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.
Of course they have thought about population decline and those that are beating the overpopulation drum have one thing they want, more resources for themselves. What they haven't realized is that they may have to sacrifice their remaining wallet to obtain those resources, as cost will increase, not decrease.
You have it backwards. Commodity prices are based upon supply and demand. With more people there is more demand, hence higher prices. The impact is even greater in regard to non-renewable natural resources. Since overall supply is limited, with only temporary spikes in extraction, that further acts to drive up prices. Plus, it's not for ourselves, but we want some resources left for our grandkids and their children, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
An issue that I see coming up in the future with the u.s. is --- the number of representatives that because that number is based on enumeration of population, as the population in each State deceases, so will the House Votes. There are a couple of States, California is one that have lost a member seat due to a decline in population. Do I need to remind folks of what happens when States loose the right to enact laws and make changes through votes to those laws, as well as, the right to help decide presidential elections? If so, u.s. history will tell 'em.
Theoretically, a decrease in population could result in a lesser number of representative. What we have seen to date, however, is not due to population decreases but, rather, due to population INCREASES in states, most notably in the south (exacerbated by immigration from other countries and migration within the U.S.). In every 10-year census cycle since Michigan became a state, Michigan has had an increase in population. However, we have lost representation because of population increases in other states. The population of the U.S. and the world is still increasing (!) despite all of the alarmist rhetoric in this thread, some of which is simply nonsense.
This explains the situation. But why does anyone thing there should always be more young people then older people? If that's always true the population will always grow larger. And that seems to be the argument, that without the population always growing larger, everything will collapse.
What I think is more normal is a sustained population. Not one that is growing or shrinking by large amounts. Like the birds and squirrels. They multiply up to a sustainable point.
The massive world population growth from 1950's must be an anomaly, and who thinks a population of 16, 32, of 64 billion can be sustained in a reasonable manner?
About 30% of people die before age 65, so the pool of potential workers/taxpayers shrinks over time. Currently, if they made it that far, the average 65 year old will live another 17 years on average, after working roughly 43 years.
A steady replacement birth rate over time averages out to about 3.6 people of working age for every person at or above retirement age. Of course, this represents best case, a 100% full-time workforce. In this best-case scenario (not realistic), using the current median full-time income of $56,000, the annual social security collected is roughly $7000 per worker. Using the 3.6 to 1 ratio of workers to retirees, a direct payment per retiree would be $25,200 per retiree.
But we don't have a steady replacement birth rate. Today the ratio of workers to recipients is already at 2.8, and the average social security payout is about $20,000. We already know what the workforce will look like 20 years from now, as those people are already born, and even counting projected immigration the ratio will drop below 2.5 in less than 20 years. A shrinking birth rate will cause further decline in subsequent years.
Without immigration, the US population would even begin declining in less than 10 years, with the majority of the decline being those of working age.
You have it backwards. Commodity prices are based upon supply and demand. With more people there is more demand, hence higher prices. The impact is even greater in regard to non-renewable natural resources. Since overall supply is limited, with only temporary spikes in extraction, that further acts to drive up prices. Plus, it's not for ourselves, but we want some resources left for our grandkids and their children, too.
Theoretically, a decrease in population could result in a lesser number of representative. What we have seen to date, however, is not due to population decreases but, rather, due to population INCREASES in states, most notably in the south (exacerbated by immigration from other countries and migration within the U.S.). In every 10-year census cycle since Michigan became a state, Michigan has had an increase in population. However, we have lost representation because of population increases in other states. The population of the U.S. and the world is still increasing (!) despite all of the alarmist rhetoric in this thread, some of which is simply nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmichigan
You have it backwards. Commodity prices are based upon supply and demand.
Supply and demand is an economic theory. Last I checked, 'theories' are not facts. However the theory states: "The relationship between supply and demand is indirect, meaning that when supply increases, prices decrease and demand increases." Now what happens in theory when the opposite happens? Also, there will be some goods and services that will simply disappear, globally.
