Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Demographic Cliff: How will our society survive as it becomes older and numbers become fewer?
American Thinker ^ | 12/04/2012 | Jerome Koch

Posted on 12/04/2012 10:09:40 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Lost within the tsunami of campaign reporting was a study released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on October 3, 2012. The report, titled "Births: Preliminary Data for 2011," passed through the 24-hour news cycle with hardly a mention. The only reason I heard about it was due to a short blurb carried by a local outlet, which reported a significant drop in teenage births. This news item was, of course, reported as positive. But the full report and its tables of statistics reveals nothing positive whatsoever.

According to the CDC numbers, 2011 was a banner year. It recorded the lowest birthrate in our national history.

In March of 2011 I penned a short essay for American Thinker, "Where Have All the Children Gone?" which considered the worldwide trend of falling birthrates. This essay will cover the recent declining birthrates inside the United States, as well as economic repercussion that fall entails. According to the report, the General Fertility Rate (GFR) for the U.S. in 2011 was 63 births per 1000 females (ages 15-44). This was a 1 percent drop from 2010. The decline among Hispanic American females was 6%; the decline among non-Hispanic blacks was 1%, and there was no change among non-Hispanic whites.

Nineteen states saw drops in live births, including both Blue states (California, Illinois, and New York) and Red states (Texas, North Carolina, Utah, and North Carolina). Among the different age cohorts, the number of births dropped 10% for females 15-19, 5% for females 20-24 (the lowest number of births ever recorded for that cohort). For females 25-29 the birthrate declined just a tad under 1 percent. The birthrate for females 30-34 remained unchanged, while the age group 35-39 saw a 3% increase in their birthrate. The birthrate for females 40-44 remained essentially unchanged.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: demography

1 posted on 12/04/2012 10:09:46 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If trends continue, the United States will follow Japan (whose population is now shrinking at 250,000 people a year), Germany (which will lose 25% of its population during the next 50 years), and Russia (in which over 1000 villages are abandoned each year). What should have been the number one issue of the 2012 elections wasn’t even mentioned by either candidate. The funding (or lack thereof) of our generously bloated welfare state has to come from somewhere.

Our federal budget deficits are not only a symptom of a political class that refuses to say no — they are also a reflection of our inverted demographic status. Two of our largest entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicare) depend solely on large cadres of younger workers earning sufficient incomes to keep everything going. The deficits we shall face in coming years will tower above what we’re running now. There will be too many elderly retirees and too few younger workers.


2 posted on 12/04/2012 10:10:27 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Just look at Europe. Same is happening here.


3 posted on 12/04/2012 10:11:16 AM PST by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

not just that

but the government subsidizes the killing of numerous babies too


4 posted on 12/04/2012 10:13:59 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Japan will be fine because they didn’t destroy their culture.

God help the rest of us...


5 posted on 12/04/2012 10:14:36 AM PST by DwFry (Baby Boomers Killed Western Civilization!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

On the bright side I see Muslim women with numerous kids in tow all over the place.

/s


6 posted on 12/04/2012 10:16:01 AM PST by Aria ( 2008 & 2012 weren't elections - both were a coup d'etat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Obama death panels will help cull out the growing senior population.
Need a heart! Too bad. Need a lung, too bad, need a kidney, too bad.
Need a blood transfusion, too bad.
The DC elites now will have the power to decide who lives and who dies.
Conservative? Too bad. You don’t get the treatment u need to live.

This once great nation has crossed the point of no return.


7 posted on 12/04/2012 10:18:45 AM PST by tennmountainman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

well the government giving everybody Free Birth Control is certainly gonna solve it /sarc


8 posted on 12/04/2012 10:21:33 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It won’t.

Conseravtives will die, and they will not be replaced in any significant number to matter versus the drones being manufactured out of our children.

I would say that hopefully some future society learns from our mistakes, but that will not happen. As a society reaches a certain level of comfort, complacency sets in, its citizens think that circumstances that allowed such advancement are guaranteed when they are not. Meanwhile the enemies of that society plot relentlessly, and they will succeed.

What I have learned in my time on this rock is that mankind is not capable of defending his freedom neither from his enemies nor himself.


