The US population will start declining in the next 10-20 years. What should the US be doing to prepare for this?

[Matthew]

Most developed economies have been in demographic decline for years. Some like South Korea and Japan will dramatically shrink in the decades to come. China's population started to decline in the last couple years and they have begun to strategize policies to encourage more births. The US is expected to hit its tipping point as early as the 2030s, a date which has been moved up serveral decades by more recent changes to birth rates.  Birth rates in every continent except Africa have gotten close to 2 children per woman--even in most very poor and densely populated places like Bangladesh.

So does a future of declining population and an increased percentage of elderly people concern you?

[robosmith]

If Trump makes good on his deportation promises, it will decline 11M in the next 4 years. 

[NAME REMOVED]

26 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Most developed economies have been in demographic decline for years. Some like South Korea and Japan will dramatically shrink in the decades to come. China's population started to decline in the last couple years and they have begun to strategize policies to encourage more births. The US is expected to hit its tipping point as early as the 2030s, a date which has been moved up serveral decades by more recent changes to birth rates.  Birth rates in every continent except Africa have gotten close to 2 children per woman--even in most very poor and densely populated places like Bangladesh.

So does a future of declining population and an increased percentage of elderly people concern you?

Are you sure? I am assuming USA will hit 400 Milly by 2075.

Canada is expected to grow to 80 million in the next 50 years. 

 

japan's population is really declining. 1.2 children per family, and no immigration will do that.

Edited January 26 by DUI_Offender

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

Are you sure? I am assuming USA will hit 400 Milly by 2075.

Canada is expected to grow to 80 million in the next 50 years. 

 

japan's population is really declining. 1.2 children per family, and no immigration will do that.

The US and Canada and every other western or economically developed country can only grow in population via immigration.  Otherwise they'll shrink.

[NAME REMOVED]

16 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The US and Canada and every other western or economically developed country can only grow in population via immigration.  Otherwise they'll shrink.

Immigration levels will continue. If anything, the number of immigrants will increase from historical levels in the coming years. 

Edited January 26 by DUI_Offender

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Are you sure? I am assuming USA will hit 400 Milly by 2075.

Canada is expected to grow to 80 million in the next 50 years. 

 

japan's population is really declining. 1.2 children per family, and no immigration will do that.

Our birthrate is almost exactly the same as japans    So yes immigration CAN deal with that.  But it won't for them, they are NOT fans of immigration in large numbers.

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

Most developed economies have been in demographic decline for years. Some like South Korea and Japan will dramatically shrink in the decades to come. China's population started to decline in the last couple years and they have begun to strategize policies to encourage more births. The US is expected to hit its tipping point as early as the 2030s, a date which has been moved up serveral decades by more recent changes to birth rates.  Birth rates in every continent except Africa have gotten close to 2 children per woman--even in most very poor and densely populated places like Bangladesh.

So does a future of declining population and an increased percentage of elderly people concern you?

Immigration will most likely step up to cover the shortfall.

Basically what you do if there is a declining population is you plan to refocus your economy out of those areas that an increasing population provides for such as the construction industry. It won't go away entirely, old homes will still need to get knocked down and new homes built to replace them but there will be a lot less of it. Just an example

It's important to focus on improving the skills of those individuals who are there. Declining population means declining GDP, which isn't the end of the world provided your GDP per capita is increasing. So focusing on education Industries training and other elements that allow people to be worth more money in industries that aren't impacted by a declining population can significantly help offset some of the negative elements.

Given the structure of society today would be very difficult to incentivize people to have enough children. So aside from immigration there's probably pretty limited ways to avoid it

[Matthew]

9 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Are you sure? I am assuming USA will hit 400 Milly by 2075.

The higher-end estimate currently published by the US government project the peak will be around 370 million around 2080.

But after every census that projection is corrected downward to compensate for decreasing birthrates, so it's hard to know where that will actually level off.

[Matthew]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Given the structure of society today would be very difficult to incentivize people to have enough children.

