Why Population Decline Is The Way To Reduce Inequality - As Opposed To Dependence On Higher Fertility

 

               Roadside market in Nigeria: 80% of  population growth until 2100 will be in Africa

In the most recent Population Connection issue we learn some important facts especially given the barrage of hysteria concerning the need to expand fertility – especially in the U.S. e.g.

           Unreal - Another Pro-Natalist Buffoon Thinks We Need More Than 1 Billion Americans

 – mostly pumped by clueless politicos. Or lamebrains like Elon Musk who has predicted “catastrophic population collapse.”   But all such hand wringing focuses on the wrong issue or index. Typically, warnings about falling fertility in the U.S. case focus on the old-age dependency ratio — the number of retirees relative to the economically active population. In countries where fertility decline started earliest, the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) estimates that the ratio of people over 65 to working-age individuals (aged 15–64) will rise from around one-quarter today to one-half by 2050. In the U.S. the worry is that there will be insufficient active workers to support the elders receiving Social Security and Medicare.

But this assumes that retirement ages remain fixed despite rising life expectancy, thereby conflating two distinct demographic trends: falling fertility and increasing longevity. You'd think billionaire genius like Elon Musk would get this but they don't.

Second, the standard fertility template ignores the fact that children are also dependents, which means lower fertility reduces child dependency even as old-age dependency rises. Politicians - especially on the Right - forget or dismiss that side of the equation. They call for “more babies” but fail to recognize that if birth rates do increase, the total dependency ratio will rise even faster than before until those children enter the workforce two decades later.

The major bugbear and fear throughout is spreading inequality, which will surely increased among the elderly worldwide if social support systems - like Medicare and Social Security in the U.S. are cut. (Which the GOOPs are already planning to do to extend and enhance their abominable 'big beautiful bill' which has already taken a wood chipper to Medicaid and Obamacare.

So the GOP and Trump are quite content to increase the misery index as Paul Krugman recently stated in a podcast.

Misery Business

And will do more damage to social support programs if they manage to get control of government again. But let's get back to whether and how inequality relates to fertility - population increase. Let's assume the GOP degrading factor to add economic misery is eliminated by 2028, then we ask: Can population decline reduce inequality?

Recall Thomas Piketty’s 2013 book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, showed that wealth-to-income (W/Y) ratios have increased sharply across most of the world’s developed economies over the past 70 years,

Piketty, Capital, Soaring Stock Markets and Why Americans Aren't Rioting in the Streets

 Piketty noted the innate tendency for capital to increase  encapsulated by the shorthand,  r > g  with r the long run returns on capital and g is the rate of economic growth. Basically, it shows the "past devours the future". This is highlighted by the fact that the heirs of the fatcats  pay zero capital gains taxes on their stocks or other assets. Americans aren't yet into torches and riots because they firmly believe one day they will join the 'upper crust'.

But here's the kicker: Because wealth is distributed far more unequally than income, and because it is inherited, this trend undermines social mobility. Without higher taxes on wealth or inheritance, Piketty argues, W/Y ratios will continue to rise. But the chances of higher taxes on wealth or inheritance are slim to none so long as the Reeps are in power- so how can the equation be made more favorable for those caught in the economic undertow fed by Trump's follies? 

It turns out Pikettey's analysis assumes that the annual increase in total wealth equals the savings rate multiplied by total income. In other words, wealth comes from household savings, which implies that the W/Y ratio depends on the savings rate relative to the economy’s growth rate. By reducing GDP growth, then, declining fertility would boost the W/Y ratio.

But hold strain. Piketty’s own data also show that most of the increase in the W/Y ratio is the result of housing prices rising faster than average earnings, driven by competition for limited supply in desirable locations. This implies that, contrary to Piketty’s prediction, population decline would actually slow the rise in W/Y ratios.  In other words, inequality could be reduced.