There was an article I read about the decline in Arizona of babies being born and with that a decline in goods and services of all things related to babies. It was a good consumer market article, that brought things into perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmichigan
Plus, it's not for ourselves, but we want some resources left for our grandkids and their children, too.
They will be living in scarcely populated neighborhoods, with an increase in crime, decrease in security (city won't be able to afford street lights) with interest rates forever increasing. However, they may have cleaner air, cleaner water and consume less fuel ... one would hope anyway. But if those three things cost more, or the city can't afford 'em, because what comes with fewer people by logic is, fewer people to collect from, taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmichigan
Theoretically, a decrease in population could result in a lesser number of representative.
That's not a theory, but a fact based on the Constitution of the u.s., enumeration clause. There have been fewer people going into Michigan, than leaving Michigan, even with the 2% increase, through the negative migration pattern for Michigan is how they lost that seat. (one will have to do a lot of research into the history of the u.s., to get to the facts that go beyond the political rhetoric) "Michigan is among seven states that will lose a seat in Congress under reapportionment, along with California, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, which had the largest rate of decrease in population."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmichigan
The population of the U.S. and the world is still increasing (!) despite all of the alarmist rhetoric in this thread, some of which is simply nonsense.
True, but it is expected to stop at 10 Billion in 77 years. The overpopulation alarmist of the 60s said the global population would reach 9 Billion by 1970. That didn't happen. But they sounded the alarm, none-the-less.
What I find scary and what would be alarming to me is, fewer babies being birthed, an increase in childless women occurring and --- no one talking about it. That would mean to me, that someone, somewhere, had something to hide.
Well, we are talking about childless women, they are a "thing" now that more women have the choice to not have children. 200 years ago they hardly had that choice.
As the OP pointed out a few posts back, the women who decide to have children are having about as many as they did years ago. It's just that a higher percentage are deciding not to have any.
I don't see how this indicates someone has something to hide.
Well, we are talking about childless women, they are a "thing" now that more women have the choice to not have children. 200 years ago they hardly had that choice.
As the OP pointed out a few posts back, the women who decide to have children are having about as many as they did years ago. It's just that a higher percentage are deciding not to have any.
I don't see how this indicates someone has something to hide.
I read that bolded statement, but I'm not certain I fully agree. By waiting until their 30s to have children, they may have all the children they want, but not all that they may have had if they began having children earlier. Also, as was pointed out in the video several pages back, women in their 30s have more difficulty getting pregnant, and end up with none at all. I don't think those people are always counted, because some just give up trying.
Just counting my own family, out of all of my wife and my siblings, 5 out of the 6 of us could not have all of the children desired due to issues in becoming pregnant, reproductive health issues, or issues related to earlier pregnancies. One other was unable to have children until her late 30s, following years of unsuccessful fertility treatments. Waiting until your 30s is no guarantee of success. 3 out of 6 remained childless despite efforts to become pregnant.
As was stated elsewhere, the problem may not be that women don't want children, but that too many of those who do are unable to have them.
I read that bolded statement, but I'm not certain I fully agree. By waiting until their 30s to have children, they may have all the children they want, but not all that they may have had if they began having children earlier. Also, as was pointed out in the video several pages back, women in their 30s have more difficulty getting pregnant, and end up with none at all. I don't think those people are always counted, because some just give up trying.
Just counting my own family, out of all of my wife and my siblings, 5 out of the 6 of us could not have all of the children desired due to issues in becoming pregnant, reproductive health issues, or issues related to earlier pregnancies. One other was unable to have children until her late 30s, following years of unsuccessful fertility treatments. Waiting until your 30s is no guarantee of success. 3 out of 6 remained childless despite efforts to become pregnant.
As was stated elsewhere, the problem may not be that women don't want children, but that too many of those who do are unable to have them.
There are two major problems in the U.S. (or factors, if one does not wish to characterize them as problems).
1. Many women today do not want children. Particularly among white affluent females, which is the largest ethnic group, the birth rate is well below replacement (also low among affluent Asians).
