Worldwide Demographics

[MolsonExport]

Cities like New York, London (UK) and Tokyo have long relied on immigration from the hinterlands to maintain/grow population. The difference now being that these cities draw from the four corners of the globe. I don't see much difference at the country level, especially in the New World, where most countries are populated primarily from descendants of immigrants.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Cities like New York, London (UK) and Tokyo have long relied on immigration from the hinterlands to maintain/grow population. The difference now being that these cities draw from the four corners of the globe. I don't see much difference at the country level, especially in the New World, where most countries are populated primarily from descendants of immigrants.

For New York, it's actually always worked the other way around. New York is often the first stop for people/families migrating to the U.S., and it has been that way since the country began. Then New York feeds the growth of other parts of the country.

It's not extremely common for New York to attract people from other parts of the country. The people who do migrate that way (like I did) are typically college educated and come to do skilled work in an industry specific to NYC.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

For New York, it's actually always worked the other way around. New York is often the first stop for people/families migrating to the U.S. Then New York feeds the growth of other parts of the country.

It's not extremely common for New York to attract people from other parts of the country. The people who do migrate that way (like I did) are typically college educated and come to work in an industry that is specific to NYC.

Is that still the case? My family came through NYC 100 years ago when Ellis Island was still in use but now virtually every city has become first contact for new arrivals.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Is that still the case? My family came through NYC 100 years ago when Ellis Island was still in use but now virtually every city has become first contact for new arrivals.

Yeah, I was gonna add that now many big cities act as gateways, but it's still true for NYC too. NYC's growth still comes from foreign immigration.

[Yuri]

As we're waiting the first results of 2020 Census:

U.S. Population Growth In 2019 Is Slowest In A Century

I don't think the US will ever again see natural growth above 1 million/year. In 2018 it droped below 1 million for the first time since 1937 (when the country had only 128 million inh.) and in 2019 another drop, to 890k. Needless to say 2020 will be a disaster. 1Q/2020 numbers are already available dropping to 113k compared to 149k in the previous year.

From now on, the US will become Europe: population growth will depend almost exclusively from immigration.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Cities like New York, London (UK) and Tokyo have long relied on immigration from the hinterlands to maintain/grow population. The difference now being that these cities draw from the four corners of the globe. I don't see much difference at the country level, especially in the New World, where most countries are populated primarily from descendants of immigrants.

I guess New York has always being about immigration, not from its domestic hinterland. And Tokyo relies even today on domestic migration.

About São Paulo, it went through several periods. Firstly it was fed by immigration (from the late 19th century to WWII), then from its close hinterland and from very distant parts of the country (Northeast Brazil) and since the 1990's, more people leave the metro area (retirees mostly) to the surroundings while youngsters move in. Moreover, São Paulo has a very strong natural growth (births minus deaths) as the decades of intense migration made its population young on child bearing age.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guys, do you know where we can search for births and deaths on US MSAs? They are an excelent source to identify the level of migration the area is getting. If births are going up, that's a strong indication migrants are coming or the opposite. We can look the past decade (2000-2010) and build patterns on it.

I made my own estimates for Brazilian metro areas using this method and they are incredibly accurate.

[Innsertnamehere]

Germany is interesting. A lot of the accelerated growth is from them suddenly deciding to be an immigrant nation after decades of refusing to be. There are also trends within that of rural areas emptying out as people continue to move to cities, as well as the still present trend of people leaving the poorer former East Germany and moving to wealthier portions of the country in the West. Though interestingly the fastest growing cities seem to now be in East Germany.

The US decline of growth is also interesting. Could anyone speak as to why it's occurring? I take it our favorite Republican president has a lot to do with it, cutting immigration levels even lower.. But why is this happening now, and not, say, under Bush in the 2000's?

Canada's growth rate has also accelerated over the last 5 years or so.. and where it's happening has shifted. Ontario is a friggen growth machine. 1.8% annual growth in an area of 14,000,000 people..

Also, areas of the country that traditionally were more or less flat or even shrinking have started to see population growth again, like the Maritime provinces. Nova Scotia seems set to pass 1,000,000 people in the next few years after languishing at the 950,000 mark for a generation.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Germany is interesting. A lot of the accelerated growth is from them suddenly deciding to be an immigrant nation after decades of refusing to be. There are also trends within that of rural areas emptying out as people continue to move to cities, as well as the still present trend of people leaving the poorer former East Germany and moving to wealthier portions of the country in the West. Though interestingly the fastest growing cities seem to now be in East Germany.

And immigration itself boosts the number of births as they are usually people on child bearing age. Indeed Berlin and Leipzig is growing like crazy. Dresden is also doing fine. The rest, however, is collapsing.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The US decline of growth is also interesting. Could anyone speak as to why it's occurring? I take it our favorite Republican president has a lot to do with it, cutting immigration levels even lower.. But why is this happening now, and not, say, under Bush in the 2000's?

The US will face very challenging times. Its natural growth collapsed and there is no way back, as the number of deaths will skyrocket as baby boomers go past 80. They will need a 2 million immigration surplus to keep their traditional 2.5 million yearly increase.

[JManc]

^ Germany saw the writing on the wall with their demographic time bomb had they done nothing. One of my former professors (a futurist) held a conference over there a number years ago and presented a sobering picture of their population crash if current trends (at the time) had continued and I'm sure he was far from alone and apparently the right people were listening.

