fbpx
01 / 05
Dear Americans, Define “Worse Off”

Blog Post | Health & Demographics

Dear Americans, Define “Worse Off”

American declinism is a compelling political narrative, but what does the economic data have to say about it?

Summary: Many Americans are pessimistic about their future and believe that life will get worse. However, this narrative does not match the economic reality of the country, which is doing well by most measures. This article challenges the common perception of American decline and shows how the United States remains a prosperous and innovative nation with many opportunities for growth.


The United States is doing quite well. You wouldn’t know it if you read the headlines, listened to the bombastic political disputes, or even asked Americans.

In a March poll, a majority of Americans had low confidence that life would be better for their children. A CNN poll published in April showed that less than a third of respondents would call economic conditions good. A McKinsey survey released in December fully captured the negative sentiment, with pessimism cut across all income groups and demographics: “Americans are feeling opportunity slipping away.”

In stark contrast, The Economist in April ran a cover story in a diametrically different flavor, pointing to all the good things happening in America.

Yes, you read that right. In between the bank collapses, looming recession, runaway national debt, culture wars, political sandbox, Trump obsession in both political camps, shootings, opioid epidemic, runaway costs for food and health care, millions of men out of the labor force, fears of nuclear conflict, etc., there are fundamentally good things going on.

The magazine’s editors and contributors aren’t trying to brush over the troubles—in slanted whataboutism or the style of the “everything is fine” meme (a carefree dog in a room engulfed in flames). Rather, they are trying to balance the overharsh thrashing that American life, economy, and society have endured recently.

One strategy used by those of us trained in history to trivialize the present is to look back far enough. Compared to the miserable toil and pain that was most of humanity’s plight until recently, our present ills look quaint. Striving to get work-life balance right? Struggling to make ends meet? Energy bill unusually large this year? Try having three failed harvests in a row, starving to the point that you boil the leather off your shoes for evening soup; watch nature take most of your children; or huddle together for shared body heat since there is precious little fuel to stave off the winter cold.

The list of ills troubling Americans in 2023 is astonishingly long and of a different kind altogether. But in strictly economic terms, it’s much harder to see what millions of Americans are so pessimistic about. U.S. unemployment is around record-low levels. Real earnings, while they’ve come down from the recent years’ pandemic-infused turbulence, are on par with pre-pandemic levels, noticeably higher than ever before.

The graph shows the growth in median usual weekly real earnings since the late 1970s.

Inflation—a nominal rather than real metric that worries households much more than it does economists—is also coming down. The U.S. economy, as a share of the G7—an international grouping of the United States and seven other rich economies—is larger than it was 30 years ago. “Adjusted for purchasing power, only those in über-rich petrostates and financial hubs enjoy a higher income per person,” concludes The Economist. The poorest states in the United States are on par with the richest European countries.

The stylized facts about U.S. and European economies—found in economics textbooks or old social policy reports—used to be that Americans work harder and longer for higher income, but Europeans live better lives with better social safety nets. These days even that seems to be changing, as the U.S. welfare state is approaching European levels both in comprehensiveness and total spending. Richer Americans spend more of their resources, public and private, on social ills. According to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development statistics, government social spending (as a share of gross domestic product) is above Australia, Iceland, and Norway, trailing “socialist” Sweden and Canada only by a few percentage points. (America is second only to France when adjusting for “net” social spending that includes private spending and tax breaks for social purposes.)

The demographic problem hopelessly plaguing many other countries is much smaller in America, which has “a younger population and a higher fertility rate than other rich countries.”

Americans still work more hours than most Europeans or Japanese, and the hours they put in are, on average, more valuable than those of labor forces elsewhere. Despite millions of (mostly) men making a beeline for the labor market exits, the United States has proportionately added more workers this century than its peers. Still, the number of prime-age American men out of work is rising and is higher than in most European countries. Some reasons men aren’t working include opioids, manufacturing decline, mental illness, and defective care for returning soldiers. They indicate that despite the nation’s economic success, not all is well.

The United States has deeper financial markets, issues the world’s preferred money, has more funds available for venture capital, and fewer rigid labor laws, which allows its world-class managers to hire and fire at need. It is home to the best universities, which still attract the smartest minds from across the world, and dominates innovation; the Silicon Valley powerhouse unquestionably upped Americans’ productivity in the 2010s, its recent spout with banking failures and Californian exodus aside.

