Podcasts about Baby boom

Attentive listeners will notice that this episode is about a book but isn't an author interview. That's because it's the first in a new occasional series of episodes that will be dedicated to books by conservative writers that we think are important — whether because a book articulates the right's approach to an issue or problem in an especially revealing way, influenced or galvanized the conservative movement when it was published, or, with the benefit of hindsight, has proven to be prescient about where the right, and perhaps the country, were heading. Many of these books will be from decades past, but our first selection is more recent: Christopher Caldwell's 2020 broadside against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and what it wrought, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties. Caldwell argues that the apparatus created by civil rights legislation and the federal courts in the 1960s amounted to a new, second constitution that displaced the one Americans had lived under since the founding, one that jettisoned traditional liberties like freedom of association and replaced democratic self-government with rule by bureaucrats, lawyers, and judges. Who has access to these new levers of power? Not the working class whites who are neither a favored racial or ethnic minority — a person of color — nor a member of the progressive elites who preside over the new regime. Much of The Age of Entitlement is dedicated to tracing the effects of civil rights legislation when it comes to the causes that arose in its wake: feminism, immigrant rights, gay marriage, and more. But the book is equally a brutal examination of the legacy of the Baby Boom generation (and, by extension, Ronald Reagan, whose presidency they powered), that most "entitled" of generations, whom Caldwell deplores for wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. Boomers, in Caldwell's telling, refused to straightforwardly reject the second constitution and its distributional demands, while also insisting petulantly, again and again, on having their taxes cut. We explore these topics and more, and end with a discussion of where Caldwell leaves the reader — and where we're at now, in light of the challenge he poses to both conservatives and the left.Sources:Christopher Caldwell, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties (2020)— Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West (2009)Helen Andrews, "The Law That Ate the Constitution," Claremont Review of Books, Winter 2020Timothy Crimmins, "America Since the Sixties: A History without Heroes," American Affairs, Summer 2020Perry Anderson, "Portents of Eurabia," The National, Aug 27, 2009. ...and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon for access to all of our bonus episodes!

Wake up with Morning Glory in full on YouTube, DAB+ radio, Freeview 280, Fire TV, Samsung TV Plus or the Talk App on your TV from 6am every morning. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to our new series, “The Beat Goes On,” where we will celebrate the work and enduring influence of Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, William Burroughs, and the other writers whom we identify as “The Beats.” - that crop of artists who worked to expand our consciousness, exploring the hidden possibilities of post WW2 America in the 1950s - Other significant names to be explored: Diane Di Prima, Tuli Kupferberg, Ed Sanders, Delmore Schwarz, Anne Waldman, Carolyn Cassidy, and many others.We will also include jazz musicians like Miles Davis, John Coltrane and Dizzy Gillespie, whose sinuous Bebop lines influenced the expansive prose of Kerouac and poetry of Ginsberg, and comedians like Lenny Bruce, Lord Buckley, Brother Theodore and Dick Gregory with their scathing critique and unmasking of our nation's hypocrisy beneath the self-deceptive rhetoric of American exceptionalism.  And, then there are their artistic children like Hunter S. Thompson, Charles Bukowski, Tom Waits and Lou Reed…. The list goes on.First off: we need to define that confusing term “beat”… Once the satirists were able to pin them down, the Beats and their devotees were labelled “Beatniks” (a cold war epithet) and put into a farcical box. This is where I, as a child, first became aware of them through the character of Maynard G. Krebs on the Dobie Gillis show. The child-like, pre-hippie with the dirty sweatshirt and goatee, indelibly played by Bob Denver, later of Gilligan fame. He was a gentle figure of fun, not to be taken seriously. But, the truth goes so much deeper. Kerouac defined Beat as short for “beatitude” - a state of grace, a codex for the maturing “peace and love” Baby Boom generation coming up - those in search of existence's deeper meaning beyond the consumerist and war-like American culture being offered as our only option.Well, boy, do we need them now! HENRY MILLER INTERVIEWOur inaugural offering is a 1964 interview with the writer Henry Miller, of TROPIC OF CANCER, TROPIC OF CAPRICORN, and THE ROSY CRUCIFIXION TRILOGY fame, among many others. This is an insightful, in depth look at a artist of gargantuan influence. Miller was interviewed by Audrey June Wood  in Minneapolis during a speaking tour; he considered this interview to be one of his best. Miller discourses on some of his favorite books and authors and the struggle of writing well. It was released on Smithsonian/ Folkways Records.Strictly speaking, Miller was not a Beat - he preceded them, and out lived many of them, making it to 88 in 1980, but he was their spiritual and artistic pathfinder.Living hand to mouth, on the edge, abroad in Paris, writing free form in a raw, explicit, semi-autobiographical manner, telling the truth about sex, love, art, and struggle - he set the artistic compass for the Beats - as Dostoevsky and Walt Whitman had done before him. They are all part of a chain - a chain of searchers, and we are fortunate to have these lights to guide us on our own personal journeys to self realization. Please enjoy…THE BEAT GOES ON. 

Você já deve ter ouvido falar nos bebês reborn, mas você sabia que essa prática vai muito além de colecionar bonecas e que ela tem raízes profundas no afeto, na arte e até em questões terapêuticas? No novo episódio do Fora da Bolha, você confere uma conversa sincera sobre o universo dos bebês reborn, suas origens, significados e o impacto emocional que essas criações realistas podem ter.O programa tem como entrevistada especial a psicóloga especialista em neurociência do comportamento Laís Mutuberria, que explica a história por trás dessa prática, o que leva pessoas a se conectarem com essas “crianças de silicone” e como isso reflete aspectos da nossa sociedade. E além disso, também temos os nossos quadros “Saiu da Bolha?”, para saber se esse tema vive só dentro das comunidades online ou se já conquistou o mundo offline, e também uma entrevista como uma “cegonha”, que são as artistas que confeccionam as bonecas.Roteiro e apresentação por Érica Zucchi e Yan Calheiros. Entrevista com Laís Mutuberria. Saiu da Bolha por Maria Clara de Farias, Olívia Geleilete e Eduarda Alvarenga. Boletim informativo por Julia Graboski e Felipe Paze. Trilha por Sarah Pretto. Artes e redes por Sarah Pretto e Luiza Feppe.Fora da Bolha é um programa da Rádio Ponto UFSC que discute se os assuntos que dominam a internet saíram da bolha e atingiram a vida real das pessoas na sociedade. Produzido por estudantes de graduação em Jornalismo da UFSC.

What’s the Why?  Why is a $1,000 bonus insulting to the American people? 

Meg retraces her epic quest along Madison Avenue in 1980, searching for the perfect birthday gift. Jessica discusses the mini Baby Boom of the 80s and the emergence of the first Stroller Warriors.Please check out our website, follow us on Instagram, on Facebook, and...WRITE US A REVIEW HEREWe'd LOVE to hear from you! Let us know if you have any ideas for stories HEREThank you for listening!Love,Meg and Jessica

As the longtime senior editor of Los Angeles magazine, Chris Nichols has accumulated more knowledge about this city than anyone else we know. As an author and frequent tour guide, he loves sharing his discoveries, which is why his newest book BowlaRama (Angel City Press, written with Adriene Biondo) is so much fun. Leonard and Jessie enjoy diving into the fad-like growth of bowling alleys in the Baby Boom years of the 1950s and early 1960s. (Leonard is still mourning the loss of his Pepsi Cola bowling team shirt.) Chris's enthusiasm for everything he does is positively infectious.

