Discussion on:

The U.S. in 2050: Bigger, younger, less white, less urban

A lot of speculation went into the opinions in this article. One thing seems clear, demographics are changing, but are they changing to what the author envisions? The US birthrate has been below replacement level for decades. The flood of illegal immigration has been the only factor in keeping us close to replacement level. The speculation that the US demographics will shift away from a white majoity are evident to see. The problem is the increasing life expectancy and a retiring baby boom that is upon us. I dont see any mention of this in the optimism this Berkley-centric opinion piece conveys. I find it quite revealing that his projections ignore this.

Probably, for having an " accurate speculation " we would need to know allot and to create the "accurate speculation " we would need to have a team of many members to analyze every possibility that might happen in the next 40 years.
Indeed there are allot of things worrying most of the people on earth such as : Global Warmth, Environment Destruction, Lack of Energy Resources, Depletion of Drinking Water.
But probably, we might find a solution for each problem and we might even apply each solution for each problem, probably.

jwlthe4th:

I don't think a lot of concern was placed on the baby boomer group, given that 40 years from now, most of us will be nothing more than a mound in front of a stone, or some ashes blowing in the wind. I'm borderline on the last of the BB gen, and I'd be pushing 90 in 2050. Most simply won't live long enough to matter in the stats of the time.

Wow it's nice to read all this optimism, we are short of it these days. However I think it would be even better if population growth slowed down more dramatically.

By what means do you think it's going to become a younger country? The trend of living longer is probably not going to end.

Demographics are numbers, but as in this case can be interpreted in many ways. First of all the US birthrate is at 1.68. That is below replacement level. FACT check it out. Combine this with illegal immegration and we are at 2.1. Just barely replacement level. The population is increasing though. Why? We are living longer. I do not know how this will play out in 2050 and NO ONE does. A lot can happen in 40 years. On the other hand, we can know that those who are no longer producing are not ofset by those who are producing in the present and into the future by at least one generation. This cannot be changed by politics or any other means available to us. These demographics are not reversable. We cannot create a generation of producing citizens out of thin air. This aspect is not even glanced at in the authors projections.

" if you stopped immigration and if you had a 30-year recession. But I don?t think we?ll have a 30-year recession, and I don?t think immigration will end."

A lot can happen in 40 years, but a lot has happened in the last 40 years that has placed us in the demographic crisis that is upon us.

We do not have an overpopulation problem, we have a demographic problem and it will affect us all over the next 40 years or until we are that mound of dirt in front of a stone.

I have not read the book but plan to. It sound interesting. According to a 2006 report on the Fertility of American Women (most recent available or that I found) Women 40 to 44 who will end their childbearing will have, on average, 1.9 children, a number below replacement level. However, Hispanic women will average 2.3 children, higher than that of White, Black or Asian women.

The report goes on to say, "Overall, women 15 to 44 years old
in June 2006 had an average of 1,169 births per 1,000 women. Hispanic women aged 15 to 44 had the highest number of children ever born (1,435 per 1,000 women), compared with non-Hispanic White women, who had 1,091 children ever born per 1,000 women; Black women, who had 1,288 children ever born per 1,000 women; and Asian women, who had 992 children ever born per 1,000 women."

Given that the Hispanic population is the youngest group (fact - just look at census data) and most "fertile", stands to reason why some of the assumptions around the rapid growth by 2050 will occur. We are already seeing minority-majority states in Texas and California. Other states will be following closely. I don't envision that less white will necessarily translate to mean non-existent, but the tide is turning and we have to prepare for the consequences, both good and bad.

As a 55 year old I think the biggest problem we face in the near future is that us baby boomers are going to retire. For most all of us this will mean that will become government benefit collectors at the same time that we cease being tax payers. Leaving obvious question , who will pay the taxes. This is why an increase of one or two hundred million immigrants is welcome in my view. The drawback I fear is that we can almost depend on government to screw it up. I predict that for the usual political reasons they will do things like pit us against each other racially the way they have been for decades (neither major party being exempt form that one). Another one we can depend on is that they will get the new people dependant on government handouts ,the result being that will end up collecting more than they pay in . And the list goes on and on . Yes this will be another great idea destroyed by government.

I plan on reading the book. It is the first I have seen, as an urban planner, that really addresses the reality of the cities that exist on the fringe. In Canada, few of these cities are truly suburban (bedroom communities) but are instead part of a conurbation - a situation that exists when distinct cities grow into each other. These cities have employment and always have - it tends to be industrial or more recently, big box commercial on industrial lands, rather than finance, insurance, real estate and services. Many urban planners dismiss these areas by either simply labeling them as evil or as 'something we can do nothing about.' (Even though so many of them choose single family houses themselves.)

These areas simply need to be retrofitted. Sidewalks where there aren't any, some density around smaller commercial centres and strips, encouragement of secondary suites where appropriate, better local transit (instead of expensive high end transit linking local nodes to regional nodes), and improved energy efficiency through retrofits. And more employers who acknowledge that you can speak to your employees via phone if you need to; they do not need to be in the office everyday.

Starting with the fact we do not need a 30 year recession to lower the population of the US.

Minus immigration we were already losing population prior to 2008 because of low birth rates among US citizens.

If you subtract just illegal immigration we still had negative population growth in 2008.

I just want to point out that the US had one form or another of legal immigration for over 200 years and the country managed to survive and thrive. Various branches of my family immigrated to the US over a 150 year span starting in the late 1700s when one individual came over listed only as cargo. He was an indentured servant.

Why do people think we have to allow illegal immigration to survive as a nation?