How to account for this negativity bias? One gut-fueled answer is that the numbers are wrong. The stats showing the marvels of the U.S. economy just aren’t correct—think mismeasurement or corrupt statisticians. Another is that recent bias clouds our judgment: we forget the pains of the “good old days” and romanticize how glorious they really were. There is always something bad somewhere that we can hone in on and conclude that, therefore, things are going in the wrong direction. Bad things happening in front of one’s eyes or slapped on newspaper headlines can overshadow the gradual improvement of most things going well or moving in the right direction.

Monetary economists often talk about “money illusion,” where sticker shocks at the store give us the impression that we are poorer simply because the numbers are bigger—even if our wages kept pace with inflation or even exceeded it, which they historically have done.

If prices in aggregate increased by roughly 8 percent last year, but the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment raised benefits by 8.7 percent, it takes a lot of statistical wiggling to conclude that pensioners therefore are (much) worse off.

The grand irony, concludes a story from The Economist, is that knee-jerk reactions from a political class obsessed with the decline that they think they see may create that very decline:

Most of these potentially self-harming policies have their roots in a declinist view that, economically at least, simply does not reflect the facts. The diagnoses are that China is getting ahead, or that immigrants are a menace, that large corporations are bastions of woke power and free trade a form of treachery.

Disaster and declinism, as appealing and captivating as they are on a personal level and as persuasive and all-encompassing they become in the political arena, remain poor guides to the modern world.

Blog Post | Population Growth

Earth Day’s Bad Bet Against Humanity

The Malthusian mind does not see the human capacity to cooperate, trade, discover, invent, and adapt.

Summary: Fears of overpopulation and resource depletion have long shaped modern environmental thought, predicting that humanity will outstrip the planet’s capacity to sustain it. Yet those forecasts have repeatedly failed to materialize, largely because they overlook a central dynamic of human societies: the ability to innovate, adapt, and expand resource availability. As population has grown, so too has prosperity and access to resources, driven by knowledge creation and market responses to scarcity. Rather than confirming a trajectory of collapse, historical evidence suggests a pattern of increasing abundance and human development.


When Paul R. Ehrlich, the famed Stanford University biologist and author of the bestselling 1968 book The Population Bomb, died last month, he was 93 and unrepentant for a lifetime of doom-mongering. In the book he warned, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.” In 1970, he predicted, “Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come—and by the end, I mean an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.” Over the succeeding decades, he maintained that less-than-cheerful disposition. In 2013, he wrote that “a global collapse appears likely.” In 2018, he stated that a “shattering collapse of civilization is a ‘near certainty.’” In 2024, he gave his last interview, reiterating his position that humans are destroying the planet and committing civilizational suicide.   

Ehrlich’s confident and, to some, attractive demeanor made him a television star with more than 20 appearances on Johnny Carson’s The Tonight Show—a record unmatched by any other individual guest. Slowly but surely, the techno-optimistic 1960s (Star Trek 1966-1969, The Jetsons 1962-1963, Thunderbirds 1965-1966, etc.) gave way to the doom and gloom of the 1970s. Consider the 1973 film Soylent Green, set in an overcrowded and overheated New York City in 2022. Food is scarce, and most people survive on processed wafers made by the Soylent Corporation. A detective played by Charlton Heston investigates the murder of a wealthy businessman and uncovers a horrific secret: Soylent Green, marketed as a new food source, is made from human remains. Its final revelation made “Soylent Green is people!” one of cinema’s most famous lines.

The first Earth Day—April 22, 1970—came during the transition from optimism to doom and gloom, and Ehrlich played a role in that. He served on the steering committee put together by Earth Day founder Sen. Gaylord Nelson and spoke on campuses across the country. So it’s not surprising that, as the Columbia Climate School has noted, Earth Day was infused not only with the usual and more understandable environmental concerns over pollution and carcinogens, but “Malthusian” worries over overpopulation and overconsumption of resources. 

