The 30th anniversary of Tommy Boy was recently commemorated in Sandusky, Ohio, with the first Tommy Boy Fest. I was sorry to have missed this event since the schedule looked like a blast, complete with Q&A with Director Peter Segal and Julie Warner (“prettiest gal in Sandusky”), a comedy show with Kevin Farley, and a Tommy Want Wingy throwdown. Although Tommy Boy was filmed in Canada, the movie was based in the city of Sandusky and if this festival becomes an annual event, my family will definitely be traveling there next year.

My kids love Tommy Boy (and Chris Farley) as much as I do and after a recent re-watch of the 1995 flick, I kept thinking about some of the smaller scenes with big undertones, particularly regarding the management of Callahan Auto Parts and the emphasis on it being family-owned.

Early in the movie, there is a scene with Tommy’s father, an auto parts tycoon known as Big Tom (played by Brian Dennehy), and he is sharing his plans for a new brake pad division while walking down a hallway with a few businessmen. Ron Gilmore, the town banker (played by James Blendick), is walking alongside him and seems concerned about the sizable bank loan that will be needed for this new endeavor. Big Tom, in pitching his idea, declares “Don’t tell me the bank thinks we need to wait it out. Any business that tries to wait it out will be just that: out. In auto parts, you’re either growing or you’re dying. There ain’t no third direction.” And Big Tom is right. Complacency and competitive inertia are the surest ways to lose any battle over market share in the business realm. 

Big Tom’s statements are confident and convincing, but Gilmore is still concerned. “Tom, you’re talking about a huge loan. Maybe instead of borrowing, you should take on a partner.” An idea Big Tom quickly shoots down. “No, this always has been, always will be a family firm. My grandfather founded it in ’21. My father kept it running during the Depression. My Aunt Eileen ran it when he went away to war, and someday, my son will run it.”

In this short scene, several factors are at play, but for the sake of this article’s length, let’s just focus on the family business element. And to do so, some context is needed.

The Premise

Big Tom believed in the Callahan brand, and he lived well because of the success he achieved. Big Tom’s residence is one to behold: a huge mansion, gorgeous grounds, and a massive inground swimming pool (good enough for Bo Derek). And thanks to his wealth, Big Tom was able to support Tommy Boy’s elongated college education as well as guarantee him a job post-graduation. One of my favorite scenes in the movie is when Tommy receives his private office at his father’s firm, and Richard Hayden, an executive assistant (played by David Spade) alludes to the nepotism by sarcastically stating “You have a window! And why shouldn’t you? You’ve been here ten minutes.”

Other than a few quips from Richard throughout the film, employees at Callahan Auto Parts are featured as being unbothered by the family favoritism and don’t begrudge their employer’s lavish lifestyle. Actually, it is hard not to like the Callahan family. Big Tom is charismatic and appears to treat employees well, while Tommy is caring and kind, making it easy to disregard his mishaps and shenanigans. When touring the factory after returning home from college, Tommy greets all the workers by name and shows a genuine interest in the work they are doing. 

Overall, Tommy’s strength (we won’t go into his rather obvious faults) lies in generating interpersonal connections, and when he needs to take charge after the sudden passing of his father, Tommy is well-received by most of the employees despite the lack of competency he has for his new role.

The Perception

What is truly interesting about Callahan Auto Parts is how the business is presented and perceived. Big Tom ran a big business, and it being family-owned was a big deal. While I can understand a father wanting to see his legacy live on through his son, I am always a bit perplexed why consumers should care whether a firm is family-owned. Yet, for some reason, in American culture, family businesses have positive appeal, and businesses heavily promote familial ties. 

If you start paying attention to taglines, you’ll find that all types of firms market themselves as family-owned. One of my favorite examples is Sierra Nevada Brewing Co., which features at the top of its cans “Family Owned, Operated & Argued Over.”

When a successful business can be passed on to future generations, this is generally viewed as a good thing and something to be proud of. Some of America’s oldest and largest firms are family-owned: The Ford Motor Co., Koch Industries, Inc., The Kohler Co., S.C. Johnson, and Wegmans Food Markets to name a few. However, when a firm is perceived as being too big and too successful, those good vibes tend to fade away. Think the Waltons of Walmart or the Hiltons of, well, Hilton. 

When we perceive a company as being too powerful or a family as being too high status, we are less enthused about the family aspect. But we must remember that business owners generate their wealth by means of the success of their business. And the success of a business depends on its efficacy in serving the market and its ability to cater to consumer interests. Walmart didn’t get big overnight, and consumers weren’t forced to shop at Walmart stores. 

Moreover, some of the heirs of big businesses do great things with the wealth they have attained. Most notably and most recently, the Alice L. Walton School of Medicine inducted its first medical school class. Not only did the Walmart heiress, Alice Walton, fund the creation of a top-tier medical school, but, as featured in Time Magazine, she is also “covering tuition for the first five graduating classes.” 

The Point

The next time you purchase a product or put your trust in a brand, try to assess all the signals being sent your way. Does it matter to you if the business is family-owned? Does it matter to you if the business is big or small? And if any of these factors do matter, ask yourself why. Also, ask if you might feel differently if you were the business owner.

The ‘shop small’ and ‘shop local’ mantras sound great, but we should remember that a lot of value is derived from big businesses that were once small. And while supporting family businesses certainly sounds nice, in reality, there is no way to know what goes on behind closed doors. The family that owns a business could be made up of horrible people. Or the founders could be coercing future generations to forgo their individual dreams to sustain the family’s brand name. 

Just because a business is family-owned doesn’t automatically make it good, just as a business that is not family-owned isn’t inherently bad.

Fortunately for Tommy Boy, he came from a loving family, and he’s lucky that his father took great pride in the business being family-owned (since it’s unlikely Tommy could get a job anywhere else). And it’s a good thing for Tommy that his father’s company wasn’t the only big business competing in the auto parts realm. At the end of the movie (spoiler alert) Tommy is able to trick the owner of Zalinsky Auto Parts (played by Dan Aykroyd) into purchasing 500,000 brake pads. The big sale saves the company, and Tommy is able to return to Sandusky a hero. And, as stated at the start of this article, I look forward to visiting the real city of Sandusky someday since I know my kids would get a kick out of it. 

The experiences I take part in and the investments I make are based on my preferences, my aspirations, and the future well-being of my family. Although I may not be able to set my kids up with an inheritance comparable to the fictitious Callahans or the real-life Waltons, I am doing my best to ensure they can be proud of the wealth we have attained. 

I am also teaching my children that what constitutes wealth can come in a variety of forms, and it is up to them to determine what it is they truly value. And I’ll be reminding them that no matter their age, I will always be happy to re-watch Tommy Boy with them since there is always something to be learned from the energetic and entrepreneurial spirit present in this 1990s classic.

For decades, New York City prided itself on being the financial capital of the world. It’s a place where money, culture, and power converge. And yet, as has been seen in San Francisco, Chicago, and other locations around the US, New York is experiencing a steady exodus of millionaires and ultra-high-net-worth individuals. While some observers dismiss this as anecdotal or exaggerated, the facts paint a different picture: one with serious implications for the city’s fiscal health, social fabric, and attractiveness.