9 posted on 12/04/2012 10:29:13 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If trends continue, the United States will follow Japan (whose population is now shrinking at 250,000 people a year), Germany (which will lose 25% of its population during the next 50 years), and Russia (in which over 1000 villages are abandoned each year).

Absolute nonsense. We are going to add 130 million more people in the next 40 years. Since 2000, our population has increased by 32 million or about the current population of Canada. The idea that we are going to lose population is absurd. Our current fertility rate is 2.06 and when you add in annual immigration, we will be fueling a population increase. It will not be in the too distant future that we will be approaching half a billion people in the US.

The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 46 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest level in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.

Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 313 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by 130 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any major developed country in the world, i.e., 0.9% (2012 estimate), principally due to immigration.

An Older and More Diverse Nation by Midcentury

10 posted on 12/04/2012 10:31:16 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Once all the ‘makers’ are gone... the ‘takers’ will have to remember (if they ever knew) how to be productive and then, how to lead.

By that time, the functional models for ‘making’ and ‘leadership’ will be so far removed from living memory that this new group of will have to wing it! That's where humanity reverts to type and puts abjectly greedy and unscrupulous people in the position of total control!

I say, good luck to them... I'm glad I'll be gone.

11 posted on 12/04/2012 10:32:52 AM PST by SMARTY ("The man who has no inner-life is a slave to his surroundings. "Henri Frederic Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Birth rates do not necessarily only move in one direction. The term "baby boomers," for example, suggests the actual upward swing in the birthrate, after World War II.

Around 1900, it looked like the falling birthrate among American Indian tribes, might indicate their eventual extinction; but they rallied back up.

Whatever is coming, Conservatives need to get both their priorities & tactics in much clearer focus. (See Whither American Conservatism.

William Flax

12 posted on 12/04/2012 10:42:37 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Extrapolating out the birthrate reduction during a recession does not seem valid to me.

The entire world population is eventually going to top out and start declining, but that may take close to a 100 years or so.

In the meantime we are doing much better than most advanced countries in the population increase area because of our comparatively liberal immigration policy, along with our de facto support of illegal immigration.

There are a lot of reasons why people not born here might want to settle here: lots of coastal property, varied climates and topographies, decent economy, generally free, etc. So if and when we need to entice young people to move here to support the old folks, we will be able to do so.

It would be nice if the people we enticed here were people who could support themselves and represented a true slice of humanity and not a rather narrow slice of those who happen to be living next door.

13 posted on 12/04/2012 10:57:28 AM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“Our current fertility rate is 2.06 and when you add in annual immigration, we will be fueling a population increase. It will not be in the too distant future that we will be approaching half a billion people in the US.”

The US population will hopefully remain stable. The current immigration rate will drop as worldwide fertility declines.


14 posted on 12/04/2012 11:06:10 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

“The entire world population is eventually going to top out and start declining, but that may take close to a 100 years or so.”

Try 20. The UN’s low population estimate is optimistic, and assumes that nations with negative fertility rates magically trend upwards.


15 posted on 12/04/2012 11:08:03 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Christian homeschooled kids are politically active at a 14X rate of the general population.
Christian homeschooling households usually have 5 or more kids.


16 posted on 12/04/2012 11:11:37 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Well, as you can see, that is making all the difference in the world.


17 posted on 12/04/2012 11:17:35 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
How will our society survive as it becomes older and numbers become fewer?

Answer: It won't.

In the Southwest, hispanics are filling the vacuum by breedling like rabbits, as are the middle easterners in the upper Midwest.

Look alongside the streets of most communities... the mothers, the babies in strollers and the kids trailing behind aren't of the Caucasian persuasion.

I predict within 50 years, hispanics and muslims will be fighting over the landmass of the former America.

18 posted on 12/04/2012 11:22:11 AM PST by ScottinVA (I've never been more disgusted with American voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY
Once all the ‘makers’ are gone... the ‘takers’ will have to remember (if they ever knew) how to be productive and then, how to lead.

No.. they'll go even more feral and slaughter each other at an increasing rate for what they have. What you see in southside Chicago will be far more widespread.

19 posted on 12/04/2012 11:26:17 AM PST by ScottinVA (I've never been more disgusted with American voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

“What you see in southside Chicago will be far more widespread.”

Yup!

