People would prefer coming here than living anywhere else...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/05/300.million.growth.ap/index.html

Quote :

"U.S. about to have 300 million Americans Some countries have growth headaches, others beg for babies Wednesday, July 5, 2006; Posted: 6:50 p.m. EDT (22:50 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- As the U.S. population speeds toward 300 million, the growth is producing headaches for Americans fed up with traffic congestion, sprawl and dwindling natural resources. But the alternatives are pretty scary, too. Just look at Europe and Japan, which are on the verge of such big population losses that several countries are practically begging women to have babies. "Europe and Japan are now facing a population problem that is unprecedented in human history -- declining population over time with an increase in the percentage of old people," said Bill Butz, president of the Population Reference Bureau, a Washington think tank. Countries have lost people because of wars, disease and natural disasters but never -- at least in modern history -- because women stopped having enough children, Butz said. The U.S. is the fastest growing industrialized nation in the world, adding about 2.8 million people a year. That's a little less than 1 percent, but enough to mitigate the kinds of problems facing Japan and many European countries. Europe, with 728 million people, saw its population shrink by 74,000 since the beginning of the decade, according to the United Nations. By 2050, it is projected to lose a total of 75 million people. That ought to give motorists on Germany's Autobahn some extra room to change lanes. But experts warn it could cause labor shortages while straining retirement and health programs, ultimately threatening economic competitiveness. The problem is that birth rates are so low there aren't enough young people entering the work force to support an aging population, said Hans-Peter Kohler, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. "Presumably, many people would not be so concerned about the numbers declining if it wasn't combined with an aging population," Kohler said. "I think it's more the age structure that gives rise to these concerns, and these concerns are well justified." Russian President Vladimir Putin is so concerned he recently proposed paying women to have children. Last year, France increased monthly stipends to parents who take time off work to care for a third child. When Japan announced in June that its population had shrunk in 2005 for the first time, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said, "The data must be accepted gravely." On Friday, Japan announced that it is now the world's most elderly nation, with more than a fifth of its people 65 or older. Italy is second. On average, women must have 2.1 children in their lifetimes for a society to replenish itself, accounting for infant mortality and other factors. Only one country in Europe -- Albania -- has a fertility rate above 2, according to statistics gathered by the Central Intelligence Agency. Russia's fertility rate is 1.28. In Japan, it's 1.25. "We're going to have the chance to learn from Europe," Butz said. "For better or worse, they are leading the world into something that has never happened before." John Seager, president of Population Connection, predicted that any adverse affects of shrinking populations will be temporary. "It may be the only good crisis we ever had," said Seager, whose group, formerly known as Zero Population Growth, advocates lower birth rates. America is getting older, too -- the oldest baby boomers turn 60 this year -- and there have been consequences. Private pensions are failing at an alarming rate and Social Security, if left unchanged, is projected to drain the money in its trust fund by 2041. Twelve percent of the U.S. population is 65 or older, a share that is projected to grow. But two factors keep America younger than Europe: higher fertility rates and immigration. The United States has a fertility rate of 2.05, about enough to maintain a stable population. The U.S. also adds people through immigration, something many European countries have shunned. About 40 percent of U.S. population growth comes from immigration, both legal and illegal, according to the Census Bureau. However, if the fertility rate remains unchanged, all of America's population increase will eventually come from immigration, Butz said. The immigration issue has preoccupied Washington and much of the country for the past year, with Congress working on legislation that would tighten borders and, perhaps, create an avenue to citizenship for many of the 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants. Advocates argue that immigrants take jobs that would go unfilled by people born in this country. They note that the number of immigrants in the U.S. has nearly quadrupled in the past 40 years, to about 36 million, and unemployment remains low. Opponents accuse immigrants of driving down wages and adding to an increasingly crowded country. "Population growth kind of cuts both ways," said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates tighter restrictions on immigration. "If you are someone who sells cars for a living, you've got more people to sell cars to," he said. "But if you are someone who drives, you have a lot more cars to contend with." A USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 39 percent of adults think U.S. population growth is a major problem, and 57 percent think it will be a major problem in the future. But even with immigration, the nation's growth rate is slowing. The number of people had been doubling about every half century, from 75 million in 1900 to 150 million in 1950. The Census Bureau projects it will hit 300 million sometime in October. By 2050, the United States is projected to have about 420 million people. Many developing countries, meanwhile, are facing population explosions. India is projected to add 473 million people by 2050 for a new total of 1.6 billion, sending it past China as the world's most populous country. Some smaller nations will grow significantly as well, with Uganda projected to more than quadruple its population and Niger projected to more than triple its size. At the other end is Ukraine, which is projected to lose more than 40 percent of its population, shrinking to 26 million. China, with its one-child policy, is expected to maintain a stable population for the next four decades, leaving it the second most populous country. The United States would remain third. "Most people would consider moderate population growth preferable to the alternatives," said Kohler, the sociology professor. "I would say that's where the U.S. falls." Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."

