07/19/2006
Sweet Lou - Who Will Replace Him?
You almost certainly never heard of Louis Bucossi, who died last week at the age of 91. At his funeral service, I realized that I had not seen Lou in 30 years or more, our contacts limited to notes on Christmas cards and a few phone calls. I also realized that Lou was the kind of guy I had to acknowledge in some fashion. While you didn’t know of Lou, chances are you have seen the work of one or more of his three sons, Victor and twins Peter and Paul. All three have been involved as stunt men or in stunt coordination for movies and TV (the Sopranos, for example). Victor is a highly respected teacher and administrator in the school system of a neighboring town here in New Jersey. His eloquent eulogy at Lou’s funeral spurred this remembrance and provided the vignettes that follow.
My wife did see Lou a few years ago when she chanced to find him working in the pro shop at Baltusrol, site of last year’s PGA tournament. She found him as friendly and kind as when we knew him in the 1950s living in a garden apartment complex in Plainfield, New Jersey. In his eulogy, Victor said the members of Baltusrol referred to his gentle father as “Sweet Lou”.
A member of the “Greatest Generation”, Lou served in the U.S. Army in World War II. Victor remembered seeing a letter from one of Lou’s buddies in the Pacific in which the buddy recalled Lou giving him 2 dollars when he needed money. Two dollars back then was a significant sum out of a GI’s pay. That’s the kind of guy Lou was. He would also give away, not sell, his ration of cigarettes the Army doled out. The hazards of smoking were unknown then and those cigarettes were valuable currency.
What touched me most in Victor’s eulogy was his telling of what happened on bloody Okinawa. After a raging battle, Lou came upon the body of a mortally wounded Japanese soldier, who was trying to kill Lou and his buddies just a short while earlier. The body lay there exposed to the elements. Lou didn’t think it right that any body, even that of an enemy, should be left that way and took the time to bury the body. That’s the kind of guy Lou was. In his last days in the hospital, his devoted sons made sure one of them or the family was with Lou night and day. At night, Lou would wake up and ask the son or the nurse if there was anything he could do for them. That’s the kind of guy Lou was.
At the end of his eulogy, Victor posed the question, “Where does this kind of guy come from?” Where indeed? In trying to come up with a topic for this column, this question brought to mind a problem in some of the world’s developed countries. The problem - where will the guys and gals of the future, not just those like Lou, come from? In May, Russian President Putin addressed the Russian Federal Assembly, citing problems such as world trade and economic matters. Then he turned to “the most important matter”, specifically “love, women, children…. the family…..” His concern was that Russia’s population of about 143 million is declining by roughly 700,000 people every year.
In addition to the papers on corn and ants on stilts in the June 30 issue of Science cited in last week’s column, that issue contained a special section titled “Science Looks at Life”. Two articles in this section relate to Putin’s concern: “The Baby Deficit” by Michael Balter and “Redistributing Work in Aging Europe” by James Vaupel and Eike Loichinger. Balter discusses the “total fertility rate”, or TFR. How many children must each woman in a country have to maintain the same population from year to year? Ideally, a country has equal numbers of men and women and all marry each other. In that quaint and utterly unrealistic situation, the TFR is 2.0, two children per woman (or couple).
Obviously, not every woman has children, the number of men and women are not equal and marriage is not a requisite for having children. So, the experts have defined a more complex TFR fertility measure based on the actual reproductive behavior of women of differing ages from year to year. I don’t understand the details of this more realistic TFR but numerically it’s similar to the simple idealistic model. That is, a TFR of at least 2.0 is required to maintain a constant population. In advanced nations, the TFR is assumed to be 2.1, slightly more than 2.0 to account for the relatively few children who die before a reproductive age. Today this TFR in Russia is a scant 1.28; hence the net loss of 700,000 population per year.
Russia isn’t alone. Italy and Spain have the same TFR, while Japan and South Korea weigh in with even lower TFRs of 1.25 and 1.27, respectively. In fact, Canada, China, Australia and all of Europe have TFRs below 2.0. This surprises me. It seems like only yesterday experts were warning that population growth was out of control and Earth’s resources would be exhausted. Actually, in the less developed and poorest countries, population is still growing rapidly. Niger tops the list with a TFR of 7.5. However, even in the poorer countries TFRs are falling. For example, in Mexico the past thirty years has seen the TFR fall from 6.5 down to 2.5, while in the Philippines the TFR has fallen from 8.0 to 3.2.
What about the U.S.A.? After falling to 1.7 in the early 1980s, the TFR has come back to 2.09. We, of course, have an increasing population thanks to immigration, legal and illegal. A TFR of 2.1 certainly seems consistent with the situation in my neighborhood – the place is loaded with babies and toddlers! Even so, we still worry about the future of Social Security and a small number of workers supporting a large number of retirees.
In this regard, the paper in Science on the redistribution of work in an aging Europe was very interesting. The article shows “population pyramids” for Germany for 1910, 2005 and 2025. To visualize the plots, picture a very symmetrical Christmas tree split vertically down the middle, forming two triangles. The heights corresponds to age while the widths correspond to the populations, males on one side, females on the other. The 1910 plots are almost perfect triangles with straight sides. There were about 800,000 2-year-old boys and about the same number of 2- year-old girls. As you would expect, there were virtually no 100- year-olds of either sex. There were no “bulges” in population in any age group; well, perhaps the faintest wisp of a bulge in the early 30s.
Contrast that with the 2005 pyramid in Germany; it looks nothing like a triangle or Christmas tree. To me, the male and female plots above the age of 30 look like profiles of Franklin D. Roosevelt with his jaunty jaw being the biggest bulge, roughly around 40 years of age for both sexes. There seem to be more people in their mid-60s than there are babies and toddlers and there are significant numbers, especially of women, in the mid- 80s to 100. Now let’s go to the predicted pyramid for 2025. Above the age of 30, the plots look to me like profiles of Charles De Gaulle, with his prominent nose the biggest bulge, peaking at about 60 and his eyebrows bulging to a lesser extent in the 80s.
Obviously, Germany has a problem. Without going into detail as to what constitutes a “worker”, the article states that today (2005) in Germany there are 1.27 nonworkers per worker. In 2025, this figure is a predicted 1.47, or essentially 3 nonworkers to be supported by 2 workers. The outlook here in the U.S. is much better than in Germany, if we take the authors’ calculations. Today (2005) we have 1.09 nonworkers per worker and, even better, in 2025 we’ll have 0.99 nonworkers per worker, one worker supporting one nonworker. That’s better than Germany but still seems rather dicey to me!
In closing, Victor told my wife that normally you never see the face of a stuntman in a movie. However, he said that in one movie he carried off Sandra Bullock in a cake and his face was shown. I’ve just searched the Web and believe that movie was “28 Days”, which I now hope to find on DVD. If you’ve seen the movie, Victor is the spitting image of Sweet Lou.
Allen F. Bortrum
|