That’s a petri dish environment and perfect for a bloodthirsty tyrant who will make “O” look like a broken-glass Republican.


20 posted on 12/04/2012 11:36:11 AM PST by SMARTY ("The man who has no inner-life is a slave to his surroundings. "Henri Frederic Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

Didn’t Hispanic birth rates drop by 6% in 2011? Caucasian rates were unchanged. Unless they are lying to us.


21 posted on 12/04/2012 12:16:02 PM PST by princeofdarkness ( Nobama. No more. No way. November 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

The Baby Boom was a result of years of significantly lower birthrates during the Great Depression and the war years. People had been putting off having children for years. Yes, when the economy recovers, the rate will go up, but it probably won’t go as high as it was before.


22 posted on 12/04/2012 12:37:14 PM PST by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Years ago, back before the start of the Recession, the US fertility rate was 2.06. Nowadays it has dropped to somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.9


23 posted on 12/04/2012 12:37:30 PM PST by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
The current immigration rate will drop as worldwide fertility declines.

No way. First the fertility rates in the Third World will remain well above replacement levels. They will want to come to the US and other developed countries. Currently, the US takes in 1.2 million legal immigrants a year--more than the rest of the world combined. And those numbers will continue to increase under our current kinship system of immigration. There are 4.5 million intending immigrants waiting overseas to enter. They have completed all of the required paperwork and are just waiting their turn to enter depending upon what category they are in.

24 posted on 12/04/2012 12:44:42 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“No way. First the fertility rates in the Third World will remain well above replacement levels.”

What is the present worldwide TFR?


25 posted on 12/04/2012 12:47:36 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
I got the 2.06 from the CIA Factbook. 80% of our population growth comes from immigration.

Here is an eyeopener from the Census Bureau: Most Children Younger Than Age 1 are Minorities, Census Bureau Reports

26 posted on 12/04/2012 12:51:24 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Here is the global info from the CIA Factbook

Total fertility rate: 2.47 children born/woman (2012 est.)

Birthrate=19.14 births/1,000 population. Note:this rate results in about 252 worldwide births per minute or 4.2 births every second (2012 est.)

Population growth rate: .096%

Note:this rate results in about 145 net additions to the worldwide population every minute or 2.4 every second (2012 est.)

Here are the fertility rates by country. The US is 124.

27 posted on 12/04/2012 1:02:54 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Yep, the war against overpopulation has been won. TFR means that the birthrate right now is less than two and a half children for every woman - not even two to replace and a spare.


28 posted on 12/04/2012 1:06:27 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
The US adds one person (net) to our population every 15 seconds.
29 posted on 12/04/2012 1:08:40 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
2.1 is replacement level. The world's population will continue to increase by about 50 million a year until at least 2050.

And the US will not have a population problem as long as it continues to take in huge numbers of immigrants. We may not be the same country, but we will remain number 3 or 4 in terms of population globally. I am more concerned about too many people than too little. We are bankrupt and taking in more poor people every year can not be sustained.

30 posted on 12/04/2012 1:13:18 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“2.1 is replacement level.”

In the developed world, sure. Not in the developing world.
Remember that death rates are higher in the developing world. Higher death rates require a higher birthrate.

I expect to see in a few years, a worldwide birth cohort smaller than the previous year’s birth cohort.

“The world’s population will continue to increase by about 50 million a year until at least 2050.”

Mostly due to the fact that people are living longer than previous.

“And the US will not have a population problem as long as it continues to take in huge numbers of immigrants.”

The immigrants simply won’t be there in 20 years. The US will not have a population problem because it is replacing itself. People are not going to leave countries where there is a population shortage. That is why the US doesn’t get much immigration from Europe.

Immigration from Asia is going to start choosing China over the US, and possibly Japan, if they change their laws. That is the only thing that will deter the coming collapse in both China and Japan, and even if you take the excess for all of Asia - it barely meets the workforce shortfall in China.

“I am more concerned about too many people than too little.”

You are shortsighted. Obama is trying to do everything he can to destroy this nation and cut it off from a prosperous future as THE world power when all the other european nations have collapsed.

“We are bankrupt and taking in more poor people every year can not be sustained.”

Nonsense. The US is bankrupt because it spends more per person than Europe. Cut the spending and the problem will be solved.


