people living comfortably but who have a mortgage, three college educations and a retirement to consider.  And we like to have fun.  Did we really need to buy five tickets to see “War Horse” in Chicago?  After all, if we’d instead donated that money to Feed My Starving Children, we could have fed a meal to 2045 people.  How can three hours of entertainment be justified?

This isn’t a no-brainer, but being human has always encompassed so much more than giving.   Education.  Art.  Beauty.  Creating.  Athletics.  Family.  Friendships.  Community.  Should we really forego great architecture and resort to concrete structures because there are people in need?  Should we stop commissioning sculptures, painting and symphonies?  Are movies and sports luxuries we should no longer succumb to? 

It’s comforting to know that smarter minds than ours have struggled over the years with these questions.  For my money, the most reasonable conclusion comes from the Babylonian Talmud.  It states: “One who wishes to donate generously should not give more than a fifth of his income, lest he himself come to be in need of charity.”  This might not cover the billionaires of today, but it could be a good guideline for the rest of us: try to contribute ten percent of one’s net earnings, and, if possible, up to another ten percent.

Either way, how good do we have to be?  Probably a whole lot better than we’ve been.

Method of Self-torture: changing one's email address

Purchasing a new computer after five years was a no-brainer.  Changing my email address after nine years?  Seemed like a good idea at the time.

I am currently in day four of email hell, as I attempt to notify and update every person, corporation, charity, school, credit card, utility, bank, college fund, theater and umpteen other entities that I have in fact changed my email address (though you can still reach me at paul@paulheinz.com from this website). 

Holy crap.  I thought it was bad when my credit card was stolen and I had to call every business who charged me automatically.  That was nothing.   

Gmail can now press on with the security of knowing they have a loyal customer for life.  Larry Page and Sergey Brin, I am now your slave.  I wouldn’t change my email address now if you promised me a Brewer World Series victory next October.  Don’t ever, EVER do anything that will jeopardize my @gmail.com extension.

What was truly troubling were the hoops some websites made me jump through to make such a simple change.  For financial institutions, I get it.  But some websites practically required a security clearance in order for me to be notified of the next 20% off sale.  Seemed a little excessive.  Particularly annoying: the number of sites that offered an “unsubscribe” link at the bottom of their emails, but NOT a “change email preferences” link so that I could simply update my address.

As of today, in addition to notifying all of my personal contacts, I have updated 60 (that’s right, SIXTY) websites.  And I’m not even a computer savvy guy.  I don’t own a smart phone, and up until last week, I was still working on MS Vista.  I gotta believe there are people out there with hundreds of websites to update next time they change email addresses.  What will they do if they ever change carriers?  (Other than swear a lot, I mean.  Which is what I did.)

The biggest challenge has yet to be resolved.  I must have set up an incorrect answer to my security question on my 401k website many years ago, because after three attempts, I’ve now been locked out of my financial data altogether.  Apparently my best man was NOT my brother, though when I look at my wedding photo, I seem him standing next to me.  Go figure.  It’s easier to change our memories than it is to change our email addresses.

The Tylenol Murders Thirty Years Ago

One of the most gripping and troubling pieces I've read in a long time: Chicago Magazine's chronological retelling of the seven Tylenol murders that took place in and around Chicago in late September, 1982.  The tragedy begins on Wednesday morning, as a 12 year-old drops dead in her bathroom, and through dozens of interviews of family members, friends, political leaders, doctors and investigators, we follow the unfolding of events, hour by hour, as more and more people are discovered dead with no logical links.  

Except for one. 

Through the efforts of skilled professionals and a little bit of luck, in just over 24 hours after the first death it's concluded that cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules are the culprit.  Within five days, Johnson & Johnson recalls everyTylenol bottle from the shelves nationwide, resulting in an overhaul of how foods and medications are protected ongoing.

Hearing first-hand accounts of the mundane events that lead to so many deaths leaves you feeling hollow, shocked, angry and saddened.  You want to reach out and stop these ordinary people from making that fateful stop to Wahlgreens, or call out and tell them to forego the medication and just go to bed.

Vitality literally asphyxiated.  The crime remains unsolved.