American Demographics May 2020

M AY 2 0 2 0

Going Cashless Coronavirus is changing the way people pay Another Day Older and Deeper in Debt Rising financial problems of householders 65 and older Millennials Are Were Buying Homes The impact of coronavirus on real estate This Is Not Going to be Fun to Read The US population could actually decline after 2020 Statistical Snapshots Texting vs talking — That is the question On the Bookshelf New books and films are putting population trends into focus

Your mother.

My sine is bigger than your cosine.

Sheeeet.

You are not even a mathematical term.

Tomorrow’s Trash Talk

IN THIS ISSUE OF

MAY 2020

PUBLISHER Phillip Russo

EDITORIAL STAFF Brad Edmondson

4

American Demographics is Back

5

Going Cashless

Cheryl Russell Joe Azzinaro Sara Williamson George Puro

6

Another Day Older and Deeper in Debt

Dane Twining Tom Prendergast

7

Millennials Are Were Buying Homes CREATIVE DIRECTOR

8

The Mystery of Algorithms

12 This Is Not Going to Be Fun to Read 14 Statistical Snapshots: Texting vs Talking 15 This Month’s Bookshelf

New books and films are putting

population trends into focus

Melissa Subatch

American Demographics and americandemographics.com are owned by the Private Label Manufacturers Association, 630 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017 and licensed for publication by Kent Media, 240 Central Park South, New York, N.Y. 10019. Periodicals postage paid at Macedonia, OH and additional mailing offices.

All rights reserved under the Library of Congress.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted in writing by the copyright owners.

M AY 2 0 2 0

Going Cashless Coronavirus is changing the way people pay Another Day Older and Deeper in Debt Rising financial problems of householders 65 and older Millennials Are Were Buying Homes The impact of coronavirus on real estate This Is Not Going to be Fun to Read The US population could actually decline after 2020 Statistical Snapshots Talking vs texting ­­— That is the question On the Bookshelf New books and films are putting population trends into focus

American Demographics is Back!

elcome to this month’s issue of American Demographics. The disruption of normal life by the coronavirus continues as do the forecasts of long-term change. The magazine explores how people will pay for things, what people will buy, and whether the US population will actually decline as a result. Trying to see into the future is always problematic but knowing what may occur can be the difference between being a beneficiary or victim.

The magazine’s cover story this month is the mystery of algorithms. They have become so embedded in our lives that many people take them for granted. Nonetheless there are significant issues associated with their rise to power and implications for everyone’s lifestyle.

American Demographics has been the place to go for information about the trends influencing our lives for more than 25 years. As always, the staff of editors, reporters and experts, whether working from home or office, pore through the dense governmental and academic publications in demographics, geology, gerontology, sociology and other fields to bring you insight into the diverse world around us. American Demographics is back and better than ever.

to subscribe, visit: www.americandemographics.com

4

AMERICANDEMOGRAPHICS I MAY 2020

By Cheryl Russell

Going Cashless

Coronavirus changing the way people pay ttitudes and behaviors do not often change

The shift away from cash in the US was well the underway

abruptly. Something big has to happen to

long before the first case of coronavirus, according to the

alter people’s habits, cause them to em-

Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Payment Choice.

brace new products and technologies,

In 2018, for the first time, debit cards had surpassed cash

and force them to do things differently.

and become the number-one payment instrument for

The coronavirus pandemic is that big thing, and change is

American consumers. Younger adults were leading the

under way.

transformation. People aged 25 to 34 used cash as their

Less than a year ago, Pew Charitable Trusts released a study entitled Are Americans Embracing Mobile Payments? They were not, the study found. Adoption of mobile payments made with a smartphone or smartwatch at point of sale was slow, below industry projections. That was before coronavirus, of course, when the great majority of consumers preferred to use debit cards, credit cards, or cash to pay for goods and services—all high-touch transactions.