There's not much that can be done about this situation; the folks who are choosing not to procreate will not pass along their DNA and values and life experiences. Their stories will end when they die, apart from video etc. (There's a whole debate going on about what should happen to the Facebook account of a deceased person.)
The thing is, even if someone has left copious digital footprints behind, if there's no family to care about it, these footprints will simply fade away, lost on a server somewhere.
2. Many women want children but have waited too long. This point, which you brought up, is quite valid and, up until a few years ago, really meant the end of the line.
However, with the fertility treatments now available including IVF and donor egg, a woman in her 40s and even 50s can have a healthy baby (though I don't recommend waiting that long, if you can avoid it).
14-15 is a good age to have a baby. It's when girls first become capable of pregnancy, and they continue to be very resilient, and fertile, into their 20s.
When they hit 30, their bodies start to be less resilient, pregnancy can hit them harder, and birth defects begin to creep in. Females are born with a fixed number of eggs (most of which die before the girl is even born) and over time, radiation & other factors damage the ova to the point where less and less of them are viable.
Defects creep into the DNA, causing higher incidence of Down's Syndrome, learning and developmental delays and disabilities, sociopathy, and other problems. The curve for birth defects rises sharply right around age 38-40, and the chances of successful pregnancy decrease.
All of this is to say, careers have hit women hard when it comes to having successful and healthy pregnancies. Some are going so far as to freeze eggs, but my suggestion to basically every young woman I know (my wife says I should shut up) is to "don't wait, have your baby now, then by your 40s he or she will be in high school or grown up, and you'll still be young!"
It's my contention that we should have a nationwide initiative to encourage young women to get busy with baby making, and not wait until their careers are established or whatever. Careers can always come later. If we don't do this, we as a society will begin to hollow out, losing our core, losing our culture, and gradually we will decline.
It may already be too late, but in my opinion we should at least try.
Theoretically, a decrease in population could result in a lesser number of representative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
That's not a theory, but a fact based on the Constitution of the u.s., enumeration clause. There have been fewer people going into Michigan, than leaving Michigan, even with the 2% increase, through the negative migration pattern for Michigan is how they lost that seat. (one will have to do a lot of research into the history of the u.s., to get to the facts that go beyond the political rhetoric) "Michigan is among seven states that will lose a seat in Congress under reapportionment, along with California, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, which had the largest rate of decrease in population."
I worded my post poorly. The theoretical part is population decline, although I believe that the population will eventually recede. It can't continually grow as only cancer does that, and then you die. What we're seeing in the U.S is shifts in population, not overall declines.
I'm not sure where the source of that quote came from, but of the seven states mentioned only California and West Virginia had slight declines in population from 2010 to 2020, the Census years upon which representation is based. Of course, the 2020 Census was probably the least reliable of any Census to date since the administration deliberately worked to undercount certain areas for political reasons.
Theoretically, a decrease in population could result in a lesser number of representative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
That's not a theory, but a fact based on the Constitution of the u.s., enumeration clause. There have been fewer people going into Michigan, than leaving Michigan, even with the 2% increase, through the negative migration pattern for Michigan is how they lost that seat. (one will have to do a lot of research into the history of the u.s., to get to the facts that go beyond the political rhetoric) "Michigan is among seven states that will lose a seat in Congress under reapportionment, along with California, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, which had the largest rate of decrease in population."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmichigan
I worded my post poorly. The theoretical part is population decline, although I believe that the population will eventually recede. It can't continually grow as only cancer does that, and then you die. What we're seeing in the U.S is shifts in population, not overall declines.
I'm not sure where the source of that quote came from, but of the seven states mentioned only California and West Virginia had slight declines in population from 2010 to 2020, the Census years upon which representation is based. Of course, the 2020 Census was probably the least reliable of any Census to date since the administration deliberately worked to undercount certain areas for political reasons.
