Yo, ho, ho! A retiring we will go!

There is an increasing demand for retirement communities that provide moderate support for elderly residents who are reasonably self-sufficient. But these facilities are very expensive. At least the good ones are.

So, Northwestern University Medical School has come up with an answer: cruise ships! Working with Norwegian Cruise Lines they have developed a workable and affordable solution, and they expect other operators may join them. After all, some modern cruise ships already have full hospital services and nursing staff, and they provide accommodations that include the kind of maids and food service that is comparable to or better than most retirement homes. They also offer free entertainment and internet service as well. Moreover the cruise operators are accustomed to providing facilities and services for older people since the average age of their customers is close to 60. What the Northwestern researchers found is that, when you add up all costs, this can be a relatively price-competitive alternative with a lot of fringe benefits.

This isn’t the same thing as simply booking frequent voyages. That option has been in effect for a long time and it can be workable although it isn’t cheap. Actually living full-time on the high seas avoids many common expenses: transportation, insurance, home maintenance, and so on. Meals are included, often with excellent and varied cuisine, and the cruise line can tailor them to special health needs. On the other hand, this is comparable to living in a condo community in that there are usually fairly steep monthly association fees. And don’t expect to avoid state taxes as most states assume you continue your residency even without a home domicile unless you establish residency in another state. Of course it might be smart to do exactly that. A good choice is Florida since it imposes no state income tax and is the home port for many cruise lines.

For the cruise lines, this allows them to have a reliable base clientele and to fill empty cabins on a year-round basis, i.e. not just during the prime vacation seasons. They even get revenue if the ship must be docked for service and refurbishment or if weather interferes with cruise travel.

For the retirees this works out fairly well, as long as they can tolerate long ocean voyages and physical separation from family members. Not all would qualify but for those who do this could be a great alternative, particularly if they enjoy foreign travel anyway. This isn’t a solution for the larger problem of an aging population of course, unless it grew into a major commercial enterprise on its own. I suspect that it might do exactly that in time.

Why Would They?

It is evident by looking at political maps from recent elections that the people in small rural communities around the country vote Republican and supported Trump in 2016. I suspect that much of that support is basically anti-establishment anger rather than fervor for Republican ideas or for Trump himself. These voters have not been receptive to the Democratic message in recent times. Why would they?

If you live in or around a big city, try to put yourself in the shoes of someone living in these areas. Your town or farming community has been slowly dying for decades. Young people are moving to where opportunities are better. Shops on Main Street are shuttered. The last Democratic President who actually spoke meaningfully to you was Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 30s. And what do the Democrats offer now to make life better and to restore a treasured way of life?

Universal, government-provided health care. This might be welcome, except that these people largely distrust the government’s ability to do “big things” for them and they have plenty of examples to justify this. Their resources (doctors, hospitals, etc.) are few and far between. So this is basically making something free that is unbelievable and unavailable.

Immigration reform. How exactly does this help rural America? I haven’t a clue, and neither do they. It’s certainly true that large agribusiness has needed and exploited a large reserve of undocumented immigrants, but big business is not the heart of rural America even though it is an important economic engine. And in any case, Democrats really don’t emphasize this aspect of immigration policy.

LGBT rights. Give me a break!

Legal system reform. This is largely remote from their concerns even though some crime issues definitely affect rural America. That is because the main issues discussed by Democrats (discrimination against minorities, the burgeoning prison population, etc.) don’t address rural problems. There is a drug problem that plagues rural America but I suspect that the majority would support draconian enforcement to remove both perpetrators and addicts from their midst. And this is hardly the Democratic message.

Gun control. They don’t see a need in their communities to regulate or restrict ownership of one of the tools of their way of life. Objectively they might agree with some of this for others, but not as it applies to themselves. This probably seems to be yet more big government interference.

Climate change mitigation. There is growing understanding that this is a real problem for them. Farming communities are being hurt and they know it. But some proposed “solutions” probably seem either unbelievable or absurd to them. Changing to all-electric farm vehicles? Reducing meat consumption? Say what??

Free college for all. College is not the obvious and required life path for many of these people. But they do pay taxes, and taking their money to let city kids “waste their time learning foolishness and partying” mustn’t seem like a sensible idea to many. [Editorial note: I have some sympathy for this viewpoint myself. A lot of what kids learn and do in many colleges is basically a waste of time.]

Forgiveness of college loan debt. These are communities where frequent business loans are their lifeblood, and they face the constant danger of losing everything if they are unable to pay in full and on time. How do you suppose they view simply forgiving the loans of college graduates?