Then came the Spring of 2020. In a matter of weeks in March, debit cards, credit cards, and cash were transformed from mundane financial instruments to perilous vectors of disease, and so were touchscreens, signing pens, and credit card receipts. Six months ago, no one paid much attention to these exchanges. Today these exchanges cause consumers to recoil in fear, forcing them to change the way they pay for things. The majority of Americans (51 percent) are now using touchless payment methods, according to a Mastercard survey fielded in April.

payment instrument in just 18 percent of their transactions in 2018, while they used credit cards in 28 percent and debit cards in 34 percent. People aged 35 to 44 used cash in just 19 percent of their transactions, credit cards in 24 percent, and debit cards in 34 percent. Among people aged 55 or older, cash was still the preferred way to pay, accounting for 31 to 33 percent of their transactions in 2018. Americans of all ages are rethinking their payment preferences in 2020.

Theoretically, the coronavirus can be transmitted on cash.

Fear of contamination explains why the use of cash in the United Kingdom fell by 50 percent as the coronavirus pandemic spread, according to The Guardian. In the United States, 51 percent of consumers report using cash less often or not at all because of coronavirus concerns, according to the Mastercard survey. Debit and credit cards are no better than cash. The coronavirus can live on plastic surfaces for up to 72 hours, studies find, and cards often require the use of what has become one of the most cringe-inducing technologies—the touchscreen. In the months ahead, touchscreens will get a rethink, reports Investor’s Business Daily, as touchless payment systems become a necessity for retail survival. “The best way to keep contact with customers is to reduce contact as much as possible,” advises Forbes contributor Jon Bird, According to Bird, there’s a new mantra for retailers: “Zero is hero.”

AMERICANDEMOGRAPHICS.COM I MAY 2020

5

Another Day Older and Deeper in Debt Rising financial problems of householders 65 and older re you one of the helpers? Do you provide financial support to your adult children or aging parents? If you are between the ages of 40 and 64, chances are the answer is yes. Here’s how we know: When AARP asked a nationally representative sample of people aged 40 to 64 whether they had provided financial support for basic expenses to children aged 25 or older in the past 12 months, the majority (51 percent) said yes. Not only that, but a substantial 32 percent said they had provided financial support to their parents in the past year. The AARP survey was conducted in the fall of 2019.

debt, according to the Survey of Consumer Finances. Only 15 percent were still making mortgage payments. Times have changed. As of 2016 (the latest data available), 61 percent of householders aged 65 or older were in debt—33 percent had mortgages, 21 percent had car loans, and 35 percent carried a balance on their credit cards. There’s more bad news. The amount owed by older householders has grown by multiples.

Among householders aged 65 or older with mortgage debt, for example, the median amount owed climbed from $17,000 to $72,000 between 1989 and 2016—a more than four-fold increase after adjusting for inflation.

The number of middle-aged Americans who are providing financial support to their adult children and/or elderly parents is likely even higher today. The coronavirus pandemic and consequent contraction of the economy has upended the finances of millions of Americans. Younger adults have been hit hard because they work disproportionately in industries most likely to have been shut down by the coronavirus—such as food service. But many older Americans are also at risk, in particular the growing share of people aged 65 or older who are still at work because of debt. Twenty percent of people aged 65 or older are in the labor force, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Among 65-to69-year-olds, the figure is 34 percent. Many are still working because they need the money to pay mortgages, car loans, and credit card debt.

Older Americans with debt are the ones most likely to be in the labor force, according to an Employee Benefit Research Institute analysis. The deeper in debt, the more likely they are to work. “Highly leveraged households were more likely to work compared with those with lower debt-to-net-wealth ratios,” reports EBRI, an ominous finding at a time when the unemployment rate is projected to hit levels not seen since the Great Depression.

The ugly fact is, the great majority of older Americans are in debt. It didn’t used to be this way. A generation ago in 1989, just 38 percent of householders aged 65 or older had any

PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDERS AGED 65 OR OLDER WITH DEBT, BY TYPE, 1989 AND 2016

6

The COVID-19 economy is trouble for the baby-boomers who need to make their mortgage, auto, and credit card payments.

Many boomers “are scrambling to pay expenses or maintain debt payments as their income drops, altering their financial security now and changing their calculations for the future,” warns Kim Blanton of the Center for Retirement Research.

The coronavirus recession is also trouble for the helpers— midlife adults who will see growing demands for financial support not only from their adult children but also from their elderly parents.