Not only would a slower or falling W/Y ratio would benefit those without access to inheritance or the “bank of mom and dad”, i.e.  as a path to homeownership. But population decline will also reduce income inequality, benefiting lower-income groups.   Let's also bear in mind, as the recent issue of Population Connection notes(p.22)

"Historically, slow population growth — or outright decline — has tended to benefit workers and disadvantage capital owners. In his 2017 book, The Great Leveler, the Stanford University economic historian Walter Scheidel notes that the collapse in Europe’s population after the Black Death of 1348 drove up real wages and cut landowners’ rents. A 2020 study suggests that these wage increases also spurred innovation, putting northwest Europe on a path to sustained improvements in living standards."

And maybe the best part of all? A shrinking population would also enhance human welfare by reducing the burden on natural systems and resources, especially water.  What’s not to like?

See Also:

Clutter, Capitalism and Inequality: Why So Many Uncaring 'Muricans ?

And:

Economic Policy

The House’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Is Only Beautiful If You’re Rich

by Robert Reich | May 23, 2025 - 5:35am | permalink

— from Robert Reich's Substack

The old professor in me thinks the best way to convey to you how utterly awful the so-called “one big beautiful bill” passed by the House last night actually is would be to give you this short 10-question exam. (Answers are in parenthesis but first try to answer without looking at them.)

1. Does the House’s “one big beautiful bill” cut Medicare? (Answer: Yes, by an estimated $500 billion.)

2. Because the bill cuts Medicaid, how many Americans are expected to lose Medicaid coverage? (At least 8.6 million.)

3. Will the tax cut in the bill benefit the rich or the poor or everyone?(Overwhelmingly, the rich.)

4. How much will the top 0.1% of earners stand to gain from it? (Nearly $390,000 per year).

» article continues...

And:

Passage Of Trump's Gargantuan Tax Cuts Bill Means Potential Medicare Cuts For The First Time (Can You Say 'Sequestration'?)

And:

A Skewed Economic System (Weighted for the Wealthy) Explains Why Gen Z Is Embracing "Financial Nihilism"

And:

Corporate America

Nothing Is Ours Anymore: Is the "Rental Economy" the Most Destructive Scam in Modern American Capitalism?

by Thom Hartmann | December 30, 2025 - 6:18am | permalink

— from The Hartmann Report

Lower Living Standards For Generations To Come? Thank Global Monetary Policy

Fermat's Principle Of Least Time: Feynman's Intro & A Proof From Classical Mechanics

Fermat's principle is an intriguing one in physics, first pointed out by Feynman in his lectures.  Therein he noted Fermat discovered this principle in 1650, basically given all possible paths that light might take to get from one point to another, the one it actually takes requires the shortest time.  

In Sec. 26-3 of his Feynman Lectures, Richard Feynman uses a plane mirror and states Fermat's law includes both 'the law of straight line propagation' and 'the law for the mirror'.  He uses the diagram shown below for reference with MM' the mirror surface and asks for the way to get from A to B  - in the shortest time - but the ray striking the mirror first.

The evident point needed for the shortest time is C, but how to get it? Feynman proposes a 'geometrical trick' - to wit, constructing an 'artificial point' B' on the other side of MM' which is the same distance below MM' as point B is above it. Since BFM is a right angle and BF = FB', then EB is equal to EB'.

Then the sum of the two distances: AE + EB is proportional to the time it will take, assuming a constant value c (speed of light). Which is also the sum of the two lengths AE + EB'.  The problem is then easily re-phrased as: When is the sum of the two lengths the least? The answer, by inspection, is when the reflection line goes through point C as a straight line from A to B'.  C works because it is the best choice to get to the artificial point B' in the most direct manner from A.  To break it down: if ACB' is a straight line then the angle BCF is equal to the angle B'CF and thence to angle ACM. So saying the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection is equivalent to saying the light travels to the mirror in such a way that it comes back to point B' in the least possible time.

