America's population will peak at 364 million in 42 years

[bossabreezes]

Immigration would be a bandaid for population growth, since all groups eventually assimilate to the local culture. Local culture in most places is seeing decline in fertility rates, which just pushes off the inevitable.

Fertility rates need to be solved within a native population (ie, promote higher birth rates nationally in each country, with natives of that country) rather than just importing people to do the job for one generation and then never again.

Immigration for this reason might just end up perpetuating developing countries to never reach developed status, ect.

And before anyone calls me anti-immigration, please read again and understand that this has nothing to do with being anti-immigrant.

[IMBY]

I was reading that in Iran when the fertility rate stumbled to 1.8, panicked lawmakers suddenly banned vasectomies.

[Northern Light]

Really, the number of alarmist posts here is alarming.

Lets start here.

As of Today; and over the next, not one, not two, but four or more decades the U.S. population, (and Canada's and many other countries) will not be shrinking.

So any problem if one would otherwise accept there might be one with a shrinking population is decades away.

Next, where there is likely to be significant fall in population, there are material explanations that don't have to do with women refusing on mass to have babies, LOL

In the case of China, the one-child policy resulted in many aborted female fetuses.

The result, younger Chinese men significantly out number women.

That is, and will create problems for China; but it not a permanent condition there or anywhere else.

Japan has seen a fall-off in child birth because while women have entered the workforce in ever larger numbers and deferred child birth, men in Japan have not worked less.

This has left couples in a time-crunch, as much as anything else, and also the cost-of-living in Japan is fairly high, and housing size constrained.

As the population declines, the cost of living will drop; when Japan adopts a more relaxed attitude to work, which they will, at some point, the work week will shorten (maybe only to 40 hours) and parents will have more time to invest in families.

The other factor there is, of course a society that is relatively closed and has very low levels of immigration.

That too will change.

Societies sometimes get to evolve because they want to; but mostly do so because they have to.

Japan will be no different.

etc etc.

****

When we see aggreate population declines, we do not see projections (on a global basis) of population collapse.

We see marginal decrease.

This is not a big deal.

It can be more than offset by productivity gains.

****

The worry about all the young, supporting all the old is also nonsense.

The retirement age must rise, as it should.

When Social Security came in, the average age of death wasn't much over 70.

Retirement was not meant to be a 2-decade vacation.

It was meant to address people physically in capable of continuing to work; or work at a competitive level.

If we hard cap 'presumed' retirement at 10 years, not exactly a hardship; life expectancy today is ~82; that puts retirement age at 72.

If that move were made, we could boost the payout of public sector pensions by 25-35%; reduce the payroll tax younger workers pay in by 5-15% and still have a bit leftover.

On top of that, middle and high-income workers would get several years of extra earnings and private savings; the government several years more income tax revenue.

That also increases labour supply to deal with any shortages.

***

Finally, there really are material benefits to a smaller population, the only threat from that is if the decline is too quick/unplanned for.

Most countries have decades to get this right.

Once we reach a desirable population level; boosting fertility by 0.2 per woman or getting just one woman out of 10 to have an extra child is not a big deal.

This doesn't require social upheaval, forced fertility or herculean interventionism.

Just modest tweaks that make having a child easier/more affordable; and some public messaging.

Can we now finish w/the panic; over a good thing (modest population reduction) that hasn't yet happened and won't until most of us are very old or dead?

[M II A II R II K]

This whole thing is too long in the future with any close to having accuracy. Even if the global projections are close it depends on where people end up.

Climate chaos causing places to become uninhabitable or at the very least not sustainable for the number of people there and flee to more palatable places.

The new rust belt becomes the dust belt which gets abandoned en masse and the next thing you know places like Montana and the Dakotas get crowded and is a hotbed for new immigration.

[liat91]

After thinking about it, the US numbers come true only with a Trump re-election.

I also thing the true global numbers will be between this projection and the lower one I posted about. (I’m confident Africa will start falling more precipitously than estimated)

So a 9.2 billion peak for the planet imo. That’s still a lot of people though.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ a type of liberating ego death, for sure: "I'm not living for me anymore!"