1989

2016

Any debt

37.8%

61.1%

Credit card

20%

35.1%

Primary residence

15.4%

33.4%

Auto loan

10.3%

21.2%

Other residential

2.7%

4.4%

Student loan

0.5%

2.4%

AMERICANDEMOGRAPHICS I MAY 2020

Source: Congressional Research Service, Household Debt among Older Americans, 1989–2016, September 11, 2019

Millennials Are Were Buying Homes The impact of coronavirus on real estate t was finally happening. The nation’s homeownership rate was beginning to rise. From a postGreat Recession low of 63.4 percent in 2016, the rate had climbed to 64.6 percent in 2019. It doesn’t sound like much of an increase, but behind the upward trend was growing homeownership among younger adults—the nation’s first-time homebuyers, the fuel of the housing market.

First-time buyers allow middle-aged homeowners to move to bigger and better homes, and middle-aged buyers allow older homeowners to sell their manses and downsize as the nest empties. The homeownership rate of householders in their 30s had grown by 2 to 3 percentage points between 2016 and 2019.

Realtors were breathing a sigh of relief. Happy days were here again.

You know what happened next. Coronavirus.

Not only is coronavirus threatening to halt the long-awaited recovery from the Great Recession’s housing market crisis, but it may reverse the trend of rising homeownership rates altogether. It will take some time before we can determine how bad it will get, but the results from a National Association of Realtors’ survey offer some clues. The NAR fielded the survey of its members on April 19-20 to measure the early impact of coronavirus on the real estate market.

The impact appears to be big. Only 10 percent of respondents to the NAR survey said coronavirus had no impact on their clients’ attitudes toward buying a home. A plurality of the respondents (44 percent) reported that their clients had decided to delay the homebuying process by a couple of months. Another 22 percent said their clients had stopped

looking for a home because of job loss, and 7 percent said their clients had dropped out of the housing market altogether. Two out of three homebuyers were expecting home prices to be lower because of the pandemic, but only 26 percent of home sellers had reduced their prices.

Younger adults are the ones most affected by job loss due to the pandemic. As of the last full week of April, 55 percent of people under age 45 said they or someone in their household had been let go or had their work hours reduced because of coronavirus, according to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll. This is particularly bad news for the real estate market because millennials, defined by the National Association of Realtors as those aged 22 to 39, are the largest share of the nation’s homebuyers. In the 12 months from July 2018 through June 2019, the millennial generation accounted for 38 percent of homebuyers, the NAR reports in 2020 Home Buyers and Sellers Generational Trends. Baby-boomers are another 33 percent of buyers, and Gen Xers are 23 percent. Among the millennials who bought a home during the year, most were first-time buyers.

The economic woes hitting all Americans, but especially younger adults, coupled with the importance of first-time homebuyers to a healthy housing market will dampen not just the homeownership rate but also housing values. The public already feels it. The percentage who think it is a good time to buy has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded by Gallup. Just 50 percent think it is a good time for homebuying. That’s two percentage points below the previous record low set in 2006—just before the housing market collapsed.

Distribution of home buyers by generation, July 2018 through June 2019

Millennials:

38%

Gen Xers:

23%

Boomers:

33%

Older Americans: 6% Source: National Association of Realtors, 2020 Home Buyers and Sellers Generational Trends Report

AMERICANDEMOGRAPHICS.COM I MAY 2020

7

8

AMERICANDEMOGRAPHICS I MAY 2020

AZZINA

BY J O E

The

RO

f o y r e t s My

s m h t i r lgo

A

They

? y e h T e r t What A

u B d l r o Rule the W

As every day goes by, we’re being told that modern life has reached its current state thanks to something called algorithms. They are fast becoming ubiquitous and pervasive, touching nearly every human activity—business, leisure, transportation, shopping, even eating and sleeping. But what are they? Where did they come from?

“Algorithms are essentially man-made,” explains a popular blog called Memory. “They are tools that humans have created by drawing from our actions, habits and preferences.”

It’s like baking a cake In more erudite language, authors Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, Ronald L. Rivest, and Clifford Stein in their book Algorithms, say, “An algorithm is any well-defined computational procedure that takes some value, or set of values, as input and produces some value, or set of values as output. Algorithms are like road maps for accomplishing a given, well-defined task. Even a simple function for adding two numbers is an algorithm, in a sense. If you want to bake a cake the steps are: Preheat the oven; mix flour, sugar, and eggs; pour into a baking pan; and so forth. This set of instructions is what we call a recipe.

