America's population will peak at 364 million in 42 years

[ChiMIchael]

I honestly think slow or negative population growth could be good for the lower classes. Scarcer labor force can yield higher wages, which can lead to higher qualities of life and can also be less vulnerable to be collateral of innovation. Not to mention the reduction of resource exploitation.

[chris08876]

Lower growth is ideal in some situations. Like with the U.S., we have so many issues right now, a mile high, from healthcare to education to folks affording homes, and the way it is right now, the last we need are more folks.

Now we obviously want growth, of course, but what a lower pop growth could serve as is a way to fine-tune OR improve the current system or hell, scrap it and start fresh. Time will tell, but what is true is that a ton of issues are present with the current stock of 330 million.

But the thing with these type of projections is that some global event could happen or some dynamic shift that could alter it dramatically. Life is complex, and so is the future. What may be normal today, could be upside down tomorrow or 5 years from now. A dynamic system with variations measured in the quadrillions.

I hope the U.S. can fine tune the country to run smooth and provide an unparalleled life for 364 million folks. I'd rather have less people, but higher quality of life.

One of those cases where less is better (people). A billion folks won't do much if they all live like crap. Might look good in pictures, but that's the wrong kind of street energy.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

I honestly think slow or negative population growth could be good for the lower classes. Scarcer labor force can yield higher wages, which can lead to higher qualities of life and can also be less vulnerable to be collateral of innovation. Not to mention the reduction of resource exploitation.

On the other hand, demand will be always smaller making most investments pointless. A deflationary pressure might emerge keeping markets even more depressed.

I guess society will struggle a lot to adapt to this very new scenario.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Lower growth is ideal in some situations. Like with the U.S., we have so many issues right now, a mile high, from healthcare to education to folks affording homes, and the way it is right now, the last we need are more folks.

Now we obviously want growth, of course, but what a lower pop growth could serve as is a way to fine-tune OR improve the current system or hell, scrap it and start fresh. Time will tell, but what is true is that a ton of issues are present with the current stock of 330 million.

But the thing with these type of projections is that some global event could happen or some dynamic shift that could alter it dramatically. Life is complex, and so is the future. What may be normal today, could be upside down tomorrow or 5 years from now. A dynamic system with variations measured in the quadrillions.

I hope the U.S. can fine tune the country to run smooth and provide an unparalleled life for 364 million folks. I'd rather have less people, but higher quality of life.

One of those cases where less is better (people). A billion folks won't do much if they all live like crap. Might look good in pictures, but that's the wrong kind of street energy.

I guess it's not a matter of how many people as 364 million is indeed a lot. What makes demographers and policy makers anxious is the direction of population growth and the impact it will have on how our economy will work.

Let's think of Pittsburgh and Charlotte, roughly the same size, but going to completely directions. The whole US will look like today's Northeast Ohio or Western Pennsylvania but without any hope to deter the decline.

[MolsonExport]

We have to get off of the perpetual economic and population growth model sooner or later.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

We have to get off of the perpetual economic and population growth model sooner or later.

I agree. But how well will adapt to this new model that's worries me.

If only the population decline were mild, giving society time to adapt, things would be easier. However, with such low TFR everywhere, the Americas, Europe and most of Asia will see their population collapsing badly within 2-4 decades.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I agree. But how well will adapt to this new model that's worries me.

If only the population decline were mild, giving society time to adapt, things would be easier. However, with such low TFR everywhere, the Americas, Europe and most of Asia will see their population collapsing badly within 2-4 decades.

yes, I do agree with this as well. The very likely scenario is greatly increased immigration from the few places that will be growing like gangbusters (Africa, and parts of the Middle East). This is already happening in places like Germany. Whether people in many countries have the stomach for this, is quite another thing.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I guess it's not a matter of how many people as 364 million is indeed a lot. What makes demographers and policy makers anxious is the direction of population growth and the impact it will have on how our economy will work.

Let's think of Pittsburgh and Charlotte, roughly the same size, but going to completely directions. The whole US will look like today's Northeast Ohio or Western Pennsylvania but without any hope to deter the decline.

The U.S. might have to massively start investing on its people. Things like housing, education, and so on. Kids are a massive investment. Its like taking out a mortgage every time one has a kid. If they care about the kid and its future. Some folks just have kids and don't care, but if one wants to provide, its expensive!

We could also allow more immigration too, raise the cap.

If the economy is what they seek.

That's the fine line though. Kinda hard to have one without neglecting the other. It could be done, but with the U.S. the way it is now, major overhaul is needed.

Infinite growth is not possible nor is prolonged growth. Eventually, it will reach the ceiling. Wasn't too long ago that we had sticks and stones. Last 120 years have been incredible. But to expect that level of growth without fundamental change to how our society runs and works and treats others... it will not happen. I mean it could... but an awful amount of folks will suffer. Too many for discomfort for those that care.

But let's focus on nature first and fixing it. That will wipe us out if not corrected, and than none of this means squat.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

Honestly imagining Nigeria as having that many people crammed into it with such deplorable conditions is nightmare inducing.

