The US Census Bureau thread

[SAN Man]

Originally Posted by Yuri

But those are specific events and they don't change demographics in the long run. Germany welcomed almost 1 million refugees from Syria in 2015 and then the flow eventually exhausted.

Ukraine is a basketcase for three decades now and they are leaving the country for Russia itself or the rest of Europe for a long time now. It's not like anything new nor the US will allow millions of people to fly there. Even tourism visas are not granted easily for citizens of such countries.

Maybe...many Russian speakers in America are actually Ukrainians because they have refugee status here. They can easily claim asylum, which is not the case with Russian nationals.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by SAN Man

I'm ok with us never reaching 400 million. Why and what's the point?

You keep looking for point? What do you even mean? Most nations don't control whether population grows or shrinks directly (though they can indirectly).
There isn't a progress bar that says "Once you reach *insert number of people* you get *insert random item*", populations just do. They just are. There is no point.

[SAN Man]

Originally Posted by MAC123

You keep looking for point? What do you even mean? Most nations don't control whether population grows or shrinks directly (though they can indirectly).
There isn't a progress bar that says "Once you reach *insert number of people* you get *insert random item*", populations just do. They just are. There is no point.

Cool post. You're naive to think that planners don't look at population figures as they move forward.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by SAN Man

Cool post. You're naive to think that planners don't look at population figures as they move forward.

You asked what was the point to more population growth, in general. There isn't any.
That has nothing to do with was planners are planning. Now, you can rephrase the question as "What is the point in reaching 400 million to planners", and that can be addressed with an appropriate response.

Questions require context, like most things in the English language.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by MAC123

It's unlikely we reach China or India's population within the next 2 centuries at the rate we're going (then again at the rate we're going we might not even match our own current population).

The U.S. might surpass China when some of us are still alive. And it's pretty likely for our children's lifetimes. China has one of the steepest long-term downturns, coupled with its male preference. The U.S. controls its population destiny via immigration.

We'll all be dead, but my wild guess for 2100 is 1. India 2. U.S., 3. China, 4. Nigeria, 5. Pakistan

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The U.S. might surpass China when some of us are still alive. And it's pretty likely for our children's lifetimes. China has one of the steepest long-term downturns, coupled with its male preference.

Oh yeah, I hear the estimates are something like their population going all the way down to 600 million. While Nigeria's are projected to go up to 750+. India is also projected to go down to 1 billion. Still a lot of freaking people.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The U.S. might surpass China when some of us are still alive. And it's pretty likely for our children's lifetimes. China has one of the steepest long-term downturns, coupled with its male preference. The U.S. controls its population destiny via immigration.

We'll all be dead, but my wild guess for 2100 is 1. India 2. U.S., 3. China, 4. Nigeria, 5. Pakistan

Nothing is going to stop India being the most populated country in the world. Thats a forgone conclusion. It might already be, if not now than certainly in a few years.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The U.S. might surpass China when some of us are still alive. And it's pretty likely for our children's lifetimes. China has one of the steepest long-term downturns, coupled with its male preference. The U.S. controls its population destiny via immigration.

We'll all be dead, but my wild guess for 2100 is 1. India 2. U.S., 3. China, 4. Nigeria, 5. Pakistan

China will be less than 400 million people in 2100? That's impossible unless you count with a mass death scenario, a black swan event, that could easily happen with any other country, US included.

I find very odd such scenarios where one simultaneously gives the most bright prospect for their favourite country and the utter societal collapse for the country they hate. What we want to happen is very different from what's the most likely thing to happen.

About Nigeria, even with a slowdown, they will reach 400 million by 2050 and the US won't be there. By 2050, we will have China around 1.15-1.20 billion (mirroring Japan), Nigeria 400 million and the US with 360-370 million. 2050 is right round the corner, just one generation away (people born today will be having children around that time) so it's rather easy to forecast.