Canada's elections, America's baby boom, and Trump's 100 days. Find us on YouTube. Show notes: In this episode of The Bulletin, Mike, Russell, and Clarissa discuss Canada's election of a new prime minister, America's falling birth rates and conservative solutions, and President Donald Trump's press tour marking his first 100 days in office. Brian Dijkema of Cardus Canada, author Hannah Anderson, and Andrew Egger of The Bulwark join the conversation. GO DEEPER WITH THE BULLETIN: Join the conversation at our Substack. Find us on YouTube. Rate and review the show in your podcast app of choice. ABOUT THE GUESTS:  Brian Dijkema is the president, Canada at Cardus, and senior editor of Comment. He is a public policy analyst, public commentator, and writer.  Hannah Anderson is the author of Made for More, All That's Good, and Humble Roots: How Humility Grounds and Nourishes Your Soul. Andrew Egger is White House correspondent for The Bulwark. He previously covered politics for The Dispatch and The Weekly Standard. ABOUT THE BULLETIN: The Bulletin is a twice weekly current events show from Christianity Today moderated by Clarissa Moll, with senior commentary from Russell Moore (Christianity Today's editor in chief) and Mike Cosper (director, CT Media). Each week, the show explores current events and breaking news and shares a Christian perspective on issues that are shaping our world.  The Bulletin listeners get 25% off CT. Go to https://orderct.com/THEBULLETIN to learn more. “The Bulletin” is a production of Christianity Today Producer: Clarissa Moll Associate Producer: Alexa Burke Editing and Mix: Kevin Morris Music: Dan Phelps Executive Producers: Erik Petrik and Mike Cosper Senior Producer: Matt Stevens Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Abdul and Katelyn discuss the latest news in health and policy, including: Trump's proposal to increase the birth rate by giving women $5000 baby bonuses The political divide over measles Why RFK Jr is being asked to testify at the Senate HELP committee in May The closure of nine schools in Milwaukee due to lead contamination Then Abdul and Katelyn talk to Princeton political science professors Dr. Frances Lee and Dr. Stephen Macedo about their new book “In Covid's Wake.” Check out our shop at store.americadissected.com for our new America Dissected merch – including logo shirts, hoodies and mugs. And don't miss our “Vaccines Matter. Science Works.” t-shirts! This show would not be possible without the generous support of our sponsors. America Dissected invites you to check them out. This episode was brought to you by: de Beaumont Foundation: For 25 years, the de Beaumont Foundation has worked to create practical solutions that improve the health of communities across the country. To learn more, visit debeaumont.org.  Ground News: Go to groundnews.com/AD today to get forty percent off the Ground News Vantage plan and get access to all of their news analysis features.  Our Big Shot: Search for and subscribe to “Our Big Shot: Wiping Out Disease” on Apple Podcasts, or your favorite podcast app.

The Trump Administration has floated the ideas of trying to get birth rates up in the U.S. This is an issue across the globe as the CDC signals that birth rates are dropping.  Opinion Editor of the Deseret News, Jay Evensen, shares insight from his latest opinion piece, about the bigger problem we face on the declining birthrate and the ways other countries have tackled this issue.

On this week's episode of 'The Saturday Show with Jonathan Capehart': Pushing legal limits. From arresting a judge, to defying court orders to return a man mistakenly deported, to rounding up foreign students, the Trump administration's immigration policy is undermining the rule of law and endangering the right to due process for everyone. Rep. Robert Garcia and Rep. Ayanna Pressley joined me to talk about their visits with those caught in the chaos.  Hitting Home. As Americans sour on the President's chaotic economic policies, top prosecutors from 12 states are suing him over his tariffs. I asked Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford why they call the tariffs an illegal tax hike. And, the Project 2025 Presidency.  Donald Trump has tried to distance himself from the right-wing blueprint. But David Graham of The Atlantic explains how the first 100 days of the Trump Presidency are right out of this playbook, and why there are still a few big plays up his sleeve.  All that and more on “The Saturday Show with Jonathan Capehart.”

4.23.2025 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: State Of The People Power Tour, Trump baby boom, Jackson Mayor defeated, Rep. Green responds to slur We'll talk to the State Of The People Power Tour organizers about their plan to reenergize voters across the country. The U.S. fertility rate has been declining for decades. Now, the Trump Administration is proposing a controversial idea to encourage women to have more children. We'll speak with the founder of Viola's House, an organization that helps women with unplanned pregnancies, about the proposed plan. Tennessee State University is making history as the first HBCU to launch an ice hockey program at the collegiate level. The Nashville-based team will play this fall, and the head coach will be here to discuss the upcoming season. Jackson, Mississippi's incumbent Mayor, Chokwe Antar Lumumba, suffered a crushing defeat in Tuesday's run-off. The founder of a California organization pushing to dismantle systemic racism in America will explain how their work is more important than ever. Texas Representative Al Green responds to being called a "boy" by a white Tennessee Congresswoman. #BlackStarNetwork partner: Fanbasehttps://www.startengine.com/offering/fanbase This Reg A+ offering is made available through StartEngine Primary, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This investment is speculative, illiquid, and involves a high degree of risk, including the possible loss of your entire investment. You should read the Offering Circular (https://bit.ly/3VDPKjD) and Risks (https://bit.ly/3ZQzHl0) related to this offering before investing. Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox http://www.blackstarnetwork.com The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The 60s produced a Baby Boom generation that catalyzed the dawn of a new era—the space age, the age of television, the global age, and the beginnings of civil rights. At the same time, a new paradigm for parenting was unfolding that put emphasis on permissiveness, defined by what it permitted – the free and unfettered impulses of children. Others worried that the wildness of children, personified by the characters in Maurice Sendak's 1963 classic children's book, Where the Wild Things Are, was destructive, disruptive and disrespectful. Where the Wild Things Were: Boyhood and Permissive Parenting in Postwar America (NYU Press, 2025) centers on the exploding, contentious national conversation about the nature of childhood and parenting in the postwar US emblematized by Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care. Renowned scholar Henry Jenkins demonstrates that the language that shaped a growing field of advice literature for parents also informed the period's fictions—in film, television, comics, children's books, and elsewhere—produced for and consumed by children. In particular, Jenkins demonstrates, the era's emblematic child was the boy in the striped shirt: white, male, suburban, middle class, Christian, and above all, American. Weaving together intellectual histories and popular texts, Jenkins shows how boy protagonists became embodiments of permissive child rearing, as well as the social ideals and contradictions that permissiveness entailed. From Peanuts comic strips and TV specials to The Cat in the Hat, Dennis the Menace, and Jonny Quest, the book reveals how childhood and the stories about it became central to Cold War concerns with democracy, citizenship, globalization, the space race, science, race relations, gender, and sexuality. Written by a former boy in a striped shirt, Where the Wild Things Were explores iconic works, from Mary Poppins to Lost in Space, contextualizing them through a critical but respectful engagement with the core animating ideas of the permissive imagination. Peter C. Kunze is an assistant professor of communication at Tulane University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

You can’t open a web page lately without someone trying to tell you how to save or spend your money more efficiently.  In our roundup of other stories you need to hear, you’ll find out about one way you could make an extra $5k but shouldn’t and how to blow through the money you already have.  That’s in the headline volley.

Kara and Scott discuss Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth getting caught up in another Signal scandal, Tesla's latest setbacks, and whether Google will have to spin off Chrome. Then, they dive into a busy few days for the Trump administration — from getting blocked on deportations by the Supreme Court, to reportedly planning an overhaul of the State Department, to taking suggestions on how spark the next baby boom. Plus, do Netflix's Q1 earnings prove the streaming giant is tariff-proof? Follow us on Instagram and Threads at @pivotpodcastofficial. Follow us on Bluesky at @pivotpod.bsky.social. Follow us on TikTok at @pivotpodcast. Send us your questions by calling us at 855-51-PIVOT, or at nymag.com/pivot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This hour, Scoot talks about Trump's push to promote procreation. And Charlie Long comes on to talk about the new GM of the New Orleans Pelicans.

On today's show, Scoot talks about Trump's push to promote American procreation, Shannon Sharpe being accused of sexual assault, Earth Day, and celebrity odd couples. Also, Charlie Long comes on to talk about the new GM of the New Orleans Pelicans.

