Worldwide Demographics

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

This is me being pedantic, but it wasn't a model with the objective of adjusting to a slower growing population. It just exposed their inability to adapt to a slower growing population.

I think there are plenty of U.S. cities that have successfully adapted to a slower growing population, but we just don't think of them as slow growing. Those cities are mostly located in the Northeast Corridor. Chicago has also adjusted better to a slower growing population than most of its neighbors, although Chicago's adjustment has been far from seamless.

Now I'm being pedantic: as even those supposedly good examples of cities in Northeast US are not exactly good models. They decreased for a long period while their suburbs kept growing. Only very recently they started to grow faster than their suburbs. Detroit is the most dramatic example, but no country mistreated their cities as bad as the US.

Japan, on the other hand, stopped their suburbanization before their actual population decline. From an infrastructure point of view, it's a clearly superior model. Let the edges poorly served by infrastructure to rot while the crazy expensive infrastruture in place is serving the centre and will do it indefinitely.

But let's think of countries again: Acajack and isaidso reminded that a good chunk of Canadian economic growth now is based on the continuous (and big) population growth itself. Economic nvestments on our current world are based on the assumption of endless exponential growth of demand. Such economic model won't work on a not far away future.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm not clear what Detroit has to do with Japan and demographic dip. Detroit is more or less at historic peak population, and will likely be a lot bigger 100 years from now. Japan won't.

Yes, the region is hardly the shining economic or demographic star of America, but it also isn't remotely in a planned shrinkage framework. No major U.S. metro, not even Pittsburgh, is really facing this.

As I said, it's only an intellectual exercise. Japan is also more or less on its historic peak population (2010) as well. They're only 2.5% below it.

But let's think this way: Japan is Metro Detroit and Tokyo is Detroit. Tokyo, with its superb infrastructure is still serving their 40 million inh. If they had followed Detroit's path all this infrastructure was iddle, collapsing, serving 13 million people. Trillions of dollars wasted.

Be a country, be a region, we already have examples of how population decline might impact societies. Detroit is definitely the worst way possible.

P.S. According to the 2023 estimates most of US metro areas are experiencing population decline. The ones growing are doing it on the worst and unsustainable way possible (as I mentioned, Dallas growing into Oklahoma or Houston adding freeway lanes over demolishing apartment blocks on CBD).

[Crawford]

Really no major U.S. metros are experiencing population decline. There are a bunch that had minimal growth in last official Census, but none showing any sizable loss.

Also this discussion is all over the place, talking about land use and the like. The issue is long-term demographic collapse, not whether trains are cooler than SUVs or whether Japanese live to 200 or whatever.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

As I said, it's only an intellectual exercise. Japan is also more or less on its historic peak population (2010) as well. They're only 2.5% below it.

But let's think this way: Japan is Metro Detroit and Tokyo is Detroit. Tokyo, with its superb infrastructure is still serving their 40 million inh. If they had followed Detroit's path all this infrastructure was iddle, collapsing, serving 13 million people. Trillions of dollars wasted.

Be a country, be a region, we already have examples of how population decline might impact societies. Detroit is definitely the worst way possible.

P.S. According to the 2023 estimates most of US metro areas are experiecing population decline. The ones growing are doing it the worst way and unsustainable way possible (as I mentioned, Dallas growing into Oklahoma or Houston adding freeway lanes over demolishing apartment blocks on CBD).

Japan couldn't do with Tokyo what Detroit did. There isn't enough room in Japan for all of those people to build 4 bedroom colonials on a quarter acre lot. A huge reason why Japanese cities are so dense is because they don't have room to sprawl. Japan has less than 3x the land area of the state of Michigan but has 12x the population.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Really no major U.S. metros are experiencing population decline. There are a bunch that had minimal growth in last official Census, but none showing any sizable loss.

Also this discussion is all over the place, talking about land use and the like. The issue is demographic collapse, not whether trains are cooler than SUVs or whatever.