The first Earth Day was a massive success. About 20 million Americans participated. Lectures and rallies took place at more than 2,000 college campuses, 10,000 elementary and high schools, and thousands of other locations around the country. Forty-two states adopted resolutions endorsing Earth Day, and Congress recessed so that legislators could take part in activities back home. In September 1970, Congress strengthened the 1963 Clean Air Act. That December, President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency.Long before Ehrlich warned we were stripping the planet of resources, the English preacher and economist Thomas Robert Malthus wrote in his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population that human numbers, if left unchecked, grow geometrically, while food supply grows only arithmetically. From that simple and, as it turned out, badly mistaken idea, he concluded that humanity would always press against the limits of subsistence. If people multiplied too quickly, nature would restore balance through war, famine, and plague. Those were his “positive checks” on overpopulation and overconsumption. He regarded them as awful, but also as inevitable unless societies adopted “preventive checks,” such as celibacy, that limited reproduction. It is easy to see why Malthus’ argument seemed persuasive. For most of human history, harvest failures could ruin entire populations. Malthus looked at that long record and saw a pattern. The problem was that he took a pattern that had held for centuries and assumed it would hold forever. He mistook a long chapter of human experience for an eternal law of nature.

In fact, Malthus had already lost his main argument before his essay even appeared in print. Between 1700 and 1798, the population of England rose from 5.2 million to 8.44 million, an increase of 62.3 percent. Over the same period, nominal GDP per person rose from 12.37 British pounds to 23.97 pounds, an increase of 93.8 percent. The nominal price of a four-pound loaf of bread, a staple that fed much of the poor, rose from 5.2 pence to 7.4 pence, or 42.3 percent. Because incomes rose much faster than the price of bread, the latter became 36.2 percent more abundant, not less. Put plainly, as England added more people, the bread of the poor became easier to afford. 

Why did Malthus miss what was happening? Partly because the Malthusian thinking, shared by Ehrlich, reduces human beings to their appetites. It sees more mouths and stomachs, but not more hands and minds. It assumes that each additional person means one more claimant on a fixed stock of food and other goods. What it does not see is the human capacity to cooperate, trade, discover, invent, and adapt. Human beings are not trapped in the same ecological logic as bacteria in a dish or buffalo on a plain. We exchange with one another. We build institutions. We create tools. We improve production methods. We substitute one material for another. We grow more from the same soil—sometimes much more. In other words, we create new knowledge. Atoms without knowledge are mostly useless. New knowledge organizes atoms into fertilizer, irrigation systems, container shipping, refrigeration, or high-yield seeds. That is the variable that Malthus ignored and that led to Ehrlich’s very public humiliation. 

Unlike Malthus and Ehrlich, the University of Maryland economist and Cato Institute senior fellow Julian Simon understood that scarcity is not the end of the resource story. It is just the beginning of a human response. Higher prices signal a problem. Those higher prices then encourage knowledge creation, and new knowledge leads to greater abundance. And so it was that in 1980, Simon proposed a 10-year futures-style bet. Ehrlich, along with ecologist John Harte from the University of California-Berkeley and John P. Holdren, a Berkeley scientist who later became President Barack Obama’s science adviser, jumped at the opportunity. The bet ran from September 29, 1980, to September 29, 1990. 

Ehrlich’s group chose five metals: chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. They fixed the starting value of the chosen quantities at $1,000 in 1980 and agreed to compare the inflation-adjusted value of that same basket 10 years later. If the real price of the basket rose, Simon would pay Ehrlich’s group. If it fell, Ehrlich’s group would pay Simon. The wager, therefore, used prices as a proxy for scarcity. When the term ended in 1990, all five metals were cheaper. Ehrlich sent Simon a check for $576.07, reflecting a 36 percent decline in the inflation-adjusted price of the basket. The check was signed by Paul’s wife, Anne Ehrlich. There was no accompanying letter. Simon replied with a thank-you note and offered to raise the stakes to $20,000 for a future bet, but Ehrlich declined.

The Simon Abundance Index, which Dr. Gale L. Pooley and I publish every year on Earth Day, is named after Julian Simon. It is a deliberate continuation of the quantitative analysis of the relationship between population growth and resource abundance that Simon’s bet with Ehrlich began. Unlike Simon and Ehrlich, who measured the abundance of resources in inflation-adjusted dollars, we look at “time prices.” Money prices are distorted by inflation and disputed deflators. Time prices solve that problem by dividing a good’s money price by hourly income, showing how long a person must work to buy it. They capture both falling prices and rising wages, require no inflation adjustment, and allow comparisons across countries and centuries. Time is universal, cannot be printed, and reflects the real cost people pay: hours of life. Time prices provide a clearer, simpler, and more meaningful measure of resource abundance than money prices for ordinary people.

Data visualization by Amanda Swinghamer Henderson.