The 60s produced a Baby Boom generation that catalyzed the dawn of a new era—the space age, the age of television, the global age, and the beginnings of civil rights. At the same time, a new paradigm for parenting was unfolding that put emphasis on permissiveness, defined by what it permitted – the free and unfettered impulses of children. Others worried that the wildness of children, personified by the characters in Maurice Sendak's 1963 classic children's book, Where the Wild Things Are, was destructive, disruptive and disrespectful. Where the Wild Things Were: Boyhood and Permissive Parenting in Postwar America (NYU Press, 2025) centers on the exploding, contentious national conversation about the nature of childhood and parenting in the postwar US emblematized by Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care. Renowned scholar Henry Jenkins demonstrates that the language that shaped a growing field of advice literature for parents also informed the period's fictions—in film, television, comics, children's books, and elsewhere—produced for and consumed by children. In particular, Jenkins demonstrates, the era's emblematic child was the boy in the striped shirt: white, male, suburban, middle class, Christian, and above all, American. Weaving together intellectual histories and popular texts, Jenkins shows how boy protagonists became embodiments of permissive child rearing, as well as the social ideals and contradictions that permissiveness entailed. From Peanuts comic strips and TV specials to The Cat in the Hat, Dennis the Menace, and Jonny Quest, the book reveals how childhood and the stories about it became central to Cold War concerns with democracy, citizenship, globalization, the space race, science, race relations, gender, and sexuality. Written by a former boy in a striped shirt, Where the Wild Things Were explores iconic works, from Mary Poppins to Lost in Space, contextualizing them through a critical but respectful engagement with the core animating ideas of the permissive imagination. Peter C. Kunze is an assistant professor of communication at Tulane University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Israel is booming with babies, happiness and economic resilience even in the midst of war. In this uplifting episode of Israel Undiplomatic, hosts Ruthie Blum and Ambassador Mark Regev—both former advisers at the Prime Minister's Office—break tradition to focus entirely on the good news coming out of Israel today.

The 60s produced a Baby Boom generation that catalyzed the dawn of a new era—the space age, the age of television, the global age, and the beginnings of civil rights. At the same time, a new paradigm for parenting was unfolding that put emphasis on permissiveness, defined by what it permitted – the free and unfettered impulses of children. Others worried that the wildness of children, personified by the characters in Maurice Sendak's 1963 classic children's book, Where the Wild Things Are, was destructive, disruptive and disrespectful. Where the Wild Things Were: Boyhood and Permissive Parenting in Postwar America (NYU Press, 2025) centers on the exploding, contentious national conversation about the nature of childhood and parenting in the postwar US emblematized by Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care. Renowned scholar Henry Jenkins demonstrates that the language that shaped a growing field of advice literature for parents also informed the period's fictions—in film, television, comics, children's books, and elsewhere—produced for and consumed by children. In particular, Jenkins demonstrates, the era's emblematic child was the boy in the striped shirt: white, male, suburban, middle class, Christian, and above all, American. Weaving together intellectual histories and popular texts, Jenkins shows how boy protagonists became embodiments of permissive child rearing, as well as the social ideals and contradictions that permissiveness entailed. From Peanuts comic strips and TV specials to The Cat in the Hat, Dennis the Menace, and Jonny Quest, the book reveals how childhood and the stories about it became central to Cold War concerns with democracy, citizenship, globalization, the space race, science, race relations, gender, and sexuality. Written by a former boy in a striped shirt, Where the Wild Things Were explores iconic works, from Mary Poppins to Lost in Space, contextualizing them through a critical but respectful engagement with the core animating ideas of the permissive imagination. Peter C. Kunze is an assistant professor of communication at Tulane University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The 60s produced a Baby Boom generation that catalyzed the dawn of a new era—the space age, the age of television, the global age, and the beginnings of civil rights. At the same time, a new paradigm for parenting was unfolding that put emphasis on permissiveness, defined by what it permitted – the free and unfettered impulses of children. Others worried that the wildness of children, personified by the characters in Maurice Sendak's 1963 classic children's book, Where the Wild Things Are, was destructive, disruptive and disrespectful. Where the Wild Things Were: Boyhood and Permissive Parenting in Postwar America (NYU Press, 2025) centers on the exploding, contentious national conversation about the nature of childhood and parenting in the postwar US emblematized by Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care. Renowned scholar Henry Jenkins demonstrates that the language that shaped a growing field of advice literature for parents also informed the period's fictions—in film, television, comics, children's books, and elsewhere—produced for and consumed by children. In particular, Jenkins demonstrates, the era's emblematic child was the boy in the striped shirt: white, male, suburban, middle class, Christian, and above all, American. Weaving together intellectual histories and popular texts, Jenkins shows how boy protagonists became embodiments of permissive child rearing, as well as the social ideals and contradictions that permissiveness entailed. From Peanuts comic strips and TV specials to The Cat in the Hat, Dennis the Menace, and Jonny Quest, the book reveals how childhood and the stories about it became central to Cold War concerns with democracy, citizenship, globalization, the space race, science, race relations, gender, and sexuality. Written by a former boy in a striped shirt, Where the Wild Things Were explores iconic works, from Mary Poppins to Lost in Space, contextualizing them through a critical but respectful engagement with the core animating ideas of the permissive imagination. Peter C. Kunze is an assistant professor of communication at Tulane University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The 60s produced a Baby Boom generation that catalyzed the dawn of a new era—the space age, the age of television, the global age, and the beginnings of civil rights. At the same time, a new paradigm for parenting was unfolding that put emphasis on permissiveness, defined by what it permitted – the free and unfettered impulses of children. Others worried that the wildness of children, personified by the characters in Maurice Sendak's 1963 classic children's book, Where the Wild Things Are, was destructive, disruptive and disrespectful. Where the Wild Things Were: Boyhood and Permissive Parenting in Postwar America (NYU Press, 2025) centers on the exploding, contentious national conversation about the nature of childhood and parenting in the postwar US emblematized by Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care. Renowned scholar Henry Jenkins demonstrates that the language that shaped a growing field of advice literature for parents also informed the period's fictions—in film, television, comics, children's books, and elsewhere—produced for and consumed by children. In particular, Jenkins demonstrates, the era's emblematic child was the boy in the striped shirt: white, male, suburban, middle class, Christian, and above all, American. Weaving together intellectual histories and popular texts, Jenkins shows how boy protagonists became embodiments of permissive child rearing, as well as the social ideals and contradictions that permissiveness entailed. From Peanuts comic strips and TV specials to The Cat in the Hat, Dennis the Menace, and Jonny Quest, the book reveals how childhood and the stories about it became central to Cold War concerns with democracy, citizenship, globalization, the space race, science, race relations, gender, and sexuality. Written by a former boy in a striped shirt, Where the Wild Things Were explores iconic works, from Mary Poppins to Lost in Space, contextualizing them through a critical but respectful engagement with the core animating ideas of the permissive imagination. Peter C. Kunze is an assistant professor of communication at Tulane University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

The 60s produced a Baby Boom generation that catalyzed the dawn of a new era—the space age, the age of television, the global age, and the beginnings of civil rights. At the same time, a new paradigm for parenting was unfolding that put emphasis on permissiveness, defined by what it permitted – the free and unfettered impulses of children. Others worried that the wildness of children, personified by the characters in Maurice Sendak's 1963 classic children's book, Where the Wild Things Are, was destructive, disruptive and disrespectful. Where the Wild Things Were: Boyhood and Permissive Parenting in Postwar America (NYU Press, 2025) centers on the exploding, contentious national conversation about the nature of childhood and parenting in the postwar US emblematized by Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care. Renowned scholar Henry Jenkins demonstrates that the language that shaped a growing field of advice literature for parents also informed the period's fictions—in film, television, comics, children's books, and elsewhere—produced for and consumed by children. In particular, Jenkins demonstrates, the era's emblematic child was the boy in the striped shirt: white, male, suburban, middle class, Christian, and above all, American. Weaving together intellectual histories and popular texts, Jenkins shows how boy protagonists became embodiments of permissive child rearing, as well as the social ideals and contradictions that permissiveness entailed. From Peanuts comic strips and TV specials to The Cat in the Hat, Dennis the Menace, and Jonny Quest, the book reveals how childhood and the stories about it became central to Cold War concerns with democracy, citizenship, globalization, the space race, science, race relations, gender, and sexuality. Written by a former boy in a striped shirt, Where the Wild Things Were explores iconic works, from Mary Poppins to Lost in Space, contextualizing them through a critical but respectful engagement with the core animating ideas of the permissive imagination. Peter C. Kunze is an assistant professor of communication at Tulane University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/popular-culture

Seit den Babyboomern sinkt die Geburtenrate in Deutschland immer weiter. Immer mehr Menschen entscheiden sich für ein Leben ohne Kinder. Warum ist das so? Ist die Mutterrolle und der hohe gesellschaftliche Druck für junge Frauen abschreckend? Und wie geht es Männern in der Vaterrolle? Welche Gründe haben Menschen, die eine Schwangerschaft abbrechen? Wie schwer ist es tatsächlich, sich sterilisieren zu lassen? In „Bye Bye Baby Boom – Wollen wir keine Kinder mehr?“ begleiten wir Frauen hautnah auf ihrem Weg in ein selbstbestimmtes Leben - und zeigen, auf welche Hürden sie dabei stoßen. Ihre Geschichten erzählen die Lebensrealität von Frauen in Deutschland – gesellschaftlich, politisch, persönlich.