Recipes tell you how to accomplish a task by performing a number of steps. Algorithms are like recipes.” Except in this case, they are recipes prepared by humans for use by programmers and computers.

The word “algorithm” can be traced to the 9th century to the Persian astronomer and mathematician Abdullah Muhammad bin Musa alKhwarizmi, best known as “The father of Algebra.” His last name—alKhwarizmi—when Latinized produced the word “algoritmi.”

AMERICANDEMOGRAPHICS.COM I MAY 2020

9

“Until recently, algorithms were the domain of mathematicians like Alan Turing, who helped break the unbreakable German “Enigma” code in World War II. Then it became the domain of computer programmers. From Algorithmic trading to the Facebook algorithm—even algorithmic warfare—the use of algorithms has crisscrossed every facet of life. The internet runs on algorithms. Email knows where to go thanks to algorithms. Smartphone apps are nothing but algorithms. Computer and video games are algorithmic storytelling. All those opinions and postings on social media are brought to you by algorithms.

Because of the sophistication of algorithms,” says the blog Memory. “and because we perceive them as being free from human error, they must be irreproachable when it comes to making decisions. But this isn’t true. Machine learning algorithms can only do what they’re taught. And since they are created and trained by humans, human flaws will inescapably slink in. Distorted data, incorrect logic, or the biases of human programmers, mean algorithms cannot only replicate human biases they can intensify them, too.”

And Hannah Fry, a mathematician at University College London, argues that we need to be paying more attention to the people programming them. “Algorithms are making hugely consequential decisions in our 10

AMERICANDEMOGRAPHICS I MAY 2020

society on everything from medicine to transportation to welfare benefits to criminal justice. Yet the public knows almost nothing about them, and even less about the engineers and coders who are creating them behind the scenes.

“They are changing human life in all sorts of ways. From what we choose to read and watch to who we choose to date, algorithms are increasingly playing a huge role. We’ve invited these algorithms into our courtrooms and our hospitals and our schools, and they’re making decisions on our behalf that are subtly shifting the way our society is operating.

“They are not perfect, and often contain the biases of the people who created them.

We shouldn’t blindly trust algorithms, but we also shouldn’t dismiss them altogether.

They’re incredibly consistent. They never get tired, and they’re absolutely precise. The problem is that algorithms don’t understand context or nuance. They don’t understand emotion and empathy in the way that humans do,” she explains.

any claims they want about what their algorithm can or can’t do, even if it’s absolute nonsense, and no one can really stop them from doing it.”

Technologist Anil Dash concurs, “The best parts of algorithmic influence will make life better for many people, but the worst excesses will harm the most marginalized.

We’ll need both industry reform within the technology companies creating these systems and more savvy regulatory regimes to handle the challenges that arise.”

John Markoff, author of Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Ground Between Humans and Robots, adds, “I am most concerned about the lack of algorithmic transparency. We are a society that takes its life direction from our smartphones. Guidance on everything from the best BBQ to who to pick for a spouse is algorithmically generated. There is little insight, however, into the values and motives of the designers of these systems.”

A stronger regulatory framework

Fry continues, “Even if a particular algorithm works, there is no one assessing whether or not it is providing a net benefit or cost to society. We need an agency that can protect the intellectual property of a company that comes up with an algorithm but also ensure the public isn’t being harmed or violated in any way.”

“But we do need a stronger regulatory framework,” says Fry. “We’ve been living in the technological Wild West, where you can collect private data on people without their permission and sell it to advertisers. We’re turning people into products, and they don’t even realize it. And people can make

As algorithms become more embedded in our daily conversations, culture and commerce, there are issues that will determine how comfortable we become with them. Barry Chudakov, founder of Sertain Research says “‘If every algorithm suddenly stopped working, it would be

The future of human judgment the end of the world as we know it. We have already turned our world over to algorithms.

The question now is, how to better understand and manage what we have done? “ Where are algorithms taking us? What significant benefits lie ahead? Experts see breakthroughs in science, conveniences, human capacities and the ability to connect people to important information.