They are. Everything from Boston to Baltimore, all the ones on the Great Lakes states, San Francisco, Los Angeles. They're all below their peaks on 2020 Census. You can say it's only estimates, but many of them will be negative by the time of 2030 Census, others will barely grow.

And without going into politics, we can have a very good picture on what immigration will be like starting on Jan 2025.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Japan couldn't do with Tokyo what Detroit did. There isn't enough room in Japan for all of those people to build 4 bedroom colonials on a quarter acre lot. A huge reason why Japanese cities are so dense is because they don't have room to sprawl. Japan has less than 3x the land area of the state of Michigan but has 12x the population.

Outside their core, Japanese urban areas are not particularly dense. Even their cores don't match Hong Kong, Manhattan or Paris. Tokyo sprawled all the way up to Mount Fuji. The thing is all those far away exurbs there are collapsing badly while central Tokyo is busier than ever.

There are several easily understandable explanations on why Japan is what it is and Detroit is what it is. I'm only mentioning them as examples on how population decline could look like. And for me, Japan clearly provides a much better path.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Outside their core, Japanese urban areas are not particularly dense. Even their cores don't match Hong Kong, Manhattan or Paris. Tokyo sprawled all the way up to Mount Fuji. The thing is all those far away exurbs there are collapsing badly while central Tokyo is busier than ever.

There are several easily understandable explanations on why Japan is what it is and Detroit is what it is. I'm only mentioning them as examples on how population decline could look like. And for me, Japan clearly provides a much better path.

There's no room to double the footprint of Tokyo the way that Detroit doubled its footprint over the past 50 years while it stagnated in population (or had a modest decline). Anyway, my point is that Detroit did not even try to create a sustainable growth model. I think we agree that what Detroit did do was pretty disastrous. Other American cities did calibrate the way they grew, even if they didn't explicitly say that they were deliberately moving towards a sustainable growth model.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Acajack

My guess is that all Canadian governments, including the hypothetical one of Prime Minister Pierre Poilievre, will no matter what resist turning off the taps for as long they can, until the pitchforks truly do come out for them.

I mean just look at Giorgia Meloni in Italy.

Agree. Unfortunately, those pitchforks will likely come out just when construction activity and the broader economy will have adjusted to the current population growth rates. Everything in Canada is still in 'ramp up' mode. It's pretty pointless and disruptive if in 2025/2026, protesters call for drastic cuts in population growth just when everything has adjusted up the 'new normal'.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Agree. Unfortunately, those pitchforks will likely come out just when construction activity and the broader economy will have adjusted to the current population growth rates. Everything in Canada is still in 'ramp up' mode. It's pretty pointless and disruptive if in 2025/2026, protesters call for drastic cuts in population growth just when everything has adjusted up the 'new normal'.

In CMHC's 2022 report, they estimated that we will need 5.8 million new homes by 2031 to meet demand & restore affordability; or in other words, 640,000+ new homes per year.

In 2023, we actually built 240,000 new homes, up slightly from 220,000 in 2022; and well above our annual average of 205,000/year. We are 'ramping up' to some extent, but realistically, this means we still need to nearly triple the current rate of construction. That's certainly not happening in the next 2 years, and extremely unlikely at any point further down the line without drastic measures being taken (which currently, show no signs of being on the horizon).

Realistically, we're only going to fall further behind on our housing shortfall without cuts to population growth. It's a lot easier to reduce demand than increase supply to match - particularly as it becomes harder to justify the need for the current rate of growth in the first place, in the face of declining GDP per capita and a labour market that's no longer able to absorb our population boom.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I have no doubt, however, Japanese degrowth model has been much much healthier than Detroit's one.

What the h did I just read?

Detroit's metro population never went down. People who could afford to move out of the city moved out of the city. Period.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Detroit's metro population never went down. People who could afford to move out of the city moved out of the city. Period.