After Chuck Schumer voted last week to prevent a government shutdown, Democrats have been deeply divided on whether he made the right decision or not, largely along generational lines. Philip Bump, national columnist for The Washington Post and the author of The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America (Viking, 2023) reports on how polls are showing voters are feeling about the episode and Charlie Mahtesian, senior politics editor at Politico, offers analysis of Schumer's decision and the Democrats' response to President Trump.

Philip Bump is a columnist for The Washington Post based in New York. He writes the weekly newsletter How To Read This Chart, to which you should subscribe. He's also the author of The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America.

For months, Seattle's tech industry has been reeling from layoffs. Microsoft, Amazon, Expedia and Starbucks are just a few of the companies who've recently let corporate employees go. And that's left many tech workers in a tough spot. But could there be a silver lining? With so many people suddenly out of a job, could these layoffs lead to a startup baby boom? On today's episode, Monica sits down with Geekwire co-founder Todd Bishop to find out. Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/boomingnotes. Do you have a question about the economy that you want us to answer? Or an idea for a future episode? Email us at booming@kuow.org. Booming is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network. Our editor is Carol Smith. Our producer is Lucy Soucek. Our hosts are Joshua McNichols and Monica Nickelsburg.Support the show: https://kuow.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

V olomoucké zoologické zahradě zažívají pořádné žirafí období! Během pouhých osmi měsíců se tu narodila hned čtyři mláďata.

Last week, it was revealed that Elon Musk had welcomed his 13th child into the world several months ago with a conservative influencer. But he's not the only tech mogul fixated on boosting birth rates. In this episode, journalist Julia Black joins Taylor to discuss the rise of pronatalism in Silicon Valley—a growing movement encouraging people to have as many babies as possible. They unpack why tech billionaires are so suddenly obsessed with having children and how their vision of the future is entangled with right-wing ideology, eugenics, and genetic engineering. From embryo selection to potential threats to reproductive rights, Julia and Taylor explore the unsettling ways pronatalist thinking is creeping into politics and culture.What does this mean for the future of parenthood, women's autonomy, and the broader social landscape? And is this really about saving humanity—or something else entirely?SUBSCRIBE TO POWER USER ON YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/taylorlorenz

Diane Keaton accidentally inherits a baby. Hilarity ensues. Actually, this isn't your typical “I don't know how to change a diaper!” comedy, it's actually a pretty sweet and incisive look at the demented work culture of the 1980s. This is where Diane Keaton and Nancy Meyers first collaborated, and it was the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Also, this movie has one* cute baby!   *Actually two.   Bonus video: We each submit our favorite baby from a movie. Watch it on our Twitter, Instagram, or TikTok.   Next week: The Legend of Billie Jean (1985)   Subscribe to our Patreon, Load Bearing Beams: Collector's Edition for $5 a month to get two extra episodes! patreon.com/loadbearingbeams    Time stamps: 2:16 — Our personal histories with Baby Boom 15:35 — History segment: The story of Nancy Meyers and Charles Shyer, a legendary Hollywood power couple 30:31 — In-depth movie discussion 1:38:12 — Final thoughts and star ratings   Source: “Life Isn't Like the Movies (Even if You Write the Movies)” by Nancy Meyers | The New York Times, 2020 - https://nyti.ms/42ycG85    Artwork by Laci Roth.   Music by Rural Route Nine. Listen to their album The Joy of Averages on Spotify (https://bit.ly/48WBtUa), Apple Music (https://bit.ly/3Q6kOVC), or YouTube (https://bit.ly/3MbU6tC).   Songs by Rural Route Nine in this episode: “Winston-Salem” - https://youtu.be/-acMutUf8IM “Snake Drama” - https://youtu.be/xrzz8_2Mqkg “The Bible Towers of Bluebonnet” - https://youtu.be/k7wlxTGGEIQ   Follow the show! Twitter: @LoadBearingPod | @MattStokes9 | @LRothConcepts Instagram: @loadbearingbeams TikTok: @load.bearing.beams | @mattstokes9 Letterboxd: @loadbearinglaci | @mattstokes9 Bluesky: @loadbearingbeams.bsky.social  

Louisiana got hit with a historic winter storm and the state shut down. Your pals Laci and Matt have cabin fever and are furious as they haven't been able to go anywhere or do anything all week, including podcasting. So here's their apology and update on the schedule. We will return in one week with our episode about Baby Boom (1988).  If you are shaking from withdrawal because it's Friday and you need your fix, you can just go to our Patreon and become a subscriber, and then you'll have a handful of brand-new episodes to tide you over until next week. https://patreon.com/loadbearingbeams  Thank you for your support of our podcast! Okay we love you goodbyeeeee. 

On this episode, Ethics and Public Policy Center fellow Patrick T. Brown joins guest host and American Compass managing editor Drew Holden to discuss how COVID's remote-work baptism-by-fire led to a surprising boom in babies born during the pandemic.The two talk through the lessons that companies should take away from the experience in order to support working parents as well as why these companies, and society more broadly, should be expected to help share the burdens placed on new parents. And as President Trump returns to the White House, they take stock of the GOP's realignment on how best to support families.Further reading:"Remote Work Created a Baby Boom. Can We Keep It Up?" by Patrick T. Brown

On Inauguration Day, Philip Bump, national columnist for The Washington Post and the author of The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America (Viking, 2023), talks about the final moves by President Biden, and what President-elect Trump may do in his first days in office. 

Sermon on Genesis 25:1-18 titled Baby Boom Before the Tomb. It was preached by Pastor Brian Hough on January 19th 2025 at Manhattan Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Manhattan, Kansas. You can learn more at ManhattanPres.com

Get over here to this podcast about Mortal Kombat (1995). We're revisiting this movie, even after having already covered it on episode 76, because that episode was less than 30 minutes long. And respect must be paid! Director Paul W.S. Anderson knows exactly what kind of movie he's making here, and the scuzzy mid-'90s vibes are immaculate!   Now, is this movie basically just you watching the video game, but in movie form? Well, yes. But that's what you bought the ticket for!   Bonus video: We spin the wheel and select the winner of our Listener Choice Lottery™ . Watch it on our Twitter, BlueSky, Instagram, or TikTok.   Next week: Baby Boom (1988)   Subscribe to our Patreon, Load Bearing Beams: Collector's Edition for $5 a month to get two extra episodes! patreon.com/loadbearingbeams    Time stamps: 00:07: 02— Our personal histories with Mortal Kombat 00:11:18 — History segment: The history of the Mortal Kombat franchise; the making of the 1995 movie under director Paul W.S. Anderson 00:33:07 — In-depth movie discussion 01:25:55 — Final thoughts and star ratings 01:30:11 — BONUS: New song by Matt: “The Real Mortal Kombat… Is Friendship”   Source: “‘Mortal Kombat': Untold Story of the Movie That “Kicked the Hell” Out of Everyone” by  Aaron Couch | The Hollywood Reporter, 2015 - https://bit.ly/3PEBjbv   Artwork by Laci Roth.   Music by Rural Route Nine. Listen to their album The Joy of Averages on Spotify (https://bit.ly/48WBtUa), Apple Music (https://bit.ly/3Q6kOVC), or YouTube (https://bit.ly/3MbU6tC).   Songs by Rural Route Nine in this episode: “Winston-Salem” - https://youtu.be/-acMutUf8IM “Snake Drama” - https://youtu.be/xrzz8_2Mqkg “The Bible Towers of Bluebonnet” - https://youtu.be/k7wlxTGGEIQ   Follow the show! Twitter: @LoadBearingPod | @MattStokes9 | @LRothConcepts Instagram: @loadbearingbeams TikTok: @load.bearing.beams | @mattstokes9 Letterboxd: @loadbearinglaci | @mattstokes9 Bluesky: @loadbearingbeams.bsky.social  

El análisis de actualidad económica, todas las mañanas a las 07:30 con Javier Ruiz, jefe de Economía de la SER.