As for Canada, Toronto has had crazy Houston/ Dallas level growth and will probably surpass both cities anytime now. if not already.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by JManc

^ Germany saw the writing on the wall with their demographic time bomb had they done nothing. One of my former professors (a futurist) held a conference over there a number years ago and presented a sobering picture of their population crash if current trends (at the time) had continued and I'm sure he was far from alone and apparently the right people were listening.

As for Canada, Toronto has had crazy Houston/ Dallas level growth and will probably surpass both cities anytime now. if not already.

Atlanta fell behind, but Dallas MSA and Houston MSA managed to keep their spectacular high growth rate. They are still at 20% (2020-2010), while Toronto CMA is around 15% (2017-2007). Toronto might eventually jump ahead but there is no signs of it yet.

[edale]

What is so bad about slow growth or stagnation? It's unreasonable to expect perpetual growth, and the planet surely doesn't need more people. I'm personally very encouraged to see population slowing, and wish Africa would hurry up and join the rest of the world when it comes to this metric.

I get that we built our economies around growth, but that's entirely unsustainable. I've always found the Rust Belt intriguing for this reason. It's one of a few places in the developed world where growth has stopped, and shrinking at the regional level is even occurring in some metros (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). Yet these cities appear to be hitting their strides once more and developing into better versions of themselves. Perhaps this region can provide lessons for how to adapt when the growth machine comes crashing down.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by edale

What is so bad about slow growth or stagnation? It's unreasonable to expect perpetual growth, and the planet surely doesn't need more people. I'm personally very encouraged to see population slowing, and wish Africa would hurry up and join the rest of the world when it comes to this metric.

I get that we built our economies around growth, but that's entirely unsustainable. I've always found the Rust Belt intriguing for this reason. It's one of a few places in the developed world where growth has stopped, and shrinking at the regional level is even occurring in some metros (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). Yet these cities appear to be hitting their strides once more and developing into better versions of themselves. Perhaps this region can provide lessons for how to adapt when the growth machine comes crashing down.

I understand in the long run it's impossible to grow forever. Even a very small 5%/decade, would mean the population would grow 4-fold in less than 300 years. Not sustainable to think of a 32 billion people Earth by the year 2300.

However, thinking of today's society, population shrinking is very hard to deal with. I don't think Cleveland abnd Pittsburgh a better today with their 3.5 million and 2.5 million metro areas, instead of 7 million/5 million in case they had grown at the US average since the 1970 (or maybe more if they had a Sunbelt kind of growth). I'm pretty sure they will be much more vibrant and exciting urban centres than they are today.

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by edale

What is so bad about slow growth or stagnation? It's unreasonable to expect perpetual growth, and the planet surely doesn't need more people. I'm personally very encouraged to see population slowing, and wish Africa would hurry up and join the rest of the world when it comes to this metric.

I get that we built our economies around growth, but that's entirely unsustainable. I've always found the Rust Belt intriguing for this reason. It's one of a few places in the developed world where growth has stopped, and shrinking at the regional level is even occurring in some metros (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). Yet these cities appear to be hitting their strides once more and developing into better versions of themselves. Perhaps this region can provide lessons for how to adapt when the growth machine comes crashing down.

Infinite growth is impossible. The first country to successfully adapt to no/negative population growth will complete upset the global paradigm.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by edale

What is so bad about slow growth or stagnation? It's unreasonable to expect perpetual growth, and the planet surely doesn't need more people. I'm personally very encouraged to see population slowing, and wish Africa would hurry up and join the rest of the world when it comes to this metric.

I get that we built our economies around growth, but that's entirely unsustainable. I've always found the Rust Belt intriguing for this reason. It's one of a few places in the developed world where growth has stopped, and shrinking at the regional level is even occurring in some metros (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). Yet these cities appear to be hitting their strides once more and developing into better versions of themselves. Perhaps this region can provide lessons for how to adapt when the growth machine comes crashing down.

Amen. We are literally killing our planet with over population. The world would be a remarkably better place with 1 billion people instead of 8

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Amen. We are literally killing our planet with over population. The world would be a remarkably better place with 1 billion people instead of 8

During the Napoleonic Wars the world had 1 billion people. And at least for humans, the 8 billion people Earth is a vastly superior place.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

During the Napoleonic Wars the world had 1 billion people. And at least for humans, the 8 billion people Earth is a vastly superior place.

I'm assuming he means 1 billion with today's technology and social advancement.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I'm assuming he means 1 billion with today's technology and social advancement.

Indeed

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I'm assuming he means 1 billion with today's technology and social advancement.

They're a bit tied together. If world's population collapse, picture how our cities would like, with the idle infrastructure everywhere, vacant houses, etc. And forget economies of scale. With much less people, some goods and services would be discontinued altogether due the lack of demand and we'll be poorer overall, with much of our needs left unmet.

From the environmental point of view, 1 billion people Earth would be better. But from mankind, definitely not.

In any case, world's population won't grow for much longer.

[MolsonExport]

The Earth is a like a bank where you have maxed out your loans and withdrawals. We are living on borrowed time.

[MolsonExport]

If we accept that the world's population cannot grow indefinitely (and nature would never allow this), what then, is the optimal population, that would achieve a much better balance between human welfare (which is still atrocious for half or more of the world's citizens) and the planet's ecology (going to hell right before our eyes)?



I am going to say: something like 2 billion people at most. With at least 2/3 of the planet more or less off limits to resource exploitation; reserved for flora and fauna. With most of the 2 billion living in dense megacities (not sprawlsburgeria).