31 posted on 12/04/2012 1:23:18 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
In the developed world, sure. Not in the developing world. Remember that death rates are higher in the developing world. Higher death rates require a higher birthrate. I expect to see in a few years, a worldwide birth cohort smaller than the previous year’s birth cohort.

S what. The global fertility rate is still way above replacement level at 2.47. The population will continue to increase.

UNITED NATIONS, 3MAY – The current world population of close to 7 billion is projected to reach 10.1 billion in the next ninety years, reaching 9.3 billion by the middle of this century, according to the medium variant of the 2010 Revision of World Population Prospects, the official United Nations population projections prepared by the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, which is being launched today. Much of this increase is projected to come from the high-fertility countries, which comprise 39 countries in Africa, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and four in Latin America.

Today, 42 per cent of the world’s population lives in low-fertility countries, that is, countries where women are not having enough children to ensure that, on average, each woman is replaced by a daughter who survives to the age of procreation. Another 40 per cent lives in intermediate-fertility countries where each woman is having, on average, between 1 and 1.5 daughters, and the remaining 18 per cent lives in high-fertility countries where the average woman has more than 1.5 daughters.

Mostly due to the fact that people are living longer than previous.

I wouldn't say mostly yet, but there is no doubt that as fertility rates decline in the poorer countries due to increased life spans and lower infant mortality rates, the populations will continue to rise. China has a fertility rate well below replacement levels but its population continues to rise for that reason.

Immigration from Asia is going to start choosing China over the US, and possibly Japan, if they change their laws. That is the only thing that will deter the coming collapse in both China and Japan, and even if you take the excess for all of Asia - it barely meets the workforce shortfall in China.

I doubt they will be going to China for a number of reasons including political and cultural reasons. The Chinese will not assimilate foreigners nor will many Asian countries including Japan and South Korea. China has to worry about the peasants moving in from the countryside to urban areas. The government influences the pattern of urbanization through the Hukou permanent residence registration system, land-sale policies, infrastructure investment and the incentives offered to local government officials. Estimations are that Chinese cities will face an influx of another 243 million migrants by 2025, taking the urban population up to nearly 1 billion people. In the medium and large cities, about half the population will be migrants, which is almost three times the current level.

You are shortsighted. Obama is trying to do everything he can to destroy this nation and cut it off from a prosperous future as THE world power when all the other european nations have collapsed.

Please be more specific about how Obama is trying to cut us off from a prosperous future as it applies to population growth.

Nonsense. The US is bankrupt because it spends more per person than Europe. Cut the spending and the problem will be solved.

LOL. Do you think that adding 130 million to our population over the next 40 years, 80% due to immigration, will reduce spending. We bring in 1.2 million legal immigrants a year, most of whom are poor and undeducated. 25% of the adults lack even a high school degree. We are importing poverty. 57% of immigrant headed households are welfare. They support Big Government and not less spending.

87 percent of the 1.2 million legal immigrants entering annually are minorities as defined by the U.S. Government and almost all of the illegal aliens are minorities. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under in the U.S. will be classified as minorities and by 2042, half of the residents of this country will be minorities. Generally, immigrants and minorities vote predominantly for the Democrat Party. Hence, Democrats view immigration as a never-ending source of voters that will make them the permanent majority party.

We just added another huge entitlement program--Obamacare--a few years ago. SS has been running in the red since 2010 and Medicare since 2008. We have 70 million on Medicaid and Obamacare will add another 18 million to the rolls. Right now Congress is struggling to find $1 trillion in spending cuts over a ten year period or $100 billion a year. If they can't cut $100 billion out of an annual budget of $3.7 trillion, how the hell do you expect them to cut spending? The Dems will tax more to keep the welfare state treading water for as long as they can. We will have the usual Guns vs Butter struggle that marks declining great nations and civilizations and once they eviscerate defense, they will turn to higher taxes for all, and then we will be Greece.

We can't afford to spend even European levels on welfare and entitlement programs, which represent an unfunded liability of over $60 trillion (75 year period.) Cut spending? That's a joke. Obama and the Dems don't want to talk about reforming the entitlement programs or raising taxes on the middle class. As Mark Steyn said, "Given that we're spending like Norwegians, why don't we just pay Norwegian tax rates?"