Reparations to the descendants of slaves. I suppose those who might receive payment of some kind would be grateful, but what about the vast majority who wouldn’t? I am guessing here, but might not they think this is money transferred from the blameless to the undeserving? If you want to go back in history, many people were wronged, most not as evilly as slavery, but still redressing ancient wrongs is a slippery slope. Moreover, wasn’t the death of over 360,000 Americans fighting to end slavery during the Civil War reparation enough? How much was each of their lives worth?

$15 inflation-adjusted minimum wage. I am not sure how this idea is received in rural areas. There is probably some support but I surmise that it might seem a bit heavy-handed. These are the last remaining regions where youngsters still make pocket money or help out their families by performing low-end jobs. A high minimum wage would freeze them out.

Abortion and reproductive rights. These are relatively religious communities, at least compared to the big cities. Abortion is not popular, even though they have some of the same needs and circumstances that prompt widespread support for abortion rights throughout the country. At the very least, this whole topic probably just makes them uncomfortable.

This is not the totality of the Democratic program but it is certainly what you hear mostly in today’s campaign speeches. So, what is the bottom line? These are Americans and they have hopes and needs just like everyone else. But they don’t share much of them with the big cities and the coastal enclaves. If Democrats really wish to rule the nation, don’t they have to speak to “fly-over” country too?

Are Democrats Washed Up?

Check this map. Do you see what Democrats should fear? Yes, it is global warming! If ocean levels rise as much as some fear in the coming decades, the most highly populated blue regions will be inundated or washed away. And there are scant few blue districts as it is.

As this graphic illustrates, the losses will be from the most progressive areas. I am not implying that this in itself means fewer progressive voters, but we have seen from the last election how much household adversity impacts voting trends. Heretofore reliable Democratic voters abandon their allegiances when vital interests are at stake. Talking about free college and receptive borders won’t hack it with those pushed away from their homes and jobs.

Of course there is the possibility that dispersion of progressives into the red interior might change the region’s political character, so take heart those of you on the left! Hippies in Kansas?

Ok, I assume you realize that the preceding is satire. However the basis is real and I can’t resist taking this opportunity to comment seriously on this looming threat.

I wouldn’t want to leave the impression that I believe Democrats are expressing alarm about global warming because of simple self-interest. All thinking citizens worldwide are justifiably concerned. This threat is real and the scientific consensus is incontrovertible. As a scientist who has actually worked professionally in the fields of meteorology and geophysics, I feel safe in making this assertion.

Many conservative doubters, however, have suspicious motives and a weak grasp of and little respect for science. They simply don’t like the consequences of having to face this threat head on. Oh sure, they can no doubt find a few reputable scientists who quibble about the role human activity is playing in global warming. I’ll bet I could find credentialed scientists who think the world began about 6000 years ago and that the Moon landing by Armstrong and Aldrin was a gigantic hoax. Scientists can be as ditzy as anyone else, but consensus rules the day, thank God.

Regardless, it really doesn’t matter what is causing this calamity or whether human activity is crucial, unless of course you believe that we can significantly prevent the worst from happening. Personally I doubt that our feeble efforts to mitigate human impacts will make much difference and are likely a waste of time and resources. Rather, we must strive urgently to live with the inevitable impacts and to protect ourselves where possible. It is simply a matter of where we get the best bang for the buck.

A good test case is in progress as we attempt to recover from the recent weather disasters in Texas, Florida and the Caribbean. If we simply rebuild and re-establish communities as they were before, we will have failed the test.

Trump Administration Snapshot

I have been following President-elect Trump’s choices to lead his administration with great interest. When the list is reasonably complete, I plan to write a summary assessment of his picks and what they may mean for our future. In the meantime, I thought it amusing to summarize the demographics of this unusual and diverse group. At this writing, there have been 28 selections. So far, Trump has not ordered a group portrait, so I thought I would toss in a substitute for now. These are winners of Trump’s famous TV show, The Apprentice.

• 4 Ayn Rand fans: Trump, Tillerson, Puzder, Pompeo
• 3 Goldman Sachs alumni: Mnuchin, Bannon, Cohn
• 4 Retired Generals: Flynn, Mattis, Kelly, Kellogg (no West Point graduates)
• 8 Lawyers: Pompeo, Sessions, Priebus, Puzder, Pruitt, McGahn, Friedman, Mulvaney
• 6 Holders of MBA degrees: Trump, Chao, Ross, Flynn, Bannon, Zinke
• 4 Harvard alumni: Chao, Ross, Pompeo, Bannon
• 4 Other Ivy League alumni: Mnuchin, Carson, Crowley, Friedman
• 2 Surgeons: Price, Carson
• 4 Billionaires: Trump, DeVos, Ross, McMahon
• 2 Governors: Haley (currently serving), Perry
• 6 Women: Chao, DeVos, Haley, McMahon, Crowley, McFarland
• 3 Non-Caucasian: Chao, Haley, Carson
• 8 Top business executives: Trump, DeVos, Pompeo, Puzder, McMahon, Bannon, Tillerson, Cohn
• 1 Foreign born: Chao
• 4 Congressmen: Price, Pompeo, Zinke, Mulvaney (all currently serving)
• 1 Senator: Sessions (currently serving)
• 2 Ran against Trump: Carson, Perry