AP correspondent Margie Szaroleta reports on the death of filmmaker Charles Shyer, who died in Los Angeles on Friday at the age of 83.

Send us a textIn this special Christmas Eve episode of Taco Bout Fertility Tuesday, Dr. Amols shares warm holiday wishes and a few surprising fertility-themed fun facts that tie into the festive season. Discover why Christmas is a popular time for conception, the ancient fertility symbolism of mistletoe and evergreen trees, and how the peaceful holiday vibe can positively impact fertility. Join us for a short and sweet episode filled with hope, love, and a sprinkle of holiday magic. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

The Vancouver Island marmot — one of Canada's most endangered species — is making a remarkable population rebound from near-extinction. A conservationist working to save the species tells us about this year's record arrival of pups, and why the marmots aren't out of the woods just yet.

This week, we honor Shmave's request to watch Baby Boom, starring Diane Keaton… who is in no relation to Michael Keaton, whose last name is actually apparently Douglas, but he had to pick a stage name because somebody else already had that name. That's what Bob says anyway, and I'm too lazy to fact check. He's probably full of shit, but I'm not going to bother following up on this one.  Bumbling boring baby boomers blending baby bites and rebuffing a billion bucks! Banishing your baby to a broken down bumpkin bungalow! The egregious Gerber grift! Bedless blanketless burka babe buffoonery! Bungling your bouncing baby and blasting her with bleach! Ovary-acting! Do we have female listeners? We don't now! Ugly kids and mom graves! Fuck baby boomers! ALF and saxophones are cousins? The Tonight Show with Jimmy Phallic! Slowing down after the smooth jazz, and much, much more on this week's episode of The Worst Movie Ever Made!  www.theworstmovieevermade.com

There was an INVESTIGATION into WHY some women are choosing to have 5 or more children PURPOSEFULLY. Journalist and author Catherine Pakaluk went on a multi-year mission to interview these women who come from all socioeconomic/religious/racial backgrounds on WHY and HOW they do it. Her book, "Hannah's Children," is one of Alex's favorite non-fiction reads of the last decade. Learn about the lives of 55 college-educated mothers who chose to bring back large families. Through their stories, she uncovers their motivations, challenges, fears, and most importantly, their profound sense of purpose. Thank you to our sponsors! ⁠⁠YRefy⁠⁠ | Call (888) 502-2612 or visit ⁠⁠https://yrefy.com ⁠Zebra⁠ | Use code "ALEX for 10% OFF any order  Good Ranchers⁠⁠ | Use code “CLARK” for FREE Thanksgiving ham in your first delivery A'del Natrual Cosmetics | Use code "ALEX" for 25% OFF  Aleavia | Use code "ALEX15" for 15% OFF  Catherine Pakaluk Facebook | @cpakaluk X | @CRPakaluk Resources Hannah's Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth by Catherine Pakaluk   Alex Clark Instagram | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@realalexclark⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@cultureapothecary⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Facebook | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@realalexclark⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ X | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@yoalexrapz⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@RealAlexClark⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Spotify | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Culture Apothecary with Alex Clark ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Apple Podcast | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Culture Apothecary with Alex Clark⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ New 'Culture Apothecary' Merch OUT NOW! Glass tumblers, weekly wellness planners, hats, crewnecks and more. Use code "Alex Clark" for 10% OFF at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠tpusamerch.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join the Cuteservatives Facebook group to connect with likeminded friends who love America and all things health and wellness! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Join the CUTEservative Facebook Group!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to ‘Culture Apothecary' on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. New episodes drop 6pm PST/ 9pm EST every Monday and Thursday. This show is made possible with generous donations from listeners who believe in our mission to heal a sick culture. You can support our show by leaving a tax deductible donation, or by subscribing to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@RealAlexClark⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube for FREE! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠donate.tpusa.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ #cultureapothecary #alexclark #podcast #family #children #mom 

A conspiracy-theorist and vaccine denier to run the Department of Health and Human Services. A Russia-friendly intelligence chief. And an attorney general pick who has been accused of sexual misconduct. President-elect Donald Trump is appointing cabinet members at a breakneck pace, with one more norm-busting than the next. We'll get the latest on Trump's picks–and other recent political news– with journalists Molly Ball of the Wall Street Journal and Philip Bump of the Washington Post Guests: Molly Ball, senior political correspondent, Wall Street Journal Philip Bump, national columnist, Washington Post - Bump is the author of "The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America"