"Generally speaking, functioning societies make good-faith efforts to raise what they spend, subject to fluctuations in economic fortune: Government spending in Australia is 33.1 percent of GDP, and tax revenues are 27.1 percent. Likewise, government spending in Norway is 46.4 percent, and revenues are 41 percent – a shortfall but in the ballpark. Government spending in the United States is 42.2 percent, but revenues are 24 percent – the widest spending/taxing gulf in any major economy."

32 posted on 12/04/2012 2:12:50 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: princeofdarkness

I could be wrong, but I`m thinking that 6% was a drop in the rate of increase, rather than an actual drop.


33 posted on 12/04/2012 3:28:01 PM PST by ScottinVA (I've never been more disgusted with American voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“The global fertility rate is still way above replacement level at 2.47. The population will continue to increase.”

By definition - if the cohort in 2012 is smaller than the cohort in 2011, population is actually shrinking, not growing. There will be fewer children from one year to the next. You’ll see this happen in 5 years or so.

“I wouldn’t say mostly yet”

Yeah, it is mostly. 2.47 won’t see a natural population growth rate of more than a percent.

“China has a fertility rate well below replacement levels but its population continues to rise for that reason.”

Yes, but this is just a short-term phenomenon. Long term - China’s population will crash. There is nothing they can do about it - this crash is baked in. Once the cohorts start shrinking - the global crash is baked in too. Thankfully I’ll never see the actual crash in my lifetime. But it is coming.

“I doubt they will be going to China for a number of reasons including political and cultural reasons.”

China has no choice. They need 50 million people/year, and the only area with that many people is India. If they do not get 30 million people a year, they will crash.

“Estimations are that Chinese cities will face an influx of another 243 million migrants by 2025”

It won’t be enough. 2025 is 15 years away and they need 450 million people in that span to replace those leaving the workforce. China is doomed.

“Please be more specific about how Obama is trying to cut us off from a prosperous future as it applies to population growth.”

By lowering American fertility though publicly funded abortion and contraception in Obamacare.

“Do you think that adding 130 million to our population over the next 40 years, 80% due to immigration, will reduce spending.”

We won’t get 130 million over 40 years. We’ll be lucky to see 30 million. They won’t need to come illegally, because everyone is going to be in demand for immigration. There just aren’t going to be enough people to go around.

“We just added another huge entitlement program—Obamacare—a few years ago.”

And it needs to be cut. The problem is spending, and we need to dump Obamacare. We cannot afford Obamacare.

“If they can’t cut $100 billion out of an annual budget of $3.7 trillion, how the hell do you expect them to cut spending?”

Cuts are inevitable at this point.

“The Dems will tax more to keep the welfare state treading water for as long as they can.”

They will attempt to, but spending cuts are inevitable at this point.

“We can’t afford to spend even European levels on welfare and entitlement programs”

There’s just no way. Europe can’t afford what they are spending, let alone the US which is wealthier. Spending has to be cut to get the fiscal house of the US in order.

“Cut spending? That’s a joke.”

It’s going to happen. Either now, or later. Might have to wait for all the boomers to die off so that they’ve got theirs, but we’ll fix it.

“Given that we’re spending like Norwegians, why don’t we just pay Norwegian tax rates?”

Because we aren’t Norwegians? Cut spending. That is the only way out of this mess. Taxing more will reduce, not increase government revenues and will just make things collapse sooner.


34 posted on 12/04/2012 5:09:12 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
By definition - if the cohort in 2012 is smaller than the cohort in 2011, population is actually shrinking, not growing. There will be fewer children from one year to the next. You’ll see this happen in 5 years or so.

What kind of tortured reasoning is that? I live in the real world where the global population is increasing .096% a year--not shrinking. The only time the population starts shrinking globally is when we go below replacement level. That is some time off. The rate of increase will shrink if the current trends hold. Still, the population of the globe is expected to hit 10.1 billion in the next 90 years and 9.3 billion by 2050 up from the current 7 billion.

Yeah, it is mostly. 2.47 won’t see a natural population growth rate of more than a percent.

It is less than a percent now.

China has no choice. They need 50 million people/year, and the only area with that many people is India. If they do not get 30 million people a year, they will crash.