Yes, its expensive and the material middle class expectations people have today cause childraising to not be part of the plan until later in life or never.  Dating and marriage customs are in a state of dramatic change. The internet has become the overwhelming way couples meet and its a fairly hostile environment towards women so many don't even bother.

[User]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The US and Canada and every other western or economically developed country can only grow in population via immigration.  Otherwise they'll shrink.

*IF* they maintain their current and downward trending birth rates

 

[User]

11 hours ago, Matthew said:

So does a future of declining population and an increased percentage of elderly people concern you?

No, the entitlement programs we have built that have been abused and designed to fail, concern me. 

But if we are so concerned about population, it might help if we stopped celebrating being a culture of death where we kill almost 1 million unborn babies a year. 

 

[Deluge]

11 hours ago, Matthew said:

Most developed economies have been in demographic decline for years. Some like South Korea and Japan will dramatically shrink in the decades to come. China's population started to decline in the last couple years and they have begun to strategize policies to encourage more births. The US is expected to hit its tipping point as early as the 2030s, a date which has been moved up serveral decades by more recent changes to birth rates.  Birth rates in every continent except Africa have gotten close to 2 children per woman--even in most very poor and densely populated places like Bangladesh.

So does a future of declining population and an increased percentage of elderly people concern you?

Climate cataclysm is supposed to destroy us in 7 years, so who cares? 

[Dougie93]

12 hours ago, Matthew said:

So does a future of declining population and an increased percentage of elderly people concern you?

America doesn't have to be perfect, America just has to be better than the rest

this is a global population decline induced by technological displacement

all other countries will suffer the effects far worse than America therein

starting with Communist China

when the world spirals into crisis

the flight to quality will always be to America

New Jerusalem

Shining City upon a Hill

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

Yes, its expensive and the material middle class expectations people have today cause childraising to not be part of the plan until later in life or never.  Dating and marriage customs are in a state of dramatic change. The internet has become the overwhelming way couples meet and its a fairly hostile environment towards women so many don't even bother.

All true,  but the greater problem isn't just that it's  "expensive' but rather as an unfortunate byproduct of some of the rights movements at the tail end of the 60's our society began to change from a "single provider" model per household to a 2 provider model. The more money people had the more expensive homes and other things got. Specifically things that are necessary to create an environment suitable for having and raising kids. Such as the cost of a multi bedroom home for example.  Can't remember if you're an american or canadian (sorry) but in canada right now in many areas (our most populous) owning a 3 bedroom home even as an apartment or townhouse is almost impossible for a younger couple without an inheritance or the like. 

So these days a couple gets married and they spend all of their energy just keeping their heads above water. The idea of building a home suitable for raising children is laughably difficult, so even if they do decide to proceed with a family they have one child and that's it. 

Obviously you need closer to three children to even have mild population growth. Even if they sacrifice it's hard for most people these days to raise three children on one or one and a half incomes. So you basically made it impossible for people to consider having enough children to create population growth

[ironstone]

12 hours ago, Matthew said:

Most developed economies have been in demographic decline for years. Some like South Korea and Japan will dramatically shrink in the decades to come. China's population started to decline in the last couple years and they have begun to strategize policies to encourage more births. The US is expected to hit its tipping point as early as the 2030s, a date which has been moved up serveral decades by more recent changes to birth rates.  Birth rates in every continent except Africa have gotten close to 2 children per woman--even in most very poor and densely populated places like Bangladesh.

So does a future of declining population and an increased percentage of elderly people concern you?

How about they stop encouraging abortions? Why not increase incentives  for couples to have larger families?

In Canada, our GDP per capita has fallen, even with one of the highest immigration(per capita) rates in the world.

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, ironstone said:

How about they stop encouraging abortions? Why not increase incentives  for couples to have larger families?

In Canada, our GDP per capita has fallen, even with one of the highest immigration(per capita) rates in the world.

What do you mean 'even with'?  That's 'because of".

While some population growth is good we've been shooting upwards like a rocket.  To MUCH growth is even worse than negative growth. 

Something justin never understood. 

You want a good balance.  Moderate growth that is in keeping with your ability to add resources and grow the population. 