But also a type of ego reinforcement: "I'm now living for this utterly helpless and ridiculously adorable little cutie pie!"


I accomplished most of my neccessary ego-killing in my teens/20s with copious amounts of LSD.

I like... I like that. Respect, as Ali G would say, booyakasha!

Speaking of copious amounts, while Lucy is devine, my favorite is the holy Cactus. The holy Mezcakuba, the mescal... the buttons... the Trichocereus bridgesii! All the enlightenment (without the metallic, edgy feel), with the body feel of a good molly. Problem is, lasts 20-36 hours if you do 2 ft like my crazy self, but think of it like a vacation.

And sometimes, parents need vacations.

IF all were to engage, the world would be a better place. Folks would love one another, appreciate and not destroy nature, and be more humble. But enough this rant of mine.

I think with the topic of the population, folks need to address cost of living. Biggest single killer or cause of lack of fertility. Certain metros, makes sense not to have kids (or at least wait a very long time), unless one wants financial struggles or headaches.

If one has a ton of money, kids away. Hell, if I had Jay-Z money, I'd probally have a 100 Chris's floating around. Make a whole town out of my kin.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by liat91

After thinking about it, the US numbers come true only with a Trump re-election.

I also thing the true global numbers will be between this projection and the lower one I posted about. (I’m confident Africa will start falling more precipitously than estimated)

So a 9.2 billion peak for the planet imo. That’s still a lot of people though.

In a way, I always felt strongly about this concept, quality over quantity (from the perspective of providing to the citizens, as I know folks may misinterpret this... no... its not that... I mean being able to provide for "X" population via the country").

Like I'd rather have a nation of less people, but one where every woman, man, child, and pet dog can have a fruitful life. Plenty of opportunity.

Given our reliance on an economy, with the current system, if jobs or opportunities ARE NOT present, you could have all the folks you want, but if they ain't benefiting, it leads to nothing but suffering.

That's why some of these places that are pumping out folks by the millions yearly... well... all fine and dandy on paper, but the reality on the ground is a different picture.

[RST500]

As far as population trends go America has four scenarios.

Immigration/natalism: This obviously would lead to the most population and GDP growth. Would address issues with ageing but also concerns of over population.

Immigration/without natalism: This is already the case in places like LA and Silicon Valley. This is really bad for social cohesion and inequality. A gerentocracy owning most of the wealth and a large exploited class in the service industry.


Low immigration/natalism: This is what many right/populist want to try to return to an idealized America of the 50s but least realistic scenario.

Low immigration/without natalism: Massive ageing with population and possibly economic decline. This is the case in Japan and S. Korea.

[liat91]

Originally Posted by RST500

As far as population trends go America has four scenarios.

Immigration/natalism: This obviously would lead to the most population and GDP growth. Would address issues with ageing but also concerns of over population.

Immigration/without natalism: This is already the case in places like LA and Silicon Valley. This is really bad for social cohesion and inequality. A gerentocracy owning most of the wealth and a large exploited class in the service industry.


Low immigration/natalism: This is what many right/populist want to try to return to an idealized America of the 50s but least realistic scenario.

Low immigration/without natalism: Massive ageing with population and possibly economic decline. This is the case in Japan and S. Korea.

Why is low immigration/natalism the least realistic scenario. It’s the path we’re on right now. Trump is not only implementing a short term effect, he’s also demagnetizing the American pull or dimming Lady Liberties light to the world so to speak.

Don’t also forget the immigrant sending countries are getting richer. The current influx from Central America will be the last mass influx originating from the Americas. Future influxes will have to happen via mass airlifts from Africa and India etc to Latin America.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by liat91

Why is low immigration/natalism the least realistic scenario. It’s the path we’re on right now. Trump is not only implementing a short term effect, he’s also demagnetizing the American pull or dimming Lady Liberties light to the world so to speak.

Don’t also forget the immigrant sending countries are getting richer. The current influx from Central America will be the last mass influx originating from the Americas. Future influxes will have to happen via mass airlifts from Africa and India etc to Latin America.

I think they were maybe hinting instead at it being the path of least success, not necessarily the least likely scenario to occur.