By this measure, the last 45 years have been a rout for the pessimists. The 2026 report says that the Simon Abundance Index stood at 636.4 in 2025, up from a base of 100 in 1980. That means Earth was 536.4 percent more abundant in 2025 than in 1980. All 50 commodities, including fuels, such as crude oil, coal, and natural gas, food, such as chicken, beef, and lamb, and metals, such as aluminum, copper, and gold (yes, even gold!), in the dataset were more abundant in 2025 than they were in 1980. The global abundance of resources increased at a compound annual rate of 4.2 percent, doubling about every 17 years. In the 42 countries tracked by the report—accounting for 85.9 percent of global gross domestic product and 66.3 percent of the world’s population—none saw lower resource abundance in 2025 than in 1980. That is not what a species trapped in Malthus’ arithmetic is supposed to produce.

The mechanics of that gain matter. Between 1980 and 2025, time prices for the 50 commodities fell by an average of 70.9 percent. What required an hour of work in 1980 required about 18 minutes in 2025. The same hour of work that bought one unit of a typical commodity in 1980 bought 3.44 units in 2025. That is a 244 percent increase in personal resource abundance. At the same time, the world population grew by 85 percent, from 4.44 billion to 8.21 billion. Put those two changes together and you get the index’s central finding: For every 1 percent increase in global population, population-level resource abundance grew by about 6.3 percent. Resources growing at a faster pace than the population is what Pooley and I call superabundance. It is the opposite of Malthus’ conjecture that each additional person leaves less for everyone else.

The critics sometimes retreat to complaining about the short-term noise, as though any temporary spike in prices confirms the Malthusian creed. Our report addresses that, too. In 2025, 27 commodities became more abundant, and 23 became less abundant. The abundance of oranges rose the most, by 65.6 percent, while coconut oil’s abundance fell the most, by 36.3 percent. But commodity markets always swing because weather changes, disease hits crops, wars disrupt transport, and investment arrives late or early. Simon never argued that every price falls every year in a straight line. He argued that scarcity signals provoke adjustment. A temporary setback is not a vindication of Malthus. It is often the first stage of a correction. That is why the long trend matters more than the annual changes.

Data visualization by Amanda Swinghamer Henderson.

Our findings do not show that pollution is imaginary or that every environmental question has been solved. It has not. But environmental problems should be addressed as side effects of human flourishing, not as evidence that human flourishing itself is a mistake. The Earth Day mentality blurred that distinction. It converted planetary stewardship into misanthropy. It taught millions to look at a growing population and see only a burden, never a contribution. It treated the human animal as uniquely destructive when, in fact, people are the only animals who can recognize ecological damage and fix it. It is new knowledge—human knowledge—that gives societies the capacity to clean rivers, regulate toxins, build sewage systems, improve fuel efficiency, and move from dirtier technologies to cleaner ones. A poor society burns what it can find and dumps what it cannot manage. A rich society can afford scrubbers, pipelines, wastewater treatment, research labs, and better rules. 

The green extremists often speak as though abundance is the disease, when in fact abundance is usually what makes environmental improvement possible. And so, despite half a century of doomsaying, the Earth is not collapsing under the weight of humanity. It is supporting far more people who can command far more resources with far less labor than their predecessors could. That is not the picture of a planet in terminal decline. It is the picture of a planet made more habitable by the one species clever enough to improve it. The Earth is not a museum piece. It is a working planet inhabited by learning beings who desire and are entitled to flourish.

This article was originally published in The Dispatch on 4/23/2026.

Bloomberg | Population Growth

Paraguay’s Policies Are Enabling Lower Inflation and Higher Growth

“Wedged between South American heavyweights Argentina and Brazil, Paraguay has long been ignored by the international community. Small, landlocked and poor, it was often seen as just a fly-over country.

So it’s a little surprising — to both those in the capital and in the region — that the country of 6.1 million people is suddenly having a moment…

Though roughly the size of California, Paraguay’s $47 billion economy is about 1% of the Golden State’s. But rapid growth and economic reforms in recent years helped the country win investment-grade credit status from Moody’s Ratings in 2024 and from S&P Global last year…

Last century, it was run as a dictatorship for 35 years — one of the longest in the region, whose fall in 1989 was followed by a tumultuous transition to democracy. But Paraguay’s embrace of sound fiscal and monetary policies after its 2003 financial crisis is now paying off, with single-digit inflation and annual growth averaging around 4% over the past two decades.”

