Population

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I wonder if it's time for the US to severely limit immigration from all nations, and not just the terrorist-producing kind, to just people with valuable skills (doctors/engineers/etc). I have seen where people have argued for immigration saying it's what built this country and made it great, and that is fairly true. Times also change. I saw something today that kind of amazed me.

US Population in 1900: 76.2m
US Population in 2000: 281.4m
US Population in 2010: 308.7m

Here's a couple other countries for comparison sake...

France Population in 1900: 38m
France Population in 2000: 59.4m
France Population in 2010: 62.9m

UK (+Ireland) Population in 1900: 38m
UK (+Ireland) Population in 2000: 62.7m
UK (+Ireland) Population in 2010: 67.3m

Japan Population in 1900: 42m
Japan Population in 2000: 125.7m
Japan Population in 2010: 127.3m

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Only Japan had a somewhat comparable % (but still much less) jump between 1900 and 2000 and that was mostly them becoming a developed nation. They've barely grown between 2000 and 2010, though.

France 1900 to 2010 Population % Growth: 165.5%
UK (+Ireland) 1900 to 2010 Population % Growth: 177.1%
Japan 1900 to 2010 Population % Growth: 303.1%
US 1900 to 2010 Population % Growth: 405.1%

Even a nation that got developed and industrialized during that time period had 102% less growth over their original population than the US did. This population growth rate probably isn't sustainable for the US to keep up with. If the US has another jump of equal % from 2010 to 2120, the US population would be 1.25 BILLION.

Slowing immigration down to a drip will give the US time to figure out how to convince current US citizens they don't need to pump out a dozen children each and fix that angle too. Immigration was great in the past when we needed the population for our huge country, but now we're pretty set population-wise. If anything we need to figure out how to slow down it's growth.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I've read at least two members here comment on how difficult the process is to legally immigrate to the US as it is.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-16-2017, 01:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I've read at least two members here comment on how difficult the process is to legally immigrate to the US as it is.

But how easy is it for someone to come in illegally? Or come in illegally and have a child who is then legal? Or come in as a tourist and just stay? Or come in on a green card and just stay? The US also already met their 50,000 refugee admission quote for the year.

Start cracking down on all those numbers, and then work on convincing (but not forcing) people they don't need a dozen children, that abortion/birth control isn't pure evil, and such.

I really don't want/like the federal government getting involved in too many things, but I am curious as to how much it would cost if we bypassed insurance/hospitals/big pharma and mass produced generic birth control pills for anyone who wanted them, if only so we would know the number as a talking point.

[Dill]

(07-16-2017, 02:26 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: But how easy is it for someone to come in illegally? Or come in illegally and have a child who is then legal? Or come in as a tourist and just stay? Or come in on a green card and just stay? The US also already met their 50,000 refugee admission quote for the year.

Start cracking down on all those numbers, and then work on convincing (but not forcing) people they don't need a dozen children, that abortion/birth control isn't pure evil, and such.

I really don't want/like the federal government getting involved in too many things, but I am curious as to how much it would cost if we bypassed insurance/hospitals/big pharma and mass produced generic birth control pills for anyone who wanted them, if only so we would know the number as a talking point.

There would be some resistance to that from Catholics and Big Pharma, not to mention a certain party that hates Big Government. 

Your reflection on population growth is interesting.  

One concern I have about closing immigration is that many immigrants know how to work hard, often for less pay. That is important in a country where fewer and fewer young have the immigrants' drive and discipine. There will always be people who welcome immigrants because of that.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-16-2017, 02:26 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: But how easy is it for someone to come in illegally? Or come in illegally and have a child who is then legal? Or come in as a tourist and just stay? Or come in on a green card and just stay? The US also already met their 50,000 refugee admission quote for the year.

Start cracking down on all those numbers, and then work on convincing (but not forcing) people they don't need a dozen children, that abortion/birth control isn't pure evil, and such.

I really don't want/like the federal government getting involved in too many things, but I am curious as to how much it would cost if we bypassed insurance/hospitals/big pharma and mass produced generic birth control pills for anyone who wanted them, if only so we would know the number as a talking point.

When you asked about limiting immigration I thought you meant legal immigration.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-16-2017, 03:06 PM)Dill Wrote: There would be some resistance to that from Catholics and Big Pharma, not to mention a certain party that hates Big Government. 

Your reflection on population growth is interesting.  

One concern I have about closing immigration is that many immigrants know how to work hard, often for less pay. That is important in a country where fewer and fewer young have the immigrants' drive and discipine. There will always be people who welcome immigrants because of that.  