 

In a more modern context, given Fermat's least time principle also applies in classical mechanics, it can be proven using a more quantitative method from calculus. We use the diagram below:

                                  Sketch for mathematical analysis of situation

The purpose here is to demonstrate that for a ray going from a to b  the angle of incidence will equal the angle of reflection and hence be in accordance with the principle of least time.  Consider then, from the diagram, a path such that the time from a to b is a minimum (i.e. x1,a to xo,o back to x2,b), then we have;

t₁ =  ò _{x1, a} ^xo,0     ds/  C     (1st integral for path 1) 

where:   ds   =   Ö (dx² + dy ² )  =    dx Ö [ 1  +  (dy/dx) ² ]

Let:   f  =   1  +  (dy/dx) ²     

Þ

f  -  y'   ¶ f / ¶ y'    =  const.

t₁ =   1/ c ò _{x1, a} ^xo,0     dx f

Therefore, 

Ö  1  -  y ²    =   y'   (½ )   [y' / Ö (1  +  y'  ²  ) ]  =  const.  = A

Þ

1  +  y'  ²    - 2 y' ²  =   A ((1  +  y'  ²  )  (½ )

1  +  y' ²    =   1/  A²  =  B

But:   y'   =  dy/dx  =   Ö B  -1 

 Þ

y   =   (Ö B  -1 )  x  + C      (straight line)

Then:   

 For x 1,a  to   x 0,0  to  x1, b  :

t₁ +   t₂    =   

1/ C  [(x 1   - x 0 )²  +   a ²] ^1/2  +  [(x 0   - x 2 )²  +   b ²] - ^1/2  (2 (x 0   - x 2 )

For minimum:  

¶ ( t₁ + t₂ ) / ¶ x 0    =  0

Þ

 ½ [(x 1   - x 0 )²  +   a ²] ^-1/2   2 (x 1   - x 0) (-1) 

+ ½ [(x 0   - x 2 )²  +   b ²] ^{- 1/2}  (2 (x 0   - x 2 )   =  0   

Þ

(x 1   - x 0 )²/ (x 1   - x 0 )²  +   a ²   =  (x 0   - x 2 )² / (x 0   - x 2 )²  +   b ²

Therefore:   cos² q 1   =    cos² q 2 

q 1   =    q 2      I.e.

q i   =    q r 

The statement of the law of reflection that the angle of incidence ( q i) is equal to the angle of reflection (q r ) is equivalent to the statement that light travels (via the mirror)  from point  x 1,a  to  x1, b    in  the least possible time.   Hence, the principle of least time or Fermat's principle.

The Real Issue With The 'Medicare For All' Proposal - There Aren't Adequate Resources To Support It

 

                         MRI machine of the type that did my May 5th scan

            Providers interpret scans - the specialists and available machines would be in short supply in any Medicare for All scenario

The pages of the Wall Street Journal are now rife with Op-eds complaining the Democratic Socialists have "taken over" the Democratic Party - and are spouting fantasies like Medicare for All i.e.

Socialist Chic and the ‘Medicare for All’ Sham - WSJ

Recall Senator Bernie Sanders’s  proposed (2016)Medicare for All Act would have scrapped private insurance and create a new federal system to cover everyone. An alternative plan from the Center for American Progress, a think tank, would have created an optional public program that anyone could "buy into". Meanwhile, an earlier plan from Senator Debbie Stabenow would have given all Americans the option to buy into Medicare, say from the age of 55.  But let's not kid ourselves - any "buy in" would not come cheap - especially now after Trump's tariffs and war of choice have sent everything through the roof in cost.

Also, Medicare, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is no "entitlement" or freebie as the Right's media loons try to portray it.  Your eye exams, glasses are not covered, and neither is your dental care.  Over the past two years alone our mutual costs for just the latter have been around $5,500.  Not a huge surprise when you reckon one crown can cost upwards of $1,350 and together we've had three.  Add in dental cleanings, x-rays etc and well.....you get my point. Meanwhile our Medicare Supplement plans - the part needed to pay for procedures like my MRI and PET scans, Firmagon shots etc. - now exceed $350 each per month.

It is true that a single federal payer system — as such proposals envision — may well eliminate the waste, inefficiency and corruption that make the current system so expensive and inaccessible.  But getting to such a system would be no 'walk in the park'. If adopted we'd more likely emulate the experience of countries like Canada and Britain that rely heavily on one government payer. But such a system would require dramatic changes from the status quo with private insurance, and would be a tough political sell in a nation conditioned to low taxation.