7/5/2006 10:41:19 PM

its good to be the king

7/5/2006 10:43:36 PM

especially when we're sending our jobs to them. they still wont stay there!

7/5/2006 11:34:04 PM

For the moment, I'm glad, but it would be nice to have someone come up with an idea about what to do when our population -- when the world's population -- stops growing. As the article points out, that event can cause problems.

I'm not a population panic kind of guy, and I don't think we're anywhere near carrying capacity, but we will be some day, and it would be nice if some genius sketched what we should change when we get close to that point and everyone stops having so many fucking kids.

[Edited on July 6, 2006 at 12:30 AM. Reason : ]

7/6/2006 12:29:40 AM

wow. is any part of you actually GOP?

As in Europe right now and as in the history of the world, prices regulate how many kids people have. If having a kid significantly lowers the standard of living that people have, they won't have that kid.

7/6/2006 12:57:15 AM

^

PRICES regulate how many kids people have? Gee, that explains all the fucking poor African countries with exploding populations (like the ones mentioned in the article, perhaps?).

Quote :

"Some smaller nations will grow significantly as well, with Uganda projected to more than quadruple its population and Niger projected to more than triple its size."

Guess the growth must be driven by all those Ugandan millionaires needing to fill up their new Lexuses with rugrats?

I'm a firm believer in market forces, but having kids is a decision driven by biology and personal values as well as the wallet. Otherwise my parents would probably be rich now, from having saved and invested all the cash they spent on me and my four siblings.

7/6/2006 1:05:24 AM

Time for a catastrophe

7/6/2006 1:55:35 AM

Quote :

"PRICES regulate how many kids people have? Gee, that explains all the fucking poor African countries with exploding populations (like the ones mentioned in the article, perhaps?)."

As a matter of fact, it does. Especially in Africa, it's cheap to have another kid, and we know what happens to quantity as prices goes down.

- Another kid is not going to make their lives much shittier.
- The maintenance costs (time and monetary) are low compared the kids in developed countries.
- Kids work from early ages, offsetting the expense.
- Abandoning and aborting unwanted children is easy.
- Having a lot of kids is a retirement plan for poor people -- if only a few make it in life, they will be a source of income for the parents in old age (if they get there)

Quote :

"I'm a firm believer in market forces, but having kids is a decision driven by biology and personal values as well as the wallet. Otherwise my parents would probably be rich now, from having saved and invested all the cash they spent on me and my four siblings."

Anecdote noted. Maybe your parents didn't think they could do better for themselves if they had not had kids? Besides, they came from a poorer America when the opportunity costs of having kids weren't so great. That's precisely why the growth rate slows down as countries become richer.

"Biology and personal values" is just another way of saying preferences, and that's something that's fundamentally taken into account when any market sets a price.

[Edited on July 6, 2006 at 2:32 AM. Reason : ad]

7/6/2006 2:22:15 AM

Quote :

"Especially in Africa, it's cheap to have another kid"

Sure, if you don't care so much about his well-being.

Smoker4:

Quote :

"having kids is a decision driven by biology and personal values as well as the wallet"

How many Americans would consider the African standard of living acceptable for their children? Surely if we did, we'd have many more children.

Quote :

""Biology and personal values" is just another way of saying preferences, and that's something that's fundamentally taken into account when any market sets a price."

Well, no shit. But if the price is set at zero because of these "fundamental assumptions," then it doesn't very well do a good job of regulating population, now does it?

Seriously, look at your own post. "Abandoning and aborting unwanted children is easy." Easy for the parent, maybe, hard for the society -- these "unwanted kids" just get absorbed by the infrastructure (eg, they are set loose on the streets at an early age) and they become one big "tragedy of the commons."

What next? A pseudo-technical argument about how someone has to absorb the price of a commons? Someone, indeed -- the whole point of overpopulation debates is that the price of having a kid isn't necessarily borne by individuals alone, and what we all want to know is who'll absorb it, exactly.