I think Catholics' main resistance is being forced to provide it for their employees. I don't think Hobby Lobby or whatever cared if their employees used it, they just didn't want to be forced to directly provide/pay for it. If it was something they didn't provide and instead was just a completely separate thing from employment that anyone could go get then I feel like there would be much less religious push back.

Big Pharma would likely ***** regardless.

I also don't like big government, but as I said... it would be interesting to see the cost for it if theoretically the government would mass produce enough generic birth control for every woman in the country to be able to have it for free. I mean, I saw something recently where Denmark is going to pay for birth control for Africa, to try and reduce overpopulation sending tons of migrants looking for food/work into Europe.

So yeah, not a big fan of government getting involved too much, but if it was purely a optional choice on if someone wanted to use it, I wonder how many fewer children in foster homes, homeless children, and hungry children we would have in this country. Might be worth a look and some number crunching at least.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

As for the "drive and discipline", that goes away immediately one generation later. Then you're back to kids without drive or discipline, but more of them now. I think that is a separate problem that needs to be addressed, stemming from the whole "you need college" scam.

(07-16-2017, 05:45 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: When you asked about limiting immigration I thought you meant legal immigration.

I meant both. Legal immigration, H2B visas, illegal immigration, etc.

[HarleyDog]

We have a problem in our nation with single mothers. Some find having more children is more income while already living on government housing and food stamps. Many have low education and no desire to improve it. Immigration is just more burdensome on top of the free life we have encouraged, not outright, but made it more attractive and easily capable. Actually read a post from a woman on FB who referenced vaginas as "kid shitters!" Was pretty disturbing, but correct in her aim to raise awareness of one of our problems in this country. People will work the system to prevent from working. See it everyday in our poor town.

[Benton]

(07-16-2017, 01:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I wonder if it's time for the US to severely limit immigration from all nations, and not just the terrorist-producing kind, to just people with valuable skills (doctors/engineers/etc). I have seen where people have argued for immigration saying it's what built this country and made it great, and that is fairly true. Times also change. I saw something today that kind of amazed me.

US Population in 1900: 76.2m
US Population in 2000: 281.4m
US Population in 2010: 308.7m

Here's a couple other countries for comparison sake...

France Population in 1900: 38m
France Population in 2000: 59.4m
France Population in 2010: 62.9m

UK (+Ireland) Population in 1900: 38m
UK (+Ireland) Population in 2000: 62.7m
UK (+Ireland) Population in 2010: 67.3m

Japan Population in 1900: 42m
Japan Population in 2000: 125.7m
Japan Population in 2010: 127.3m

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Only Japan had a somewhat comparable % (but still much less) jump between 1900 and 2000 and that was mostly them becoming a developed nation. They've barely grown between 2000 and 2010, though.

France 1900 to 2010 Population % Growth: 165.5%
UK (+Ireland) 1900 to 2010 Population % Growth: 177.1%
Japan 1900 to 2010 Population % Growth: 303.1%
US 1900 to 2010 Population % Growth: 405.1%

Even a nation that got developed and industrialized during that time period had 102% less growth over their original population than the US did. This population growth rate probably isn't sustainable for the US to keep up with. If the US has another jump of equal % from 2010 to 2120, the US population would be 1.25 BILLION.

Slowing immigration down to a drip will give the US time to figure out how to convince current US citizens they don't need to pump out a dozen children each and fix that angle too. Immigration was great in the past when we needed the population for our huge country, but now we're pretty set population-wise. If anything we need to figure out how to slow down it's growth.

To the first bold, the same can be said for much of the US. Our growth percentages 2000-2010 aren't much different. And there's been a decline as US immigration has been slowing the last decade.

To the second bold I'm not sure where that's coming from. The average number of kids is down slightly from the 1960s-70s when families were typically larger due to less access to birth control and less family planning education. It's not a huge down, like 3.16 kids down from 3.76 kids, but it's still not everyone pumping out a dozen children.

Although, no fear, our current healthcare and education reforms are poised to take us back to the days of abstinence only education and allowing employers to avoid paying for birth control... which should get us back up to that 3.76 kid average of yesterday.