At the end of the day tho some basic math says at some point the word's population will have to decline. We can't just keep growing forever. So we're going to have to find ways to address it. Or plan for  a really nasty war every 20 years or so to thin the heard back down   

[ironstone]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What do you mean 'even with'?  That's 'because of".

While some population growth is good we've been shooting upwards like a rocket.  To MUCH growth is even worse than negative growth. 

Something justin never understood. 

You want a good balance.  Moderate growth that is in keeping with your ability to add resources and grow the population. 

At the end of the day tho some basic math says at some point the word's population will have to decline. We can't just keep growing forever. So we're going to have to find ways to address it. Or plan for  a really nasty war every 20 years or so to thin the heard back down   

Because of. That correct and it's how I should have phrased it.

[Matthew]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Even if they sacrifice it's hard for most people these days to raise three children on one or one and a half incomes. So you basically made it impossible for people to consider having enough children to create population growth

Yep, I agree with all that. There are reasons so many women ditched being a stay-at-home mom. Its frequently an experience of isolation, depression, dependency, and low social status. The technologies and rights-based discourse that made it possible for women to have more options does have a deleterious side effect on society's demographics. 

I think a modern society should have birth and migration incentives they could activate and adjust as needed to keep population levels within a stable desired range.

Culture-wise it may be a survival of the fittest type situation in which society's where men overall fail to make themselves amicable to women may just cease to exist.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

Yep, I agree with all that. There are reasons so many women ditched being a stay-at-home mom. Its frequently an experience of isolation, depression, dependency, and low social status.

There are reasons but none of those are the reasons 😜   Well at least not for most women. Especially in this day and age, there's nothing 'isolating' about being a stay at home mom, it's a sizable community with lots of interactions. 

Some on the left have proposed its a  'bad thing' and tried to shame women but i think it's still probably looked on by most as noble enough. 

But it doesn't pay well. And in a world where you NEED two incomes just to keep a roof over your head.....

Quote

The technologies and rights-based discourse that made it possible for women to have more options does have a deleterious side effect on society's demographics. 

Yeah. Unintended consequences and such.  But we'll just have to address that.

Quote

I think a modern society should have birth and migration incentives they could activate and adjust as needed to keep population levels within a stable desired range.

It's a nice idea but it's very very hard to implement that.  Are you going to have some sort of major tax break? Or pay moms to stay home?  it would have to be massive. And what about people who can't have or don't want to have kids, they still pay the taxes for someone else to "stay home eating bon bons and watching their stories on tv" etc ?   How about gays, that kind of leaves them out. etc etc.  Not to mention the pricetag would be brutal. 

Quote

Culture-wise it may be a survival of the fittest type situation in which society's where men overall fail to make themselves amicable to women may just cease to exist.

LOL yes sure it's the men's fault   

Even when we're trying to have a reasonable discussion about an important issue you just can't stop your hatred from impacting eveything you say can you.  Yeash, you lefties  

It has nothing to do with women not being attracted by men. People are still having sex, people are still getting married. 

It has everything to do with not being able to afford to have a child because it is impossible.  

And seeing as you insist on making it political that is entirely the fault of the left. At least in canada. 

Honestly, some times you guys make extinction of the species look good   

[Matthew]

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

there's nothing 'isolating' about being a stay at home mom

This is very well documented. Stay at home parents have significantly higher mental health problems stemming from greater social isolation. I've also witnessed the challenges first hand . My wife and other family members are stay at home moms and she prefers it to working but it does take a unique pschological toll.

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Some on the left have proposed its a  'bad thing' and tried to shame women

I've never seen this.

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Or pay moms to stay home?

Perhaps, if the population shortfall became a big enough problem for society, then a system for compensating some women for their child rearing would be preferable to the costs of having 40-50% of citizens be over the age of 65 with a small minority of workers supporting them.

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It has nothing to do with women not being attracted by men. People are still having sex, people are still getting married. 

I didn't suggest they werent. But right now most men in the country are single and most women aren't. 63% of men say they are single compared to 34% of women. The number of married people is falling. The number of people having sex is at a 30 year low. 57% of single adults aren't even looking for a relationship or dates. Of those who are, only 25% of men are looking only for a committed relationship compared to 41% of women.