I can see that, but to my knowledge they still go by the 10 years Census in determining the number of members in the house per State. Immigration is helping to keep most States stable in population and I'm talking about New Americans. The source for the quote I used, click that link and read the captions under the pictures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmichigan
I worded my post poorly. The theoretical part is population decline, although I believe that the population will eventually recede. It can't continually grow as only cancer does that, and then you die. What we're seeing in the U.S is shifts in population, not overall declines.
The word for that is migration. People relocating from State to State, but the overall TFR for the u.s. is 1.69 and it takes a TFR of 2.1 to replace a society. I don't know off the top of my head what percentage points (last 10 years) the decline is ... but I trust you can look into it. (couple years back or last year it was 1.78)
The population numbers for the u.s. is also made up immigration, legal and otherwise. But still the u.s. is at slow growth and stagnant growth the last few years of reports. If you take out the immigrants from the population numbers --- the u.s. would be seeing the economic strife, with the [aging] Boomers (largest make up of population) that China, along with many other countries are experiencing.
Trust the only reason you're not seeing it, is because they are still allowing people to cross the border and enter from other countries, as well. That will prolong reduced population from States (House Rep. Members), but it won't stop it in the long run ... if the trend remains true and if the culture shift that has happened becomes the norm.
........... the overall TFR for the u.s. is 1.69 and it takes a TFR of 2.1 to replace a society. I don't know off the top of my head what percentage points (last 10 years) the decline is ... but I trust you can look into it. (couple years back or last year it was 1.78).......
Those are the facts. I can't imagine why people insist that because population has not yet declined, it never will. The fact is, it will, and sharply, too.
Immigration may provide some relief for those looking for labor, and may even put off US population decline. I don't know about that because we don't really know how many people are drifting into the country. Whatever the number is, it is one more for the US and one less for someone else, so in a discussion of global population it just washes out.
Mankind did fairly well for some 80,000 years. It was only after progress resulted in a much lower infant mortality rate and a much longer life span that population exploded. Note that women did not suddenly decide to have more babies; the babies they had just started living longer.
We have no way of knowing how steeply the population will decline, but in 1800 there were about 1B people in the entire world. That's only 220 years in the past. I truly expect to see world population fall right through that number, but I have no idea when.
There are two major problems in the U.S. (or factors, if one does not wish to characterize them as problems).
1. Many women today do not want children. Particularly among white affluent females, which is the largest ethnic group, the birth rate is well below replacement (also low among affluent Asians).
There's not much that can be done about this situation; the folks who are choosing not to procreate will not pass along their DNA and values and life experiences. Their stories will end when they die, apart from video etc. (There's a whole debate going on about what should happen to the Facebook account of a deceased person.)
The thing is, even if someone has left copious digital footprints behind, if there's no family to care about it, these footprints will simply fade away, lost on a server somewhere.
2. Many women want children but have waited too long. This point, which you brought up, is quite valid and, up until a few years ago, really meant the end of the line.
14-15 is a good age to have a baby. It's when girls first become capable of pregnancy, and they continue to be very resilient, and fertile, into their 20s.
All of this is to say, careers have hit women hard when it comes to having successful and healthy pregnancies. Some are going so far as to freeze eggs, but my suggestion to basically every young woman I know (my wife says I should shut up) is to "don't wait, have your baby now, then by your 40s he or she will be in high school or grown up, and you'll still be young!"
It's my contention that we should have a nationwide initiative to encourage young women to get busy with baby making, and not wait until their careers are established or whatever. Careers can always come later. If we don't do this, we as a society will begin to hollow out, losing our core, losing our culture, and gradually we will decline.
It may already be too late, but in my opinion we should at least try.
Seriously 14-15, no. Just because you may be able to conceive easier at a younger age does not mean you should. What about all the "the human brain isnt mature until age 25". You really think immature people should be procreating? We are already seeing a problem with young parents abandoning their offspring for someone else to raise, if they dont kill them first.
I tend to agree with your wife.
Yep maybe we need to campaign men to take a more active role in parenting and work on mandated maternity/paternity leave, flexible hours and affordable/available childcare.
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.