Stephen Downes, of the National Research Council of Canada, pointed to banks, health care, and government as examples. “More people will be able to obtain loans in the future, as banks turn away from using factors like race, socio-economic background, zip code, and the like to assess fitness. With more data, and with a more interactive relationship with its clients, banks can reduce their risk, thus providing more loans and a range of services individually directed to help a consumer’s financial state.

“Health care is a growing expense because of the significant overhead required to support increasingly complex systems, including prescriptions, insurance, facilities and more. New technologies will enable health providers to shift a significant percentage of that load to the individual, who will, with the aid of personal support services, manage their health better and create less of a burden on the system.

“Government is based on regulation and monitoring, which will no longer be required with the deployment of automated production and transportation systems, along with sensor networks. This includes many daily and unpleasant interactions we have with government, from traffic offenses to treatment in commercial and legal processes.”

As for the future of human judgment? Will it be lost when data and predictive modeling become paramount? Some critics argue that algorithms are primarily written to optimize efficiency and profitability without much thought of societal impact. Writing for a Pew Research Center study entitled Code-Dependent: Pros and Cons of the Algorithm Age, authors Lee Rainie and Janna Anderson contend that humans are considered “input” and are not seen as real, thinking, feeling, changing beings. That we are creating a flawed, logic-driven society and that as the process evolves, as algorithms begin to write other algorithms, humans may get left out of the loop entirely, letting robots decide.

The core problem is lack of accountability,” observes Marc Rotenberg, of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “Machines have become black boxes, even developers and operators do not fully understand how outputs are produced. The problem is exacerbated by an unwavering faith in the reliability of big data. There is a larger problem with the increase of algorithm-based outcomes beyond the risk of error or discrimination: the increasing opacity of decision-making.

We need to confront the reality that power is moving from people to machines. That is why transparency is one of the great challenges of our era.”

Researcher Andrew Tutt calls for an FDA for Algorithms, explaining, “The rise of increasingly complex algorithms calls for critical thought about how to best prevent, deter and compensate for the harm they cause.

Algorithmic regulation will require federal uniformity, expert judgment, political independence and pre-market review to prevent, without stifling innovation, the introduction of dangerous algorithms.”

Bart Knijnenburg of Clemson University offers: “Algorithms will capitalize on convenience and profit, discriminating against certain demographics, but also eroding the experience of everyone else. The goal of algorithms is to fit some of our preferences, but not all of them. They essentially present a caricature of our tastes and preferences.

Unless we tune our algorithms for self-actualization, it will be too convenient for people to follow the advice of an algorithm or too difficult to go beyond such advice, turning these algorithms into self-fulfilling prophecies, and users into zombies.”

Despite their flaws, inconsistencies, even biases, algorithms are here to stay, so we need to learn to coexist with them. They’re solving more problems than they’re creating,” believes Hannah Fry. “We should stop thinking about how accurate you can make an algorithm, and how few outliers we have. Instead, we should accept that algorithms are never going to be perfect. Stop over-relying on them and make it so that the human habit of over-trusting machines is considered at every possible step.”

This Is Not Going to be Fun to Read The US population could actually decline after 2020

very 9 seconds, a baby is born in the United States.

Deaths are a little less frequent—one every 12 seconds.

The margin between births and deaths has been shrinking over the past few years because of the ongoing baby bust and the aging of the baby-boom generation. In 2019, births exceeded deaths in the nation by just 957,000, the smallest number in more than half a century.

That was before the coronavirus pandemic.

Demographers call the excess of births over deaths “natural increase.”

It is the amount by which a population grows without migration. In 2019, natural increase was positive in most, but not all, states. Maine and West Virginia were the exceptions. In Maine, there were 2,262 more deaths than births. In West Virginia there were 4,679 more deaths. In two other states (New Hampshire and Vermont), the number of births and deaths was about equal. In the remaining states and the District of Columbia, births exceeded deaths. But in many states, there’s not a large margin of births to cling to as the pandemic sweeps the country.

