Posted on 04/18/2020 5:47:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
Adding a city the size of Philadelphia in just one year hardly means we are on the cusp of a decline in population, as The New York Times article suggests.
A recent news article by Sabrina Tavernise in The New York Times warned U.S. population growth has slowed so much that the Wuhan virus might tip the country into population decline this year. It is the latest in a string of articles, editorials, and columns recently that mislead the public about the nation’s demographic future.
Like other writers, Tavernise anchors her warnings by pointing out that the rate of U.S. population growth has slowed significantly in the last few years. That is certainly true. But Tavernise goes beyond the data, or even the experts she quotes, and adopts an ominous tone about the nation’s slowing rate of population growth and its implications.
Tavernise states at the outset that “a drop in births and an acceleration in deaths put the country closer than ever to an overall decline.” She then cites unnamed experts, stating that if the “more dire predictions” come true about the Wuhan virus, “the country could face its first yearly drop in population, particularly if immigration continues to fall.”
Is the country’s pace of population growth such that the coronavirus may cause the population to decline? Almost certainly not.
Tavernise quotes University of New Hampshire demographer Kenneth Johnson later in the article, who states that “If this epidemic is as significant as some think, we could have deaths exceeding births” for the first time in our history. Even that is unlikely in the extreme.
In a normal year there are roughly 2.8 million U.S. deaths — 7,700 every day. Each may represent an individual tragedy, but it is the normal state of affairs in a country of roughly 330 million. There are also about 3.8 million births each year. So for deaths to exceed births in the coming year, the Wuhan virus would have to kill something like 1 million people. That’s quite a number, and currently considered unlikely.
It is true that the Imperial College Model that got so much attention forecasted 2.2 million U.S. deaths, but the authors were clear in that report that the projection was “In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behavior.” One may be critical of the nation’s response to the virus, but it cannot be said that there have been no control measures or changes in behavior.
Moreover, as The Federalist’s Madeline Osburn has pointed out, the lead author of the Imperial College paper walked it back not that long after it got so much media coverage. Speculating about the worst scenario is not necessarily a bad idea in a news article, but Tavernise should have at least provided readers more context and given an indication of how likely something of this kind is, given the underlying demographics
Tavernise also discusses the other factor that drives population growth, net immigration — the difference between the number of people coming versus those leaving. She reports this figure was 595,348 in the year ending July 1, 2019. That compares with 701,823 in the year ending July 1, 2018.
The Census Bureau population estimates, on which the article is mainly based, are from July 1 to July 1 of each year. Estimating net migration is never easy, partly because of illegal immigration, as well as people missed in the administrative data sources the bureau uses, one reason it revises estimates.
If we take the Bureau’s estimate as a given, and add the 1 million difference between births and deaths to net immigration,we get a total increase in the population of 1.55 million, the number the bureau’s data shows. That is less than, say, the 2 million increase from 2016 to 2017 or the 2.3 million increase from 2014 to 2015.
Adding a city the size of Philadelphia in just one year hardly means we are on the cusp of a decline in population, as the New York Times article suggests. Nowhere in the Times article does the author add the numbers and at least tell readers the U.S. population is still growing by 1.5 million people annually.
All this means that Covid-19 would have to kill roughly 1.5 million people in a single year for our population to actually decline. At present, that represents a scenario so extreme that it is not plausible.
When Tavernise discusses population growth in the long term, she mentions no numbers. She quotes Brookings Institution demographer William Frey as saying new population estimates put this decade on track to be the slowest 10-year period for population growth since the government started counting in 1790.
But this is only true in percentage terms, not in numbers. The Census Bureau estimates show that the United States has already grown by 18.92 million, July 2010 to July 2019. Even if the population grew by “only” 1 million more from 2019 to 2020, the numerical increase this decade would rank seventh out of the 23 decades between 1790 and 2020.
A country growing by roughly 20 million (or even 10 million) people every decade still has to deal with the pollution, congestion, and sprawl that comes with an ever-larger population. Moreover, wouldn’t slower population growth make it easier to address the so called “infrastructure gap” — the problem of inadequate and unrepaired roads, bridges, etc.?
Making the country more densely populated certainly makes it more difficult for many Americans to live as they wish. A 2018 Gallup poll, for example, found that most Americans aspire to live in areas with a fair amount of open space.