Immigration largely is a non-issue for the majority of the US. There's several metropolitan areas where it has an effect, but that's always been true. Go back to any 50 year period in some large cities (New York, Boston, Miami, LA, Chicago, etc) and you're going to see some 'conflict' with a minority influx. Germans, Irish, Jews, Polish, Catholics, Mexicans, Chinese. All assimilated. The current fear mongering about Mexicans and Muslims is more of the same and is likewise unnecessary. Given time, those groups will assimilate, too. They must, for we are Borg. Resistance is futile.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

People tend to forget that Europe went through 2 world wars and for a country like France to recoup citizens and military personel killed or fled the country due to war and genocide never to return will take time.

After WWI, England was hardest hit by that flu pandemic.

As for Japan, after WWII they became the world leader in robotics to replace the workforce lost in the war and their culture is much different than the West and maybe collectively decided they needed a population boom which they did.

The US population boom was due to men coming home from wars fought every other decade and getting with their women.

The US only allows about 1 million people into the country every year, it really isn't that many.

Just my opinion.

[HarleyDog]

(07-16-2017, 09:43 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: The US only allows about 1 million people into the country every year, it really isn't that many.

Just my opinion.

1 million? It isn't that many? With each, we fail to resolve our own crisis. We have too many homeless. Fix that, then bring in the rest. We seemingly can't take care of our own, how do we stand a chance when we deepen the hole?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-16-2017, 09:05 PM)Benton Wrote: To the first bold, the same can be said for much of the US. Our growth percentages 2000-2010 aren't much different. And there's been a decline as US immigration has been slowing the last decade.

To the second bold I'm not sure where that's coming from. The average number of kids is down slightly from the 1960s-70s when families were typically larger due to less access to birth control and less family planning education. It's not a huge down, like 3.16 kids down from 3.76 kids, but it's still not everyone pumping out a dozen children.

Although, no fear, our current healthcare and education reforms are poised to take us back to the days of abstinence only education and allowing employers to avoid paying for birth control... which should get us back up to that 3.76 kid average of yesterday.

Immigration largely is a non-issue for the majority of the US. There's several metropolitan areas where it has an effect, but that's always been true. Go back to any 50 year period in some large cities (New York, Boston, Miami, LA, Chicago, etc) and you're going to see some 'conflict' with a minority influx. Germans, Irish, Jews, Polish, Catholics, Mexicans, Chinese. All assimilated. The current fear mongering about Mexicans and Muslims is more of the same and is likewise unnecessary. Given time, those groups will assimilate, too. They must, for we are Borg. Resistance is futile.

To the first bold from 2000-2010... +1.3% (Japan) vs +9.7% (US) is pretty different.

2010-2016, Japan has actually went down an estimated 1m in population while the US has gone up an estimated 15m. Granted over 10 years, that 15m would be on pace for a 25m growth, which would be +8.1%, which is less than the 9.7% of the previous decade. Still it is a pretty big increase and 25m people is 25m people.

- - - - - - - - - - -

To the second bold, your 3.16 and 3.76 numbers are actually the average number of people per family.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183657/average-size-of-a-family-in-the-us/

The key word being *per family*. Most of the numbers you find will be per family/couple/household. The decline of the two-parent household and massive increase in divorce would account for that number shrinking.

- - - - - - - - - - -

As for immigration:
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states/#CurrentHistoricalNumbers

Has it at 1.38m in 2015, and 1.36m in 2014.

Considering earlier I did the math that 2010-2020 we could expect a rough estimate of a 25m population increase in the US, at ~1.3m/yr, that would account for 13m of the 25m increase. That's not counting the 13m people's children during those 10 years.

According to that link, Mexico apparently got surpassed in the yearly #'s by India and China since 2013.

[Belsnickel]

What I always find sad about this is that we have the same number in our legislature as we did in 1911. I know this isn't about immigration, but it just baffles me how with tbat population growth people accept such a low level if representation in our government...

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(07-16-2017, 10:03 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: 1 million? It isn't that many? With each, we fail to resolve our own crisis. We have too many homeless. Fix that, then bring in the rest. We seemingly can't take care of our own, how do we stand a chance when we deepen the hole?

The United States sees about 2.5 million deaths each year.
The United States needs about 150k jobs created each month to keep up with population growth.
The people that the United States lets into the country to be citizens are those who will work hard and created jobs...if not immediately, eventually through their children who I think most go on to college and are successful.

In a country of 320 plus people, 1 million isn't that many to absorb.

Our problem is Illegal Immagration and to stop that is to heavily fine employers who hire Illegal Immagrants.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-16-2017, 10:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What I always find sad about this is that we have the same number in our legislature as we did in 1911. I know this isn't about immigration, but it just baffles me how with tbat population growth people accept such a low level if representation in our government...