The Detroit CSA lost population between 1970 and 1980, 1980 and 1990, and 2000 and 2010.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

What the h did I just read?

Detroit's metro population never went down. People who could afford to move out of the city moved out of the city. Period.

As Craig mentioned above, Detroit area declined several times and it’s today below its peak, reached 23 years ago. Japan’s population started declining only in 2010, and today it’s only 2.5% below it.

Not only Detroit region has declined, but it knows what decline is since 1970 (and dealt with it the worst way possible). Japan only got started (2010).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by craigs

The Detroit CSA lost population between 1970 and 1980, 1980 and 1990, and 2000 and 2010.

Metro Detroit has essentially been flat for 50 years. Growth stopped around 1970 and population has been stable.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

As Craig mentioned above, Detroit area declined several times and it’s today below its peak, reached 23 years ago. Japan’s population started declining only in 2010, and today it’s only 2.5% below it.

Not only Detroit region has declined, but it knows what decline is since 1970 (and dealt with it the worst way possible). Japan only got started (2010).

No, this makes no sense. Japan presently has a demographic time bomb, where its population will be massively smaller in subsequent generations. There is no indication of any similar trend in any major U.S. metro.

Detroit isn't even the slowest growth metro. Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo and others have had slower growth. But none of these cities are likely to have, say, half the population 100 years from now. This is quite likely in China, South Korea and Japan.

There are Western metros that have been stagnant for 100+ years. Germany's Ruhr, Northern England, and the Eastern/Midwestern U.S. have many such examples. But these are immigration-based societies with generations of slowly downshifting domestic birthrates.

In contrast, East Asia had super high birthrates and then a radical downshift, which creates extreme structural disfunction, with far too many pensioners and few workers. And obviously limited/no immigration. The population bomb basically arrived in a generation. China and S. Korea have it even worse than Japan, with really crazy birthrate plummet. When you go from 5-6 kids to less than 1 in a few years, it's very different than when it happens over 100 years, and when you have immigration levers. The key issue isn't too few workers, per se, it's a messed up ratio of pensioners to workers.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

What the h did I just read?

Detroit's metro population never went down. People who could afford to move out of the city moved out of the city. Period.

Yes, it did. The Detroit MSA peaked in population in 2000. The current MSA population is lower than it was in 1970.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, this makes no sense. Japan presently has a demographic time bomb, where its population will be massively smaller in subsequent generations. There is no indication of any similar trend in any major U.S. metro.

Detroit isn't even the slowest growth metro. Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo and others have had slower growth. But none of these cities are likely to have, say, half the population 100 years from now. This is quite likely in China, South Korea and Japan.

There are Western metros that have been stagnant for 100+ years. Germany's Ruhr, Northern England, and the Eastern/Midwestern U.S. have many such examples. But these are immigration-based societies with generations of slowly downshifting domestic birthrates.

In contrast, East Asia had super high birthrates and then a radical downshift, which creates extreme structural disfunction, with far too many pensioners and few workers. And obviously limited/no immigration. The population bomb basically arrived in a generation. China and S. Korea have it even worse than Japan, with really crazy birthrate plummet. When you go from 5-6 kids to less than 1 in a few years, it's very different than when it happens over 100 years, and when you have immigration levers. The key issue isn't too few workers, per se, it's a messed up ratio of pensioners to workers.

What exactly makes “no sense”?

The forumer made a wrong statement about Detroit and it’s been corrected. I made no comments whatsoever about Japan’s or Detroit’s future population projections.

Regarding the US, however, the country will also face their own demographics challenges ahead. 2020’s US is not 1990’s US. It’s a much older population with a way lower fertility rate.

As natural growth in the US plummeted from 1.9 million to 500k in merely 15 years (a collapse as dramatic as the Japanese, btw) and it’s heading to zero/negative within 4-5 years, we already have lots of metropolitan areas with negative natural growth and they usually have negative domestic migration with very little international migration surplus.

Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh metro areas will be all negative by the time of the 2030 census. The five East North Central states combined will also certainly be on negative. As today, even the Northeast as a whole is on negative although I believe they’ll post a tiny growth this decade. Ditto for California+Oregon.

[JManc]

I don't think you can compare American rust bucket cities to Japan; Japan is facing a demographic time bomb and is slow to embrace immigration while American cities are susceptible to economic headwinds. The US in general is steadily growing despite stagnating native birth rates so cities ebb and flow depending on economic opportunities. In Japan, people are not having kids and marrying robots at 35.

[mhays]

In Japan, Korea, and China, the cities have generally done better than rural areas and small towns.

Tokyo, for starters, has had its central 14-million-person area grow consistently, including 467k in 2015-20. Seoul was down 5% from 1990 in 2020, but they ticked up 2010-20. (Both based on Wikipedia)

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by JManc

I don't think you can compare American rust bucket cities to Japan;

I brought up Detroit region as an example of how a given geography could physically look like when facing population decline. I compared it negatively to Japan as Japan is emptying out their outskirts while keeping their core viable where all their massive infrastructure is already located.

As the human population will shrink at some point in this century, I guess it's productive to look at societies, places, geographies that's already experiencing or experienced population decline.

Originally Posted by JManc

Japan is facing a demographic time bomb and is slow to embrace immigration while American cities are susceptible to economic headwinds. The US in general is steadily growing despite stagnating native birth rates so cities ebb and flow depending on economic opportunities. In Japan, people are not having kids and marrying robots at 35.

There are many misconceptions here. "Native births" in the US are not stagnating. Births in the US (native or otherwise) are declining and declining good. It fell from 4.32 million in 2007 to 3.59 million in 2023. Deaths are naturally always rising (from 2.42 million to 3.07 million in 2007 and 2023 respectively) and baby boomers haven't started dying off yet. When that time arrives (within less than 10 years), deaths in the US will soar to 4 million/year and will remain at this level for a very long time.

I don't know where you got this "Japanese marrying with robots" thing (cartoonish misconceptions about foreign countries are so dated), but you realize fertility rates in the US and Japan is not that different anymore right? 1.64 children per women vs 1.33. One could argue they're actually converging: as recent as in 2005 fertility rate was at 2.06 in the US and 1.26 in Japan. Basically fertility rate plunged by 0.5 children in the past 15 years whereas in Japan it remained more or less on their same (low) level, with an actual promising small recovery back on the 2010's.

So yeah, an American woman today has 1.6 child while a Japanese has 1.3. It's not dramatically difference. Americans are not having five children in big suburban compounds while Japanese are marrying to robots. Low fertility rates, below population replacement level, is now present over the entire American and European continents, Oceania and half of Asia. It's not a small thing restricted to "weird foreigners".

[JManc]

You need to learn to take a joke but either way, the US benefits from immigration, Japan doesn't. When i was there, I couldn't help but notice it was virtually an open air nursing home. Old people everywhere.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by JManc

You need to learn to take a joke but either way, the US benefits from immigration, Japan doesn't. When i was there, I couldn't help but notice it was virtually an open air nursing home. Old people everywhere.

The US has other issues though, including not getting old enough. With such low life expectancy, population decline might kick in faster than it would if the US was more in line with other developed countries in this regard.

Immigration another issue that’s not very favourable right now: the US doesn’t benefit from it as much as it could. It’s actually quite low compared to other developed countries and it’s still causing such political uproar. And depending on how things developed this year up there, I wouldn’t be surprise if the US pursuing a zero immigration policy from 2025 onwards (or a negative one, actively expelling “illegals”). For the US to meet the 345 million projection for the 2030 Census, it will have to take in 8 million immigrants over the next 7 years (with an optimistic assumption births will outnumber deaths by 2 million over this 7 years).