It is easy to forget that New York’s gleaming infrastructure, vast public services, and social programs are underwritten disproportionately by a tiny number of residents. Fewer than one percent of taxpayers account for more than 40 percent of all income tax revenue collected in the state, and a similar share in the city. Without those individuals, the ability of millions of ordinary New Yorkers to enjoy subsidized transit, robust public safety services, and cultural investments would collapse. In other words, and despite endless egalitarian rhetoric, the lifestyle of the masses is silently carried on the shoulders of the few.

The scale of the loss is becoming visible. Between 2019 and 2020, the number of New Yorkers earning between $150,000 and $750,000 fell by nearly six percent, while the number of true high earners — those making over $750,000 — dropped by nearly 10 percent, according to the city’s Independent Budget Office. This erosion matters because the city’s top one percent — about 41,000 filers — pay more than 40 percent of all income taxes. The top 10 percent pay about two-thirds. Which means the remaining 90 percent of taxpayers contribute only about one-third of the city’s income tax revenue. When even a small share of these high earners disappears, the impact is seismic.

Recent migration trends confirm the damage. More than 125,000 New Yorkers have fled to Florida in just the past few years, carrying nearly $14 billion worth of income with them, according to the Citizens Budget Commission. About a third of those movers — more than 41,000 people — went to Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties between 2018 and 2022. Those escapes alone stripped New York City of an estimated $10 billion in adjusted gross income. When money and mobility align, no amount of political rhetoric can stop people from voting with their feet.

Into this fragile situation steps Zohran Mamdani, whose mayoral primary victory has been accompanied by a platform that includes a new “millionaire’s tax.” His proposal would tack on an additional two-percent levy for New Yorkers earning more than $1 million a year, raising the combined city and state top rate to 16.776 percent — by far the highest in the nation. Add federal obligations, and the total burden would rise to nearly 54 percent. That is not just taxation; it is confiscation. 

Wealthy New Yorkers wouldn’t even need to flee to Florida to avoid it. A short move to Westchester, Long Island, or across the Hudson to New Jersey would suffice. As the Tax Foundation has noted, “a high earner doesn’t need to give up the convenience of the city, they just need to move outside the five boroughs.” Developers are already banding together to oppose Mamdani’s rent-control platform, while Florida realtors report a surge in inquiries from wealthy New Yorkers looking to relocate.

Rather than acknowledge this delicate balance, policymakers in Albany and City Hall continue to treat the wealthy as inexhaustible resources. Each subsequent budget cycle seems to bring fresh proposals for higher levies, justified by a reflexive invocation of “fair share.” For the city’s most mobile taxpayers, however, there is a limit. They are increasingly concluding that enough is enough.

Not to worry, though. Other US states and cities are only too happy to receive them. 

Florida has no state income tax and a climate that, quite literally, feels like a bonus. Texas markets itself as a business-friendly, family-friendly destination where capital is welcomed rather than penalized. The Lone Star State is even planning its own stock exchange to fight against corporate ESG/DEI mandates, among others. Even Connecticut, once derided as a commuter’s backwater, now makes a pitch as a calmer, lower-tax alternative just a train ride away.

It’s not just states. Municipalities from Miami to Austin to Nashville are creating entire ecosystems — schools, cultural centers, financial services clusters — designed to attract, satisfy, and retain disaffected New Yorkers. And the migration data show that these efforts are paying off.

The most striking irony of this government-greed-driven exodus is that the very policies promoted as remedies for inequality are accelerating a new divide. On one side are jurisdictions with extractive tax regimes like New York, which are increasingly reliant on a shrinking base of wealthy residents. On the other side are “merely high-tax” or moderate-tax states that calibrate their revenue needs without driving out their most productive citizens. In attempting to punish the “haves” in the name of the “have-nots,” New York is in the process of creating an even sharper divide between places where the wealthy live and places they have left behind. The intended redistribution becomes a geographic one, with capital, philanthropy, and jobs following the departing millionaires.

Beyond dollars and cents, there is also a cultural cost. Wealthy New Yorkers are not just taxpayers; they are patrons of the arts, benefactors of hospitals, and funders of civic institutions. When they decamp to Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Wyoming, or elsewhere, they don’t merely take their checkbooks; they take their boards, galas, and fundraising networks. The very character of New York as a city of ambition progressively dims. A city that once attracted the world’s best and brightest risks becoming a place they leave once they have achieved the successes they sought.

The migration of millionaires is not an abstract threat. It is an early warning sign of the consequences of fiscal imbalance and political avarice. New York can continue to chase headlines with promises of soaking the rich, or it can recognize that prosperity depends on partnership, not punishment. If it chooses the former, the flight will only accelerate, and the city may wake up one day to find that its most valuable export is no longer finance or culture, but people. Wealth, like love, does not stay long where it goes unappreciated.

In 1956, a trucking entrepreneur named Malcolm McLean did something quietly radical: he placed 58 identical steel boxes onto a cargo ship in Newark and sent them to Houston. Those boxes, the first standardized shipping containers, didn’t look like a revolution. But they soon rewrote the logic of global commerce.

As economist Marc Levinson chronicled in The Box, this wasn’t just about saving space or time. The genius of the container was its standardization. No matter the cargo, no matter the destination, one set of protocols including fixed dimensions, stackability, and compatibility with cranes, trucks, and ports suddenly governed a previously fragmented industry. Costs fell. Transit times collapsed. Theft and spoilage plummeted. Global trade surged from $100 billion in 1960 to over $25 trillion today, largely because containers allowed goods to move frictionlessly through a universal system.

What the shipping container did for physical goods, stablecoins now promise to do for money.

The recent bipartisan passage of the GENIUS Act and the expected passage of the CLARITY Act in the next few weeks, is the policy equivalent of agreeing on the international container standard. It establishes a framework for dollar-backed stablecoins, digital tokens whose value is pegged 1:1 to U.S. dollars and backed by reserves held in cash or short-term Treasuries. Issuers must meet rigorous disclosure, audit, and consumer-protection requirements. In short, the Act sets the rules to make stablecoins not just safe, but also scalable and interoperable by defining basic regulatory guidelines.

That distinction matters. Because like early maritime trade before containerization, today’s financial system remains fragmented, expensive, and slow. Sending money internationally often takes days, involves multiple intermediaries, and racks up fees, especially for consumers and small businesses. Different ledgers, jurisdictions, and systems don’t talk to each other.

Stablecoins change that. They are programmable, 24/7, borderless instruments that allow dollars to move instantly across platforms, contracts, and geographies. They’re not trying to replace the dollar; they’re trying to standardize its transport, just as containers didn’t replace ships, they made ships dramatically more efficient.

Even before the GENIUS Act, the market for stablecoins was exploding. In 2024, stablecoins processed over $27 trillion in transactions, more than Visa and Mastercard combined. Over 90% of that volume was denominated in U.S. dollars. And, unlike cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, these aren’t speculative assets. They are increasingly the infrastructure of modern financial exchange.