Republicans and the Hispanic Vote

It is widely believed that Republicans need to start getting on the right side of Hispanic issues, primarily immigration, or else they will be forever doomed at the Presidential level. They can consolidate and even prosper at the state level and in the House of Representatives, so the theory goes, but the U.S. Senate will be iffy and the Presidency permanently beyond their grasp. Demographics tell the tale.

Or does it? Some researchers decided to look more closely at the data and found that this conclusion is premature. As is often the case, conventional wisdom is flawed.

They analyzed the 2012 Hispanic vote that split 71/27 for Obama according to the Pew Hispanic Center. And they discovered that Romney would have needed a complete reversal to about 70/30 in his favor to have made a difference. That is because Hispanics congregate in primarily blue congressional districts. The researchers conclude that such a reversal is currently unachievable without losing substantial support from the Republican base and is thus counterproductive as a policy goal. A second significant factor is how important immigration policy ranks amongst voting Hispanics. It comes in a distant fourth behind issues just as important to other voters, like jobs and the economy. Thus going all wobbly on immigration to troll for Hispanic support is not a very likely winner.

It is true that eventually Republicans will need to gain substantial Hispanic support, but not for 2016. And if they win that election, they might be able to solidify a right-leaning Supreme Court for decades to come. On balance that is currently a more achievable target than prematurely beginning their rapprochement dance with the burgeoning Hispanic population. That will be a marvel to watch as they try to eat words and cross the Rio Grande at the same time.

A Changing Political Landscape

There is a lot of talk about demographic shift in the U.S. and the ways that it will influence the election in 2016 and those to come. Such characteristics as youth and ethnicity are indeed changing, but demographic impacts are far more complex than is often assumed. Many of the political claims about coming advantages for one side or the other are largely ill-informed and speculative. Let’s see why.

Although our presidential election is based upon the states, a finer sieve by counties gives more information and is particularly relevant to the House of Representatives elections. Here’s how the 2012 election turned out.

 

Note the many darkly colored counties, i.e. those that went heavily Democratic or Republican. Demographic shifts in those counties will take many years and perhaps decades to occur, if at all. Don’t expect near-term change in the great plains states or Texas. Also note how the colors seem to cluster. Nearby counties affect one another through assimilation and immigration. It is difficult for the opposite party to penetrate these clusters unless very special conditions arise, such as a home-town candidate of that party.

What about the next generation? Our youth are not uniformly distributed, as the following county-level map clearly shows.

 

The south-western and southern states, with the important exception of Florida, have proportionately greater populations under the age of 18 than the north-eastern, mid-Atlantic and northern tier states. There is dispute about the political tendencies of the next generation but little doubt that they hold many different views from their elders, particularly on social issues. It is obvious that the impact of youth, one way or the other, should hit hardest in Republican-leaning areas. Of course mobility is higher among the young, so the finer detail on this map may change quite a bit in the years to come.

Yet another perspective is ethnic ancestry. I can’t recall reading any analysis of how this important population characteristic correlates with political views. The following map is fascinating. Note the distribution of British ancestry. The northeast concentration is unsurprising, but the major enclaves in Florida, the north-west, and particularly Mormon country is not exactly what I expected. Comparing this to the election map indicates little correlation to political viewpoint.

On the other hand, the swath of those claiming American ancestry across West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee, down into central Texas clearly leans Republican. I am assuming that these people trace their forebears back at least before the Civil War and perhaps to Revolutionary times. The segment with German ancestry is much larger than I had expected, larger even than those with Mexican or Spanish heritage. With the notable exception of Wisconsin, these seem to lean Republican, and increasingly so as you move west.

Yet another sociological slice is the distribution of our poor. They tend to vote far less often than the more affluent, so their political impact relates more to their congregation than to their voting predilections. The presence of many poor individuals affects how their neighbors vote, whether to offer them a helping hand or to try to minimize their impact on the community. To the first approximation, those two alternatives fairly well capture the Democratic and Republican attitudes towards the poor.

The concentrations in the mid-south and along our southern border are what we might expect, however the relative sparsity in major urban areas is surprising.

These are but a few of the alternative ways of looking at our population. Demography provides a confusing perspective but it is one that politicians will ignore at their peril in the coming years.