7/6/2006 3:33:30 AM

And you see what happens when you manipulate the economy so much? Now something as simple as choosing to have less children is going to fuck up their healthcare and retirement systems. Whereas if people purchased their own healthcare and saved for their own retirement, it wouldn't make a difference.

WTG socialists!

7/6/2006 6:49:51 AM

Quote :

"Europe, with 728 million people, saw its population shrink by 74,000 since the beginning of the decade, according to the United Nations. By 2050, it is projected to lose a total of 75 million people."

Their population shrank by 74K in 6 years and they predict that it will shrink a further 653 million over the next 44 years. That's a lot of old people.

7/6/2006 7:20:17 AM

They can have our immigrants.

They reproduce like rabbits

[Edited on July 6, 2006 at 7:29 AM. Reason : ]

7/6/2006 7:24:21 AM

Quote :

"it is projected to lose a total of 75 million people.""

Quote :

"they predict that it will shrink a further 653 million over the next 44 years"

WTFretarded?

7/6/2006 7:34:39 AM

^oops. Misread that. I read it as a projected population of 75 million, not a loss of 75 million.

7/6/2006 7:48:16 AM

Better, lol
You are forgiven

7/6/2006 8:15:50 AM

Quote :

"About 40100 percent of U.S. population growth comes from immigration, both legal and illegal, according to the Census Bureau."

7/6/2006 8:23:50 AM

the other 60% is children of immigrants.

7/6/2006 10:36:55 AM

this is a country build by immigrants, for immigrants, with plenty of room to spread out.

people come here still for the same reasons they always have, growth opportunity. good thing we only have two remotely close neighbors, and one of them is the same as us, and the other is essentially corrupt.

7/6/2006 12:08:00 PM

there's plenty of room out west and in alaska

time to start building biodomes

7/6/2006 12:31:45 PM

Quote :

"As in Europe right now and as in the history of the world, prices regulate how many kids people have."

Prices are a player, but they aren't the only one -- frankly, they aren't even the biggest one. I don't have numbers in front of me to support it, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that Catholics have noticeably bigger families on average than Methodists do. Is it somehow cheaper for Papists to make babies?

And I'm often inclined to wonder if this, "Africans have babies so that they can work" argument doesn't get taken a bit far. Most of Africa also has next to no access to contraception in any form. The places where the population isn't growing so fast are also the places where condoms, BC pills, and abortions are handed out like party favors.

7/6/2006 12:39:12 PM

Europe's birthrate is on the decline because of its hedonistic culture/standard of living.

More children = less desirable lifestyle

This will be the downfall of the West.

Quote :

"Only one country in Europe -- Albania "

Albania has a large muslim population where alot of lifestyles center around the family. Kind of like the Hispanics in the U.S.

Cost of living rich = lonely life

[Edited on July 6, 2006 at 12:52 PM. Reason : .]

7/6/2006 12:46:07 PM

Quote :

"I'm not a population panic kind of guy, and I don't think we're anywhere near carrying capacity, but we will be some day, and it would be nice if some genius sketched what we should change when we get close to that point and everyone stops having so many fucking kids."

I would guess the carrying capacity of planet Earth utilizing only today's technology would be about 20 billion, most of that occupying the Americas and Australia. Either way, if the U.N. is right the population is expected to level off and start dropping between 10 and 15 billion within 40 years time, nevermind that by then we will have advanced technologically to support even more.

7/6/2006 2:55:03 PM

Quote :

"As a matter of fact, it does. Especially in Africa, it's cheap to have another kid, and we know what happens to quantity as prices goes down."

Actually, skokiaan is correct. Though I wouldn't say prices, I would use the more general phrase - tastes and technology.

Just like with labor supply an increasing wage has two effects on population. You are wealthier and so you tend to buy more kids. However, the opportunity costs of having kids goes up and so you tend to have less.

However, there is a much bigger second factor. The availability of birth control. BC greatly reduces the cost of not having kids, which without BC is abstenice.

Quote :

"Is it somehow cheaper for Papists to make babies?"

Its more expensive for Papists not have babies, since the price is eternal damnation.

