Worldwide Demographics

[Crawford]

The U.S. is unlikely to face aging issues like Brazil. The U.S. can control relative levels of inmigration, Brazil can't.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Population decline outside of metropolitan areas is a phenomenon throughout the developed world. The factors may differ slightly from country to country but the emptying out of rural areas has been going on for a while. Young people leave after high school leaving these places with mostly middle aged and older.

As these cohorts start dying off population decline will be far more severe because there's practically no one of child bearing age to offset that. I suppose some urbanites will buy summer homes and/or retire in these places as money tied up in real estate will go a lot further in these depressed places.

Before Covid-19 and the possible new dynamics it introduced, I draw a parallel between the United States and Brazil concerning urban growth.

The United States had seen its suburbs to skyrocket while big urban centres decline. This pattern changed a bit in the past 15 years, with a new interest on urban life while suburbs start to see a much more modest growth.

Brazil is different, we don't have proper suburbs here. On the other hand, we see a similar phenomenon, with some one-two decade delay. The biggest metro areas grew incredibly fast between 1950-1991, while they slowed down from the 1990's. Then the middle-sized urban areas became very attractive, with vibrant economies and attract people that otherwise head straight to the state capitals. And I believe in the next decade the mid-sized will lose steam and the major urban areas, specially São Paulo, will benefit.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The U.S. is unlikely to face aging issues like Brazil. The U.S. can control relative levels of inmigration, Brazil can't.

Some demographers are saying the United States might see a population decline in 2020 already due Covid-19 (I don't believe though), so the US has clearly aging issues.

By 2030, considering life expectancy in the US, we'll see people born in the early 1950's to die en masse. We're talking about 4 million deaths/year. Births are declining and might be just above 3 million by 2030. That's where Germany is today.

Regardless immigration, Americans got older and will become even older in the future.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Some demographers are saying the United States might see a population decline in 2020 already due Covid-19 (I don't believe though), so the US has clearly aging issues.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the U.S. has a negative growth rate in 2020 due to COVID. The country grew by about 1M in 2019, which was already relatively slow. There are already more than 200K confirmed deaths due to COVID, and who knows how many unconfirmed. Combine that with typical deaths from other causes, along with zero immigration due to closed borders, and negative growth for the U.S. is well within the realm of possibility.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the U.S. has a negative growth rate in 2020 due to COVID. The country grew by about 1M in 2019, which was already relatively slow. There are already more than 200K confirmed deaths due to COVID, and who knows how many unconfirmed. Combine that with typical deaths from other causes, along with zero immigration due to closed borders, and negative growth for the U.S. is well within the realm of possibility.

In 2019, there were 3.745 million births and 2.855 million deaths in the US. Considering births going down to 3.65-3.70 million and an excess of 250k deaths, meaning 3.1 million deaths overall. Immigration will probably fall to close to zero, but even then we'd have a 600k increase for 2020.

That's why I think negative growth is extremely unlike for this year. Negative natural growth, however, will happen during this decade.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Some demographers are saying the United States might see a population decline in 2020 already due Covid-19 (I don't believe though), so the US has clearly aging issues.

Right, but the difference is that U.S. population decline is a choice. We have closed borders, zero immigration, and cratered birth rates, currently. The first two factors will change shortly, while the third likely won't. The U.S. can largely dictate its relative level of population growth via inmigration.

If the U.S. decided to add, say 30 million immigrants a year, it could do so. So if there's future population decline, it's a conscious choice. Brazil would probably need to increase birth rates to grow population. There are probably prospects for increased near-term inmigration as long as there are poorer neighboring states (and Venezuela is obviously a disaster), but this is not a long-term demographic fix.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, but the difference is that U.S. population decline is a choice. We have closed borders, zero immigration, and cratered birth rates, currently. The first two factors will change shortly, while the third likely won't. The U.S. can largely dictate its relative level of population growth via inmigration.

If the U.S. decided to add, say 30 million immigrants a year, it could do so. So if there's future population decline, it's a conscious choice. Brazil would probably need to increase birth rates to grow population. There are probably prospects for increased near-term inmigration as long as there are poorer neighboring states (and Venezuela is obviously a disaster), but this is not a long-term demographic fix.