From Bloomberg.

Project Syndicate | Population Growth

The Baby Bump from Remote Work

“A new study across 38 countries found that among adults aged 20-45 who work from home at least one day per week, actual births since 2023 and planned family size are higher. This implies that an increase in remote work would boost fertility much more effectively than expensive pronatalist policies.”

From Project Syndicate.

Blog Post | Science & Technology

How Robot Housekeepers Could Spark a New Baby Boom

The potential of technology to free humanity from the burden of household labor deserves more attention.

Summary: Early household robots like NEO may look unimpressive today, but they have great long-term potential. As birth rates fall and the burdens of parenting loom large, technologies that reduce everyday household labor could make family life far more manageable. Just as past innovations transformed domestic work and reshaped society, robotic housekeepers may one day help free time and ease parenthood.


The debut of the robot butler NEO has drawn widespread ridicule. Unable to perform many chores without a remote human operator, the machine has become a target of social media backlash. Videos circulating online show the robot struggling with basic tasks, such as closing a dishwasher.

But don’t underestimate the potential of robotic housekeepers just yet.

The technology is dawning at an opportune time. Consider the growing concerns about plummeting birth rates. Last year saw the lowest fertility rate ever recorded in the United States, below 1.6 children per woman.

Could robots help to reverse the trend by relieving the burden of household drudgery associated with child-rearing?

The question has broad implications because the United States’ low fertility is no anomaly. Global fertility decline is speeding up, doubling between the 2000s and 2010s and again this decade. This means the world’s population will almost certainly peak earlier than experts projected, and at a much lower level. Many countries are contemplating expensive taxpayer-funded efforts to spark a new baby boom, despite the poor track record of such policies.

There is much disagreement on what caused the 1950s baby boom, but one theory is that the rise of time-saving technologies played a key role. Between the 1920s and 1950s, domestic responsibilities were transformed as the number of households equipped with electric appliances, including refrigerators, stoves, vacuums and washing machines, rose dramatically. The new machines lessened the burden of household labor, freeing up time and making parenthood easier.

In the present era, technology is once again freeing up more time for many people, and not just by reducing commute times through remote or hybrid work. While reading about the latest breakthroughs, one might get the impression that machines are only learning to perform enjoyable and creative tasks, such as writing or drawing, rather than tending to the menial household chores that many would prefer to automate. One internet user expressed the sentiment this way: “I don’t want AI to do my art so I can do my laundry and dishes. I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so I can do my art.” Many would gladly welcome Rosey the robot maid into their homes.

The potential of technology to free humanity from the burden of household labor deserves more attention. Perhaps no group would benefit more than parents. The more children one has, the more laundry piles up and dishes fill the sink.

Various companies are racing to offer the public affordable robots to do housework. Robotic housekeepers might be here sooner than you think — even if NEO is seemingly not yet able to live up to its creator’s vision of a robot butler able to effortlessly empty the dishwasher, water house plants and do other chores. Tesla’s Optimus robot can fold laundry and take out the garbage, among other tasks. There are even robots that can wash dishes as fast as a human can.

If such technologies become widely available, everyday life will be far easier, and so will parenthood.

There are already robotic lawn mowers. In fact, a 2025 survey found that 13% of U.S. homes own a robotic lawn mower. And robot vacuums have become so common as to be unremarkable. In the United States, 15% of households now own a robotic vacuum, according to a YouGov poll. In the United Kingdom, one in 10 households owns one, while one in seven households reportedly plans to buy one within the next 12 months.

I remember when my family purchased a robot vacuum. We watched, mesmerized, as it zigzagged across the nursery carpet. Our toddler oohed and followed it around. Our awe reminded me of a touching account of a grandmother who had painstakingly scrubbed clothes by hand her whole life and then watched with wonder as her new laundry machine completed the task for her. One of the reasons I have more children than most is that I’m a techno-optimist, and I believe that my children will inherit a world with less toil and more joy. (My husband and I are expecting our fourth child.)

Of course, outsourcing all household chores to robots wouldn’t guarantee higher fertility. One lesson from the history of demographic forecasting is the need for humility.

After all, birth rates have dropped faster than demographers anticipated. But one thing is clear: Technological advancements have the potential to raise the standard of living, free up time and allow people to pursue their dreams. For many, this means having children.

This article was originally published at Deseret News on 11/29/2025.