But just like container adoption required more than a clever box, it required regulatory alignment, international buy-in, and standardized protocols, stablecoins need legislative scaffolding to scale securely. The GENIUS and CLARITY Acts provide that scaffolding. This legislation sets a bar that serious, well-capitalized issuers can meet and ensures dollar-backed tokens are trusted, transparent, and functional at scale.

The benefits are profound. For consumers, it means faster and cheaper transactions. For entrepreneurs, it unlocks programmable financial applications. But for the United States, the biggest benefit is macroeconomic and geopolitical: the GENIUS and CLARITY Acts will increase global demand for U.S. dollars.

Every compliant stablecoin must be backed by reserves held in dollars or short-term Treasuries. As stablecoins are adopted globally, for remittances, trade settlement, and digital contracts, they become a continuous engine of demand for dollar-based assets. Morgan Stanley estimates this could generate trillions of dollars in new demand for U.S. government debt, strengthening Treasury markets and lowering borrowing costs.

It also fortifies dollar primacy. In a world where China is pushing a digital yuan and the EU is experimenting with a digital euro, the U.S. must export not just currency, but currency infrastructure. Stablecoins are the shipping containers of monetary influence. If we define the standard, the world will adopt it. If we hesitate, others will fill the vacuum.

To be clear, stablecoins aren’t risk-free. But their risks, such as liquidity mismatches, fraud, systemic exposure, are precisely the kinds of challenges that regulation is designed to manage. The current crypto legislation addresses them with measured oversight. It is neither overbearing nor permissive, it is infrastructural.

The true lesson of the container revolution is this: infrastructure wins not by invention, but by consensus. Once enough actors agreed on the rules, global trade scaled almost automatically. Stablecoins offer the same promise for digital commerce if we codify their standard.

Both the GENIUS and CLARITY Acts are not just about enabling crypto. They are about ensuring the U.S. dollar remains the base layer of global finance in a world that is moving, inevitably, toward digital rails.

The future of money needs a container. We have it. Now we need to standardize it and lead.

On August 28, 2025, Chicago Public Schools (CPS), the fourth-largest school district in the US, passed a $10.2 billion budget and is facing a $743 million deficit. Prior to the budget passage, the big three credit rating agencies each rated CPS General Obligation (GO) Bonds “non-investment grade speculative,” also known by the more pejorative title “junk bonds.” CPS bonds received a Ba1 rating from Moody’s and a BB+ rating from both S&P Global and Fitch Ratings.

The name “junk” refers to the risk that investors face that CPS will not make interest payments or repay the principal when the bond fully matures. To offset this risk, junk bonds offer high interest rates to attract investors. This is especially significant because GO bonds are backed by “the full faith and credit” of CPS, meaning the district promises to use all existing revenue to pay back the debt and, if necessary, raise new taxes to pay the debt. 

Unfortunately, these ratings are justified. Research from the Illinois Policy Institute found that CPS suffers from chronic budget deficits as well as billions of dollars in debt and unfunded pension liabilities despite record-high operating revenue. The problem is persistent overspending. As my colleague Corey DeAngelis wrote, CPS officials and staff “put their own desires before the needs of children.” 

The situation at CPS, however, will not be contained within Chicago. The budget stress could put additional stress on the state of Illinois, which is already teetering on the edge of the fiscal cliff. 

If the perfect storm of an economic and budget crisis occurs, policymakers in the Land of Lincoln may turn to DC for financial assistance, shifting the cost of mismanagement onto the rest of the country.   

What Does That Mean for Students? 

The most important group affected by CPS’s financial troubles are the students. An upcoming bond sale at the new junk rating will further increase borrowing costs, diverting more of the district’s budget toward debt service rather than classrooms. Not including the upcoming bond sale (which Bloomberg estimates will be more than $600 million), CPS currently owes $9.1 billion in long-term debt and $13.9 billion in unfunded promised pension benefits. 

Every dollar spent on debt service is a dollar not spent on textbooks, technology, safety systems, facilities, or instruction. This squeeze comes at a time when funds for students are already strained. The chart below from the Illinois Policy Institute shows that spending on personnel accounts for 70 percent of the growth in operating expenses for CPS. 

The prioritization of spending on personnel over students is already showing. Corey DeAngelis reported that in 2022 not a single student was proficient in math in 33 public schools in Chicago. As debt service continues to devour an already unsustainable budget, do not expect student learning outcomes to improve. 

What Does That Mean for Chicagoans and The State of Illinois? 

The primary source of operating revenue for CPS is local tax revenue, specifically property taxes that the school district levies itself. For FY 2025, these revenues make up $5.1 billion of the $8.6 billion in operating revenue (59 percent).  

CPS is a legally separate entity from the City of Chicago, with the power to levy its own taxes, issue bonds, and manage and control all public schools in the district. While it has independent status, its governance is tied to the Mayor of Chicago, who appoints members of the Board of Education (until 2027 when all board members will be elected). 

CPS relies on the same tax base as the city of Chicago, which means residents are responsible for supporting both entities. As CPS debt accumulates, Chicago taxpayers will be on the hook to pay it. 

CPS also relies heavily on state funding as well. For FY 2025, about $2.1 billion of the $8.6 billion operating revenue (24 percent) was funded by the state. Should CPS be unable to pay its debts, history suggests that it may look to Springfield for help and oversight. Such oversight may resemble Michigan’s own interventions in the Detroit Public Schools (DPS), with Lansing’s involvement in the district spanning nearly twenty years.  

State involvement in DPS began in 1999 under then-Governor Engler. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction and a six-member board of education ran the school district from 1999-2005 when Detroit residents voted to return the district to local control. That control, however, was short-lived as finances and enrollment deteriorated going into the Great Recession. Then, in 2009, the state appointed emergency managers, four years before the city declared bankruptcy.  

These managers had complete control over district finances, making major spending cuts to tame structural deficits. In 2016, the district was separated into two distinct legal entities: the Detroit Public Schools, which exists solely to pay down long-term debts, and the Detroit Public Schools Community District, a “new” debt-free entity that provided public schooling for Detroit residents. The state of Michigan also provided a $25 million transfer to assist with the transition costs from the “old” to the “new” entity. 

If Chicago Public Schools cannot properly manage their finances, Illinois taxpayers outside of Chicago will have to pay a larger portion of taxes to cover CPS budget deficits. 

What Does That Mean for the Rest of the Country? 

As I discussed elsewhere, one stark difference between Detroit and Chicago’s circumstances is the respective finances of Michigan and Illinois. Where Michigan was in relatively good financial condition when Detroit declared bankruptcy, Illinois is in much worse shape. Fiscal stress in Illinois is akin to Puerto Rico in the lead-up to the Commonwealth’s 2015 budget crisis. At the onset of the crisis, Puerto Rico was plagued by massive debt and credit ratings just above junk status, much like Illinois today. 

If policymakers in Springfield are unable to financially support CPS, it is likely both state and city officials will turn to federal policymakers to bail them out. Illinois and Chicago heavily relied on federal stimulus packages in 2020 to close budget gaps. In FY 2025, federal taxpayers provided $1.3 billion of the $8.6 billion of CPS operating revenue (just over the remaining 15 percent). These officials already have an appetite for federal taxpayer dollars; there is nothing stopping them from demanding more. 