The reason I would primarily point towards men being bottle neck in this system is that they are the ones putting forth less effort according to people who study these things. 80-90% of them are using porn regularly which is low effort dopamine reward compared to the time, energy, and skills needed to maintain a relationship.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

This is very well documented. Stay at home parents have significantly higher mental health problems stemming from greater social isolation. I've also witnessed the challenges first hand . My wife and other family members are stay at home moms and she prefers it to working but it does take a unique pschological toll.

I know a craptonne of stay at home moms and there isn't much of a problem. My (very) younger sister is one now. Single moms can have issues but for different reasons.  Most single moms these days are very active socially with other moms and people and they're simply not isolated.  If they're feeling 'isolated' they're doing it wrong. 

Quote

I've never seen this.

You seem to have a fairly limited range of experience. Or selective experience.

There's examples everywhere.  the left looks down on women who stay home and have kids, calling them the 'family slave' or 'lowest paid worker in the household' etc.  Only a few months ago Harrison Butker gave his speech to women saying basically 'some  of you will go on to have great careers, but i suspect most of you want to be mothers and homemakers'  and how great that is and the left literally lost its collective mind and 160,000 of them signed a petition to get him fired. 

Quote

However Perhaps, if the population shortfall became a big enough problem for society, then a system for compensating some women for their child rearing would be preferable to the costs of having 40-50% of citizens be over the age of 65 with a small minority of workers supporting them.

How? You can't just say "some system". Anything big enough would cost a massive fortune if it involved any kind of financial incentive which would be an even worse problem. So what does that system look like?

Quote

I didn't suggest they werent.

 

You absolutely did. You straight up said the problem is that men can't attract women. But they do, everyday.

Quote

But right now most men in the country are single and most women aren't. 63% of men say they are single compared to 34% of women.

Ahem. 

US population by gender 2027 | Statista

The Daily — Canada's population estimates: Age and gender, July 1, 2024

There's the same number of men as women.  In both canada and us. In fact slightly more women. 

the percentage of homosexuals is the same for males and females, or close enough. (actually more men but not much more). 

So you want to explain to me how so many more women are in a relationship than men?  Is polygamy big in the states and i didn't realize it?       Your numbers are complete bullshit

Quote

The number of married people is falling.

The primary purpose of marriage was to have kids.  I think you can connect the rest of the dots there   But unless you've got some sort of stat showing the men want to but women don't it has nothing to do with men not attracting women. 

 

Quote

The number of people having sex is at a 30 year low. 57% of single adults aren't even looking for a relationship or dates.

That has nothing to do with sex. And again unless you can show that all the ones who are looking to date are men then it has nohting to do with not being able to attract women.

Quote

Of those who are, only 25% of men are looking only for a committed relationship compared to 41% of women.

Then the REALITY is that WOMEN cannot ATTRACT MEN . Not the other way around. 

So you were just making shit up from your hatred based bias. 

Quote

The reason I would primarily point towards men being bottle neck in this system is that they are the ones putting forth less effort according to people who study these things.

Which would prove the OPPOSITE of what you said. So the real reason you put it forward was bigotry and bias. Which we see constantly on the left. Men are at fault for everything. I'm surprised you didn't specify WHITE men. 

However, at the end of the day as i said, you form permanent relationships to have children. Right now it's impossible to have children financially for most couples so you see fewer and fewer relationships. 

And next time park your misandry at the door. 

[WestCanMan]

Why should we care if the population goes down?

We need less and less workers all the time. 

And why should China care? G-zoz-Charest, they have WAY too many people already. 

[Matthew]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Why should we care if the population goes down?

Good question. Gradually going down is fine. Maybe less geopolitical clout but overall less people world mean less strain on ecosystems etc. The problem, which Korea and Japan are approaching is when your population declines so fast that eventually most of the people are elderly. So a small percentage of people working combined with a large percentage of people who need the the most intense care.

