Family Issues + LIfestyle Issues = Economic Issues?

One might not always look at an algorithm such as the one in my title and think, "Oh, that makes perfect sense"; but in many ways, it does. Families are one of the most basic methods of sectioning and categorizing people, along with "bands" and "tribes", and how they live within those groups makes a huge impact on the economy. When the Baby Boom occurred, more than 1.6 million units were constructed, but of those, only 1.2 of them were formed as households. The demand and necessity for housing is solely based on the growth, expansion, consolidation, and division of families. Many people's houses can be easily consolidated, and are when it comes to two single people coming to co-inhabit a household. Of course, I'm not talking about people being forced to live together - I'm talking about people moving in together who love each other and want to make a family, something very normal and heard of! This article states quite clearly thus: "when there are fewer people, broken families and less marriage[s], there is naturally less economic stability, less demand for goods and services, and less ability to produce them."

Now, that makes sense, right? Economics is composed of and affected by demographics, those who own land, natural resources, labor, and money (both how it is made and how it is destroyed); and when any one of these components on the boat that is economics abandons ship, none of them can stay afloat. This article states that the biggest mistake our modern government has made was getting too involved in our families and attempting to do the jobs of what our families should do. Throughout history, you would acquire social security by either having lots of babies, or having a lot of money. Most people didn't just have money, so having a lot of babies was the popular choice. However  those who really reap the benefits of social security are the ones who didn't have children. Why, because the many children of the Smith's end up paying the taxes that provide what the Johnson's, who never had children, need in order to live on into their 80's and 90's. How is that fair? All the social security benefits one would gain from having children, without any of the diaper changes, extra hungry mouths, boo-boo's to kiss, action figures to buy, and "birds and bees" talks. Seems like they're the ones really getting the benefits, not the Mr. & Mrs. Smith.

Across the globe, people are having problems affording the luxuries and necessities of life. Europe's "Euro Project" appears to be on the verge of failing. Europe, not having one economy but rather multiple, treated Greece like Germany, and offered short-term benefits. Now that we're in the long-term though, that's no longer useful. Germany's economy is also under scrutiny, with many big brains trying to figure out an alternative. Ireland's economy, which was booming not too long ago, is now also feeling the strain of the Euros debt.

So what's the solution? Should we ask China to be our saviors and pull us from the drowning pool of debt? This article suggests that the only way the United States and the European countries will ever get out of their financial turmoil, is for the government to "butt out" from the roles of families, for their officials to buckle down, and for everyone to tackle it within their own groups. Seems a little optimistic to me, but I suppose desperation drives anything.


Link to my article here.