Probably because the last thing anyone has ever thought when they looked at Congress was "I sure wish there were a lot more of them".  

(07-16-2017, 10:43 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: The United States sees about 2.5 million deaths each year.
The United States needs about 150k jobs created each month to keep up with population growth.
The people that the United States lets into the country to be citizens are those who will work hard and created jobs...if not immediately, eventually through their children who I think most go on to college and are successful.

In a country of 320 plus people, 1 million isn't that many to absorb.

Our problem is Illegal Immagration and to stop that is to heavily fine employers who hire Illegal Immagrants.

Need some stats for that generalization there, sir.

I agree with the need to heavily fine employers, though. That said, I do think 1.3m is a rather large number per year, even more so when combined with the births (you mention 2.5m deaths, but not the 3m births), and then add on illegal immigration.

It'd be nice if we could find a way to bring this country under 250m, or at the minimum 300m. (Admittedly arbitrary numbers, but my point is it'd be nice to reduce it a good amount.)


- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Side note: Then we would meet our emissions reductions without have to change our lifestyle! 28% reduction in population = 28% reduction in emissions!!! Everyone wins!

[Benton]

(07-16-2017, 10:11 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: To the first bold from 2000-2010... +1.3% (Japan) vs +9.7% (US) is pretty different.

2010-2016, Japan has actually went down an estimated 1m in population while the US has gone up an estimated 15m. Granted over 10 years, that 15m would be on pace for a 25m growth, which would be +8.1%, which is less than the 9.7% of the previous decade. Still it is a pretty big increase and 25m people is 25m people.

- - - - - - - - - - -

To the second bold, your 3.16 and 3.76 numbers are actually the average number of people per family.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183657/average-size-of-a-family-in-the-us/

The key word being *per family*. Most of the numbers you find will be per family/couple/household. The decline of the two-parent household and massive increase in divorce would account for that number shrinking.

- - - - - - - - - - -

As for immigration:
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states/#CurrentHistoricalNumbers

Has it at 1.38m in 2015, and 1.36m in 2014.

Considering earlier I did the math that 2010-2020 we could expect a rough estimate of a 25m population increase in the US, at ~1.3m/yr, that would account for 13m of the 25m increase. That's not counting the 13m people's children during those 10 years.

According to that link, Mexico apparently got surpassed in the yearly #'s by India and China since 2013.

To the first: I don't see it as that much of a difference percentage wise. I'll agree to disagree.

To the second: Eh, I don't follow. I don't think there's a decline in two-parent households, as many times parents remarry. It makes itdifficult to get good numbers as sometimes divorced families remarry multiple times. But in the end, the shrinking households is due to women having fewer children. That's largely because more women are working, have access to birth control and have more education.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/family-size-among-mothers/

Quote:In the late 1970s, the average mother at the end of her childbearing years had given birth to more than three children. Since that time, average family size has declined, driven largely by declines in families with four or more children. Now, moms have 2.4 children on average – a number that has been fairly stable for two decades.

In 1976, four-in-ten mothers ages 40 to 44 had four or more children. One-fourth had three children, and a similar share (24%) had two children. Only 11% of mothers at the end of their childbearing years had had only one child.

Flash forward to 2014, and the situation has changed dramatically. The once-dominant four-child family has been replaced by the two-child family. A plurality (41%) of moms at the end of their childbearing years now report having two kids, while just 14% have four or more children. Meanwhile, the share of mothers at the end of their childbearing years who have one child has doubled – from 11% to 22%. As has been the case for many decades, about one-fourth of mothers have three children (24%).

I understand the scarecrow of irresponsible people popping out child after child. It happens. But — by and large — people are having fewer children.

Thirdly, I'm not really following, but that's ok. I'm not super concerned about it. Migration — illegal and otherwise — has been going down since the economy went to crap. And it will likely continue as economies in other contries grow and ours is (likely) heading for another recession. Which is my biggest point with immigration: we've got much bigger fish to fry.

[Benton]

(07-16-2017, 10:03 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: 1 million? It isn't that many? With each, we fail to resolve our own crisis. We have too many homeless. Fix that, then bring in the rest. We seemingly can't take care of our own, how do we stand a chance when we deepen the hole?

We have less than 600,000 homeless and more than 5 million homes in foreclosures by banks that get tax dollars from Congress members whom they pay. About a third of those (hard to estimate as they don't have any health care) are mentally ill, left without treatment following those Congress members' decision to stop funding mental health back in the 80s.

Congress members have done pretty well for themselves off those problems, I don't expect they'll fix them any time soon.