But aversion to higher taxes and loss of private insurance isn't all on Americans since we've learned Doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurers are intent on strangling Medicare for all before it advances from an aspirational slogan to a legislative agenda item.  The Partnership for America's Health Care Future claims that 'Medicare for All' will require tax increases out of synch with what Americans want.  In many respects they are not too far off. Basically most Americans are conditioned to want the 'goodies' but not to have to pay for them in higher taxes. Every Reep politico knows this, which is why 99% of their policy proposals embrace tax cuts.

The counterpoint to this are the social democracies in Europe. The citizens of European  nations, like Germany, Denmark and Norway, understand that there is no freebie medical care. Thus they are willing to pay higher taxes to get the medical care (as well as free child care) they need. They are also wise enough not to elect as a leader anyone who'd blow open their GDP on wars, or military funding.  In doing so they also shuck off the "socialism" label as American sour grapes, e.g.

Oprah got perfect response from Danish woman about their social welfare state PRESCIENT!

This is why many have refused to increase defense spending, including Spain's President Pedro Sanchez, because they grasp such a boost would force them to reduce social spending.  Unlike here in the U.S. where  the orange buffoon in the WH fantasizes increasing defense spending by 40 percent -  to $1.5 trillion. The misfit wackjob recently has gone so far as to say the government ought to stop funding Medicare as well as childcare across the board, to focus on his war of choice with Iran. E.g.

Trump says government should stop funding Medicare, daycare to focus on war

Again, why can’t people simply be shucked into Medicare like the oldies already are? Simply put, there aren’t adequate resources – neither nurses, physicians, facilities, labs, testing equipment – to accommodate the numbers.  This is why Medicare for All hasn’t gained serious traction since Bernie Sanders first seriously proposed it in 2016. To support such a system it’s been estimated federal subsidies would need to increase from between $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion a year by 2030.  In order to even begin to achieve this at least 2 percent a year would need to be lopped off the defense budget.

Bear in mind Medicare was created in the mid-1960s, for a defined limited population (which had already reached age 65) and which was already constrained in the benefits delivered, i.e. no dental care included, no vision care or necessities. We have to pay out of pocket for those which can reach several grand a year.

There are currently 70 million Americans who receive benefits under the program, which like Social Security is partially funded by payroll taxes. But to even remotely consider adding 25 million folks – say currently in Obamacare- would literally break the system without higher taxes, payroll and individual. 

Even Abdul El-Sayed, the winner of the recent Michigan Dem primary, conceded higher taxes would need to be paid in a Meet the Press interview. As he noted:  “We’d be paying for healthcare in a different way”  - noting that the current way entailed premiums of “thousands of dollars a month”

So wouldn’t higher taxes of two thousand dollars a YEAR be preferable? A rational person would think so but I am not sure how many Americans would agree.  They need to know front and center a Medicare for All Buy in will be very costly and the tax system has to be adjusted to suit.   No longer can middle class folk expect tax cuts and government- provided health care benefits in whatever guise. Higher premiums alone will not cut the mustard.

These are serious issues Americans need to consider before voting for a candidate merely because s/he promises 'Medicare for All'.  Especially without pointing out taxes will need to be raised.

See Also:

The Basics of ‘Medicare for All’ - The New York Times

Excerpt:

Medicare for all insurance would cover many services that most health plans omit now, including dental care, eyeglasses, hearing aids and home-based long-term care for people with disabilities.

It would also make major changes to how health care is financed in the United States. Now, we pay for health care through federal taxes and state taxes, as well as premiums and cash when we go to the doctor or the pharmacy counter. Under Medicare for all, federal taxes would pay for the entire system.

Economists have produced various estimates. It’s probably most helpful to think about the range. Give or take, they said the Medicare for all system would cost around the same as the current system — government, employer and individual spending combined. But even the most conservative spending estimate would involve a huge shift of health care dollars from individuals and businesses to the federal government. Medicare for all would be an enormous expansion of government spending, and would almost certainly require large tax increases.