[iheartthed]

China has legal limits on family sizes, so it's impossible to project what the population there would look like in a future where that law might not exist.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

China has legal limits on family sizes, so it's impossible to project what the population there would look like in a future where that law might not exist.

They've scrapped those and they're working on pro-natalist policies already. I don't think they will be successful though (as pretty much nobody is) and they'll probably be somewhere between Japan (1.35 children/women) and South Korea (0.85 children/women).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

China has legal limits on family sizes, so it's impossible to project what the population there would look like in a future where that law might not exist.

The law isn't driving Chinese birth rates. East Asia has the world's lowest birthrates.

And China isn't going to be an immigration center, at least for non-Han Chinese.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

They've scrapped those and they're working on pro-natalist policies already. I don't think they will be successful though (as pretty much nobody is) and they'll probably be somewhere between Japan (1.35 children/women) and South Korea (0.85 children/women).

They didn't scrap the limit. They increased it from one child to two per family.

To put this into perspective, limiting families to one child means that the country is effectively planning for population decline. Even limiting to two children per family is planning for decline as the replacement raise is above 2.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

They didn't scrap the limit. They increased it from one child to two per family.

To put this into perspective, limiting families to one child means that the country is effectively planning for population decline. Even limiting to two children per family is planning for decline as the replacement raise is above 2.

They did. BBC: China allows three children in major policy shift

Two-children policy lasted less than 5 years.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Yuri

They did. BBC: China allows three children in major policy shift

Two-children policy lasted less than 5 years.

Yeah they realized rather quickly that if they don't do something about it their population will be in the gutter. They'll still have a ridiculous amount of people but nothing like they have now.
Really they should get rid of the restrictions entirely if they want families to boom. Along with their pro child policies.

[Gantz]

Did anyone work out by what amount will Chinese population start declining soon? (Lets say assuming a TFR of 1.3 and 0 net immigration). I am guessing some very big numbers, peaking at upwards of over a million people per year, since if my understanding is correct, it is based on % of the population and TFR.
I am guessing the US will be able to reduce the population gap from 3 to 1 to 2 to 1, but won't reach parity for any foreseeable future.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Did anyone work out by what amount will Chinese population start declining soon? (Lets say assuming a TFR of 1.3 and 0 net immigration). I am guessing some very big numbers, peaking at upwards of over a million people per year, since if my understanding is correct, it is based on % of the population and TFR.
I am guessing the US will be able to reduce the population gap from 3 to 1 to 2 to 1, but won't reach parity for any foreseeable future.

Japan provides a good proxy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...tal_statistics

Take their numbers and multiply to 10x-12x. Japan went negative in 2005 with mere few thousands. The snowball effect kicks in and they’re now at 500,000 negative.

Let’s assume China goes negative by 2024. They could be at 6 million negative/year by 2040 (8 million births, 14 million deaths).

Those comparisons are not that neat, but it provides a good starter, specially as they’re rather similar with migration playing negligible role.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by SAN Man

I'm ok with us never reaching 400 million. Why and what's the point?

Exactly…..

[C.]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/20...ion/ar-AAUTt94

The 2020 census undercounted the country’s population by 18.8 million people, the Census Bureau said on Thursday, acknowledging that the count had underrepresented Black, Latino and Indigenous residents.

At the same time, the census overcounted the number of white and Asian residents, the bureau said.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...overcount.html

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by C.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/20...ion/ar-AAUTt94

The 2020 census undercounted the country’s population by 18.8 million people, the Census Bureau said on Thursday, acknowledging that the count had underrepresented Black, Latino and Indigenous residents.

At the same time, the census overcounted the number of white and Asian residents, the bureau said.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...overcount.html

Makes sense. The LA area numbers seemed low to me and if you're undercountimg Latinos, well....

[Steely Dan]

perhaps the black flight "exodus" from cities like detroit and chicago was overstated a bit?

perhaps many of them were simply missed by the census count?