[Matthew]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Most single moms these days are very active socially with other moms

Lets see your data on that.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

the left looks down on women who stay home and have kids

Im a leftist and most of the people i know are. I've never heard anyone in real life suggest any such thing.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

How? You can't just say "some system"

F*ck if I know. And I don't know why your straining to make a debate out of it.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But unless you've got some sort of stat showing the men want to but women don't it has nothing to do with men not attracting women. 

Ha wait, I'm really curious how you think this fact relates to 63% of men being single.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But unless you've got some sort of stat showing the men want to but women don't it has nothing to do with men not attracting women. 

I actually hinted at that stat--about twice as many single women are only looking for a long term relationship compared to men.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That has nothing to do with sex.

Oh that's adorable. In my list of various statistics you randomly combined two of them and now you're trying to debate the imaginary connection.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Then the REALITY is that WOMEN cannot ATTRACT MEN . Not the other way around. 

That's possible. Your debate about attration is in your own mind and not something I ever said. But again 63% of men are single and only about 30% of women so however you slice it men are failing to find relationships. Except for college educated guys--they tend to do a lot better at the moment . But there are a lot more educated women than men these days so that's a big part of the mismatch.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So the real reason you put it forward was bigotry and bias.

Meh. I'm just making simple factual observations and discussing open-ended opinions about the future. Meanwhile you're being pathetic and trying to conjure a mean-spirited debates out of simple facts we agree upon.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

Lets see your data on that.

The guy who hasn't provided even a single stitch of data is demanding that people provide data

Here's your one-time kid. Next time do your own homework especially when you haven't bothered to provide anything for anything you've said

Single Moms: Less Housework, More Leisure Than Married Moms | Psychology Today

Quote

Im a leftist and most of the people i know are. I've never heard anyone in real life suggest any such thing.

We've already established you don't get out much

 

Quote

F*ck if I know. And I don't know why your straining to make a debate out of it.

This is literally something you brought up. "I"M BRINGING THIS THING UP!!"  ok, tell me about the thing. "WHY ARE YOU BRINGING THE THING UP!?!?!!?" LOLOL

You say that they should introduce a system. If you can't at least describe what that would look like then you're just making shit up out of your ass. I can't think of what such a system would look like that wasn't so expensive we couldn't possibly afford it. Not if it was going to actually achieve the results you would need. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you had some sort of idea in your head and we're just saying that someone should wave a magic wand and solve the problem. My bad

 

Quote

Ha wait, I'm really curious how you think this fact relates to 63% of men being single.

We've already established that you are figures there are completely false.

 

Quote

I actually hinted at that stat--about twice as many single women are only looking for a long term relationship compared to men.

Which disproves your point. Some days you are dumber than a Stamp  hammer.

 

Quote

Oh that's adorable. In my list of various statistics you randomly combined two of them and now you're trying to debate the imaginary connection.

Hardly. You posted something that was irrelevant to what we were discussing. I pointed out that it was irrelevant to what we were discussing. Now you seem to be buthurt.  

 

Quote

That's possible. 

It's what the statistics say. Not that women can't attract men as you claim the problem to be but rather than men are not interested in forming permanent relationships with women. The bang them but that's about it. Which is the exact opposite of what you claim to the problem was

Which you are now spending massive amounts of energy trying to avoid admitting  

 

Quote

Meh. I'm just making simple factual observations and discussing open-ended opinions about the future.

But you got your facts wrong. And then when I pointed that out you had a hissy fit and stopped discussing opinions about the future and tried to defend the indefensible and just made yourself look Dumber.

The simple fact is (he said desperately trying to get the thread back on track after the lunatic left derailed it) that the biggest obstacle right now is not that then can't attract women, the biggest issue is the way our society has become structured as a result of certain decisions with regards to the women's liberation movement we saw in the late sixties and early 70s in such a way that a two income family is almost a necessity just to get by, which makes it all but impossible to have children for married couples. It's actually easier to be a single mom, not that that's easy.

So there's very little chance of any kind of structure or incentive that would significantly impact the birth rate in and of itself. And in fact similar programs in other countries have met with limited success

Edited January 27 by CdnFox