[Edited on July 6, 2006 at 3:32 PM. Reason : Papists]

7/6/2006 3:30:28 PM

Quote :

"And you see what happens when you manipulate the economy so much? Now something as simple as choosing to have less children is going to fuck up their healthcare and retirement systems. Whereas if people purchased their own healthcare and saved for their own retirement, it wouldn't make a difference. WTG socialists! "

do you even know what you're talking about or are you just throwing out erronious talking points you heard from someone who hates Europe?

there is no shortage of labor in most european countries. immigration from the east is helping the west, just as immigration from mexico is helping the us. please dont get france confused w/ the rest of europe, as you seem to be doing. theyll be forced to open up more someday, as germany is beginning to do (and they were doing better in the first place).

as wages increase, so do costs typically. its a lot cheaper to raise a kid in romania, but who wants to when you can't make beans to begin with? might as well move west where the systems are stable and prosperous and take advantage of booming job sectors, especially in the northwest (sans england, for the most part). the cost to live there is comparable to our best areas (the northeast, primarily).

The most important thing is whether or not the system is desireable to those who live under it, and in both cases, this seems to be true (thanks to our friend democracy).

[Edited on July 6, 2006 at 4:07 PM. Reason : .]

7/6/2006 3:59:25 PM

The tendency of people who have boners for economics to overextend the boundaries of that field is occasionally grating.

7/6/2006 7:13:26 PM

^ They do call it the "Dismal Science"

7/6/2006 8:34:32 PM

mmm, Lets not forget that Europe used to be the undisputed #1 power in the world.

7/6/2006 10:46:20 PM

Quote :

"Only one country in Europe -- Albania -- has a fertility rate above 2, according to statistics gathered by the Central Intelligence Agency. "

I heard from a friend who was in Albania for a year that the people are lazy as hell and the country is backwards and a shithole.

7/6/2006 11:00:45 PM

"...the lowest standards of living in Europe will be shared by the United Kingdom and Albania."

7/6/2006 11:59:59 PM

^how so?

7/7/2006 12:01:17 AM

^^what?

here comes some more useless statistics

7/7/2006 12:38:31 AM

Well...we do live right above Mexico.

7/7/2006 12:58:12 AM

Quote :

"there is no shortage of labor in most european countries"

I didn't imply there was a shortage of labor. What I implied was that...as the article clearly states...

Quote :

"The problem is that birth rates are so low there aren't enough young people entering the work force to support an aging population"

...

wouldn't be a problem in a country where the young weren't required to support the old. You know, where people were expected to save up for their own retirement and provide the funds for their own healthcare.

So, yes I do know what I'm talking about. And your tangent about costs and movement had absolutely nothing to do with my attack on this statement from some sociologist (read: retard). If it did, perhaps you should take a moment to explain how the cost of living and movement of people to take advantage of booming job sectors has anything to do with having enough young people in the workforce to support an aging population...

7/7/2006 7:38:35 AM

^because the United States doesn't have Medicare/Medicaid or an involuntary Social Security program.

7/7/2006 7:51:35 AM

^Because the US systems are MUCH MUCH MUCH less intrustive than most/all of Western Europe's


PS: I don't support Social Security and it is fucking us the same way...as for all social programs like that, I think they should be for the extremely poor/disabled and no one else.

[Edited on July 7, 2006 at 4:30 PM. Reason : n]

7/7/2006 4:29:50 PM

its great that you feel that way. if the rest of a country does as well, then democracy should remove such a system. however, i see no massive outcry to abolish SS, so thats that.

Also, low birth rates are starting to become a worldwide trend.

7/8/2006 2:02:12 PM

Low birthrates are a GOOD thing. Too many fucking people here already.

7/8/2006 2:04:04 PM

Quote :

"Low birthrates are a GOOD thing. Too many fucking people here already. "

omfg a retard

7/9/2006 5:07:11 PM

gargs you need to get your kin folk to quit breeding like rabbits so our fuel costs will go down

7/9/2006 7:37:40 PM

Hey, you'll bid for those resources just like everyone else.

If you had been smart you would own Exxon stock or something.

7/9/2006 9:05:35 PM

oh i can afford it

i just like to complain about races i deem inferior to my own

7/9/2006 9:14:52 PM

Quote :

"its great that you feel that way. if the rest of a country does as well, then democracy should remove such a system. however, i see no massive outcry to abolish SS, so thats that. "

Agreed. But people are too stupid to understand the folly of a defined benefit pension plan and a ridiculously overreaching healthcare agenda. Perhaps they'll figure it out when GM declares bankruptcy/gets absorbed pretty soon. The company was totally fucked by this kind of mentality. It can happen on a national scale too.

Although, before abolishing SS, my #1 agenda is term-limits for those cock-faces we call Congressmen

7/9/2006 10:07:24 PM