July 1, 2020 Population Estimates - United States of America

[wanderer34]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Yes with Baby Boomers starting to die off in increasing number, natural increase (birth - deaths) will fall to zero in most developed countries. Some countries are already seeing a natural decrease as deaths surpass births. The only way to prevent the overall population from declining over the next few decades is to increase immigration numbers because, realistically, our birth rate isn't going back up to replacement levels.

The number of immigrants we take in will have to gradually increase every year because the natural decrease will likely get bigger each year.

The question is where are we going to get these immigrants from. Just so you know, Japan is currently going through a natural decline as it is, and China currently has a one-child policy so while China is the largest country in the world in terms of population, it's not really growing.

As for Latin America, Mexico is stating to level off and I can see that country decline, Cuba and Puerto Rico are currently declining, and Argentina just passed a law legalizing abortion.My question is that if America wants to promote immigration to it's borders, the question is that how can America naturally grow when you have countries that are going through the same phenomenon as America.

There was a time where having 5+ kids was seen as nothing, now if you even have 3 kids, it's seen as too many kids, and the main reason why is because the quality of living doesn't sustain having a small family. If you're going to naturally increase the population, you're going to have to bring down the cost of housing, food, transportation, insurance, clothing, and hopefully increase the value of the dollar because inflation has been kicking America's rear end for far too long.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

why are natalist policies more controversial among liberals than pro-immigration ones?

not at all. I would love to see realistic initiatives to encourage people to have more children. I just don't think there is much chance at boosting the birthrate, unless you are prepared to massively re-engineer the social safety, taxation and benefit nets. Which are incidentally, rather unpopular initiatives to swallow for most non-liberals.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

You said that the US has always been a nation of immigrants (true) and that it will solve the problem is we let more immigrants in. How is this the case if we're already in a predicament of population bottle necking, since we've always been built solely on immigration? Not adding up. And a few years of lowered immigration rates are not the reason this is happening, its because of low birth rates.

I was actually responding to your point that there would be more immigrants than native U.S. citizens (unlikely) if we rely on immigration for growth. Should we have better policies to encourage natural growth? Absolutely. The incoming president wants to wipe out student debt, which has the potential to spur natural growth. But immigration must also be part of the equation as well, since it's pretty foundational to the concept of the country.

[wanderer34]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I was actually responding to your point that there would be more immigrants than native U.S. citizens (unlikely) if we rely on immigration for growth. Should we have better policies to encourage natural growth? Absolutely. The incoming president wants to wipe out student debt, which has the potential to spur natural growth. But immigration must also be part of the equation as well, since it's pretty foundational to the concept of the country.

I don't think immigration is a bad idea, it should be encouraged but the problem with most Democrats is that they treat immigration as the end all be all for boosting the population, which is wrong since Chicago and LA have boosted their numbers via immigration from Mexico and now that Trump has practically closed the southern border, it's down to a trickle and both cities are suffering population decline of stagnation.

I'm not sure what Biden will do once he steps in the WH (if he does?) but I'm not confident that Biden will do a better job than Trump when it comes to the economy, employment, foreign affairs, infrastructure, and taxes. When it came to student debt, Sanders was a much better candidate because at the very least, Bernie addressed younger Americans needs, Biden is just the Democratic establishment candidate, thus the reason why he was able to defeat Sanders et. al. and supposedly defeated Trump (?) in the general election.

In other words, I never voted for Biden because he wasn't a motivating or energetic candidate. In fact, I didn't vote in 2020 because both Trump and Biden didn't motivate me to stand on the line a vote, even though I did like Trump's economy. My take on this is that I don't see Biden doing anything better than Trump and I don't see Biden boosting the economy nor the population of America. He's practically the worst candidate the Dems fielded, IMHO.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

I don't think immigration is a bad idea, it should be encouraged but the problem with most Democrats is that they treat immigration as the end all be all for boosting the population, which is wrong since Chicago and LA have boosted their numbers via immigration from Mexico and now that Trump has practically closed the southern border, it's down to a trickle and both cities are suffering population decline of stagnation.

I was thinking about mentioning this before, so glad you brought it up. For large American cities, the overall population trajectory of the city is pretty closely tied to the percentage of the population that is foreign born. This is true for cities in red or blue states. If you look at the cities on this list that are less than 10% foreign-born, it's like a who's who of stagnant and declining American cities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...orn_population

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

why are natalist policies more controversial among liberals than pro-immigration ones?

Depends on which side those policies are coming from. Right-wing natalist policies usually look like restrictions on women's autonomy, reproductive rights, and their ability to work (see: Orthodox Jewish or Mormon communities). Those are controversial among liberals for obvious reasons.

On the other-hand, left wing natalist policies look more like the ones you've raised: paid maternity leave, free/affordable childcare, lower tuition costs, higher wages. Things that make raising a child less of an economic burden and enable a woman's autonomy. These are popular among liberals for obvious reasons (pretty sure they were all part of Bernie's platform, for example) - it's neoliberals on either side of the aisle that derail attempts at these sorts of programs, because immigration is better for their bottom line.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

This thought process right here shows the weird place we've gotten to as a society.

You don't think like me? Can't wait for you to be dead. All 70 million of you.

Tolerance at it's finest.

I don't agree with all Baby Boomer politics but I also don't take my viewpoints to weird extremes like this.

No kidding. A lot of Zoomer, Millennials and even some X'ers need to grow out of their teenaged generational angst. My parents, in-laws, a few friends are Boomers. I'd like them to stick around for a while.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Agreed. The sooner they're gone the sooner we can plan the future we want. They play an outsized role in our politics and refuse to step aside in most respects of public and even private life.