Housing in the United States has come to be known as a panacea problem. Gone are the days when tossing the graduation cap meant picking up the keys to a front door, and the ripple effects of unaffordable housing stretch across society: poor social mobility, smaller families, worse retirement-readiness, just to name a few.Today on Faster, Please — The Podcast, I talk to Bryan Caplan about the seemingly obvious culprit, government regulation, and the growing movement to combat it.Caplan is a professor of economics atGeorge Mason University. His essays have been featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and TIME Magazine. He is editor and chief writer of theBet On It Substack, and is the author of several books, including Build, Baby, Build: The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation.In This Episode* America's evolving relationship with housing (1:31)* The impact of regulation (3:53)* Different regulations for different folks (8:47)* The YIMBY movement (11:01)* Homeowners and public opinion (13:56)* Generating momentum (17:15)* Building new cities (23:10)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. (Note: This was recorded just before the presidential election.)America's evolving relationship with housing (1:31)The main thing that changed is that we've seen a long-run runup of housing prices. Pethokoukis: What was going on with housing prices and housing affordability from the war to the 1970s? Was it kind of flattish? People were recovering from the Great Depression; what was going on then?Caplan: Yeah, it was quite flat, so there were decades where we had rapidly expanding population, the Baby Boom, and markets were working the way that markets normally do: You get demand going up, raises prices in the short run, but then that means the prices are above the cost of production, and so you get entry, and you build more until prices come back down to the cost of production. That's the way markets are supposed to work!I don't know how people thought about their homes in the late '40s, '50s, and '60s, but did they view them as, “This is our primary investment,” or did they view them more as a place to live? Were there any expectations that this was their retirement plan?I honestly don't know. I don't remember reading anything about that. I grew up in Los Angeles where in the '70s and '80s people already had some sense of, “Your home is an important retirement vessel,” but it is plausible that when you are going back to earlier decades, people did have a different view.I've often heard Americans say that Japanese don't think about their homes as retirement vessels, but I've never talked to anyone in Japan to assure me this is so, so I don't know.But that scenario changed.It did.How did it change and are we confident we know why it changed?The main thing that changed is that we've seen a long-run runup of housing prices. Depending upon what series you're looking at, the runup might be starting in the early '70s or the early '80s, but in any case, there was what economists would call a structural break where a series that was generally flat over the long term started rising over the long term. There have been a few times when prices fell back down, like after the Great Recession, but now, inflation adjusted, we are higher than the peak right before the Great Recession.Now, is that the same as affordability? Because I assume incomes could be going up, so has it outpaced median income over that period?Probably not, although it's in the right ballpark, and maybe.One thing you can say is, well, there's regulation before, there's regulation after, so how can you go and blame the rise on the regulation?The impact of regulation (3:53)I would like to blame regulation. Intuitively, that makes sense to me, but I suppose we need more than intuition here.. . . there's a lot of regulation almost everywhere a lot of people live.I would say that we do have very good evidence that regulation is indeed to blame. If you look at it very quickly, you might say, “Well, there was regulation before; it didn't seem to matter that much.” The answer to this really was death by a thousand cuts, where we just piled regulation on regulation, but also where regulations that have been interpreted mildly before started being interpreted strictly afterwards.How do we know that it really is regulation? The easiest thing to do is just to look at the strictness of regulation in different parts of the country, and you can see that there are some places that are crazy strict and the prices are crazy high. There's other places where the regulation is a lot lighter and even though they're getting plenty of population increase, they nevertheless do not have these long-run rises.So the contrast between the Bay Area and the Texas Triangle is very strong. So these are both areas that, in some sense, they are growth areas, a lot of tech there, but the Bay Area has seen very little rise in the amount of housing and massive increase in prices, whereas Texas has, in contrast, seen a large rise in the number of houses and very low rises in the price of housing.The main method that economists have used in order to disentangle all this is it really starts with trying to figure out: What is land that you are not allowed to build anything on worth? So just think about whatever your excess land is in a single-family area, you're not allowed to put another structure there, you can put a volleyball court or something like that. So you just find out, well, what is land where you can't build anything worth? And usually, even in a good area, that land is not worth much. If you can't build on it, it's like, I guess we can put some grass, but that's not that good. Then the next step is to just go to a construction manual and to see what the cost of construction is in a given area and then compare it to the price. This is a quite reasonable approach and it has gotten better over time because data has gotten better.The main thing is that Joe Gyourko, who's been working on this for about 20 years, in his last big paper, he got data on actual vacant lots, and so you can see, this is a vacant lot, usually because you just can't build anything on it, can't get the permission, and as a result of this, he's also able to find out, how bad does the regulation get as you move away from the city center. We've got details like Los Angeles looks like it's regulated out to the horizon. You've got 50 miles away from downtown LA and it's still pretty bad regulation. On the other end, a city like Chicago is very regulated in the downtown, but 30 miles out, then there's not that much effect anymore.The punchline of all this work is that there's a lot of regulation almost everywhere a lot of people live. If you want to go and build a skyscraper in the middle of nowhere in Kansas, you could probably do it, but you wouldn't want to build a skyscraper in the middle of nowhere in Kansas, that defeats the whole purpose of building a skyscraper.That leads to two questions: The first question is, just to be clear, when we're talking about regulation, is it single-family homes versus multifamily? Is it also the coding, what the home has to be made out of? Do the walls have to be so thick, or the windows? What are we talking about?The honest answer is that most economists' estimates are just giving you an estimate of all regulation combined with a considerable agnosticism about what actually are the specific regulations that matter. There are other papers that look at specific kinds of regulation and come up with at least very credible claims that this is a big part of the puzzle.The main things that matter a lot in the US: We've got height restrictions — those matter in your biggest, most expensive cities; you can just look at a place like Central Park or get a helicopter shot of San Francisco and say, don't tell me you can't build more stuff here. There's endless room to build more stuff here as long as you can go vertically.It's also very standard to say that you are only allowed to have single-family homes in most residential land in the US, it's just zoned single family only, so you just are not legally allowed to squeeze in a larger number of dwellings.Then you've got, even with single-family regulation, it's very standard to have minimum lot sizes, which just says that you've got to have at least like an acre of land per house, which, whenever I'm speaking in metric countries, I'm always telling, what is that . . .? It's a lot. It's a lot of land, and the amount of land that's normally required has gone up a lot. One-acre zoning in the past would've seemed crazy. Now plenty of places have five-acre zoning. You could obviously just squeeze way more houses in that space. And what is clear is that builders normally build the absolute maximum number they're allowed to build. Anytime someone is going up to the very border of a rule, that is a strong sign the rule is changing behavior.Different regulations for different folks (8:47)Very rarely did someone sit around saying, “You know what's great about Texas? Our lack of housing regulation.”Why are these rules different in different places? That may be a dumb question. Obviously San Francisco is very different from Texas. Is the answer just: different places, different people, different preferences? Do we have any idea why that is?Matt Kahn, who is based in Los Angeles, he's been I think at UCLA and USC, he's got a very good paper showing, at least in California, it's the most progressive left-wing places that have the worst regulation, and it just seemed to be very philosophical. On the other hand, I spent a lot of time during Covid in Texas. Very rarely did someone sit around saying, “You know what's great about Texas? Our lack of housing regulation.” It's not so much that they are opposed to what's going on in California, it just doesn't occur to them they could be California.In a way, you might actually get them to be proud about what they're doing if you could remind them, “Oh, it's really different in California,” and just take them on a tour, then they might come back and say, “God bless Texas.” But it's more of, there's the places where people have an ideological commitment to regulation, and then the rest of the country is more pragmatic and so builders are able to get a lot more done because there just aren't fanatics that are trying to stop them from providing the second most basic necessity for human beings.Now, this is all striking because the YIMBY [Yes In My Backyard] movement, and my book Build, Baby, Build — I definitely think of that as a YIMBY book. My goal is to make it the Bible of YIMBY, and it's in comic book form, so it's a Bible that can be read by people starting at age five.In any case, the YIMBY movement is definitely left-coded. People that are in that movement, they think of themselves as progressives, usually, and yet they are just a small piece of a much broader progressive coalition that is generally totally hostile to what they're doing. They are punching above weight and I want to give them a lot of credit for what they've been able to accomplish, and yet, the idea that YIMBYs tend to be left-wing and therefore they are the main people that are responsible for allowing housing is just not true. Most places in the country basically don't have a lot of pro- or anti-housing activism. They just have apathy combined with a construction industry that tries to go and build stuff, and if no one stops them, they do their job.The YIMBY movement (11:01)Who the hell decided that was a good idea that everybody should have an acre of land?I want to talk a bit more about the economic harms and benefits of deregulation, but if I was a center-left YIMBY, I would think, “Oh, I have all kinds of potential allies on the right. Conservatives, they hate regulation.” I wonder how true that is, at least recently, it seems to me that when I hear a lot of conservatives talking about this issue of density, they don't like density either. It sounds like they're very worried that someone's going to put up an apartment building next to their suburban home, YIMBY people want every place to look [the same] — What's the home planet in Star Wars?Coruscant.Yeah Coruscant, that that's what the YIMBYs want, they want an entire planet to look like a city where there's hundreds of levels, and I'm not sure there's the level of potential allyship on the right that center-left YIMBYs would want. Is that a phenomenon that you've noticed?I actually I have a whole chapter in Build, Baby, Build where I try to go and say we can sell these policies to very different people in their own language, and if they actually believe their official philosophy, then they should all be coming down to very similar conclusions.I think the main issue of center-left YIMBYs talking to people who are right wing or conservative, it's much more about polarization and mutual antipathy than it is about the people on the right would actually object to what they're hearing. What I say there is there are certain kinds of housing regulation that I think the conservatives are going to be sympathetic to. In particular, not liking multifamily housing in suburbs, but I don't really think there is any conservative objection to just allowing a lot more skyscrapers in cities where they don't even go. There's not going to be much objection there and it's like, “Yeah, why don't we go and allow lots of multifamily in the left-wing parts of the country?”But I think the other thing is I don't think it's really that hard to convince conservatives that you shouldn't need to have an acre of land to go and have a house. That one, I think, is just so crazy, and just unfair, and anti-family, you just go and list all the negative adjectives about it. Did you grow up in a house on a one-acre lot? I didn't! Who the hell decided that was a good idea that everybody should have an acre of land? Wouldn't you like your kids to be able to walk to their friends' houses?A lot of it seems to be that government is just preventing the development of something that people would actually want to live in. I remember when my daughter finally made a friend within walking distance, I wanted to light a candle, hallelujah! A child can walk to be friends with a child! This has not happened in all my years! But that was the normal way things were when you'd be on a quarter-acre or a third of acre when I was growing up.Homeowners and public opinion (13:56)People generally favor government policies because they believe . . . the policies are good for society.If someone owns a house, they like when that price goes up, and they might see what you're saying as lowering the price of homes. If we were to have sort of nationwide deregulation, maybe deregulation where the whole country kind of looks like wherever the lightest-regulated place is. People are going to say, “That's bad for me! I own a home. Why would I want that?”Lots of people think this, and especially economists like this idea of, of course we have all this regulation because it's great for homeowners; homeowners are the main wants to participate in local government. Sounds likely, but when we actually look at public opinion, we see that tenants are strong advocates regulation too, and it's like, gee, that really doesn't make any sense at all. They're the ones that are paying for all this stuff.But it does make sense if you switch to a much simpler theory of what's going on, which fits the facts, and that is: People generally favor government policies because they believe —underscore believe — the policies are good for society. So many people from the earlier decades say, “Oh, all those Republicans, they just want tax cuts.” Now we're finally at the level where Republicans are poorer than Democrats. It's like, “Yeah, I