What if…? What if some of the trends touted in the media came true during the next few decades? Here's American Demographics' contribution to millennial hype

American Demographics, Dec, 1997 by Diane Crispell, Shannon Dortch, Brad Edmondson, Nancy Ten Kate, Matthew Klein, Matthew Cravatta

When the first issue of this magazine appeared, manuscripts were laboriously typed on canary-yellow paper on real typewriters (remember those?), then sent to a typesetter. Charts were hand-drawn using rulers, and everything was assembled with Exacto-knives and lots of hot wax. It was a dangerous time for the production staff. Who would have thought that 20 years later, we would nimbly cut and paste using our fingertips on a keyboard, and that the biggest health risk we would take is to destroy our backs and eyes being chained to chairs and computer monitors?

We have no idea how we'll be producing magazines in 20 years. But human beings can't resist speculating. This tendency is especially pronounced as we approach the year 2000. Forecasters and fortunetellers abound, expounding their visions of the good and bad in store for us. Some prognosticators are frivolous, but most are earnest. Some are optimistic; many are doomsayers.

Here are ten of our favorite futuristic scenarios, accompanied by our efforts to sort the reality from the hype. As befits any self-respecting grandiose millennial story, they also include our thoughts about why these things might or might not happen, and why it matters--or not.

WOMEN DIDN'T WORK? "In just the past two years, a quiet counterrevolution has begun the exodus of women from the labor force." --Maggie Mahar (Forbes, March 21, 1992).

"Heard enough about women in the work force? Well, so (arguably) have younger women." --Peter Brimelow (Forbes, January 13, 1997).

This persistent myth appears to revolve around the wishful thinking of both men and women, that mothers should stay home while their children are young, at least those who are married to men who can supposedly support them. In 1996, the U.S. had 7.3 million workers who were married women with children under age 6. What would happen if they all went home?

For starters, they would see their family income fall a median of 32 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Furthermore, "the wages of women who have taken a leave from the labor market never catch up to the wages of women who never left," according to research published in Family Economics and Nutrition Review.

At the same time, families with at-home mothers have lower expenses, notably for child care and commuting. An analysis of 1980-83 Consumer Expenditure Survey data shows that two-earner couples spent as much as 68 percent of their second-income advantage on work-related expenses they wouldn't have otherwise incurred. Even after taking into account these "opportunity costs," however, families suffer a net income loss by reverting to single-earner status. Furthermore, the share of wives in two-income families who earn more than their husbands was 22 percent in 1995, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In these families, the husband's job is more dispensable.

If married mothers of preschoolers didn't work, Americans would spend less on women's clothes, eating out, housecleaning services, and transportation. They would probably also reduce discretionary spending on clothing and entertainment. They would spend more on food at home. They might also spend more on health insurance and put more aside to make up for lost employer-provided retirement benefits.

If married moms of young kids stopped working, U.S. employers would lose 1 in 20 workers. They wouldn't need to replace them all because of reduced consumer demand. They would find some replacements among the hundreds of thousands of displaced workers from the largely wiped-out child-care industry, but many wouldn't be suitable substitutes.

If mothers stopped working, some would get a little crazy. We're talking about a generation of women for whom a job is much more than a paycheck. Yes, some are willing to give up the economic and ego rewards, at least for a while. And yes, the ones who keep working often feel guilty. But 63 percent of married women with children under age 6 work because it pays, one way or another. There's nothing to suggest they won't keep doing so.

men didn't go to college? "What is wrong with the guys? When the labor market offers such rich rewards for the college-educated, why have only women responded, while men pass on the opportunity?" --Thomas G. Mortenson (Postsecondary Education Opportunity, September 1995)

The U.S. economy loves a college graduate. And it shows it by insuring greater lifetime earnings for college-educated men and women than for their less-educated counterparts. In the 30 years between the end of World War II and the end of the Vietnam War, men, in particular, made astounding progress in their rates of earning college diplomas.

But things have changed. Men are falling behind women in crossing the three main hurdles to a college degree: graduating from high school, continuing directly to college, and staying there until completing a degree, according to analysis by the newsletter Postsecondary Education Opportunity.

Men have slightly lower high school graduation rates than women, but the difference is small. The problem for men is in going to college and staying there. Until the early 1970s, men were much more likely than women to go to college within a year of completing high school. (College completion rates are greatest for those who proceed directly to college.) Since then, their continuation rates have fluctuated wildly. By the late 1980s, women surpassed men in the rate at which they pursued higher education right after high school; men have never caught up.