There’s even more drama at the county level. Deaths outnumbered births in 46 percent of the nation’s 3,142 counties in 2019, according to an analysis by demographer Kenneth M. Johnson of the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. What will happen in 2020? Will the number of deaths exceed the number of births in more of the nation’s counties or even in the nation as a whole? It depends.

On March 25, the number of coronavirus deaths in the US surpassed 1,000. Less than two weeks later on April 6, the number surpassed 10,000. Though the death count was rapidly rising, it still had a long way to go before COVID-19 made it onto the CDC’s list of the 10 leading causes of death.

12

AMERICANDEMOGRAPHICS I MAY 2020

For COVID-19 to become one of the 10 leading causes of death, the number would have had to surpass 48,000—that’s how many people commit suicide each year, which is the 10th leading cause of death.

On April 23, COVID-19 became the 10th leading cause of death.

It didn’t stop there, of course. The best-case scenarios for coronavirus fatalities have proven to be wildly optimistic. A projection model developed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle had forecast 60,000 deaths by August 4. Deaths from COVID-19 blew by that figure on April 29—more than three months ahead of schedule. IHME updated its projection to 134,000 deaths by August 4, but the uncertainty is huge. Deaths could be as high as 243,000 by August 4, IHME projects, depending on social distancing measures. At 243,000 deaths, COVID-19 would be the third leading cause of death, behind only heart disease and cancer.

In the worst-case scenarios, experts have predicted as many as 1 million deaths. If that grim prognosis turns out to be true, COVID-19 would be the number-one cause of death in the United States. Deaths would exceed births in the nation as a whole. Depending on net international migration (which, given the circumstances, is likely to be a trickle) the US population could shrink in 2020, as it did during the influenza pandemic of 1918.

10 LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH IN THE UNITED STATES TOTAL DEATHS:

2,839,205

1. Heart disease

655,381

2.

Cancer

599,274

3.

Accidents

167,127

4. Chronic lower respiratory disease

159,486

Cerebrovascular disease

147,810

6. Alzheimer disease

122,019

7.

Diabetes mellitus

84,946

8.

Influenza and pneumonia

59,120

9. Nephritis

51,386

10. Suicide

48,344

All other causes

44,312

5.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Mortality in the United States, 2018

AMERICANDEMOGRAPHICS.COM I MAY 2020

13

By Sara Williamson, PhD.

Statistical Snapshot Texting vs Talking — That is the Question

68%

o people prefer texting over talking on the phone? Maybe you have a friend or family member who never seems to answer when you call.

Americans have access to more alternatives to phone-calling than ever before, and we wondered whether the traditional phone call is becoming a thing of the past. To find out, we surveyed 704 Americans regarding their preferences. Here’s what we discovered.

When it comes to communicating with contacts in their personal life:

99%

say that they have a mobile phone

31%

17%

Only say they use it

75%

38%

who report frequent use of phone calls

31% report avoiding phone calls with those in their personal life

14

actually prefer text or email over phone calls with their personal contacts

56% say they use texting most often with romantic partners,

30%

whereas only said that calling by phone was used the most often

The popularity of texting covers all generations.

It was ranked first by the following demographic groups.

59% of Millennials (24-39 years old)

Only of all respondents have a landline and

text frequently, compared to only

When asked to rank different means of communication (e.g., texting, phone calling) in order of preference:

AMERICANDEMOGRAPHICS I MAY 2020

50% of Gen Z (18-23 years old) 43% of Gen Xers (40-54 years old) 34% of Boomers (55-73 years old) The average number of texts sent among all respondents was 32 per day and increases to 50 per day among millennials. It drops to an average of 12 per day among boomers.

Who was in our sample?

It was 46% female. The mean age was 37 years old with 20% of the sample being over 55 years old. The survey was conducted online among US citizens registered with Prolific survey recruitment platform.

Employment, or lack thereof, plays a starring role in film. Taking place towards the end of the Great Depression, the movie chronicles a world in which jobs are few and far between. Unemployment rates were in the double digits in the 1930s, reaching a peak of 24.9% in 1933. By the time the movie came out, the rate had dropped, but it was still in double digits in 1940 (14.6%), comparable to what the Bureau of Labor Statistics said it was in April 2020 (14.7%), though some economists believe it could be closer to the Great Depression’s peak.