I'd expect immigration as opposed to sharp, uninhibited growth.

[liat91]

There are two things no one has mentioned here so far. Automation and robotics. Especially in this country, the second our hyper capitalist system looses its access to cheap bodies, expect an explosion of AI.

Other projections may have been higher, including the UN (which forecasts an exploding Africa/Middle East), but others are even lower than this most recent projection.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...55-report.html

I’m pretty sure the missing billion are from sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. Though the only country in the Middle East that is growing substantially is Egypt. Iran and Turkey are below replace level fertility now. The other thing they failed to mention is replacement level fertility of 2.1 is for wealthy nations with advanced healthcare systems. There are places in Africa where the replacement fertility is like 2.7.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Does that mean we won't get the chance to do this?

• Video Link

[chris08876]

Ethiopia really jumped up in the rankings. It was 66 million in 2000. 36 million in 1981.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by liat91

There are two things no one has mentioned here so far. Automation and robotics. Especially in this country, the second our hyper capitalist system looses its access to cheap bodies, expect an explosion of AI.

Other projections may have been higher, including the UN (which forecasts an exploding Africa/Middle East), but others are even lower than this most recent projection.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...55-report.html

I’m pretty sure the missing billion are from sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. Though the only country in the Middle East that is growing substantially is Egypt. Iran and Turkey are below replace level fertility now. The other thing they failed to mention is replacement level fertility of 2.1 is for wealthy nations with advanced healthcare systems. There are places in Africa where the replacement fertility is like 2.7.

And even Egypt (and I guess the rest of North Africa) is receding. From 2.7 million (2014) to 2.3 million (2019). It seems, at least for the Middle East and North Africa, those forecasts are a bit overestimated leaving only Sub Saharan Africa fueling population growth till the end of the century.

[M II A II R II K]

Canada will have to rely on immigration as global fertility rate plummets: study

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada...2100-1.5025075

.....

- The study predicts that Canada's population will peak later in the century, at nearly 45.2 million in 2078, and fall slightly to 44.1 million by 2100. — The researchers expect Canada to become an even more prominent immigration hub over the next 80 years, forecasting us to have the world's highest net migration rate, immigrants minus emigrants. — All that immigration would see Canada replacing Russia as the world 10th-largest economy by 2030 and remaining there for the rest of the century, even as Nigeria and Australia bump Brazil and Italy out of the top 10, according to the forecast.

.....

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by liat91

There are two things no one has mentioned here so far. Automation and robotics. Especially in this country, the second our hyper capitalist system looses its access to cheap bodies, expect an explosion of AI.

Other projections may have been higher, including the UN (which forecasts an exploding Africa/Middle East), but others are even lower than this most recent projection.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...55-report.html

I’m pretty sure the missing billion are from sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. Though the only country in the Middle East that is growing substantially is Egypt. Iran and Turkey are below replace level fertility now. The other thing they failed to mention is replacement level fertility of 2.1 is for wealthy nations with advanced healthcare systems. There are places in Africa where the replacement fertility is like 2.7.

These countries are all still growing rapidly.
Yemen
Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia
Jordan

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Canada will have to rely on immigration as global fertility rate plummets: study

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada...2100-1.5025075

interesting, but actually can will be number one by that time after it is inevitably consumed by the north am metroplex with usa and mex.

[Handro]

This is very interesting to me. I've always been aware of the effects of population growth/decline but I guess I never really thought that deeply about it. In 100-200 years, could humans be a finite resource that countries are fighting over? Some might (persuavively) argue that we've already overstayed our welcome on planet earth, so it stands to reason that the laws of nature could at some point inhibit exponential population growth, at which time--as yuriandrade alluded to--economies would start collapsing, right?

[liat91]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

These countries are all still growing rapidly.
Yemen
Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia
Jordan

Saudi Arabia has a 1.95 TFR. Although it has high immigration rates which isn’t really being considered here, right? Some of the other nations you listed are smaller in size, with minimized impact related to the entire regions growth.

I would add Afghanistan with its 4.82 TFR and Iraq with 3.39 as significant contributors. Any country > 30 million people with a TFR > 3.0 and those > 100 million with TFR > 2.5, would be major long term population drivers imo.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

We have to get off of the perpetual economic and population growth model sooner or later.

Not going so well here in Illinois!

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

On the other hand, demand will be always smaller making most investments pointless. A deflationary pressure might emerge keeping markets even more depressed.

I guess society will struggle a lot to adapt to this very new scenario.

In theory, one could institute expansionary monetary policies to offset the collapse in demand. Wither it's in the form of direct payments to citizens or even governments funding themselves directly from the treasury.

For example, I have often thought that if Japan gave every household 100,000 yen a month just out of the BOJ's printing presses it would stop Japan's deflationary slide literally overnight. The relief it would give households to care for aging parents would be much needed and would almost pay for itself in reliving the government of much of it's social service burden.