But then things are what they are. Americans (and Brazilians for that matter) can also "choose" to have 1.9 or 2.1 children instead of the current 1.7 where they stand.

Brazilian population is still almost 10 years younger than American, despite all the massive influx the US gets, so Brazilian structure is still more favorable. If the country stabilizes around 1.7 (for instance, TFR has stopped falling in South since the mid-2000's), Brazil can postpone its decline to the 2040's, buying some time to adapt to a world of low population growth.

And then, if Brazil keeps its doors wide open, to pursue an immigration policy, it can expect to atract good numbers from the fast growing West Africa.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

But then things are what they are. Americans (and Brazilians for that matter) can also "choose" to have 1.9 or 2.1 children instead of the current 1.7 where they stand.

Technically, yes, but basically all secular developed states have low and dropping birthrates. When women have choices, they choose small families.

And I don't think West Africans would choose to go to Brazil if they could access Europe or North America.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Technically, yes, but basically all secular developed states have low and dropping birthrates. When women have choices, they choose small families.

And I don't think West Africans would choose to go to Brazil if they could access Europe or North America.

On the other hand, I don't think western Europe or northern America would absorb every West African willing to migrate and Brazil could feed on that. Nigeria alone is about to overcome Brazil population wise.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

In 2019, there were 3.745 million births and 2.855 million deaths in the US. Considering births going down to 3.65-3.70 million and an excess of 250k deaths, meaning 3.1 million deaths overall. Immigration will probably fall to close to zero, but even then we'd have a 600k increase for 2020.

That's why I think negative growth is extremely unlike for this year. Negative natural growth, however, will happen during this decade.

The U.S. is on track for +300K deaths from COVID by end of year. There is no way to know the unconfirmed death total, but we know it's not zero and the deaths probably began before we knew what was happening. There has also been an uptick in deaths not related to COVID. So, overall, there will be an uptick in deaths that will likely be substantially above 2019 death totals. That's pretty much a given.

OTOH, not only is immigration falling to zero, but people are leaving the U.S. to go to their home countries. There's no way to know how many, but I know of several people that either have already, or will return to their home countries by the end of the year. I think this trend is more biased to people from rich countries, but it is definitely a trend.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

My thoughts exactly when I was analyzing Brazilian data.

While numbers present this 10-year delay, growth components are quite different: Brazil has a neutral migration rate while the US is positive, but not so much lately.

In Brazil, growth is basically births minus deaths and while births peaked in the mid-1980's at 4 million/year, it now stands at 2.8 million, down from 3.3 million in 2000 and 3 million in 2010. Deaths, on the other hand, are always on a rising as the population ages. By 2030, I guess Brazil will be at 2.5-2.8 million while deaths will rise from 1.3 million in 2019 to around 1.8 million by 2030, for an annual increase below 1 million/year by the late 2020's.

Yes, it could very well unfold as you're saying. The US population could peak far sooner than people expect due to net migration dropping dramatically. Maybe they'll hit 340-345 million then flat line or decline. Brazil's population may peak about 10 years later and at around 235-240 million.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Before Covid-19 and the possible new dynamics it introduced, I draw a parallel between the United States and Brazil concerning urban growth.

The United States had seen its suburbs to skyrocket while big urban centres decline. This pattern changed a bit in the past 15 years, with a new interest on urban life while suburbs start to see a much more modest growth.

Brazil is different, we don't have proper suburbs here. On the other hand, we see a similar phenomenon, with some one-two decade delay. The biggest metro areas grew incredibly fast between 1950-1991, while they slowed down from the 1990's. Then the middle-sized urban areas became very attractive, with vibrant economies and attract people that otherwise head straight to the state capitals. And I believe in the next decade the mid-sized will lose steam and the major urban areas, specially São Paulo, will benefit.

1950s style suburbia is unsustainable yet the US continues to build lots of it. There simply isn't a big enough tax base in suburbia to maintain and repair all those roads, sewers, electrical, etc. Up till now it's relied on massive subsidies from government.

