US population growth slowest since Great Depression

Looks like US will be facing a population crisis like Japan and Germany in the future. I presume its mainly immigration (legal and illegal) that is a major part of the growth rate. A rapidly ageing population with low replacement levels dosen’t bode well for the economic prospects in the 21st century. Thoughts? The U.S. population grew 9.7% in the past decade to 308,745,538, the slowest rate since the Great Depression http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/21/pf/Census_2010/index.htm?hpt=T1

Less jobs available.

The main factors, as I see it, are marriage becoming obsolete, erosion of traditional family and religious values and an increasingly aware population of the high opportunity costs (pursuit of career, friends, time, stress and tremendous financial burden) of having kids. Its going to be interesting/slightly depressing watching the current developed world wither away if countries can’t get to the magic 2.1 replacement rate. The US could alter this course in the short-mid term by overhauling its immigration policy. An ideal method would be to allow skilled/educated immigrants attain citizenship fairly easy. Also a good option would be to allow even a sizeable flow of unskilled immigrants and be selective. The best immigrants, IMO, would be practically all Asian countries (including India) as they seem to immigrate and add to society fairly well in all developed countries (while simplistic, per capita GDP for Asians is higher than Caucasians in the US). Eastern Europe, Russia and Latin America would also be good. (I’m discounting immigration from developed countries, but it may not be as mute as people think). I realize this makes some pretty sweeping assumptions (and I don’t mean to offend) and its highly doubtful something like this would happen b/c of all the PC flack this kind of policy would get. Though, practically any country that becomes developed will face this problem. In the long run, I really don’t know how this can realistically be reversed as immigration will not last forever. It almost begs the question of whether some sort of central birth and child raising system would need to be developed keep society afloat.

CFABLACKBELT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The main factors, as I see it, are marriage > becoming obsolete, erosion of traditional family > and religious values and an increasingly aware > population of the high opportunity costs (pursuit > of career, friends, time, stress and tremendous > financial burden) of having kids. > > Its going to be interesting/slightly depressing > watching the current developed world wither away > if countries can’t get to the magic 2.1 > replacement rate. > > The US could alter this course in the short-mid > term by overhauling its immigration policy. An > ideal method would be to allow skilled/educated > immigrants attain citizenship fairly easy. Also a > good option would be to allow even a sizeable flow > of unskilled immigrants and be selective. The > best immigrants, IMO, would be practically all > Asian countries (including India) as they seem to > immigrate and add to society fairly well in all > developed countries (while simplistic, per capita > GDP for Asians is higher than Caucasians in the > US). Eastern Europe, Russia and Latin America > would also be good. (I’m discounting immigration > from developed countries, but it may not be as > mute as people think). I realize this makes some > pretty sweeping assumptions (and I don’t mean to > offend) and its highly doubtful something like > this would happen b/c of all the PC flack this > kind of policy would get. > > Though, practically any country that becomes > developed will face this problem. In the long > run, I really don’t know how this can > realistically be reversed as immigration will not > last forever. It almost begs the question of > whether some sort of central birth and child > raising system would need to be developed keep > society afloat. Don’t worry… specially the top percentile of young workforce in terms of skills, of so called booming emerging markets is ever ready to pack their bags and leave for US. America baby… can’t wait to land there, applying next fall!

^ From where?

It was still high compared to other developed nations. Birth rates were at the natural replacement rate.

“Marriage becoming obsolete, erosion of traditional family and religious values and an increasingly aware population of the high opportunity costs (pursuit of career, friends, time, stress and tremendous financial burden) of having kids.” This is such bullcrap. Who brainwashed you into thinking marriage is “obsolete” and children are to be considered in terms of “opportunity cost”?

monger187 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is such bullcrap. Who brainwashed you into > thinking marriage is “obsolete” and children are > to be considered in terms of “opportunity cost”? Hey, quit it with your free thinking already! You’re not allowed to use birth control either. Seriously though, marriage is a negative value proposition for most men.

First we had the dot-com crash, then we had Sept 11th, then jobless recovery, then three years of good times, then the 2007 recession and 2008 crash. Add to that the fact that real wages haven’t moved upwards for two generations and that much of the perception of wealth we’ve felt comes from inflated asset prices that have more or less deflated by now. People feel less confident about bringing kiddies into the world if they are worried about how to support them. I can say that from first-hand experience.

monger187 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “Marriage becoming obsolete, erosion of > traditional family and religious values and an > increasingly aware population of the high > opportunity costs (pursuit of career, friends, > time, stress and tremendous financial burden) of > having kids.” > > This is such bullcrap. Who brainwashed you into > thinking marriage is “obsolete” and children are > to be considered in terms of “opportunity cost”? Nobody brainwashed me. I came about this conclusion through my own observations. I’m looking at these items from a practical standpoint. Marriage isn’t really as necessary as it used to be (ex/ women can accomplish the same things as men) and children are an opportunity cost whether you want to agree with it or not. This doesn’t mean I disagree with marriage or having children as I intend to do both.

^ Having children is one thing and population that replaces itself is another, getting married and having children is something everyone wants, including me, don’t ask me why! BUT, I’m pretty sure I won’t think of more than one kid and one divorce unless I’m sure I’ll be quite rich!

marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^ From where? BOM

There’s all kinds of studies that link number of children to education; inverse relationship. And it makes a lot of sense, it’s not like with my parents generation (the baby boomers) where you could get a good job and be financially stable by your early or mid twenties. With the push of post-secondary education in our society, individuals are entering the workforce much later and those with debts aren’t in much of a position to start families in their late twenties/early thirties - just as careers are being established. BTW, I do remember reading a video of a young emerging working class in India that was choosing the single (enjoy your freedom) route over the traditional way of settling down early. All societies will go through this as they develop and it’s probably better off anyway, world populations need to come down.

spreads Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it’s probably better off anyway, world populations > need to come down. uh, all the world’s social programs are ponzi schemes… doesn’t work out so well with no population growth.

I don’t know why everyone is linking having kids and getting married. Anecdotally, I would bet I have a couple of kids born a year just because I refuse to wear a raincoat, and most of the married people I know my age are childless.

I think whether I get married or not, I am pretty confident that I will be adopting a child. Why be selfish to bring another child in the world when they are so many young ones who need a home? Plus IMHO they are a lot more loyal than your own offspring.

^ that’s a good cause. The problem is unresponsible parents that keep having kids they can’t support. It’s good you are willing to shoulder their mistake

marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think whether I get married or not, I am pretty > confident that I will be adopting a child. > >> Plus IMHO they are a lot more loyal than your own > offspring. Not quite as useful if you need a kidney down the road though.

Gather any group of parents in a room and ask them about the “opportunity cost.” I guarantee you this concept only makes sense until you have children of your own. Any lost freedom or time, or any gain in stress, is no longer meaningful once you experience actual parenthood.

As you would expect biologically I suppose. Or do parents just keep repeating that hoping to convince themselves of it?