This relationship allows state and local officials to fund spending at the cost of federal taxpayers in other states, and gives federal officials influence over state and local budgets by attaching terms and conditions to federal funds. Additionally, if such a bailout is achieved through an emergency lending facility at the Federal Reserve, such as the 2020 Municipal Liquidity Facility, federal officials will also be able to outsource politically unpopular bailouts to the Federal Reserve.  

While neither CPS nor the City of Chicago seems to be changing their ways, state and federal officials must set up fiscal guardrails should Chicago officials come to them seeking financial aid. These guardrails, whether an ex-ante guarantee against bailouts or tying strict austerity measures to stimulus packages that make seeking financial aid as unattractive as possible, will stop the Windy City from continuing the irresponsible practices that put the city in this position in the first place. 

In 2018, Democratic lawmakers in California created a new bureaucratic department, in part, to “close equity and achievement gaps” at higher education institutions in the state. Seven years later, a recent analysis from CalMatters, a California-focused news organization, has documented the program’s disappointing results, specifically for women.

Lawmakers in the California legislature created the California Education Learning Laboratory to improve educational programs and outcomes, particularly in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields. The group’s mission expresses a specific interest in “narrowing equity gaps.” Since its inception, the program has sought to transform teaching methods at colleges throughout the state. It has leveraged grants to incentivize universities and their faculty to adopt new teaching methods, many of which prioritize inclusivity for minorities. The “laboratory” has also worked to influence public education policy in favor of its founding goals, effectively using state (taxpayer) money to influence state policy. The organization initially received about $8 million per year.

According to the new report conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California for CalMatters, the demographic shift for women in STEM was small. Hans Johnson, a senior fellow at the institute, conducted the analysis, which has yet to be published in full. He commented that “The unfortunate news is that the numbers haven’t changed much at all.”

He compared data from the 2009-2010 school year at the state’s four-year colleges to more recent data from 2022-23. As CalMatters reported, “The share of women who received a bachelor’s degree increased from roughly 19 percent to about 25 percent in engineering and from nearly 16 percent to about 23 percent in computer science. In math and statistics, the percentage of women who graduate with a degree has gone down in the last five years.”

“It’s not nothing, but at this pace it would take a very long time to reach parity,” Johnson remarked. Even the Learning Lab’s director, Lark Park, admitted the shortcoming. “While I think women are faring better in college generally, I would be skeptical that we can say ‘mission accomplished’ in terms of achieving parity for women in STEM undergraduate degrees,” she said.

It’s worth acknowledging that the CalMatters summary of the report notes that the program faced funding cuts during the COVID years. While proponents of such programs might argue that this affected the initiative’s effectiveness, broader trends call into question the necessity of the program and its social justice agenda. A previous report from the lab acknowledged an increase in women seeking STEM degrees for years before the lab was ever created.

According to that 2019 paper, “Overall, the number of female, Latinx, and African American students enrolled in STEM fields in California’s segments of public higher education has grown considerably in the past decade…” It added that “the percentage of female, Latinx, and African American students majoring in STEM fields and earning STEM degrees is also growing; enrollment of female, Latinx, and African American students in STEM fields is, moreover, increasing at a faster rate than overall female and URM [underrepresented minority] enrollment.”

In another example of growth predating the program, the paper noted that “Between 2006-7 and 2016-17, the number of UC bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields awarded to women increased by 63 percent (from 5,655 to 9,243)…” These numbers also mirror several nationwide trends. 

Despite these developments, the Learning Lab wanted more. As Park noted, her goal has been parity — another word for equality. The underwhelming program, which may be eliminated next year, exemplifies the ineffectiveness of government policy in shifting societal traits and trends. 

For example, Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign, launched to combat childhood obesity, had little success. The famed DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program of the 1980s and 1990s, which nobly attempted to discourage children and teens from using drugs, similarly failed to produce its intended outcomes. Similar to the trend of women and minorities increasingly earning STEM degrees before California’s initiative, the US poverty rate was falling for two decades before President Lyndon Johnson initiated his big-spending “War on Poverty.”

The failures of government attempts to shift societal preferences and behavior span a variety of issues, but examples like these, including the California STEM fumble, also reflect another key issue: the paternalism and hubris of deciding what is best for millions of people.

Progressive and liberal sensibilities champion the autonomy and capabilities of women and other minorities. Yet, despite their presumably good intentions (and ineffective government-imposed outcomes), there is a fundamental contradiction in their belief that politicians and bureaucrats in the California state Capitol — or Congress at the national level — and the experts they enlist “know best.” It also rests on the faulty premise that politicians are inherently capable of molding society.

Further, there are numerous privately funded efforts to support increasing the number of female, minority, and low-income students in STEM. These include scholarships, mentoring programs, and extracurricular educational courses. 

Their existence calls into question the value of a low-performing state-funded program at the expense of already overburdened taxpayers. If individuals and groups want to provide resources for educational programs and specific demographics in general, they should be free to do so, whether they are effective or not. To the contrary, no one should be forced to fund social engineering projects hatched by the politicians and bureaucrats, whether they work or not.

While these California lawmakers, bureaucrats, and academics may have meant well, their intentions could not guarantee corresponding outcomes. Even if they could have, the presumption that using the force of government should produce these outcomes highlights a fundamental hypocrisy in such centrally planned, collectivist approaches to engineering individual success.

For the first time in Gallup’s 90-year polling history, a majority of Americans now view moderate alcohol consumption as bad for one’s health. Just 54 percent of American adults say they drink alcohol, and 49 percent tell pollsters they’d like to cut back in 2025. 

In particular, Gen-Z seems to have gotten the memo on alcohol’s dangers. Adults under 35 are the least likely to drink, with fully 40 percent living an entirely dry lifestyle. Women are most likely to have cut back their consumption between 2020 and 2025, which fits a pattern: COVID lockdowns showed people alcohol’s ugly power.  

Many middle-aged and older folk who’ve cut back recently cited the COVID-19 lockdowns as a source of clarity about their drinking patterns. Without daily obligations or anyone to see or judge them, many people livened up the boredom and isolation with an afternoon cocktail. And then a lunchtime cocktail. And without an early commute and in-person meetings, not to mention the existential dread of a global crisis, perhaps it would be okay to stay up late and have one more in the evening. Zoom meetings became online happy hours. Everything from true crime to personal finance advice was paired with a cocktail recipe and a boozy delivery service. Disposable income rose, fueled by stimulus checks and the largely closed entertainment sector. Spending at liquor stores soared in the weeks after checks were mailed, and a survey from Wallethub estimated 24 million Americans spent some of their stimulus money on alcohol. 

Casual critics of capitalism might see the profit motive in companies keeping Americans drinking alcohol, regardless of its dangers. Young people can likely recall the denials and cynical obfuscations of Big Tobacco and might be justified in finding fault with Big Booze as well. Most people imagine alcohol execs as something like the Merchants of Death in Thank You for Smoking: shady characters representing human vices, conspiring to fill our shopping carts with vodka, cigarettes, and loaded firearms.