They have enough people. China's problem is stopping the flow of people from rural areas into the cities. It is the reason why they have laws to control this process. They need people for food production, but those numbers can be reduced significantly thru mechanization to make their farmers more productive.

It won’t be enough. 2025 is 15 years away and they need 450 million people in that span to replace those leaving the workforce. China is doomed.

Where did you come up with that number? And China is far from doomed. Its economy will soon surpass the US in terms of size. China's problems are many, some of them self-inflicted like the one-child policy, but they are no more doomed than we are. With 1.3 billion people they can adjust and adapt as circumstances warrant. One of the main challenges will be to stimulate domestic consumption so they don't depend on exports.

By lowering American fertility though publicly funded abortion and contraception in Obamacare.

If Obama is successful in passing an amnesty, you will see a flood of people entering this country. The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty would be $2.6 trillion just for increased entitlement program costs. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen.

We won’t get 130 million over 40 years. We’ll be lucky to see 30 million. They won’t need to come illegally, because everyone is going to be in demand for immigration. There just aren’t going to be enough people to go around.

LOL. When is all this going to start happening? There are probably 4 billion people in the world who would love to get into the US. We bring in 1.2 million legal immigrants now and could easily double or triple number by just increasing the numbers. Of course, these people will be a net drain on our society. You are living in a fantasy world.

FYI: The 130 million increase in our population projected by the Census Bureau over the next 40 years is due to births and immigration. Right now we are adding net one person every 15 seconds to our population. The projection doesn't include an amnesty. I have no idea as to when you think we are going to have a people shortage. I do know that we have added 113 million to our population since 1970 including 34 million since 2000. The decade ending in 2010 saw the largest number of immigrants in our history--13.9 million.

There’s just no way. Europe can’t afford what they are spending, let alone the US which is wealthier. Spending has to be cut to get the fiscal house of the US in order.

Spending is the problem, but there is no political will to cut spending. We have known for decades that the welfare state is unsustainable. People don't want the pain that spending cuts will have. We have 54 million on SS, 47 million on Medicare, 70 million on Medicaid, 47 million on food stamps, etc. and those numbers will go up as 10,000 people a day retire. By 2030, one in five in this country will be 65 or older--twice what it is now and we will have two workers for every retiree.

I don't see Obama and Boehner coming up with any real spending cuts, just a promise, if that to reduce the rate of growth of spending. We are going to hit the wall eventually. Spending will be cut the same way it was in Greece. And we will have people in the streets demanding that government live up to its promises. This will happen long before we have a people shortage.

And it needs to be cut. The problem is spending, and we need to dump Obamacare. We cannot afford Obamacare.

Not going to happen as long as Obama is in the WH. In fact, it is digging deep roots as it is implemented. There is no way the Dems will let this signature piece of legislation get dumped. Saying something doesn't make it happen. Again, I live in the real world.

It’s going to happen. Either now, or later. Might have to wait for all the boomers to die off so that they’ve got theirs, but we’ll fix it.

If we have to wait that long, the country will be finished. We already have $16 trillion in debt and annual deficits of $1 trillion for a long time to come. Add over $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities plus another huge entitlement program, Obamacare, that will add even more to the debt. Financial collapse and civil unrest will make a comeback very difficult. Add to that the changed demography of this country that will see the eclipse of non-Hispanic whites by minorities that generally will be less educated and more dependent upon government. With out of wedlock birthrates of 50% for Hispanics and 71% for blacks and school drop out rates approaching 50% for those groups, the fastest growing in our country and you have a recipe for disaster. Demography is destiny.

Because we aren’t Norwegians? Cut spending. That is the only way out of this mess. Taxing more will reduce, not increase government revenues and will just make things collapse sooner.

It just won't happen. Collapse will come first. And that could take a while as the statists do everything they can to keep the welfare state afloat a little longer. Again, I live in the real world.

35 posted on 12/04/2012 6:09:17 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“What kind of tortured reasoning is that?”

The same reasoning that produced the baby boom.

“The only time the population starts shrinking globally is when we go below replacement level.”

Given that we are very close to replacement level now, any significant drop in the cohort will shrink the population.

“It is less than a percent now.”

Which is not very much at all. Population has essentially levelled off.