guess it's getting a little bit hard to say that people become Republicans to get tax cuts when they're the ones paying lower taxes.” How about there's an actual disagreement about what policies are good for society, which explains why people belong to different parties, support different policies.So most of what I'm doing in Build, Baby, Build is trying to convince people, look, I'm not impugning your motives, I don't think that you're just favoring whatever policies are selfishly best for you. I think that whatever policies you're into are ones that you think are genuinely good for your community, or your area, or your country, but we are not thinking very well about everything that's going on.So part of it is that a lot of the complaints are just overblown or wrong, but another thing is that generally we base a regulation purely on complaints without any thought of any good thing that we might be losing. I make a big deal in the book about how, if you don't want to have noise, and traffic, and pollution, it's really easy — just move to some remote part of the country and you solve all those problems; yet hardly anybody wants to do that.Why are people staying in congested areas with all these problems and paying a lot of extra money for them? Many of these people now have telework jobs, they don't even have a job reason to stay there. And the answer's got to be, there's just a bunch of really good things about living near other people that we hardly ever talk about and which have no political voice. There's almost no one's going to show up in a meeting and [say], “I favor this because I want there to be more commercial opportunities. I favor this because I want there to be more social opportunities, more cultural opportunities, more economic opportunities,” and yet these are all the reasons why people want to live near other people. So we have a set of regulation just based upon complaints: complaints which are generally out of context, not quantified. So we just see that people are willing to pay a lot of money for the package of living in an area with a bunch of other people, so that's got to mean that the good of other people exceeds the bad of the other people; otherwise, why aren't you living out in the middle of nowhere?Generating momentum (17:15)The sad truth is that symbolic issues are much more likely to get people excited, but this is something that determines the quality of life for most people in this country.When I read the book, and I read a really good New York Times essay —Would that be my essay, Jim?I think it is your essay! In fact, it was, I should have been clearer on the author of that essay. The brilliant Bryan Caplan was the author of that essay.If you look at the potential benefits on inequality, there's environmental impact, maybe people are really worried about birth rates, it really seems like housing really is sort of the “everything problem.”Panacea problem, or the “housing theory of everything.”It really does. I think the current election season, it's probably the most I've heard it talked about, and not really talked about very much.And thoughtlessly. Spoken of thoughtlessly.To me there seems to be a lot more — I'll use a nice think tank word — there's been a lot more ideation about the issue in recent years, and maybe it's only now kind of breaking through that filter where politicians start talking about it, but boy, when you look through what you've written about it, it seems like it should be a top three issue that politicians talk about.The sad truth is that symbolic issues are much more likely to get people excited, but this is something that determines the quality of life for most people in this country. It's the difference between: Are you going to keep living with your parents until you're 30, or are you going to be able to afford to get your own place, start your own family? And again, it's one where older people remember how things used to be, and the idea of, well, why can't things just be like that? Why can't it be that a person who gets out of college can go and immediately afford to get a pretty good house?At AEI, Mark Perry, for example, who is one of your colleagues, I think probably a remote colleague, he has done stuff on how new houses are better and so on, and that's also true, so I don't want to go and act like there's been no progress at all. But still, of course a lot of people are not moving into those new houses, they're moving into old houses, which are the same as they were in the past, but just way more expensive if you want to go and live in that areaThe other thing that is worth pointing out is that it's really temping to say, well, of course housing naturally gets more expensive as population rises. The period after World War II that we were mentioning, that's the Baby Boom era, population was rising at a much faster rate then than it did now, even counting immigration, and yet prices were much flatter because we were able to just go and legally build way more stuff.I feel like you feel like you need to drive home the point about demand not being met by supply for this artificial reason: regulation. Even though, to me, it seems utterly natural and a classic case, people struggle to come up with alternative reasons that it's really not that. That it's because of . . . there's private equity firms buying up all the homes, or the reason apartment rents go up is because there's a cabal of apartment owners . . . They look for these other reasons, and I don't quite get that when there seems to be a pretty obvious reason that we theoretically know how to fix.Some of these other stories, they are half-truths, but they're not helpful. So the thing of, “Gee, if we just shut down tourism and letting foreign buyers buy stuff here, then demand will be lower, and prices will be lower, and we won't need to build anything new.” And it's like, do you realize what you're saying? You're basically saying that you want to destroy one of your best export industries.If people around the world want to go and buy houses in your area, why do you want to turn them away instead of saying, cha-ching, let's capitalize on this by building a ton of housing for them? If there's a lot of tourists that want to go and rent a place in your area, why is it you want to go and strangle the market, which obviously it's a great industry — Build stuff and rent it to people, and it's not like there's some fixed amount unless the law says it must be fixed.One benefit I didn't mention was social mobility where we need people, if they want to be able to move towards high-wage, high-productivity cities, to find good jobs, and then not have the wages of those good jobs mostly gobbled up by housing costs. That kind of circulation system, if that's the right phrase.Certainly in some parts of the country, that has just been stopped and that has been a traditional way people move up the ladder.We've got very good data on this. In earlier periods of US history, there was basically a foolproof way for someone in a low-income part of the country to get a big raise, and that was just to move. Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath not withstanding, this almost always works. It wasn't normally the case that you starve to death on your way to California from Oklahoma. Instead, normally, it's just a simple thing: You move from a low-wage area to a high-wage area and you get a lot more money, and you get a much higher take-home salary. But then in those days, there was not much difference in housing prices between different areas of the country, and therefore you would actually have a rise in not just your paycheck, but your standard living.Now it's still true that you can get a rise in your paycheck by moving to the Bay Area. The problem is your standard of living, if you're coming from Mississippi, will generally crash because the housing cost eats up much more than 100 percent of the raise.I remember I had a colleague who had a son who was an investment banker in the Bay Area. He and his wife were sharing a small apartment with two roommates, and it's like investment bankers can't afford apartments! Things have gotten out of hand, I think we can say with great confidence now.Building new cities (23:10). . . politics is an area where there's a lot of ideas where it's like no one's trying it, it must be because it wouldn't work if tried, and then someone tries it with a little panache, or a little twist, and it catches on, and you're like, alright, maybe that's the real story.Should we be building new cities somewhere? I think former President Trump has talked about this idea that we, is that something you've thought about at all?Yes. I didn't put it into the book, but when I was writing up some follow-up posts on things that I wished I would've talked about, or just more speculative things, I do have some friends who are involved in that project to go and build a new city in the Bay Area. I hope it works.There is always the problem of there's almost always going to be some existing people where you want to build your new city, and then what do you do about them? You can try buying them out. There is this holdout problem, a few people are going to stay there and say, “I'm not going to sell.” Or you could just go and do what happened in the movie Up: We'll buy everybody around you, and if you don't like it, too bad.But on the other hand, it may be that activists will put a stop to your plan before you can get it off the ground. So in that case, it was going and selling off empty federal or state land, which we have in abundance. If I remember, I think that 23 percent of the land of the United States is owned by the federal government. Another 10 percent is owned by state governments. And even if you subtract out Alaska, there's still a ton. If you look at the map, it's really cool because you might think, “Oh, it's just that the government owns land no one in the right mind would want.” Not true.Desert land in Nevada next to Area 51 or something.Virtually all of Texas, even those western deserts, are privately owned. I've driven through them. Have you ever driven through West Texas?I have.Alright, so you're there and you're like, “Who wants to own this stuff?” And it's like, well, somebody at whatever the market price is considers this worth owning, and as to whether it's for mineral extraction, or for speculation on one day it'll be worth something when the population of Texas is greater, or they're going to do ranching there, I don't know. But it is at a price someone is willing to go and own almost every piece of land.What the map really shows is it was ideology that led all this land to be held by the government. It's basically the ideology of conservation that we hear about. You get John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt, and as a result, they didn't just wind up protecting a few really beautiful national parks, they wind up putting millions of square miles of land off-limits for most human use.Again, when the population of the country is lower, maybe it didn't even matter that much, but now it's like, “Hey, how about you go and sell me a hundred square miles so I can put a new city here?” The idea that an Elon or Zuckerberg couldn't go and just say, “I'm putting a pile of money into this. I'm going to build a new city and have a decent chance of it working.” Maybe it would be just a disaster and they waste their money. Then more likely I think it's going to be like Seward's Folly where it's like, “What's the point of buying Alaska?” Oh, actually it was fantastic. We got a great bargain on Alaska and now it is an incredible, in hindsight, investment.As we were talking, I started thinking about Andrew Yang who ran for president, I think that was in 2020, and he had one issue, really: Universal Basic Income. He thought that he had found an issue that was going to take him to the White House. It did not.I kind of think if you were going to have a candidate focus a lot on one issue, this would not be a bad issue, given how it touches all these concerns of modern American society.As an economist, I always hesitate to say that anyone who is a specialist in an area and is putting all their resources into it is just royally screwing up. At the same time, politics is an area where there's a lot of ideas where it's like no one's trying it, it must be because it wouldn't work if tried, and then someone tries it with a little panache, or a little twist, and it catches on, and you're like, alright, maybe that's the real story.Just to give Trump credit where credit is due, there's just a lot of things that he said that you would think would've just destroyed his candidacy, and instead it seemed like he came out and he was more popular than ever. Maybe he just saw that there were some ideas that are popular that other people didn't realize would be popular.Now I'm not optimistic about what he's going to do about housing, although anytime he says one good thing, it's like, I don't know, maybe he'll just get fixated on that, but more likely ADHD will kick in, unfortunately.But just to go and allow one new laissez-faire city to be built on federal land in some non-crummy area of the country — just as a demonstration project, the value of that would be enormous, just to see, hey, there's no reason why you can't have spacious, cheap homes in a really nice area that is not that remote from the rest of the country. Just imagine the airport you could build there, too — before all the noise complaints. You probably know about the noise complaints against Reagan Airport and how one single guy filed over half the complaints. It's like, how are we going to build anything? Let's build it all before that guy shows up!On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro Reads▶ Economics* Trump Could Win the Contest With China Once and for All - NYT Opinion▶ Business* Nvidia's message to global chipmakers - FT Opinion* The Great American Microchip Mobilization - Wired* ASML Sticks to Long-Term Growth Targets Amid AI Frenzy - WSJ▶ Policy/Politics* Trump and the future of AI regulation - FT* Silicon Valley eyes a windfall from Trump's plans to gut regulation - Wapo* Environmental Policy Act Ruling Casts Doubt On White House Authority - Forbes* How Elon Musk could disrupt Washington - Politico* Semiconductors and Modern Industrial Policy - Journal of Economic Perspectives▶ AI/Digital* Google DeepMind has a new way to look inside an AI's “mind” - MIT▶ Biotech/Health* Why we now think the myopia epidemic can be slowed – or even reversed - NS* Canada Detects Its First Human Case of Bird Flu - NYT▶ Clean Energy/Climate* Climate Summit, in Early Days, Is Already on a ‘Knife Edge' - NYT▶ Robotics/AVs* Nvidia Readies Jetson Thor Computers for Humanoid Robots in 2025 - WSJ▶ Space/Transportation* Former Officials Warn Lawmakers of Alleged Secret UAP Programs Operating Beyond Congressional Oversight - The Debrief▶ Up Wing/Down Wing* Stand-Up, Drama and Spambots: The Creative World Takes On A.I. - NYT* Is Europe running out of chemistry teachers? - C&EN▶ Substacks/Newsletters* Here's What I Think We Should Do - Hyperdimensional* What is OpenAI's Operator and Blueprint? History and Tips of Prompt Engineering from 2020 to 2025 - AI Supremacy* People want competence, seemingly over everything else - Strange Loop CanonPlease check out the website or Substack app for the latest Up Wing economic, business, and tech news in this edition of the newsletter.Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Philip Bump, national columnist for The Washington Post and the author of The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America (Viking, 2023), talks about the latest news from the campaign trail, where both Harris and Trump are making their closing arguments to voters.