No doubt, alcohol is pushed on us by brands that want us to associate various formulations of ethanol with the fulfillment of every desire: be cool, popular, confident, loved, and an excellent dancer. The elixir is in the cooler full of ice near your beach volleyball game, or delivered to your table from a handsome stranger. Alcohol product placements and tippling characters saturate streaming services.  

But unlike advertising, markets are value-neutral. They don’t tell us what we should want; they deliver whatever we’re willing to pay for. Yuengling is the nation’s oldest brewery, and if tomorrow they learned that Gen-Z would be going teetotal, they’d be the nation’s largest kombucha and sparkling water distributor by next year. 

Zero-Proof Imitators 

Non-alcoholic adult beverages have the same problem as atheists: it’s hard to affirmatively define yourself with a name that only says what you’re not. So it has been for “near-beer,” “zero-proof liquors,” “spirit-free analogues,” “nosecco,” and perhaps most condescending: “mocktails.” But the zero-proof market segment has entered an era of true innovation, not just imitation. “NA” and “AF” options are no longer niche. 

Young people want to enjoy the same adult, elevated social spaces and events they’ve associated with traditional drinks. Established brands recognized the demand for alcohol-free options that could be consumed in the same situations. Like foodways, drinking customs are part of our social and familial landscapes: being able to grab a Heineken 0.0 from the fridge along with Dad’s Coors Light preserves the social texture without the dose of poison. An alcohol-free cider or craft mocktail at the office party lets nondrinkers fully participate in the celebration, without prompting uncomfortable conversations. Sales of nonalcoholic alcohol imitators are growing fast, and national distributors of wine, beer, and spirits have rolled out new offerings. 

Indeed, savvy beverage brands aren’t just de-alcoholicizing their standard offerings, but instead branching out into kombuchas, tonics, infusions, malts, probiotics, and craft sodas.

Adult Alternatives

Nondrinkers also show interest in beverages with mind-altering and mood-enhancing effects similar to alcohol, but want to avoid its downsides (which range from headaches and hangovers to cancer and coma). Drinks derived from cannabis and infused with the compounds of psychedelic mushrooms are now legal in many states, and are pretty safe compared to alcohol (no lethal dose of either is known). While the availability of recreational cannabis is known to reduce rates of alcohol consumption and abuse, cannabis consumption hasn’t risen significantly over the past five years, so it’s unlikely new users are a major contributor to drinking’s decline.

Among the less-safe iterations of this trend are products containing kava and kratom. These mild stimulants have more in common with espresso and energy drinks than alcohol, but many users report addictive properties and changes in health that look a lot like alcoholism and drug dependence. 

Markets also tend to be great at, well, marketing, so don’t be surprised by the explosion of special collections, targeted sales, and branded merch for Dry July and Sober October. Merchandisers like “Doing It Sober” and “Sober Motivation Shop” have cashed in on the trend, and so have thousands of tiny artisans who now create sobriety-minded accessories. Part of the sobriety aesthetic is smashing stigma as a service to others. The motto on one hoodie reads: “Recover loudly to keep others from dying quietly.” 

Quit Lit and Sober Influencers

Across our consumption landscapes, sober-focused communities are making themselves known. While it wouldn’t be in keeping with group norms to share links to their stories, a quick internet search turns up the online support community r/stopdrinking — perhaps the most reliably supportive, wholesome place on the internet. That Reddit forum had 30,000 members when The Washington Post profiled it ten years ago, but now boasts half a million. No prices are listed here, and the cost is measured in service: support, mutual aid, people sharing their talents freely. Free recovery forums demonstrate supply and demand in the most human way possible. 

Books and podcasts have also proliferated, with Quit Lit finding all the usual niches in bookstores: women’s, men’s, spiritual, subversive. Podcasts like Sober Awkward, Recovery Elevator, and This Naked Mind reach the sober-curious right in their homes and headphones, reducing the stigma of seeking help, or even self-identifying as needing help.

Creator networks like Patreon also shift the traditional model of exchange. Most of the content is free — which is a surprisingly successful money-making strategy on the participatory internet. A variety of cooperative, collaborative, commercial relationships gives people the ability to support their supporters, in a virtuous feedback loop.

Sober Socializing

Social connections can be lubricated by alcohol, so to satisfy the sober socializer, businesses are increasingly offering indulgent adult escapes that don’t center around what can be bought from the barman.

Luxury hotel groups now require their premium locations to have a “sophisticated zero-proof option for the guests that choose not to imbibe.” Non-alcoholic “soft pairings” are appearing in fine dining establishments, where pairing profiles are expected to be just as complex and intentional as the wines for which they substitute. 

According to an article in Time “there’s been a wave of sober bars opening across the US,” and this is good news for artisanal and craft beverage makers who leverage unique botanicals and hops for cultivating specialty drinks. The demand can even support whole establishments: Atlanta’s first alcohol-free bottle shop, The Zero Co, opened in 2022.

“The addition of zero-proof cocktails can attract local guests who are seeking out a non-alcoholic option—similar to the draw of local restaurants that include gluten-free or vegan options,” writes Tad Wilkes for Restaurant Hospitality. 

Even Nitecapp Magazine lauded the rise of non-alcoholic specialty mixology at high-end hotels, calling it a “refreshing trend…redefining the essence of indulgence.” Marketing consultancies and startup sales teams emerged to help restaurants build out zero-proof menus and experiences. 

Sober travel and tour companies promise “clear-headed, connection-rich, booze-free adventures.” Just as there is a market for the all-you-can-drink booze cruise, there’s ready money seeking out sober cruising, and companies happy to fill the gap. Recommendation companies like The Sober Curator provide insights for those who prioritize avoiding intoxicants while traveling.

And because dating is often a bar-based and boozy affair — “I’d like to get to know you better” is often shorthanded with “Can I buy you a drink?” — apps have emerged for those who’d rather do their coupling-up fully conscious: Loosid, Club Pillar, and Sober Love are growing fast. 

Why Would Big Bev Support Sobriety? 

The profit motive doesn’t make liquor companies “care” about your sobriety, in the sense that they care about your happiness or good fortune, the way Adam Smith used “sympathy.” Instead, the pursuit of personal gain (profit motive) encourages market participants to care about whatever you care about. The producers of non-alcoholic beverages, the purveyors of sobriety podcasts, the luxury hotels mixing up mocktails so complicated you’ll still be willing to pay $15 for juice and herbs — they don’t have to “care” about your health or be emotionally invested in your lifestyle choices. Self-interest via economic activity mimics the effects of sympathy for strangers: people will go to extraordinary lengths to provide what you need — if you’re willing to pay for it.

If you or someone you know has tried to avoid thinking about alcohol, you’ll have noticed that American culture is absolutely saturated in the stuff. Alcohol is prominent in 87 percent of top US movies and infused into your social feed. Overt ads on billboards and neon signs in restaurant windows, brand endorsements on sports stadiums: there’s plenty of money to be made in gussying up the world’s most popular Class I carcinogen. 

