We’ve talked several times about the "death of demography," but this week there are three demographic events that seem to be "seminal." The one everyone knows about is actually the least interesting; it’s just a number. And the number, of course, is 300,000,000—the current population of the United States. Perhaps it’s a "milestone," though we challenge anyone to tell us exactly how they count this stuff or how they determine who the 300,000,000th American actually is? To us, it is a meaningless string of digits: As the richest nation in the world, we still have sufficient resources to support the population; we have enough vacant land for our growth.

Here are the two items that we find much more intriguing:

First, the analysis of new Census figures confirming the trend of several decades that is finally seeing married couples start to become a minority in America. "Singletons" (whom we’ve written about extensively) are certainly one factor. And the number of cohabitating, unmarried same-sex couples continues to explode (and presumably, as stigma continues to fade, the reported numbers become more accurate). But the biggest impact is the "normalization" of unmarried cohabitation and the waning desire for children, owing to sheer cost as well as other considerations. A full 5 percent of the population are opposite-sex cohabitators; some of them will ultimately take the plunge, but they are "test-driving" the relationship, at a time when the divorce rate continues to climb at an unprecedentedly fast pace. The actual number of married couples may be higher than ever at the moment, but these new trends suggest profound changes for our economy—from housing to workforce to marketing and media.

In a related Census finding—according to a new book, Changing Rhythms of American Family Life—despite the surge of working mothers in the workplace, mothers are spending at least as much time with their children as they did 40 years ago. How do they do it? Fathers pitching in on household responsibilities, time-shifting household duties to breaks in the workday, sacrificing personal time and spending less time on cleaning and cooking—FMCG makers, take note!

The second item is another surprising emergence of a minority: Commuters on Metro North Railroad (the line that connects Westchester and Connecticut to Manhattan), traveling from suburb to city in the morning and reverse in the evening, now account for less than 50 percent of the total number of riders. Again, "conventional" commuters exist in numbers, but new users and new commutation patterns are changing the game. Most significant is reverse and intra-suburban commuting to new commercial centers such as White Plains, New York, and Stamford, Connecticut (these suburban centers have actually posted faster job growth than New York City for several decades). Furthermore, a full third of riders are now traveling during off-peak hours for reasons other than work (shopping, theater, etc.), compared with just 25 percent in 1984. The times are a-changin’ indeed.

***

The Indian IT juggernaut: Everyone from 60 Minutes to Tom Friedman has reported on the emergence of a microeconomy based on outsourced IT infrastructure, design, manufacture and service in India. With a population of over 1 billion and a compensation system that is fractional of that in the West, it seems there is an endless train of bright, young, English-speaking and eager-to-work Indian talent. So, how can this train be derailed? According to Somini Sengupta in The New York Times, the issue is the sheer number, and competence, of engineers turned out by the Indian educational system. With the number of jobs expected to double in the next four years, commerce seems to be taking the problem into its own hands, offering faculty training and additional in-house training to recent graduates. What’s most interesting, however, is a movement afoot to have industry directly invest in the educational infrastructure itself (currently prohibited to all but nonprofits). Can you say "Infosys University"?

An interesting postscript is a recent trend among American graduates to migrate to India, to partake of the spoils of the boom—not to fill the labor gap discussed above but to help Indian companies extend their global reach and recognition with "local faces in local places."

***

In the issue of the The New York Times (October 17, 2006) that leads with news of Wal-Mart’s latest venture in China (the acquisition of Taiwanese chain Trust Mark), John Tierney’s op-ed piece puts Wal-Mart, the latest Nobel Peace Prize, the global economy and world poverty in an interesting perspective. While lauding the efforts of Nobel winner Grameen Bank and its founder, Muhammad Yunus (the bank offers micro loans, usually less than $150, enabling locals to start small businesses), Tierney suggests that poverty-stricken villagers could more quickly change their fortunes by getting a job in a factory—and it’s likely that said factory is making products for the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart. Of course, the idea has its detractors: those who suggest that it creates more sweatshop jobs—the counterargument being that $2-a-day jobs materially improve life in many parts of the world; and those who bemoan the continued loss of American factory work to cheap labor abroad—countered by the idea that the net-net effect of buying Wal-Mart goods at lower prices is positive to the American worker. Sam Walton for Nobel?