Shelter-at-home during the current coronavirus crisis means lots of time to read or watch movies. It also means an opportunity to go back to earlier years to see the similarities and differences between America today and America of yesterday.

The Grapes of Wrath (Film) The Grapes of Wrath is just such an opportunity. Though the film premiered 80 years ago, debuting in 1940, the movie tackled several demographic and sociological subjects that still resonate strongly today. The movie starred Henry Fonda as Tom Joad, the son returning home from prison to an abandoned Oklahoma farm, only to find out that his family has lost the farm and is about to embark on a move to California in search of work. The film of course is based on the novel by John Steinbeck, who notched a Pulitzer Prize two months after the film’s premiere.

The film was lauded both at the time and in later years. It garnered seven Academy Award nominations and won two.

One win went to Jane Darwell for Best Supporting Actress as Ma Joad. (Fun fact: Her last role was as The Bird Woman in Mary Poppins in 1964). John Ford took home the other Oscar, for Best Director. It was his second of a record four Best Director wins. The film was also routinely listed among the best American films ever made in critics’ polls. In 1989, the film was one of the first 25 selected for the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress.

The Dust Bowl, the term for the 1930s drought-stricken area of the Southwest that suffered from severe dust storms, forced many residents from Oklahoma and neighboring states to head west.

These migrants were derogatorily labeled Okies. They sought to move to places like California— “the land of milk an’ honey,” according to Pa Joad. According to the Oklahoma Historical Society, Oklahoma suffered a net loss of 440,000 people to migration in the 1930s, mostly to California and Arizona. Migration was such an important issue that the US Census Bureau asked about it for the first time in the Census of 1940.

Interestingly, while California’s population is still increasing in 2020, the gains are slight. Some 7.3 million people have left California since 2007. As Timothy Egan wrote in the New York Times: “stratospheric home prices and unbearable rental costs have created a reverse ‘Grapes of Wrath,’ forcing those who are not rich to flee to states with much lower costs of living.” Egan argues that Califor-

nians may also be taking their California values with them, which could change the political landscape in the states to which they are moving.

The Grapes of Wrath also chronicles the country’s homeless problem, something that has not improved today. According to an article by Margot Kushel of the University of California, San Francisco, one quarter of the country’s homeless now live in California, and 68% are unsheltered, many living in tent cities. “Like a modern-day ‘Grapes of Wrath,’ the tents are a stark reminder of the suffering of the thousands living outside, homeless.”

The film depicts the modernization of American farms, showing images of Caterpillar tractors overtaking Oklahoma’s farms, with a scene of tractor drivers wearing dust masks covering their mouths and noses—strangely mirroring today’s masks covering anyone who ventures out of their homes during the coronavirus pandemic.

“And for ever’ one of ‘em [the Caterpillars] ten-fifteen families gets throwed outa their homes,” says the Joads’ neighbor Muley. The movie notes a shift in the American labor force, which had many more farm workers than it has today.

Seeing his job prospects, the Joads’ sonin-law Connie Rivers fantasizes about becoming a radio expert and later abandons his pregnant wife, not willing to find out whether they’ll find farm jobs.

The film also looks at the changing structure of the American family. By the time the family moves to California, Ma Joad has taken over the leadership role from the men in the family.

Another theme explored in The Grapes of Wrath are unions. As John Carradine’s character Jim Casy says in the movie: “Now they’re payin’ you five—but when they bust this strike ya think they’ll pay five?” The 1930s are when unions first took off. In the first half of the decade, under 10 percent of the working population was unionized. By 1940, the percentage had more than doubled, to 18.3%, and would stay above 20% almost every year through 1980. Today’s rate is back to Great Depression era levels and is on the verge of dropping below double digits; it stood at 10.3% in 2019.

AMERICANDEMOGRAPHICS.COM I MAY 2020

15

Month by Month at a Glance

AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS The Mystery of Algorithms Census Day and Counting

(May)

(April)

Today’s Workforce Tomorrow (June)

Who Are “The Influencers?

(March)

The Demographics of Drinkers (Summer)

Let American Demographics be your umbrella against the uncertainties of tomorrow’s raindrops.

Visit www.americandemographics.com and subscribe.