Worldwide Demographics

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Whatever rocks one's boat. You can't fathom the way I felt upon getting my First helipad.

The use of past tense implies a temporary feeling, which reinforces Steely Dan's point.

[mhays]

Your statements are both true. A lot of people chase status they can't afford, and a lot of people don't.

Personally, my happiness today is heavily centered on optimism for the future. It's why I love the NFL draft, and it's why I put a lot of money away rather than spending it.

[Crawford]

Mass consumerism and living beyond one's means aren't uniquely American traits. I wouldn't even describe the U.S. as among the most consumerist societies, but undoubtedly closer to the top than the bottom.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Large segments of the U.S. population reject commercialism but are ridiculed endlessly by TV, movies, comedians, etc.

And large segments of the US eat only clean food without sugar or preservatives. That doesn't change the statistics showing the country as a whole eats more heavily processed foods and sugary drinks that other countries. This leads to higher obesity and chronic illness rates. It's a large country, you can find "large segments" that do just about anything.

We also have demonstrably high levels of household debt driven primarily by housing, auto loans, student loans, and credit cards. Even if "large segments" don't.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by mhays

Preparing for retirement or a crisis is admirable. It's the spendthrifts that I pity.

Yeah, it depends on what you call savings. For example, life insurance may be useful because some bit of the money is used to fund businesses, thus driven to the economy.
American pension funds are helpful for that same reason, even though they imply some risk for retirees whose pensions partly rely on the stock market.

I didn't mean saving some bits of one's money was anything wrong. It's just too bad when it's money sleeping on savings accounts whose interest rates hardly make up for inflation. People actually waste some of their dough that way. That's a pity, isn't it?
Money is meant to be helpful to the economy, eh. It is not supposed to sleep.

Otherwise, if you guys have some savings, good on you. Especially for those who have children to take care of.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by muppet

There's another spanner in the works when taking into account the US, and that's the presence of American billionaires. They skew the economy hugely by the fact they double the figures.

About 80% of the US population shares only 7% of the wealth. This means half the population scrabble over 2.5%, while the Gini Coefficient now puts inequality worse than almost any country but the poorest of the Developing world. Worse than China, India, Haiti, Philippines, most of Africa.






This is why GDP is no longer considered an accurate measure of wealth as late stage capitalism across the world shows the higher the figure, and often higher the growth, the more indentured the populace. As costs rise and life shrinks the working, middle and even bottom tiers of the upper classes lose out, effectively paying for that rise. What you don't pay in tax you do more so in greedflation, junk fees, tips, driving, subscription models, securitisation and healthcare. It's effectively killing capitalism, and more closely resembles feudalism.

I guess I'm breaking the "no politics" rule but the idea that the US is an oligarchy isn't just held by Marxists or Senator Bernie Sanders. It's been a mainstream view in American political science for a decade. The NYT these days pretty much says so as well.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Large segments of the U.S. population reject commercialism but are ridiculed endlessly by TV, movies, comedians, etc.

I keep coming back to this statement - particularly the bolded part because I just don't understand what you mean.

I mean, my family aren't really a consumerist one. We're probably within the top 20% of the household income distribution now. We don't buy a new car until the old one is literally falling apart, don't buy fancy/expensive anything. I think we tend to splurge the most on food, and maybe 1-2 big vacations a year, but that's about it.

But I don't think you're talking about people like me, because I never see stand-up comics mock people who don't buy fancy cars and/or expensive clothes. So do you mean like crunchy people who try and live off the land or something? I'm really at a loss here.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

Your statements are both true. A lot of people chase status they can't afford, and a lot of people don't.

I'm well aware of that. I'm a textbook example of a "live small and simple" middle class millionaire.

And I'm clearly not alone, as ~30% of married households aged 50+ now have a 7-figure net worth.

But I'm also aware of the phenomenon of a great many Americans falling into debt traps as they chase status.

Jmeck said he disagreed with that second part, which was just bewildering as fuck.

[JManc]

The more money I have, the less I want to spend it. I turned into my grandparents with the AARP discount card and coupon cutting. I don't care if I am driving a ten year old car with a cracked windshield. It runs, paid off and the money otherwise going to a payment goes right into investments. I got my wife who went from trading her car in every other year or so to hanging onto her six your old SUV with 100k miles until the wheels fall off.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Yeah, it depends on what you call savings. For example, life insurance may be useful because some bit of the money is used to fund businesses, thus driven to the economy.
American pension funds are helpful for that same reason, even though they imply some risk for retirees whose pensions partly rely on the stock market.

I didn't mean saving some bits of one's money was anything wrong. It's just too bad when it's money sleeping on savings accounts whose interest rates hardly make up for inflation. People actually waste some of their dough that way. That's a pity, isn't it?
Money is meant to be helpful to the economy, eh. It is not supposed to sleep.

Otherwise, if you guys have some savings, good on you. Especially for those who have children to take care of.

Money in banks isn't entirely useless for the economy. Banks can use deposits. The saver will be resilient when something goes wrong (albeit it's less of a problem in Europe vs. the US), which helps the economy directly and indirectly as well.

But I agree that putting too much into low-interest accounts isn't helping the saver very much. It'll shrink with inflation. A riskier option like stock mutual funds will generally grow more over time.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by JManc

The more money I have, the less I want to spend it. I turned into my grandparents with the AARP discount card and coupon cutting. I don't care if I am driving a ten year old car with a cracked windshield. It runs, paid off and the money otherwise going to a payment goes right into investments. I got my wife who went from trading her car in every other year or so to hanging onto her six your old SUV with 100k miles until the wheels fall off.