The Times article is really not about Covid-19, it just uses the epidemic as a news hook. The real point seems to be that the country’s “demographic health” is in peril and more immigration is the solution.
As is typical of media coverage that touches on slowing population growth or lower levels of immigration, Tavernise is clear: The consequences are all bad. She is convinced that, “If deaths start to outnumber births — and immigration does not make up the difference — society can strain under the weight of a growing retiree population with too few working-age people to support it.”
First, it is extremely unlikely that deaths will outnumber births any time soon. Moreover, last year I summarized what the research shows about the impact of immigration on the working-age share of the population or the ratio of workers to retirees.
Immigration is no fix for an aging society. Immigration adds to all age groups over time, not just young workers. This is partly because of the simple fact that immigrants, even those who arrive young, age over time just like everyone else.
Moreover, immigrants are now arriving at much older ages; one in eight now comes at 55 or older, old enough to move directly into a retirement community. Further, immigrant fertility has fallen more rapidly in recent years than native fertility. The falloff in immigrant births is part of the reason the overall number of births in the United States has declined and population growth has slowed.
Also, at present, immigrants and their dependents have been found to be a net fiscal drain (taxes paid minus costs) on public coffers by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. To expect them to create a fiscal surplus that will fund entitlements is not reasonable.
The latest Census Bureau projections show a population in 2060 of more than 404 million, about 76 million more than in 2019. It very possible, based on the most recent data, that projection should be revised downward, at least somewhat.
But the public would have no sense from the most recent media coverage that we are still growing and are expected to continue to do so for at least another 40 years. Of course, birth rates, immigration, and even death rates, to some extent, may change again in the future. But even a population “only” 50 or 60 million larger than it is today is likely to create challenges for our country that are worth acknowledging.
It is misleading to not even mention the actual increases in the U.S. population. It is also misleading to assume that slower population growth must mean economic stagnation and insolvent social insurance programs unless immigration is increased. In reality, population growth, like immigration, has both costs and benefits. It does the public no good to have a media that presents only one side of these complex issues.
I would suspect, with all the sheltering at home, there is about to be a population boom.
Not only a population bump in December, but also, since the virus preferentially hits the old, a lowering of the average population age. New souls for old.
Um that sub heading nearly 3 million die each day should be changed to each year. If it were a day the US population would be wiped out in less than 4 months.
If you have to stay six feet away from others, its kinda hard to impregnate your woman.
Yes, lots of people confined to home with nothing much to do.
Agree. More babies and fewer Boomers from this.
I thought these leftists want the earth’s population to be about 1/4 of what it is now in order to be “sustainable”.
After past pandemics, the birth rate has accelerated making up for the decline in short time fram.
Non-sense. The total U.S. deaths for the first three weeks of March was down 10% from the average of the prior four years for the same three week period. (https://veritaspac.com/2020/04/09/us-death-rate-lower-overall-during-pandemic-march)
In addition, wait until you see the birh rate next Sept.-Oct.
“If you’re swiping on a dating app like Tinder, or Bumble or Grindr, and you match...." "that’s what’s called relative risk....If you’re willing to take a risk...you could figure out if you want to meet somebody,” said Fauci, - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3836174/posts
He's a huge proponent of lowering the population....well, except maybe when it comes to buying his products.
That mistake jumped out at me also...makes me wonder what else they got wrong.
We will see over the next year, if we see a spike in births. Stay tuned.
We should have quite a baby boom in 8 or 9 months.
they’re just worried that we don’t have enough illegal aliens flooding in to more rapidly tilt the vote permanently in favor of the democrats. They are also worried that they might have to pay gardeners, maids, and nannies more.
Actually, I have wondered if we will see a small “baby boom” beginning in December 2020 through early 2021 - due to all the “lock downs”.
Maybe when I was 18.....
Population decline? At its current daily rate, COVID-19 is still killing fewer people than the abortion industry, and liberals want to boost the latter number.
Told ya so.
Everyone was predicting this coronavirus would be the end of globalism. I said it would be an opportunity for the globalists.
While the average man and woman are considering common sense solutions to stopping future pandemics such as controlling borders and immigration and reconsidering trade and manufacturing the globalists are writing their new narrative.
'The coronavirus proves western nations are going to have to compensate for population loss by increasing immigration and allowing the free-flow of people. We need a strong centralized body to facilitate 'safe' trade and free movement of people'.
Evil never rests.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.