And:

The Basis For Exploding Medical Costs Is The Inadequacy of Supply - Of Nurses, Drs., Medical Specialists - Of Immigrants!

And:

Healthcare Policy

Could Trump, or Anyone, Win Elections by Simply Promising Medicare for All?

by Thom Hartmann | August 11, 2026 - 4:58am | permalink

— from The Hartmann Report

If Trump wants Republicans to win this fall, all he has to do is endorse Medicare For All and call it a Republican policy.

After all, conservatives across Europe are generally quite happy with their national healthcare systems and definitely don’t want them going away or to be replaced by for-profit insurance companies.

When I did did my show from Denmark’s Danish Radio’s studios, I interviewed multiple conservative politicians and to a person their response to my question, “Do you want to get rid of your healthcare system?” was, “Are you nuts?”

This may not even be all that radical by today’s Republican standards: after all, Trump’s embraced the purely communist idea of the federal government taking control of the means of production and distribution — the textbook definition of communism — by having our government take stock in over 30 companies over the past 18 months.

» article continues...

And:

Peace & Justice

Aging in the Wrong World

by Tom Engelhardt | August 12, 2026 - 4:29am | permalink

from Tom Engelhardt's Substack

Talk about unjust, unfair, or just plain not right: Here I am at 82 years old with children, grandchildren, and old (and I mean old!) friends, and (like me) our country and our world seem to be all too distinctly on the downhill slope. I could, of course, have added aided by my president, Donald J. Trump, and (except for the “my”) that would be anything but inaccurate. And yet, the very fact that a near majority of Americans (46.4% in 2016 and 49.8% in 2024) elected him president of the United States should tell you that the process was already well underway; otherwise, such a… you chose the word… parody or atrocity (or both) of American politics would never have been possible.

In short, after all these years — 16 as an editor at Pantheon Books, a decade in a freelance editing (and writing) life, and almost a quarter of a century running and writing for TomDispatch.com, the website I created (and that’s now being run by the wonderful Nick Turse) — somehow, I still can’t believe (not truly) the world I find myself in. Phew! That was an exhausting sentence! (And no surprise there, since we’re on a distinctly exhausting planet.)

» article continues...

Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability In Solar Vortices Revealed By Inouye Telescope In Hawaii - And How The SDO Complements It

 

Highest ever resolution image for solar vortices

                                            High res sunspot image from DKIST

On seeing the recent startling clear solar images from the  Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope, many may wonder how the images can exceed those from the Solar Dynamics Observatory Telescope - actually orbiting 5, 610 miles above the Earth's surface - to be able to observe the Sun with no interfering atmosphere:

Recall I posted about the latter's achievements last year when Janice and I attended a scientific conference ('the Helio Hive') in Boulder, e.g.

 Looking Back On Last Week's Solar Dynamics Workshop - One Of The Best Meetings I've Ever Attended

The purposes and methods distinguishing the two craft: are actually fairly straightforward to spell out:

- The DKIST (for short) features a 4-meter primary mirror, making it the world's largest solar telescope. This enables it to resolve solar features 18-39 km across.

- By contrast, the SDO instrument has only 0.2m diameter, with the resolution limit now in the 300-600 km range.

-  The DKIST is particularly geared to identifying the fine scale (~ 20 km) plasma vortices on the solar surface (top image) driven by the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. 

- By contrast, the SDO's advantage is in capturing full disk images i.e. check out:                                          

SDO | Solar Dynamics Observatory

across multiple EUV and UV wavelengths without atmospheric interference. 

E.g. note these images from SDO:

                                            Full disk solar image in EUV

                                         Full disk solar image in H-alpha

Continuing with the differences:

- The ground-based DKISTI (near the summit of Haleakalā, a volcano on the Hawaiian island of Maui,) relies heavily on advanced adaptive optics to correct for Earth's atmospheric blurring, but gains massive light-gathering power from its 4-meter mirror

-The SDO - in a Space-based (geosynchronous orbit) - avoids Earth’s atmosphere entirely, allowing unobstructed viewing of ultraviolet and extreme-ultraviolet wavelengths that ground-based telescopes cannot see.

