Does America need to grow its population?

[desihawk]

both dems and reps seem to think that america needs population growth, which the current citizenry (at least if left to themselves) won't provide. dems' solution is to bestow women's rights (ie allow birth control, abortion etc) but also permit migrants in massive numbers. reps' approach is to clamp down on womens rights (so they satisfy population requirements) while sealing off the border. is this a wrong/crude assessment of the party positions?

that said, does the economy require population growth? (china, japan, korea, italy, etc are on track to be a shadow of their current selves, so perhaps the answer is yes.)

 

[Funky Bunch]

Never heard the birth control argument tied to population growth

 

[Jerome Silberman]

That's an interesting thought on the reductive reasoning for policy beliefs.

 

[desihawk]

Never heard the birth control argument tied to population growth

yes, that is speculation but reasonable if the need for growth is true. i suspect that the strategists (whoever they may be) won't come out admit something like that, instead just let religious arguments take the lead.

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

both dems and reps seem to think that america needs population growth, which the current citizenry (at least if left to themselves) won't provide. dems' solution is to bestow women's rights (ie allow birth control, abortion etc) but also permit migrants in massive numbers. reps' approach is to clamp down on womens rights (so they satisfy population requirements) while sealing off the border. is this a wrong/crude assessment of the party positions?

that said, does the economy require population growth? (china, japan, korea, italy, etc are on track to be a shadow of their current selves, so perhaps the answer is yes.)

Absolutely, capitalism requires a never ending and constant expansion of population to increase markets, provide for expanding labor inputs (at a lower wage point no less) and ever constant construction cycles.

 

[IIowaFarmBoy]

We have a cylinder shaped pop curve. Need a bell.

Very low birth rate. Lot's of homes available on the market in 2033 when the baby boom pop pops.

We'd have like 100 million more in younger Under 50 pop since 1973 supporting the boomers. Do the math.... Dems go crazy in 321.

 

[Finance85]

both dems and reps seem to think that america needs population growth, which the current citizenry (at least if left to themselves) won't provide. dems' solution is to bestow women's rights (ie allow birth control, abortion etc) but also permit migrants in massive numbers. reps' approach is to clamp down on womens rights (so they satisfy population requirements) while sealing off the border. is this a wrong/crude assessment of the party positions?

that said, does the economy require population growth? (china, japan, korea, italy, etc are on track to be a shadow of their current selves, so perhaps the answer is yes.)

You think abortion is just a form of birth control?

 

[StormHawk42]

As society progresses, the birth rate goes down. Capitalism only works if the workforce is constantly repopulating.

Hence, the US needs to be as pro-immigration as possible. We can debate policy surrounding asylum and deportation. But overall, immigration needs to be embraced. It’s the only way capitalism carries on in a declining birth rate country.

 

[NDallasRuss]

We have a cylinder shaped pop curve. Need a bell.

Very low birth rate. Lot's of homes available on the market in 2033 when the baby boom pop pops.

We'd have like 100 million more in younger Under 50 pop since 1973 supporting the boomers. Do the math.... Dems go crazy in 321.

Most of those would be poor, come from broken homes, more likely to be criminals, rely on suicidal services, etc.

Not the 100M we should be hoping for, and exactly the ones we should be happy to prevent.

 

[IIowaFarmBoy]

Most of those would be poor, come from broken homes, more likely to be criminals, rely on suicidal services, etc.

Not the 100M we should be hoping for, and exactly the ones we should be happy to prevent.

Eugenics? Mengele? Sanger?

 

[NDallasRuss]

Eugenics? Mengele? Sanger?

No. Eugenics is improving genetic "quality". Encouraging and even funding abortion is improving social/ economic "quality".

Plus, eugenics seems to be involuntary, whereas abortion is voluntary.

 

[desihawk]

You think abortion is just a form of birth control?

my post doesn't imply that. just that societies in which access to abortion is constrained likely have faster growing populations.

 

[IIowaFarmBoy]

No. Eugenics is improving genetic "quality". Encouraging and even funding abortion is improving social/ economic "quality".

Plus, eugenics seems to be involuntary, whereas abortion is voluntary.

ya right that is what you meant...ok. Wonder how many hawk football players are poor and black with single moms. hmmm

 

[Hawk_82]

We do not need to increase the population IMO. However, our current economic system is based on a growth economy. Way long term this is not sustainable. Its also funny to me that we care about green energy and yet we think we need to continue to grow the population.

I think we should switch to an efficiency economy instead of a growth economy. I think population growth or decline should be organic instead of being constructed by governments. WIth the AI boom that is supposed to be coming, we will be losing a lot of jobs. These people could be trained to work in other jobs that would help balance out the supposed workforce shortage that is expected.

An efficiency economy could put a greater emphasis on the environment and a balance between high and low income earners instead of just focusing on growing without any concern for the low income workers or the impacts of the environment.

 

[NDallasRuss]

ya right that is what you meant...ok. Wonder how many hawk football players are poor and black with single moms. hmmm

So you just want to make it a racial thing. Good luck with all that...

 

[THE_DEVIL]

I think we need to reduce by 33%

 

[IIowaFarmBoy]

So you just want to make it a racial thing. Good luck with all that...

You did. Poor black single moms are the main category of women. They have black babies raised without dads below poverty levels. That is what you dont want. Not desirable.

Go back and read what you said and look up the stats.

 

[NDallasRuss]

I guess the easiest way to do this is one by one...

Poor black single moms are the main category of women.

No they aren't.

Black women make up only 13.9% of all women in the US. I imagine if you break that out into a) poor, b) single, and c) mothers, the percentage is way lower.

If what you meant was the "poor black single moms" gave birth to the most children, that's incorrect also.

"Of all live births in the United States during 2020-2022 (average), 24.3% were Hispanic, 51.5% were White, 14.4% were Black, 0.7% were American Indian/Alaska Native and 6.4% were Asian/Pacific Islander."

Fertility rates by race/ethnicity: United States, 2020-2022 Average

Sustained low birth rates may indicate that the population is aging; sustained high birth rates may predict a younger population. Birth rate data and trends can tell a story.

www.marchofdimes.org

They have black babies raised without dads below poverty levels.

Not the majority.

Single family:
In 2022 the percentage of black children living with their mother in a single family household was 45.6%.

Living arrangements of children by race/ethnicity, 1970-2022 | Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Find answers to frequently asked questions about: Living arrangements of children by race/ethnicity, 1970-2022

ojjdp.ojp.gov

Poverty:
"The child poverty rate is also higher for certain racial and ethnic groups. In 2022, the child poverty rate was 25.9% for American Indian children, 19.5% for Hispanic children, 17.8% for Black children, 11.2% for White children, and 9.9% for Asian children."

Child Poverty in America: 2023 Facts & Statistics | United Way NCA

Childhood poverty is a tragic problem affecting millions of children in America. Learn how to fight child poverty in your local community with United Way NCA.

unitedwaynca.org

So you just want to make it a racial thing. Good luck with all that...

You did.

Go back and read what you said and look up the stats.

Okay. I mentioned "black" zero times. You said "black" three times. You took it to a racial place to, I guess make some imaginary point you wanted to make. But the posts, and the stats, don't support you.

Abortion is an important way for all women who don't want children, and aren't in a position to take care of children, to keep from bringing children into the world that would be less likely to have successful lives. It's not the only way, but it's an important way. And not only allowing it, but supporting and financing that decision benefits all of us.

 

[Bow.to.the.Narrative]

As society progresses, the birth rate goes down. Capitalism only works if the workforce is constantly repopulating.

Hence, the US needs to be as pro-immigration as possible. We can debate policy surrounding asylum and deportation. But overall, immigration needs to be embraced. It’s the only way capitalism carries on in a declining birth rate country.

I guess you've never heard of increased productivity per person, or automation.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Absolutely, capitalism requires a never ending and constant expansion of population to increase markets, provide for expanding labor inputs (at a lower wage point no less) and ever constant construction cycles.

We need robots, AI and nuclear power. Not people.

How many people actually produce things?

 

[Ree4]

I guess you've never heard of increased productivity per person, or automation.

Yep, it's tied directly to wage growth right?

 

[Dr. Phil Seuss]

both dems and reps seem to think that america needs population growth, which the current citizenry (at least if left to themselves) won't provide. dems' solution is to bestow women's rights (ie allow birth control, abortion etc) but also permit migrants in massive numbers. reps' approach is to clamp down on womens rights (so they satisfy population requirements) while sealing off the border. is this a wrong/crude assessment of the party positions?

that said, does the economy require population growth? (china, japan, korea, italy, etc are on track to be a shadow of their current selves, so perhaps the answer is yes.)

The American world is a Ponzi scheme of epic proportions. Without population growth, the whole thing will collapse or we will be dishing out death and toil.

 

[Nole Lou]

Yes.

The United States needs aggressive, LEGAL, managed immigration. Not just high skilled, which is a no brainer, but at all levels of the economy. If you can and will work, you have no criminal record, and you intend to become an American citizen...come on in. Let's fire up the god damn melting pot again.

That's not to say increased birth rates would not be better as well. But you basically cannot fight with policy the universal human trend of birth rates going down as economic security increases. There's almost no way to turn that around by national economic policy. All the social safety net and paid leave etc in Europe hasn't stopped their population growth from cratering.

That said, it might be possible to effect a cultural change in birth rates. The trend of all churches outside of Catholicism embracing a combination of contraceptive thinking and financial prosperity gospel is an absolute abomination if you care about birth rates. Among many things, the Evangelical churches should be absolutely horrified by their contribution to a "fewer kids = bigger houses" philosophy over the last 50-75 years.

I think you could see a trend toward pushing higher birth rates culturally among many groups. Christians and conservatives would be a no-brainer - no Christian family should be settling with fewer than three kids for "lifestyle reasons". But there are other, not necessarily conservative, movements as well that I think you could see adopting a higher birth rate philosophy...the trend toward natural living, homesteading, homeschooling, etc. There is some conservative/traditional overlap with those, but not completely.

 

[TheCainer]

I think we need to reduce by 33%

I see what you did there.

 

[Dr. Phil Seuss]

We need an army of poor, hungry Latin Americans willing to grind and learn construction trades. I don’t care how they get here, just get them on the wagon and put them go work. Without them, the whole thing is f**ked

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I guess you've never heard of increased productivity per person, or automation.

The more important problem is how are workers displaced by automation going to support themselves?

As more of the workforce becomes redundant, the more we need to lower population growth.

More birth control, not less.

More abortion, not less.

More quality public education, not less. (More education correlates with lower birth rates and also equips people better for whatever jobs remain.)

We may need to open the immigration spigot from time to time to address actual needs, but why should we bring in more people at the same time that unemployment and homelessness are likely to rise due to automation?

Not everybody can earn a living as an "influencer" on social media. And even if they could, what do they produce?

 

[MitchLL]

Merica needs immigration reform to fix the problems it faces.

Good luck getting the Party of White Nationalists to fix that issue.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Merica needs immigration reform to fix the problems it faces.

Good luck getting the Party of White Nationalists to fix that issue.

1. There was a bipartisan deal that was all but done until Trump told the Rs to hit the brakes and they did.

2. It's plausible that that bill could be revived by the Rs after the election. But who knows?

3. It wasn't all that great a deal.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

We need robots, AI and nuclear power. Not people.

How many people actually produce things?

Growing government jobs that don't turn out a consumer good is by nature inflationary, along with the bloated US defense budget which is also super inflationary. Just keep printing money as we tread water...

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

As society progresses, the birth rate goes down. Capitalism only works if the workforce is constantly repopulating.

Hence, the US needs to be as pro-immigration as possible. We can debate policy surrounding asylum and deportation. But overall, immigration needs to be embraced. It’s the only way capitalism carries on in a declining birth rate country.

Agree in many respects. We need to make it far easier for legal immigration for both people coming on H1B/college visas as well as those that come willing to work in entry level jobs. The key is streamlined legal immigration.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

I get the concern over the numbers, but where are these jobs? Where is the childcare support? We have so many people already in poverty, how exactly do they support themselves?

 

[Scruddy]

Population collapse is always a concern, especially with the ponzi scheme that is social security

 

[ConvenientParking]

We do not need to increase the population IMO. However, our current economic system is based on a growth economy. Way long term this is not sustainable. Its also funny to me that we care about green energy and yet we think we need to continue to grow the population.

I think we should switch to an efficiency economy instead of a growth economy. I think population growth or decline should be organic instead of being constructed by governments. WIth the AI boom that is supposed to be coming, we will be losing a lot of jobs. These people could be trained to work in other jobs that would help balance out the supposed workforce shortage that is expected.

An efficiency economy could put a greater emphasis on the environment and a balance between high and low income earners instead of just focusing on growing without any concern for the low income workers or the impacts of the environment.

Efficiency economy? Not sure what that means for you but when I conceptualize it, it seems like it would involve collective ownership of vital natural resources and democratic planning on how to use them to suit the needs of the population? Instead of leaving those decisions up to a combination of private interests and market forces blind to many of the things societies tend to agree they value in congregation? Where people would find work on things that need to be done in the interest of their local, state, national, or international communities rather than being forced to take on whatever work is available in the labor market because the products of that labor happen to be profitable in the moment regardless of if they're really a good use of resources or if the way the products are being made and distributed are ethical or efficient when you look beyond the measuring stick of profitability?

 

[like-woahh]

I guess the easiest way to do this is one by one...


No they aren't.

Black women make up only 13.9% of all women in the US. I imagine if you break that out into a) poor, b) single, and c) mothers, the percentage is way lower.

If what you meant was the "poor black single moms" gave birth to the most children, that's incorrect also.

"Of all live births in the United States during 2020-2022 (average), 24.3% were Hispanic, 51.5% were White, 14.4% were Black, 0.7% were American Indian/Alaska Native and 6.4% were Asian/Pacific Islander."

Fertility rates by race/ethnicity: United States, 2020-2022 Average

Sustained low birth rates may indicate that the population is aging; sustained high birth rates may predict a younger population. Birth rate data and trends can tell a story.

www.marchofdimes.org

Not the majority.

Single family:
In 2022 the percentage of black children living with their mother in a single family household was 45.6%.

Living arrangements of children by race/ethnicity, 1970-2022 | Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Find answers to frequently asked questions about: Living arrangements of children by race/ethnicity, 1970-2022

ojjdp.ojp.gov

Poverty:
"The child poverty rate is also higher for certain racial and ethnic groups. In 2022, the child poverty rate was 25.9% for American Indian children, 19.5% for Hispanic children, 17.8% for Black children, 11.2% for White children, and 9.9% for Asian children."

Child Poverty in America: 2023 Facts & Statistics | United Way NCA

Childhood poverty is a tragic problem affecting millions of children in America. Learn how to fight child poverty in your local community with United Way NCA.

unitedwaynca.org

Okay. I mentioned "black" zero times. You said "black" three times. You took it to a racial place to, I guess make some imaginary point you wanted to make. But the posts, and the stats, don't support you.

Abortion is an important way for all women who don't want children, and aren't in a position to take care of children, to keep from bringing children into the world that would be less likely to have successful lives. It's not the only way, but it's an important way. And not only allowing it, but supporting and financing that decision benefits all of us.

Dude did the same shit to me in a different thread. Completely interpreted my post in a bizarre way and then kept telling me what my intentions were. Took me like 5-6 posts to figure out what the hell he was even getting on about.

I think he's better off with the smile and nod treatment. Like that weird old uncle at family gatherings.

 

[billanole]

yes, that is speculation but reasonable if the need for growth is true. i suspect that the strategists (whoever they may be) won't come out admit something like that, instead just let religious arguments take the lead.

…”reasonable” according to who?

 

[Aardvark86]

Absolutely, capitalism requires a never ending and constant expansion of population to increase markets, provide for expanding labor inputs (at a lower wage point no less) and ever constant construction cycles.

Not really. Capitalism constantly creates new markets, often through advertising. Otherwise, explain vaginal deodorants.

 

[Aardvark86]

both dems and reps seem to think that america needs population growth, which the current citizenry (at least if left to themselves) won't provide. dems' solution is to bestow women's rights (ie allow birth control, abortion etc) but also permit migrants in massive numbers. reps' approach is to clamp down on womens rights (so they satisfy population requirements) while sealing off the border. is this a wrong/crude assessment of the party positions?

that said, does the economy require population growth? (china, japan, korea, italy, etc are on track to be a shadow of their current selves, so perhaps the answer is yes.)

Yes, but only because we’ve built a massive social welfare system on a Ponzi scheme principle unrelated to capitalism

 

[SA_Hawk]

Never heard the birth control argument tied to population growth

We aborted 1.3 million future U.S. citizens last year alone. Now do the math back to 1973.

 

[like-woahh]

I agree with Bill

 

[ConvenientParking]

Not really. Capitalism constantly creates new markets, often through advertising. Otherwise, explain vaginal deodorants.

Advertising is one way to create demand (demand which is presented in high school economics and therefore in the minds of many market fundamentalists as just existing which I think gives many the false impression that economics are governed exclusively by natural law). What a marvel of capitalism that they could create this deodorant and then rebrand the same product as one for men thereby creating jobs for one more culturally enriching ad campaign. Viva la capital.