I'm more thrifty now that I'm semi-retired (possible due to decades of saving). No car (as always), fewer major trips, fewer takeout dinners.

That allows me to NOT worry about smaller costs. I don't use coupons, sign up for loyalty programs, or worry about what groceries cost.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by mhays

But I agree that putting too much into low-interest accounts isn't helping the saver very much. It'll shrink with inflation. A riskier option like stock mutual funds will generally grow more over time.

French people are risk adverse (otherwise you guys would be speaking French now), and they are particularly afraid of the stock market, as if it was some super risky stuff.

They prefer something extra, EXTRA safe that yields only 0.5% per year (called Livret A).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

French people are risk adverse (otherwise you guys would be speaking French now),

LOL. The "risk averse" French invaded the Rhineland roughly every few years for about 500 years and burned down my dad's village of birth multiple times. Essentially every castle ruin within 100 miles of the border was due to France.

And many of those guys are speaking French now. Alsace-Lorraine.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

They prefer something extra, EXTRA safe that yields only 0.5% per year (called Livret A).

Woof.

Now I feel like some kind of financial wizard for keeping our cash emergency fund in a FDIC-insured 4.1% HYSA.

[Yuri]

Japan's 2025 Census is out: 123,049,524 people.

1920: 55,963,053
1930: 64,450,005
1940: 73,114,308
1950: 83,199,637
1960: 93,418,501
1970: 103,720,060
1980: 117,060,396
1990: 123,611,167
2000: 126,925,843
2010: 128,057,352
2015: 127,094,745
2020: 126,146,099
2025: 123,049,524

Japanese annual estimates are very good, but the result came below the 2025 estimate by 150,000 people.

Population decline is speeding up as it always occurs as there are big old people cohorts dying off: from -1,000,000 (2015-2020) to -3,000,000 (2020-2025).

As Japan doesn't have much immigration, it's quite easy to estimate population for 2030 based on natural growth evolution (births minus deaths). I expect a low 119 million or a high 118 million counted on the 2030 Census.

In this scenario Japan will have lost almost 10 million people compared to the 2010 peak. That's a lot of people and that's why we have entire rural regions, far away suburbs, mid-sized industrial cities completely abandoned as population flocks to central Tokyo, central Osaka, central Nagoya, Fukuoka etc.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Yuri

France 2025 numbers are out: 66,351,959 inh.

Negative for the 2nd year: 610,065 births and 631,145 deaths, for a negative natural growth of –21,080 (–737 in 2024).

Natural growth in France was at +280,480 as late as 2006 and up to 2014 it was above 200k. In 2010, 802,000 births were registered and the number fell to a full 1/4 within 2025.

610,000 births were the lowest number ever recorded in France for the past 200 years except for the 1915-1919 and 1940-1942 periods. In 1825, for example, 1,026,604 births were recorded in France.

(...)

Britain finally released their 2025 vital stats numbers.

England and Wales take ages to compute births and deaths. I was expecting a tiny negative but I tiny positive emerged: 649,410 births and 648,776 deaths for a +634 surplus (+10,922 in 2024). TFR stands now at 1.39. Population: 69,487,000.

The UK natural growth reached a massive +255,544 as late as 2011. A whopping 812,970 births recorded in 2012.

Unlike France, however, the UK wasn't a big demographic hit on post-war. It actually recorded a negative natural growth in 1976, few years after Germany, being the 2nd country in the world to do so. From there they followed very different paths: Germany remained negative since then and Britain recovered and actually surpassed France on number of births by the 2000's-2010's.

And as France since 2024, from 2026, I don't think Britain will ever experience a positive natural growth again.

[Yuri]

And Canada registered officially the 2nd population decline ever (the 1st was in 1945-1946, most likely British refugees coming back):

2025: 41,651,653
2026: 41,472,081

Amazingly it's not due negative natural growth as Canada still hanging itself on the positive. It was due negative migration. And that's why I'm finding very hard to believe the US has a positive migration right now.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

And Canada registered officially the 2nd population decline ever (the 1st was in 1945-1946, most likely British refugees coming back):

2025: 41,651,653
2026: 41,472,081

Amazingly it's not due negative natural growth as Canada still hanging itself on the positive. It was due negative migration. And that's why I'm finding very hard to believe the US has a positive migration right now.

I don't think the US has positive migration now either, but sources of migration in the US are pretty different from Canada.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think the US has positive migration now either, but sources of migration in the US are pretty different from Canada.

I find very plausible the US to have a negative migration of 1.0-1.5 million since the current administration policies. Canada fell by 200k with a much less dramatic approach.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Yuri

And Canada registered officially the 2nd population decline ever (the 1st was in 1945-1946, most likely British refugees coming back):

2025: 41,651,653
2026: 41,472,081

Amazingly it's not due negative natural growth as Canada still hanging itself on the positive. It was due negative migration. And that's why I'm finding very hard to believe the US has a positive migration right now.

To correct a huge population surge the previous few years, Canada drastically cut immigration numbers in 2025 to ease strain on housing and infrastructure. It was primarily achieved through a massive drop in international students as well as temporary foreign workers. Overall population should edge up again for 2027. The Canadian population clock has been adjusted numerous times the last 18 months but is now showing daily increases just over 1000 people.