“They have enough people.”

No, they don’t have enough people to keep their workforce going. Their workforce is shrinking and the average chinese person is older than in the US.

“China’s problem is stopping the flow of people from rural areas into the cities.”

China is going to need all the workers they can get. Internal migration will help them stave off the workforce problem. The less mobile the population, the greater the problems they will experience as local shortages arise.

“They need people for food production, but those numbers can be reduced significantly thru mechanization to make their farmers more productive.”

The problem is that they are still too poor and they are already too old to really implement mechanization to the same degree as the west.

“Where did you come up with that number?”

TFR now as a proportion of replacement TFR. They have a 50 percent shortfall and their total birthrate will give you about 30-50 million depending on their immigration.

“Its economy will soon surpass the US in terms of size.”

Nope, not going to happen. They’ve crested, probably in 2008 with Beijing.

“they are no more doomed than we are.”

The US does not have a 50 percent gap in their workforce coming as a result of the one child policy. They’ve had it running for 30 years, so their shortage will really start to bite now.

“One of the main challenges will be to stimulate domestic consumption so they don’t depend on exports.”

True, but they won’t have the money to do it.

No commentary on Obamacare lowering American fertility?

“LOL. When is all this going to start happening?”

It’s already happening, at least with Mexican immigration.

TFR in Mexico is 2.27. That means just 8 percent of the 2012 cohort would be interested in leaving Mexico. That works out to 175k a year from Mexico, in 20 years time.

That works out to a demand of 7 million immigrants total from Mexico between now and then.

“There are probably 4 billion people in the world who would love to get into the US.”

Then why doesn’t all the UK pack up and leave? A better estimation of Immigration (and fwiw, I don’t know anyone else who does it this way), is to take TFR over replacement and calculate out the proportion of the cohort who would be willing to leave.

“You are living in a fantasy world.”

No, you are.

“I have no idea as to when you think we are going to have a people shortage.”

Hopefully we never experience one due to native population growth. But we will start seeing immigration peter out in about 20 years time.

“People don’t want the pain”

Pain is coming.

“I don’t see Obama and Boehner coming up with any real spending cuts, just a promise, if that to reduce the rate of growth of spending.”

Cuts are going to have to be made.

“This will happen long before we have a people shortage.”

True, at least in America. But in Europe the problem is being felt and Russia has already collapsed. You’ll see the fiscal collapse in another 8 years.

“Saying something doesn’t make it happen. Again, I live in the real world.”

And the real world will intervene to gut Obamacare.

“It just won’t happen. Collapse will come first. And that could take a while as the statists do everything they can to keep the welfare state afloat a little longer. Again, I live in the real world.”

Yeah, I agree with that. Collapse is not yet inevitable, it can still be avoided. But cutbacks cannot.


36 posted on 12/04/2012 11:09:14 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Your points on China are way off on pretty much every single point you attempt to make. It’s rather amusing to read, actually.


37 posted on 12/05/2012 6:00:28 AM PST by Teacher317 ('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
The same reasoning that produced the baby boom.

Are you on drugs?

Given that we are very close to replacement level now, any significant drop in the cohort will shrink the population.

So you don't believe that the global population will go over 9 billion by midcentury? We are adding 50 million people a year to the global population. You seem to rely on emotion rather than facts. We do know that there were 6.1 billion people in 2000 and 6.9 billion in 2010. The UN and the US Census Bureau estimate that there will be 7.6 billion in 2020; 8.3 billion in 2030; 8.8 billion in 2040; and 9.3 billion in 2050. What are your estimates by decade?

Which is not very much at all. Population has essentially levelled off.

Do you have a source for that assertion? It is patently absurd.

No, they don’t have enough people to keep their workforce going. Their workforce is shrinking and the average chinese person is older than in the US.

Why do you make these things up when you know that there are easily obtainable data out there? For example, the average person in China is younger than in the US. The Chinese don't lack people to fill jobs. It is the other way around. They must generate 15 million new jobs a year just to keep growing.

Median age in China

total: 35.9 years

male: 35.2 years

female: 36.6 years (2012 est.)

Median age in US

total: 37.1 years

male: 35.8 years

female: 38.5 years (2012 est.)

