Without immigration, the U.S. population will shrink starting in 2033 in part “because fertility rates are projected to remain too low for a generation to replace itself,” the Congressional Budget Office said.

The reduced projections from last year were the results of a decline in projected fertility rates over 30 years from 1.70 births per woman to 1.60 births per woman and less immigration because of an executive order last June that temporarily suspends asylum processing at the border when U.S. officials deem they are overwhelmed, the budget office said. Replacement happens at a rate of 2.1 births per woman.

  • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    20 hours ago

    This point keeps coming up. We are destroying the earth due to overpopulation and overuse, why is it bad for the population to decline for a while. Its very normal for populations of animals in the wild to spike and wane, its not some catastrophe.

    • ...m...@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      …because western economies are built upon larger young generations paying smaller old generations for the privilege of participation; take away its buttressing and that “stable” economic pyramid becomes a rickety tower…

      …you can prop up the generational productivity deficit with industrial automation to some extent, but only if the benefits of automation are democratised rather than hegemonised, otherwise a smaller-and-smaller oligarchy instead dominates an increasingly-marginalised peasantry until the whole thing comes crashing down…

      …when life becomes cheap, it will be spent cheaply…

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        14 hours ago

        …when life becomes cheap, it will be spent cheaply…

        dude, I’ve never seen it put that way before. That’s the underlying theme for fascists. Send them to war, take away their benefits, stop them from having choices in life. It really doesn’t matter to them because life is cheap. I’m going to get drunk this weekend I think.

        • ...m...@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          …roll back before fascism and take a look at feudalism to see how ugly things can get in a steady-state oligarch civilisation…

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      We are destroying the earth due to overpopulation and overuse

      The raw number of humans living in the United States has nothing to do with the degree to which we are demolishing the environment. States and counties with low populations are often more aggressive in unchecked pollution and resource extraction than those with large ones. And the dependence on inefficient energy, materials, and infrastructure is more prominent in communities with small rural distributions.

      The policies that are destroying the country will not improve simply because the long-term birthrate is in gradual decline. We’re going to smack straight into a Malthusian event due to climate change long before mere population trends impact our pollution output.

      Its very normal for populations of animals in the wild to spike and wane

      Wild populations do not normally kick off a global extinction event. This isn’t just another biological trend, it is a full reworking of the global ecology. Even if we wipe ourselves out tomorrow, humanity’s impact will be measured in epochs. Assuming humanity survives long-term, you’ll see our footprint for eons.

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    2 days ago

    Well you guys made everyone poor and want to kick out all the people that wanna move here. You’d rather dismantle planned parenthood to force people to have more babies instead of actually give them an incentive to have babies.

    • pizzaboi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      A lot of people don’t even need incentives, they just need things to not be shit.

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Well you guys made everyone poor and want to kick out all the people that wanna move here

      “You guys”? I didn’t vote for the orange guy, just like I’m assuming you didn’t.

  • hperrin@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 day ago

    They’re doing everything they can to make women not want to have babies too.

  • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    It’s gonna drop even faster with no one wanting to live in a fascist shit hole. Along with falling immigration, I’m expecting a rise in emigration. I would be if I had money

  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    FYI, birth rates falling is really bad for a country with capitalism. It becomes top heavy with older people and no one to work for the older people’s retirement benefits. That’s how you know all of this immigration crap is racism and breaking the government.

      • Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Among US citizens there are 52.9/1000 birth for white women, 55.6/1000 black, Asian/Pacific island 446.6/1000, and 5/1000 native. The rate needs to be 2.1/1 for there to be minimal population growth. Without immigrants these numbers need to be 2001/1000 for minimal population growth.

        You aren’t making up for this deficit

        • taladar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Without any migrants in either direction you would still need to account for deaths before having children, infertility and similar effects, that is why the figure given for a stable population is usually 2.1 and not 2.001 or something similar like your 2001 figure.

          • Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            yeah, I was saying the 2001 as like, a simplification, in a vacuum, absolute minimum needed. Just something to illustrate the issue, reality is usually different, more complicated

  • Jo Miran
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    The American success story is in great part attributed to a steady stream of immigrants ready to and willing to exploit and be exploited for the promise of a better life for themselves or their children. Disrupt the flow of immigrants and the system might collapse.