And sure, earning money is a significant motivator for the makers of SoberMummy teas, the social network Club Soda, and even “Smells Like Sobriety” candles, but it’s hard to see capitalism as the bad guy in building these networks of voluntary support and exchange. As economists are fond of telling students, McDonald’s doesn’t care whether it becomes the premier salad and smoothie outlet in the country, if that’s what you were willing to pay for. 

When we demand better, markets deliver better. Raise a glass — perhaps a placeborita or Cos-no-politan — to the future.

The Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors got a taste of The Apprentice treatment last week. 

On August 25, President Trump removed Lisa Cook from her position as a Fed governor. Her ousting is widely viewed as an attack on the central bank’s independence. Nearly 600 economists have signed an open letter to express their “strong support” for “Lisa Cook and for the longstanding principle of central bank independence.”

It is easy to see why the president might want the Biden appointee gone. Trump has consistently called for the Fed to cut its federal funds rate target, thus far to no avail. Sacking Cook gives him another permanent seat to fill on the Federal Open Market Committee — and may persuade the remaining governors to get in line. In other words, firing Cook may enable Trump to remake the Fed in his own image.

But that’s not the reason the president offered. In a letter published to Truth Social, Trump indicated he was removing Cook “for cause” following a criminal referral from Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte. That is convenient, to say the least. The Federal Reserve Act permits the president to remove a governor for cause. It does not permit the president to remove a governor over policy disputes.

The Allegations

Let’s start with the allegations. According to Pulte, Cook made false statements on one or more mortgage documents. He cited two loans in the initial referral. As The Wall Street Journal reports, Cook took out a $203,000, 15-year mortgage in June 2021 on an Ann Arbor, Michigan home she had owned since 2005, indicating she would use the property as her primary residence for at least one year. Then, just weeks later, she took out a $540,000, 30-year mortgage to purchase an Atlanta, Georgia condo, again indicating she would use the property as her primary residence for at least one year. Pulte alleges Cook committed occupancy fraud by claiming she would use both properties as her primary residence for at least one year.

Falsely claiming a secondary residence as a primary residence will typically reduce the interest rate a borrower must pay, since borrowers are much less likely to default on a loan that would see them lose their primary residence. 

How significant is the offense? It’s a federal felony. However, as Megan McArdle explains at the Washington Post, “individuals are rarely prosecuted” for occupancy fraud “because that would take a lot of time that the bank and prosecutors could more profitably spend doing something else.” Still, it is hard to justify “letting a public official get away with something the system can’t afford to publicly condone” once the offense has come to light. That the public official is a bank regulator makes it even more difficult to justify.

But that’s not all! In a second criminal referral, submitted on Friday, Pulte alleged Cook made false statements on a third loan as well. In April 2021, Cook took out a $361,000, 15-year mortgage on a Cambridge, Massachusetts condo she had purchased in 2002, indicating she would use the property as a second home for at least one year. According to Pulte, this property was not used as a second home, but as an investment property. “Documents she filed with the federal Office of Government Ethics show that Cook was already drawing rental income from the property by December 2021,” The Wall Street Journal reports.

The Court Battle

Cook sued President Trump, the Federal Reserve Board, and Fed Chair Jerome Powell on August 28, seeking “immediate declaratory and injunctive relief to confirm her status as a member of the Board of Governors, safeguard her and the Board’s congressionally mandated independence, and allow Governor Cook and the Federal Reserve to continue its critical work.” She is also seeking a temporary restraining order, which would permit her to remain in her position as governor until the case is settled, on the basis that she “is likely to succeed on the merits of her claims that President Trump’s purported firing violated her statutory and constitutional rights.”

In a hearing held on Friday, Cook’s attorney argued “the President has relied on a thinly-veiled pretext in an attempt to remove Governor Cook over her unwillingness to lower interest rates.”

The administration’s attorney responded to the pretext argument by reiterating that Cook was removed for cause and citing the decision in Trump v. Hawaii, which rejected a theory that would require “an inquiry into the President’s motives,” continuing,

Insofar as Dr. Cook seeks a ruling that the President’s stated rationale was pretext, the Court should decline ‘to probe the sincerity of the [president’s] stated justifications’ for an action when the President has identified a facially permissible basis for it. Not only does precedent foreclose that path as a matter of law, but Dr. Cook offers nothing but speculation to support her charge of insincerity. That is no basis to set aside a presidential action committed to the President’s discretion by law.

In other words, the president is free to reshape the Fed Board to achieve his policy goals — so long as he can show cause.

US District Judge Jia Cobb has yet to rule on the matter, but she is expected to rule before the Federal Open Market Committee meets in September.

Central Bank Independence

Democrats are understandably upset about Trump’s attempt to fire Cook. But their calls for central bank independence ring hollow. Time and time again, they have shown themselves willing to play politics with the Fed — when it suits their interests.

For starters, consider their relatively recent efforts to change the Fed’s mandate. In 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) sponsored legislation for a Green New Deal, which would have seen the Fed adjust policy to help achieve climate goals. In 2023, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sponsored the Federal Reserve Racial and Economic Equity Act, which would have required “the Federal Reserve Board to carry out its duties in a manner that supports the elimination of racial and ethnic disparities in employment, income, wealth, and access to affordable credit.” Congress certainly has the right to modify the Federal Reserve Act. But it is hard to square these particular efforts with the current calls for central bank independence. Indeed, they look like efforts that would further politicize the Fed in order to advance so-called progressive political causes.

Democrats have also pushed out a Fed governor over purported ethics violations. Richard Clarida resigned in January 2022, amid claims that he had profited from insider information about forthcoming Fed policy in the early days of the pandemic. As the New York Times reported, he had moved somewhere between $1 million and $5 million from a broad-based bond fund to broad-based stock funds on Feb. 27, 2020. The trade, which the Fed described as a preplanned portfolio rebalancing that was similar to a trade he had made the prior year, complied with the central bank’s financial ethics rules. And, given the timing, it is a trade that probably cost him dearly: the S&P 500 declined 11.7 percent over the month that followed, while domestic bonds declined just 1.5 percent. Still, Sen. Warren requested Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler open an investigation in October 2021 and was still going on about the supposed “trading scandal” as late as August 2025. The real scandal — for genuine advocates of central bank independence — is that Democrats misconstrued a standard portfolio rebalancing to get rid of a Trump appointee.

Finally, consider how Cook’s appointment came about. In February 2018, Janet Yellen resigned, creating a vacancy on the Fed Board. Then-President Trump nominated Judy Shelton for the position in July 2019. However, her nomination stalled in the Senate. When Shelton finally came up for a vote in November 2020, not a single Democrat voted to confirm her. This left the vacancy for Biden to fill. He nominated Cook, the Senate split along party lines, and Vice President Kamala Harris broke the tie in favor of Cook’s appointment.

Of course, Senators have the right to oppose a president’s nominee. But it is difficult to argue they were not playing politics when they refused to confirm Shelton. Unlike Cook, who to the best of my knowledge had never written or spoken publicly about monetary policy prior to being considered for the Board seat, Shelton had written and spoken extensively on the subject. She was certainly qualified for the position, as judged by Cook’s later appointment. But Senate Democrats refused to confirm Shelton to get a Fed Governor with policy views closer to their own. It was a lawful decision, to be sure. But it was also a political decision.