COVID has sped this up among the less healthy and more rural segments of this demographic.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

China currently has a one-child policy

Actually, that ended 5 or 6 years ago. It now has a 2-child maximum policy.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Depends on which side those policies are coming from. Right-wing natalist policies usually look like restrictions on women's autonomy, reproductive rights, and their ability to work (see: Orthodox Jewish or Mormon communities). Those are controversial among liberals for obvious reasons.

On the other-hand, left wing natalist policies look more like the ones you've raised: paid maternity leave, free/affordable childcare, lower tuition costs, higher wages. Things that make raising a child less of an economic burden and enable a woman's autonomy. These are popular among liberals for obvious reasons (pretty sure they were all part of Bernie's platform, for example) - it's neoliberals on either side of the aisle that derail attempts at these sorts of programs, because immigration is better for their bottom line.

Yes, there's pro-natalist like Romania under Ceauşescu and there's pro-natalist like improved maternity leave/childcare/education/afterschool programs. Often times pro-natalist policies come across as anti-feminist.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

The question is where are we going to get these immigrants from. Just so you know, Japan is currently going through a natural decline as it is, and China currently has a one-child policy so while China is the largest country in the world in terms of population, it's not really growing.

As for Latin America, Mexico is stating to level off and I can see that country decline, Cuba and Puerto Rico are currently declining, and Argentina just passed a law legalizing abortion.My question is that if America wants to promote immigration to it's borders, the question is that how can America naturally grow when you have countries that are going through the same phenomenon as America.

There was a time where having 5+ kids was seen as nothing, now if you even have 3 kids, it's seen as too many kids, and the main reason why is because the quality of living doesn't sustain having a small family. If you're going to naturally increase the population, you're going to have to bring down the cost of housing, food, transportation, insurance, clothing, and hopefully increase the value of the dollar because inflation has been kicking America's rear end for far too long.

The short answer is the US may have to get used to population decline.

Increasingly, wealthy developed countries will be fighting for skilled immigrants but there just won't be enough to go around. Highly populated countries like the US will find it near impossible to bring in enough. Smaller countries like Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, etc. have the best shot (in the developed world) of countering the demographic shortfall. They attract alot of immigrants relative to their size. They already have some of the highest immigration rates in the Western world.

[El Chapo]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

This thought process right here shows the weird place we've gotten to as a society.

You don't think like me? Can't wait for you to be dead. All 70 million of you.

Tolerance at it's finest.

I don't agree with all Baby Boomer politics but I also don't take my viewpoints to weird extremes like this.

That generation destroyed the planet. No words are too harsh for them. Good riddance to ignorant rubbish.

Obviously a small minority of decent ones exist, but the other 90% gotta go.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by El Chapo

That generation destroyed the planet. No words are too harsh for them. Good riddance to ignorant rubbish.

Obviously a small minority of decent ones exist, but the other 90% gotta go.

What an absolute load of......... Get off your high horse already!

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

There was a time where having 5+ kids was seen as nothing, now if you even have 3 kids, it's seen as too many kids, and the main reason why is because the quality of living doesn't sustain having a small family. If you're going to naturally increase the population, you're going to have to bring down the cost of housing, food, transportation, insurance, clothing, and hopefully increase the value of the dollar because inflation has been kicking America's rear end for far too long.

Why do we want an ever-larger population, on a planet that isn't getting any bigger?

I would like to see the human population shrink a bit.

Yes, that would make the proverbial pie a bit smaller, but we would also have fewer people to divide it among.

This idea that there must be un-ending growth of people or the economy is bizarre to me.

Certainly one doesn't want to see the economy shrink much on a per capita basis.

But the status quo but for true gains in productivity would be an entirely reasonable goal.

Humans don't need more stuff collectively, we need to more stuff for those who lack the basics; that's redistribution, not more in absolute terms.

There needs to more focus on quality of life, rather than quantity.

That's true for work weeks (they should be shorter)

That's true for goods which should be better and last longer.

That's true for people who should enjoy learning, growing, contributing to society and by all means take the time to enjoy some luxuries along the way.

But today we see too many people w/home gyms that don't use'em.

We see too many people w/gym memberships that don't use them.

A 4th TV in the house doesn't make the content any more watchable.

A book gathering dust on a bookcase adds nothing to one's life.

A human race with more people, larger percentages of whom may be homeless or needy all the while destroying more of nature hardly seems ideal to me.

[El Chapo]

Originally Posted by north 42

What an absolute load of......... Get off your high horse already!

Get off my planet!

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by JManc

No kidding. A lot of Zoomer, Millennials and even some X'ers need to grow out of their teenaged generational angst. My parents, in-laws, a few friends are Boomers. I'd like them to stick around for a while.

Agreed.

Boomers and Silent Generation need to be isolated and studied so it can be determine what nutrients they have that may be extracted for our personal use

[NYbyWAYofGA]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Possibly, but irrelevant. Both phenomena are temporary.

No one has yet mentioned the opioid crisis....

[El Chapo]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

Agreed.

Boomers and Silent Generation need to be isolated and studied so it can be determine what nutrients they have that may be extracted for our personal use

Someone invent a generator that runs on ignorance and arrogance! We may have found the ultimate source of clean energy!

[isaidso]

Every generation make major mistakes. I'm sure we don't have to point out how bad for the environment home delivery is yet so called 'environmentalists' can't get enough of Amazon, UberEats, etc. They also seem to think that buying a new phone every 1-2 years, buying bottled water, and/or importing pasta sauce from Italy is responsible. They say one thing then do the complete opposite. Instead of finger pointing some people should check themselves and their peers first.

[SIGSEGV]

yeah, I don't understand this generational warfare. There are both assholes and awesome people in every generation....