Abortion is not mentioned in this story about plunging school age populations in the Blue States, but it should be. The areas with the highest abortion rates have the greatest drop in school age populations.
All the do-gooders tell us that immigration is the answer to our problems, that if we just let in more people, Social Security and Medicaid will survive. This article should put those arguments to rest.
Immigration is not a panacea. It can boost population in the short term, but much like hard drugs, you need more and more of it over time to maintain the boost. At least the article mentions this argument.
In the short term, or perhaps medium term, a dearth of children can be a benefit. Yes, you need to close schools, which causes some pain, but once that is done, your property taxes can be much lower. It is only in the long term that a lack of workers, new homeowners, and families will take its toll on society.
BTW, you can defeat the Tribune paywall by cutting and pasting the web address of the article into Google.
Then there is this comment on the article:
"Continued growth has got to be the biggest Ponzi scheme of them all. We
already have almost 7 billion people on the Earth, which, the last time I
checked, doesn't have unlimited resources. I think it's about time that
people start thinking about sustaining current levels and leaving
something behind for those who follow us so they can have a decent life,
It is so disingenuous to talk about leaving things better
for our kids while at the same time crying about having to cut back on
our own consumption/entitlements. I didn't have a child because I needed
someone to support me when I'm old--I will support myself."
That is a nice sentiment, but it simply isn't true. It would be nice if this commenter could "support herself when old", but the system doesn't work that way. The young pay for the old under our old age entitlement system, no matter what liberals like this commenter think. The childless are paid for by folks who had children, like it or not.