Now, Trump is making what appears to be a lawful decision to fire Cook — for cause — in order to appoint a Fed Governor with policy views closer to his own. 

Democrats do not like it. But they would almost certainly do the same if given the chance.

Earth is going to hit “peak population” before the end of this century. Within 25 years, most of the world’s developed nations will be facing sharp population declines, with shrinking pools of young people working to support an ever-aging population.

The reason is not famine, war, or pestilence. We did this to ourselves, by creating a set of draconian solutions to a problem that didn’t even exist. Fear has always been the best tool for social control, and the fear of humanity was deployed by generations of “thinkers” on the control-obsessed left. 

Most starkly, Paul Ehrlich made a remarkably frightening, and entirely false, prediction in 1968, in his book Population Bomb (PDF):

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines —  hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…

We may be able to keep famine from sweeping across India for a few more years. But India can’t possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980. Nothing can prevent the death of tens of millions of people in India in the 1970s…

And England? If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.

PJ O’Rourke explained what was going on, in his 1994 book All the Trouble in the World:

The bullying of citizens by means of dreads and fights has been going on since paleolithic times. Greenpeace fundraisers on the subject of global warming are not much different than the tribal Wizards on the subject of lunar eclipses. ‘Oh no, Night Wolf is eating the Moon Virgin. Give me silver and I will make him spit her out.

Family Planning and State Intervention

But there is more going here than just gulling the gullible; the overpopulation hysteria of the 1960s and 1970s had world-changing consequences, effects that are just now becoming clear. It’s not fair (though it is fun) to blame Ehrlich; the truth is that the full-blown family-size freakout emerged from a pseudo-science that held growth was a threat to prosperity. Influential organizations were founded by very worried people. The Population Council and the International Planned Parenthood Federation were both created early on, in 1952. Developing nations began promoting aggressive family planning initiatives, often with substantial support, and sometimes with coercive pressures, from Western governments and international agencies.

The United Nations, the World Bank, and bilateral donors, particularly the United States through USAID, increasingly integrated population control into foreign aid programs. High fertility rates, particularly in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, were viewed not merely as demographic trends but as Malthusian obstacles to modernization, poverty alleviation, and global security. China implemented its infamous “One-Child Policy” in 1979 with coercive measures, including forced sterilizations and abortions. India conducted mass sterilization campaigns, particularly during the Emergency period (1975–1977), often using force or extreme social pressure, including withholding ration cards. A number of countries in East Asia saw aggressive state-controlled programs, often funded by the World Bank, that sought to use questionable and coercive methods to reduce population growth quickly and permanently.

In more than a few cases, of course, the availability of contraception was actually a means of freeing women to make a choice to have fewer children. But combining this choice with state-sponsored coercion meant that even those who wanted more children, or would have wanted more children if the social pressures had been more sensibly used, were diverted from their private dream of several children.

That would be bad enough, if that were the end of the story. But it is only the beginning, because the sanctimony of scientism has created an actual population crisis, one that will affect the world for decades. Some nations may never recover, at least not in their present form. That crisis is the population bust.

Shrinking Planet: Which Nations Will Peak When?

I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations, using available data. What I was trying to calculate was the year of projected peak population, for the 26 countries where the data are reliable enough to make an educated guess. That projection is based on Total Fertility Rates, and accounting for immigration, and mortality (life expectancy) trends. These estimates are, at best, approximations, because in some cases the data are not strictly comparable. But the data I do have are drawn from the United Nations World Population Prospects, OECD statistical reports, and national demographic data.

Country	Total Fertility Rate	Projected Peak Population Year
Australia	1.66 (2023)	2035
Austria	1.45 (2022)	2040
Belgium	1.60 (2022)	2038
Canada	1.40 (2022)	2045
Chile	1.48 (2022)	2040
Czech Republic	1.70 (2021)	2033
Denmark	1.55 (2022)	2037
Finland	1.35 (2021)	2035
France	1.84 (2021)	2050
Germany	1.53 (2021)	2035
Greece	1.43 (2021)	2030
Hungary	1.55 (2021)	2035
Ireland	1.78 (2021)	2045
Israel	3.00 (2021)	No peak this century
Italy	1.25 (2021)	2030
Japan	1.30 (2021)	2008 (already peaked)
Korea	0.70 (2023)	2025 (peaking)
Mexico	1.73 (2021)	2050
Netherlands	1.60 (2021)	2040
New Zealand	1.65 (2022)	2045
Norway	1.50 (2021)	2040
Poland	1.39 (2021)	2032
Portugal	1.40 (2024)	2028
Spain	1.19 (2021)	2028
Sweden	1.60 (2021)	2045
Turkey	2.05 (2021)	2050
United Kingdom	1.53 (2021)	2040
United States	1.62 (2023)	2045
REPLACEMENT TFR	2.08-2.11	Constant population

Peak population years are based on UN World Population Prospects (PDF) mid‑variant projections, supported by regional reports noting that most European/North American nations will peak in the late 2030s. Japan already peaked around 2008, South Korea around 2025, and Israel — with TFR near 3.0 — may not peak this century.

As is noted in the final row of the table, the replacement rate for total fertility is about 2.10, given trends in life expectancy and assuming no net migration.

This raises a question: if all these countries have TFRs below replacement, what is actually happening to the world’s population? The answer is simple, though it has not been talked about much. The world population is going to peak, and then start to decline. The total number of people on Earth will begin to fall sometime in the near future. The actual date of the peak is a matter of conjecture, since it depends on specific assumptions, but the estimates appear mostly to fall between 2060 (assuming current TFRs are constant) and 2080 (if TFRs increase slightly, and life span increases):

None of this needed to happen, folks. There is plenty of room on Earth, as you know if you have ever flown across Australia, Canada, or for that matter the US, at night. There is a lot of empty space.

Let’s do a thought experiment: there are 8.1 billion people on Earth now. Suppose all of them lived in the US state of Texas (for those Texans reading this, I know it seems like we are moving in that direction; the traffic in Dallas is remarkable!). Texas has an area of 676,600 square kilometers. So supposing present trends continue, and literally the whole world did move to Texas; what would that look like?

Well, 8.1billion / 676,600 is about 12,000 people per square kilometer. That’s slightly more dense than the five boroughs of New York (about 11,300 per square kilometer), but much less than Paris (20,000), and dramatically less than Manila (nearly 44,000). Now, New York and Paris are pretty crowded, but people do live there, and even go there voluntarily to visit sometimes. Even if the entire current global population had to move into Texas, it’d be only marginally more annoying than Manhattan at rush hour. 

So, here’s the takeaway: there was no good reason for the population hysteria of past decades. As I tried to argue in an earlier piece, those predictions were ridiculous even at the time. And we need not be concerned about reviving the “population bomb,” because there is plenty of room, even if the human population does start to grow again, and even if we all had to move to Texas.