Historically, we did much the same thing in Canada but our urban planning policies did a 180 degree pivot about 20-25 years ago. Our metros are all intensifying rapidly so we've dodged a bullet, so to speak. The problem in the US is that massive intensification requires strong population growth. With US population growth collapsing they can't intensify their cities to the point where there will be enough tax payers per square km to pay for it all. I suspect lots of US municipalities still haven't woken up to what a big problem they've created.

Brazilian metros have a built in advantage over their US counterparts as they never sprawled out like that in the first place.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by isaidso

1950s style suburbia is unsustainable yet the US continues to build lots of it. There simply isn't a big enough tax base in suburbia to maintain and repair all those roads, sewers, electrical, etc. Up till now it's relied on massive subsidies from government.

So I don't like sprawl, but this makes no sense. The vast majority of U.S. sprawl is self-funded. Roads and utilities are funded via special assessments from new homeowners and businesses. You're generally paying higher taxes in sprawl than in older suburbia. It may be inefficient, but there are no direct subsidies to sprawl, really.

[park123]

Originally Posted by isaidso

1950s style suburbia is unsustainable yet the US continues to build lots of it. There simply isn't a big enough tax base in suburbia to maintain and repair all those roads, sewers, electrical, etc. Up till now it's relied on massive subsidies from government.

We've done the same thing in Canada but did a 180 degree pivot about 20-25 years ago. Our metros are all intensifying rapidly so we've dodged a bullet, so to speak. The problem in the US is that massive intensification requires strong population growth. With population growth collapsing they can't intensify their cities to the point where there will be enough tax payers per square km to pay for it all.

Brazilian metros have a built in advantage over their US counterparts as they never sprawled out like that in the first place.

US suburbia is perfectly sustainable. If it weren't, you'd think it wouldn't last for 60+ years and still be going strong. You say the tax base is not large enough, but that it gets "subsidies" from the government. Where does the government get its money, other than from the tax base? OK if you want to get cute you can say money printing, but anyway if something continued for as long as the American suburbs have continued, it is "sustainable".

If you pressed a lot of Americans, and they thought about it a bit, I think many people would say that national wealth is exactly for things like the suburbs. It's not necessary, but neither are disposal fast fashion or foreign vacations or restaurant meals. We have this wealth and we have the world's largest economy precisely so we can spend it as we wish, including on large ass suburban homes 25 miles from our workplaces and 3 miles from the nearest shop.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by park123

US suburbia is perfectly sustainable.

Your perception is extremely prevalent and why I don't hold out much hope. You can't fix something if you don't accept that there's a problem. If you're interested, there's a ton of information on it in the public realm. I tried looking for video presentation I watched last year but couldn't find it. Maybe I can find it tonight.

[Yuri]

From US Census Bureau:

Over 99% of Households Counted So Far in 2020 Census

I hope they release preliminary figures soon.

[isaidso]

edit

[C.]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

From US Census Bureau:

Over 99% of Households Counted So Far in 2020 Census

I hope they release preliminary figures soon.

I'm skeptical of this number. Anyone else skeptical of the census claiming 99% of households have been countered?

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by C.

I'm skeptical of this number. Anyone else skeptical of the census claiming 99% of households have been countered?

It’s referring to all housing units being accounted for. That’s not too difficult-a house exists or it doesn’t.

The part the census has trouble with is the self-response. Did a grandparent move in? Is there a new baby? Student returned home from college? Did the census worker contact a neighbor or landlord for resident who’s on vacation or in the hospital... so on so on.

That’s where the undercounts happens.

[Yuri]

US vital statistics for the first half of 2020 are available, and as it'ss expected, Covid had a huge impact.

Number of births declined from 1.814 million (Jan-Jun 2019) to 1.778 million (Jan-Jun 2020) and deaths climbed from 1.443 million to 1.626 million.

The way things are developing, natural growth in the US will be around 250,000 or so in 2020, down from 900,000 last year and from 1.9 million mere 13 years ago (2007).