Getting back to the National Science Foundation’s Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope, we now understand that within those high resolution plasma vortices we have uncovered a hidden process that drives solar activity. This is known as the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, or KHI-  underpinning the swirling patterns such as exposed in the top image. This 'KHI'  could explain solar mysteries, such as why the sun’s corona, or outer atmosphere, is much hotter than its surface.

The vortical swirls could also fuel the buildup of the Sun’s magnetic energy, which drives solar flares and coronal mass ejections. When directed at Earth, the solar events known as CMEs (coronal mass ejections) are spawned - which activity blasts out particles that can disrupt satellites, power grids and other communications infrastructure.

The findings, published last Wednesday in the journal Nature, could help scientists understand the Sun’s behavior and activity, which is difficult to predict. The imagery and time-lapse vides from the DKIST reveal an unprecedented look at the Sun’s complex photosphere, the visible surface of which exists as a thin layer of atmosphere shaped by magnetic fields and currents of fluid plasma.

According to lead study author Dr. David Kuridze, assistant astronomer at the National Solar Observatory in Boulder, Colorado:

"Although theoretical models had suggested that the right conditions for Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability could exist in the photosphere, seeing these structures widespread across the surface was still a huge surprise. The vortex formation on the Sun has long been a central question in solar physics. For the first time, we have identified both their origin and their driving mechanism.”

Kelvin-Helmholtz instability occurs when two fluids traveling at different velocities move past one another, creating tiny perturbations that result in spiraling vortices.  Interested leaders can gain a deeper understanding with the following Youtube video:

Kelvin Helmholtz Instability

Scientists have also observed this instability pattern in lake and ocean waves, cloud formation and the atmospheres of large gaseous planets such as Jupiter and Saturn. The images from the Inouye telescope mark the first time the phenomenon has been seen on the Sun. 

According to UC Prof. Kuridze:

“KHI is a really efficient way for the Sun to break big plasma flows down into smaller motions,” Kuridze said. “When you have KHI in the system, it makes it much easier to trigger an energy cascade toward tiny, microscopic scales and once energy reaches those micro-scales, it can easily be released as heat. Therefore, finding KHI across the solar surface gives us a very important missing piece of the puzzle.”

The concept of storage of magnetic energy through “flux braiding,”  has been known for some time in terms of magnetic field lines twisting together, e.g.

The braiding phenomenon can be seen clearly in this image of a solar prominence:

In all such cases the tension eventually becomes unstable, causing the tangle of magnetic fields to snap apart and then magnetically reconnect, releasing a burst of energy. If ample magnetic energy was stored a CME or major solar flare can result.

 The problem was solar researchers never quite understood why these twisting patterns occurred in the first place.  Fortunately,  the new Inouye telescope observations offer a possible explanation.  Swirls occurring along the edges of magnetic regions across the solar surface twist the fields together setting the stage for magnetic energy storage via braiding effect. The formations resulting also explain how heat makes its way to the Sun’s outer atmosphere.

Basically, the magnetic vortices generated by the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability effectively act like small-scale engines that can generate, transport and release energy throughout the solar surface. The constantly moving whirlpools can also act as energy stores for larger solar activity, such as flares and coronal mass ejections. 

Then there are the 'nanoflares' the Sun is firing up every second. As the Nature study's lead author Kuridze noted:

“As it turns out, these micro-events are more influential for the Sun’s thermal and magnetic structure than rare, massive flares. There is a strong consensus within the solar physics community that unlocking global solar behavior begins with understanding these micro-scales. Solar magnetism is fundamentally shaped by these small-scale events, which ultimately drive the space weather that impacts Earth’s technological infrastructure.”

 See Also:

Tiny Vortices on the Sun

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGwIzLcGbfc

 And:

An Artificial 'Storm Wall' Could Shield Us From A Solar Superstorm - IF We Could Afford It

And:

ESA Solar Orbiter Produces Hitherto Unseen Views of Sun - With The Potential To Improve Space Weather Forecasts

And:

Coronal Mass Ejections In The Context Of Collisionless Shocks