Nope, not going to happen. They’ve [China] crested, probably in 2008 with Beijing.

I guess you don't need no stinkin' facts. What an absurd statement. Where do you come up with such nonsense? In 2010, China's GDP was valued at $5.87 trillion, surpassed Japan's $5.47 trillion, and became the world's second largest economy after the U.S. China could become the world's largest economy (by nominal GDP) sometime as early as 2020. China is the largest creditor nation in the world and owns approximately 20.8% of all foreign-owned US Treasury securities.

TFR in Mexico is 2.27. That means just 8 percent of the 2012 cohort would be interested in leaving Mexico. That works out to 175k a year from Mexico, in 20 years time. That works out to a demand of 7 million immigrants total from Mexico between now and then.

Demand from Mexico? We have 23 million Americans looking for full time employment. We have no shortage of labor. And immigration from the entire world can fill our needs in the future should we lack specific skills. If you look at the facts, immigration is increasing from South Asia and elsewhere. We don't need Mexico and never did.

Then why doesn’t all the UK pack up and leave? A better estimation of Immigration (and fwiw, I don’t know anyone else who does it this way), is to take TFR over replacement and calculate out the proportion of the cohort who would be willing to leave.

Those four billion live mostly in the developing world, not the developed world. We have no shortage of people who want to come to the US. It is why we set quotas and limits. It is why people enter illegally.

Hopefully we never experience one due to native population growth. But we will start seeing immigration peter out in about 20 years time.

Peter out? Why?

Cuts are going to have to be made.

Duh, that is obvious. The question is will they be made by Congress in a reasoned fashion or will the situation become so dire that we will have a fiscal crisis that will force such cuts. I think the later will happen, which will plunge this country into civil unrest similar to what is going on in Greece.

True, at least in America. But in Europe the problem is being felt and Russia has already collapsed. You’ll see the fiscal collapse in another 8 years.

Russia has collapsed? Again, are you on drugs?

And the real world will intervene to gut Obamacare.

Intervene how? Deus ex machina?

38 posted on 12/05/2012 6:59:19 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“So you don’t believe that the global population will go over 9 billion by midcentury?”

Nope. The low UN estimate is optimistic. It assumes that nations with sub-replacement fertility will magically rise to replacement.

“What are your estimates by decade?”

About half that population should crest about 2025 or so at about 8 billion.

“Do you have a source for that assertion? It is patently absurd.”

Growth under 1 percent is pretty close to level.

“Why do you make these things up when you know that there are easily obtainable data out there?”

As of 2012, average age in China is 35.9 years old, a little more than a year under that of the United States. That will rather quickly change.

“The Chinese don’t lack people to fill jobs.”

Yes, they do. Starting now. They have already crested.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/chinas-workforce-is-expected-to-start-shrinking-in-next-few-years/2011/05/02/AGrVKmFH_story.html

“What an absurd statement. Where do you come up with such nonsense? In 2010, China’s GDP was valued at $5.87 trillion, surpassed Japan’s $5.47 trillion, and became the world’s second largest economy after the U.S. China could become the world’s largest economy (by nominal GDP) sometime as early as 2020.”

Could, but won’t. They’ve already crested. :)

“China is the largest creditor nation in the world and owns approximately 20.8% of all foreign-owned US Treasury securities.”

As their workforce shrinks and ages they will lose their competitive advantage, and this will reverse. They’ll need every dollar they can hang onto.

“And immigration from the entire world can fill our needs in the future should we lack specific skills.”

Once their birthrates drop, there isn’t going to be immigration from these places. The only area that has stable emigration patterns with the US (Mexico is in a decline), is the Philippines.

“We have no shortage of people who want to come to the US.”

At present yes? In the future? No.

“Peter out? Why?”

Because world population will crest and start to decline.

“Russia has collapsed? Again, are you on drugs?”

Yes, it has. It’s still in freefall. They used to be a superpower on par with the United States, and now they are a second grade regional power, on par with Germany and France.

“Intervene how? Deus ex machina?”

National bankruptcy.


39 posted on 12/05/2012 10:17:10 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

Once China’s median age rises over that of the US - they are spent. They have 30+ years of the one child policy baked in - even if they were to end the policy today, it still would not save them.


40 posted on 12/05/2012 10:19:38 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson