Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More at the link, plus a whole bunch of embeds.....
Quote:
The U.S.' sharply declining rate of population growth threatens to put an expiration date on a country built around a vision of endless reinvention.
The big picture: Fewer people means fewer workers to support an aging population, fewer innovators with new ideas, less economic growth — and more of one thing: political fights over a shrinking pie.
By the numbers: At the end of April, the Census Bureau reported that between 2010 and 2020, the U.S. population grew at its slowest rate since the Great Depression and the second-slowest rate in any decade since the country's founding.
Recent data from the CDC indicates the U.S. birth rate fell for the sixth straight year, with births falling precipitously in December, around when any babies conceived during the start of the pandemic would have been born.
The fertility rate — defined as the number of live births per 1,000 women aged 15–44 — fell from 64.1 in 2010 to 55.8 in 2020.
That’s in part a result of positive changes, like the sharp drop in teen pregnancies, but it also means Americans are not having enough babies to keep the country's population growing by births alone.
The impact: Countries with falling population growth — and eventually population decline — face serious economic, political and even cultural challenges.
Fewer births combined with longer lifespans mean fewer productive young workers to balance those in retirement. As a result, JPMorgan senior economist Jesse Edgerton notes, there will be excess capital sloshing around the global economy, keeping interest rates low and making it more difficult to save for retirement.
While a slower-growing population puts less pressure on the climate, new ideas come from people, and fewer people means fewer sources for those new ideas. That leads to a slowdown in innovation at the very moment when we need it most, as Stanford economist Charles Jones argued in a recent paper.
Put those two trends together, and you have a formula for corrosive generational conflict and a country in long-term decline — which is exactly what a 2019 Pew survey about Americans' attitudes toward the future found.
I'd remind people that a shrinking global population and a rising US one are not mutually exclusive. There are lots of smart young people in Asia, Africa, and M.E. who would jump at the chance to move somewhere. Why not the US? I like Mike Bloomberg's idea of stapling a green card to the certificate of every overseas college graduate.
So you want to take away all the young educated people from other countries? sounds like a winning proposition lol
Matt Yglesias has written a book titled One Billion Americans. I've not read the book. The basic premise is larger families and more immigration to juice the population in order to maintain US hegemony, primarily against the rise of China.
As an immigrant myself, I'm broadly in favor of the idea. In a typical year the US issues 1M+/- green cards, divided roughly 50/50 between students already here who want to stay, and new arrivals. Between 6-8M a year apply for green cards, and the 1M noted are granted.
The last major immigration reform was in 1963. I once calculated that if everyone who applied since then had been granted, they plus their offspring, would have the country close to 1B today.
Keep in mind that the US is one of the least densely populated countries in the world, and could easily support 1B.
Vote early and often
Yglesias' premise is probably moot. The world is actually facing a demographic time bomb in the form of declining population, and it's possible that Nigeria may surpass China as the most populous country by 2100. Countries that are already trying to raise their populations by encouraging larger families and more immigration have had limited success.
From the article cited below:
Birth projections often shift based on how governments and families respond, but according to projections by an international team of scientists published last year in The Lancet, 183 countries and territories — out of 195 — will have fertility rates below replacement level by 2100.
Yglesias' premise is probably moot. The world is actually facing a demographic time bomb in the form of declining population, and it's possible that Nigeria may surpass China as the most populous country by 2100. Countries that are already trying to raise their populations by encouraging larger families and more immigration have had limited success.
From the article cited below:
Birth projections often shift based on how governments and families respond, but according to projections by an international team of scientists published last year in The Lancet, 183 countries and territories — out of 195 — will have fertility rates below replacement level by 2100.
Good!
World population is far too high and we are destroying the forests, oceans, and everything else. The less people the better. I won't be around to see population decline of any significance, but I'm glad to hear that possibly, just maybe, the oceans/trees/plants/animals will get a chance to survive. We kill everything we encounter.
Matt Yglesias has written a book titled One Billion Americans. I've not read the book. The basic premise is larger families and more immigration to juice the population in order to maintain US hegemony, primarily against the rise of China.
As an immigrant myself, I'm broadly in favor of the idea. In a typical year the US issues 1M+/- green cards, divided roughly 50/50 between students already here who want to stay, and new arrivals. Between 6-8M a year apply for green cards, and the 1M noted are granted.
The last major immigration reform was in 1963. I once calculated that if everyone who applied since then had been granted, they plus their offspring, would have the country close to 1B today.
Keep in mind that the US is one of the least densely populated countries in the world, and could easily support 1B.
Vote early and often
That author's "two big reasons" we need a billion people here are extremely weak. First he states:
Quote:
One is that in a globe of international competition, it’s good to be a big country as well as a wealthy country. And the United States has historically benefited from having a large population relative to a lot of its competitors.
We never had a population anywhere close to China, and it was always lower than the Soviet Union (that's changed now obviously). But we have benefited at least as much from geographic location and the fact that we have huge amounts of natural resources. Simply having a huge population isn't what makes a country wealthy and powerful, if it did India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan would be very rich world powers, yet none of them are. In fact, the per capita GDP of the United States is 11 times higher than that of India. His argument doesn't hold water.
His second "big reason" is:
Quote:
And then the other reason we should have a billion Americans is that it will make this country a better place.