The effects of population decline are already starting to be felt in countries such as South Korea and Japan. As the average age climbs, the absolute number of people under 40 starts to decline. Unless something changes, the world population in general, and many specific countries, will  face circumstances that, until now, have only ever been observed during catastrophic plagues or savage wars: blocks of empty houses, abandoned cities, and hordes of elderly people who lack the ability to provide for themselves. The difference in the present case, however, is that we are not suffering from famine or war. As Antony Davis pointed out, the current collapse of world civilization is a consequence of a striking failure to recognize that human beings are the most valuable resource we have.

 Some Notes on Sources

• TFR data comes from OECD and UN: OECD average TFR was 1.5 in 2022
• OECD Social Indicators 2024
• The Real Reason People Aren’t Having Kids, The Atlantic 
• Fertility Rate, Total for OECD Members, St. Louis Federal Reserve
• List of countries by past fertility rate Wikipedia.org
• Country‑specific TFRs drawn mostly from UN/EU data such as: Total fertility rate Wikipedia.org
• Charted: When Every Continent’s Population Will Peak This Century visualcapitalist.com
• More countries, including China, are grappling with shrinking and aging populations, The Atlantic
• Denmark’s TFR (1.55 in 2022) is from its national statistics
  Korea’s extremely low TFR (0.7 in 2023) is from OECD press releases 

In a TikTok video that went viral this week (newsworthy, I know), a barefaced young woman sits in her car, in the middle of what we Gen Zers call “a crash out.”

Alyssa Jeacoma, you see, has been making student loan payments of $1500/month (the cost of a one-bedroom apartment or the mortgage on a starter house) for two years.

In tears and disbelief, she explains that she spent two years thinking she was paying down her debt, and was shocked when she discovered that, thanks to a 17-percent interest rate, her total balance had gone up.

The comments section is full of commiseration: “Yep. Used $31k in student loans. I graduated 10 years ago and I now owe $59k…”

The video went viral, with millions of views, and for good reason. It hits a nerve for many young Americans who — 15 years after Obama’s drastic federal takeover of the student loan program — are drowning in debt, unable to sustain the upward trajectory of living that they were told was the American dream.

If a young person with no credit history and no collateral assets tried to take out a $50,000 loan to start a business, few if any banks would take the risk. Ms. Jeacoma, who now owes $90,000, seems to agree that’s questionable: “How does this even make sense? I signed up for this…when I was 17. This should not be legal, bro.” A college education was once thought such a safe investment that no one blinked at the idea of giving tens of thousands of dollars to a teenager with only the barest understanding of the contract she was signing.

This woman’s student debt has an interest rate close to that of a credit card (the great no-no of financial advice – whatever you do, don’t take on credit card debt, or you may never climb back out of the abyss again). We’re giving away crushing student loans like candy. The entire university system is riding on the shoulders of broke twenty-somethings, mortgaging their futures to pay for football stadiums and presidential salaries, asking them to be small Atlases holding up a whole world while they slowly suffocate under the weight.

Pundits decry that Millennials and Gen Z “stuck in their parents’ basements.” Headlines lament that we aren’t growing up fast enough, aren’t buying houses fast enough, aren’t getting out of debt fast enough. The average age of buying a first house in America is now 38, the highest on record. And no wonder, when so many are still trying to pay down their student loans.

But, the argument goes, you have to go to college to be successful in life. If you don’t go to college you’ll end up working at Burger King and living at your parents’ house and never making it on your own.

Unfortunately, if that was once true, the data show it isn’t anymore. Yes, young people are working at Burger King and Starbucks, living at their parents’ houses, and failing to strike out on their own. But a lot of them also have college degrees, and those college degrees aren’t saving them. Pundits and guidance counselors alike are selling college degrees as a life raft in the rising waters of an unhappy economy. But said college degrees are proving to be oxygen masks that don’t work, life rafts that fail to expand when they hit the water. Even students with the coveted sheepskins are discovering, too late, that parchment doesn’t float.

52 percent of college graduates are underemployed a year after graduating (52 percent of the class of 2023 were working jobs that didn’t require degrees at all). At the ten-year mark, 45 percent are still underemployed. The New York Fed estimates that 33 percent of all college graduates are underemployed – of all ages, in the entire economy.

As Cassandra (and entrepreneurs like Isaac Morehouse, writers like Ryan Craig, political players like Robert Reich, and countless others) have been saying for well over a decade, college does not make you employable.

College doesn’t even guarantee you an education. The great redeeming value of college has always been its educational value. Even if you aren’t going to use the degree in a specific field, a liberal arts degree will still help make you a well-rounded person.

But again, the statistics say otherwise.

Only 46 percent of American adults can read above a sixth-grade level, but 47 percent of American adults have at least an associate’s degree (another 15 percent attended college but didn’t graduate). That means more adults have college degrees than are literate at a high-school level. We send young people to college who shouldn’t have graduated high school, and even after they’ve graduated college they still have an elementary-level literacy capability. How does that even happen?

And if all these statistics are true, then why on earth are we consigning kids to a debt rat race?

The cultural fear runs deep: if you can’t get a job that requires a college degree, you’re not going to make it in life (fundamentally not true). A blue-collar job can pay well into the six figures. Even a moderate hourly rate (say $20/hr) can be enough to establish a foundation in life. A young person living at home and saving for the first couple years of their career can have an enormous advantage over their college-educated peers.

What’s actually shackling young people is the debt, an anchor around their neck they can’t untie fast enough, while sinking at an alarming rate (to the tune of 17 percent a year interest rates). It’s almost impossible to tread water fast enough to keep above the surface. 

And debt for what? Not for the benefit of the students, clearly, if some are graduating still unable to even read at a high school level.

Of course, some make it inside the system and thrive. According to the stats, most don’t. Fewer than half who start finish in four years. Every industry is filled with stories — doctors who hate their careers but are so shackled by crippling med school debt they have no choice but to carry on.

The cost-benefit analysis doesn’t check out. But high schoolers aren’t taught how to do a cost-benefit analysis, so they don’t know how to analyze the life-altering decision that comes at them often before they’re even legally adults. Most high schools don’t require an economics class as a prerequisite for graduation. Classrooms don’t cover personal finance – just interpreting Shakespeare and prepping for the SAT and putting a condom on a banana. Everyone is taught how to get good grades, how to ace a test, and how to impress a college admissions officer.

Which they do, to a tune of 62.8 percent (the number of 18-24 year olds enrolled in college in October of 2024). High schools are really, really good at producing students that can get into college.

But they’re really bad at preparing kids to make financial decisions that won’t weigh them down for decades to come. Students sign up for loans (the average graduate owes $33,150) with a 17-percent interest rate without knowing what that means, then are shocked when they see their balances rising.

The solution isn’t free college — because clearly college isn’t solving anyone’s employment problems.

The solution is to stop the cycle. Do a cost-benefit analysis on what you’re buying before you make the purchase. Assess: is the career path I’m on really going to work for me? Or is the liberal-arts-to-Starbucks-pipeline not the well-worn highway I want to traverse?

Teaching kids how to run cost-benefit analyses and understand finance might cripple our opulent, bloated, debt-fueled higher education system. It depends on our young people’s naïveté to pad its budgets and the pockets of its administrators. But it might just save the next generation of young people, who are far more important.