Election Day is under a week away, with many states in the midst of early voting, and the polls remain closer than ever.On Today's Show:Philip Bump, national columnist for The Washington Post and the author of The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America (Viking, 2023), talks about the latest news from the campaign trail, where both Harris and Trump are making their closing arguments to voters.

CNN Interviews Harris. Walz Was There, Too. Trump Still Flails vs Harris. Trump in a Box on Abortion, IVF. Trump Violates Arlington Rules. Vance's Awkward Events. RFK, Jr. Endorsement Effect. With Maya King, Politics Reporter covering The South for The New York Times, Philip Bump, National Columnist for The Washington Post, author of the How to Read this Chart Newsletter and author of the great book, The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America, and Linda Feldmann, Washington Bureau Chief, White House/Politics Correspondent at The Christian Science Monitor.Today's Bill Press Pod is supported by The Laborers' International Union of North America. More information at LIUNA.orgSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Mongolia, the 19th largest country in the world, half its population resides in its capital city surrounded by massive swaths of empty land. And while it's most famously associated with the escapades of Genghis Khan, it's what Mongolia is doing now that's putting it back front and center of a new world empire! It recently caught the eye of Elon Musk, who approvingly shared with his massive audience a new government initiative that has resulted in an extraordinary baby boom happening right now in Mongolia -- Join me and Ross Givens this Thursday, August 29th 3pm EST and learn how you can use the same insider information Pelosi and others have used to make MILLIONS. You're not going to want to miss out on this once in a lifetime FREE TRAINING! Click here to register TODAY!! https://turleytalksinsidertrading.com/registration/?tambid=18762 Join my new Courageous Conservative Bootcamp and get equipped to fight back and restore foundational values. Learn more at https://fight.turleytalks.com/join   *The content presented by our partners may contain affiliate links. When you click and shop the links, Turley Talks may receive a small commission.*  -- Thank you for taking the time to listen to this episode.  If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review. FOLLOW me on X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/DrTurleyTalks Click here to partner with us and defy liberal culture! https://advertising.turleytalks.com/sponsorship Sign up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts to get lots of articles on conservative trends: https://turleytalks.com/subscribe/. **All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Philip Bump, national columnist for The Washington Post and the author of The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America (Viking, 2023), talks about the latest national political news. 

With the Democratic National Convention in the rearview mirror, Vice President Kamala Harris is forging her own policy platforms while RFK Jr. plots his next steps to support the Trump campaign.On Today's Show:Philip Bump, national columnist for The Washington Post and the author of The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America (Viking, 2023), talks about the latest national political news, including how VP Harris is forging her own policy proposals and why RFK Jr. is throwing his support behind former president Donald Trump.

Birth rates are plummeting around the world and no one has cracked the code on how to get people to have babies. More money, free daycare, and medical advances don't appear to help…and criminalizing abortion DEFINITELY doesn't help. This week on How We Got Here, Erin and Max break down how the 20th century baby boom is misremembered, the factors responsible for declining birth rates today, and whether anything can be done about it.  SOURCES: Understanding the Baby Boom - Works in ProgressGerman birth rate drops steeply against backdrop of unease – DW – 03/20/2024Italy's falling birth rate is a crisis that's only getting worse | EuronewsSouth Korea's birth rate is so low, the president wants to create a ministry to tackle it | CNNRomania's abortion ban was deadly for women and is a warning for U.S. - The Washington PostEl Salvador (CIA)El Salvador: Court Hears Case on Total Abortion Ban | Human Rights WatchAlarm as South Korea sees more deaths than birthsWork–life balance - Government of SwedenU.S. Fertility Rate Falls to Record Low - WSJA World Without Men: Inside South Korea's 4B MovementEverything you need to know about artificial wombsCan Immigration Solve the Demographic Dilemma? – IMF F&D