This isn't even a reason, it's just one guy's opinion, which he doesn't even bother to back up with any reasons why it will make the country better. I can think of several reasons why it would make this country much worse. First, we already have a housing shortage and home prices are skyrocketing. Tripling our population won't help. Second, much of the infrastructure in our cities is already over capacity with no room to expand. Third, our schools are already overcrowded and teaching students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) cost American taxpayers over $59 billion in 2013 alone. https://www.fairus.org/issue/publica...blic-education
Fourth, mass immigration causes wages to stagnate and hurts low skill American workers most.
Quote:
Basically, illegal migrants generally work low-wage jobs—the very jobs so many black Americans tend to work. Likewise, both aliens and blacks tend to reside in major cities. Taken together, this means that migrants and black Americans compete directly for the same jobs, which reduces wages and employment opportunities.
Sixth, mass immigration polarizes and "Balkanizes" a society, which never ends well. Seventh, such a big population would totally destroy any chance of sustainability of our natural resources for the future.
In other words, mass immigration is a terrible idea.
That author's "two big reasons" we need a billion people here are extremely weak. First he states: We never had a population anywhere close to China, and it was always lower than the Soviet Union (that's changed now obviously). But we have benefited at least as much from geographic location and the fact that we have huge amounts of natural resources. Simply having a huge population isn't what makes a country wealthy and powerful, if it did India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan would be very rich world powers, yet none of them are. In fact, the per capita GDP of the United States is 11 times higher than that of India. His argument doesn't hold water.
His second "big reason" is:
This isn't even a reason, it's just one guy's opinion, which he doesn't even bother to back up with any reasons why it will make the country better. I can think of several reasons why it would make this country much worse. First, we already have a housing shortage and home prices are skyrocketing. Tripling our population won't help. Second, much of the infrastructure in our cities is already over capacity with no room to expand. Third, our schools are already overcrowded and teaching students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) cost American taxpayers over $59 billion in 2013 alone. https://www.fairus.org/issue/publica...blic-education
Sixth, mass immigration polarizes and "Balkanizes" a society, which never ends well. Seventh, such a big population would totally destroy any chance of sustainability of our natural resources for the future.
In other words, mass immigration is a terrible idea.
Hard to figure out what you're trying to argue here. No-one in this thread has claimed that the US ever had a population close to China. Nor has the claim been made that a large population on its own is sufficient for success. I believe it's your arguments that don't hold water, because you're tying yourself in knots trying to make facts fit your opinion.
If more people immigrate, more houses will have to be built = more construction and ancillary jobs..... Infrastructure needs to be repaired/replaced, more jobs...
In a $20T economy $59B for ESL is a rounding error.
No-one said anything about "mass immigration", or a timetable for reaching one billion
Going forward, the goal will be to have the lowest percentage of low skilled workers, relative to your competitors.
Automation may kill 73M jobs, they will mostly be the jobs a knowledge economy is trying to avoid having, and many will be replaced by knowledge and green industries.
Polarization and Balkanization are very different. As if the US is not currently polarized?
What do you call someone who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing?
Matt Yglesias has written a book titled One Billion Americans. I've not read the book. The basic premise is larger families and more immigration to juice the population in order to maintain US hegemony, primarily against the rise of China.
As an immigrant myself, I'm broadly in favor of the idea. In a typical year the US issues 1M+/- green cards, divided roughly 50/50 between students already here who want to stay, and new arrivals. Between 6-8M a year apply for green cards, and the 1M noted are granted.
The last major immigration reform was in 1963. I once calculated that if everyone who applied since then had been granted, they plus their offspring, would have the country close to 1B today.
Keep in mind that the US is one of the least densely populated countries in the world, and could easily support 1B.
Vote early and often
I'd say no with regard to matching China because other reports say in 50 years at the latest, the world's population, led by China will peak. The link below actually says by 2100, China may see it population cut almost in half to 730 million. This is why two years ago, the Chinese government ended the 1-child mandate initiated in 1979. Moreover, China's smaller population will be significantly tilted toward those over 55.
I'd say no with regard to matching China because other reports say in 50 years at the latest, the world's population, led by China will peak. The link below actually says by 2100, China may see it population cut almost in half to 730 million. This is why two years ago, the Chinese government ended the 1-child mandate initiated in 1979. Moreover, China's smaller population will be significantly tilted toward those over 55.
We don't know if the current problem countries will continue, halt, or reverse their declines. My guess is to continue, because they've been trying to solve it for years with little success. Much easier to reduce a population than increase it.
Replacement fertility rate is 2.1. Any country that goes and stays below 1.1 will see it's population halve in about 35 years. The US has been mostly below 2.1 since 1970, and continuously so since 2007. Currently it's at its lowest, 1.7. At this point, there is little reason to believe that the US will reverse, but will likely continue to decline, albeit at a slower pace than the big problem countries. That means the US will follow the trajectory of the current problem countries. Not a good plan. Currently, there are 20 countries where the fertility rate is below 1.5. Taiwan is lowest at 1.2, Japan, Italy, & Poland are the largest.
Immigration helps solve that problem, particularly because immigrants typically are younger than the median age of the existing population.
The link you provided described the effects on the current problem countries as "breathtaking".
At the current density of 87 psqm the US is 60% below the global average of 150. If the US population were to rise to 1B, density would be similar to France, Poland, and Portugal. To get to German density, the US population would have reach 2B, and 3B for India. No, I'm not advocating for Indian density..........yet....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
