US Population growth since 1970
- Thread starter 1srelluc
- Start date
i'm pretty sure that is factually incorrect.
Lets go looking.
Difficult to find a study that looked at the question and broke it down. Mostly got stuff about recent time or future.
SO I looked at the twentieth century and this is what I got.
AI Summary
In the twentieth century, U.S. population growth resulted from both immigration and native birth rates, with immigration playing a significant role.
Population Growth Breakdown:
- Immigration Contribution: Approximately 30% of the U.S. population growth during the twentieth century is attributed to immigration.
- Native Birth Rate Contribution: The remaining 70% of growth comes from native birth rates.
The US birth rate is half of what it has been in 1950:
U.S. Birth Rate | Historical Data | Chart | 1950-2025
U.S. Birth Rate: Historical data from 1950 to 2025.www.macrotrends.net
1950 would be in the middle of the Baby Boom, so that would exaggerate the difference.
Bleipriester
Freedom!
I did not.
Why is that hard to believe? That is a ridiculous statement to make about a half century of the slowest growth in US history.
50 year increments of US population growth:
You like them? They make your life better, or do you regret having them?
Not all growth is the same. He can feel that this growth is not healthy.
And he is right.
Some people are arguing for not having children as a life path.
You have had FOUR. Your experience is clearly relevant.
Are you happy you had them? Or do you wish that you had NOT?
Great answer. Thank you.
A man just living his life, without "planning", ends up having 4 kids and is happy he had them.
I tried planning. Most of my plans did not work out. But I ended up with ONE kid.
I am very happy to have that one kid. My life and my wife's life are much more meaningful because of our child.
My peers, who did not have children... their lives are not as happy. Some of them are already dead. (in middle age to be clear)
- Banned
- #32
WRONG. Most of the population growth in America is from the offspring of immigrants.i'm pretty sure that is factually incorrect.
Lets go looking.
Difficult to find a study that looked at the question and broke it down. Mostly got stuff about recent time or future.
SO I looked at the twentieth century and this is what I got.
AI Summary
In the twentieth century, U.S. population growth resulted from both immigration and native birth rates, with immigration playing a significant role.
Population Growth Breakdown:
- Immigration Contribution: Approximately 30% of the U.S. population growth during the twentieth century is attributed to immigration.
- Native Birth Rate Contribution: The remaining 70% of growth comes from native birth rates.
You have to take into account the generations after they immigrated to the US.
Why do I give 1 ounce of shit for what he "feels"? The Irish were hated immigrants, the Chinese were hated immigrants, the Jews were hated immigrants, and now brown people are hated immigrants. Immigrant hate is as old as this country. Its our laws that protected them in the past.
I think you are underestimating the size of the people already here, and how long the native population has a good birth rate.
THe demographic... pattern, is high birth rates in agricultural societies, with declining rates in industrial societies and more so in service societies.
With some lag.
America has had a healthy farming and rural population having good sized families for most of our history.
The birth rate collapse is a relatively recent thing.
Let me try another question... for the ai.
Damn, really struggling to find any numbers on this.
Because he is right.
- Banned
- #36
1srelluc
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #37
Bugger-off.....Not all that many Hispanics in my town.
Growth in my AO is a direct result of people moving out of NOtVA and into my AO over the years. They commute the 50 to 60-odd miles + into the DC/Metro area.
I-66 to I-81 was the worst thing to ever to happen to my AO....Between that and the local gop who never saw a patch of land they did not want to put a subdivision on you have to stand on them with both feet and you still lose ground.
And don't think the dems would be any better, all they want is "low income housing".
The new dodge they have now is putting town houses on the old 1/2 acre town lots. The homes on them are torn down and three to five townhouses are edged in.
My old neighborhood is a perfect example. Two homes torn down and ten 465K a pop three story townhouses replaced them.....A increase of eight families in a half block is not healthy.
Moving from one part of a metro area to another isnt US immigration. What is this nonsense? By the way, what you are describing is capitalism. People sell land in the burbs cheap for big houses so people make the trade for a long commute. Your local land owners take the money and run and those of you in the area who didnt profit off of the land sales pay for it with commute time.
That is exactly what is happening to the working class. Their life gets worse and owners and the wealthy make out like bandits.
Saying "capitalism" is a cop-out. Zoning has always been a thing.
A good market, is a welll regulated market.
Idiots pursuing short term gain, with no concern for the effect on the commuity, is not "Capitalism", it is bad government and a stupid political class.
I have no issues with regulating capitalism as long as you are consistent about thinking that way. As much as you are worried about land and traffic being abused by unregulated capitalism you should see what it is doing to worker wages and healthcare. Its a disaster.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
ICE must 'immediately' release immigrant who was detained after calling 911 to help save someone else's life, judge says- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 0
-
-
LA implements $30/hr min wage for hotel workers. Hotels slash worker hours- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 0
-
Know how Liberal Scholars and Echo Chambers suggest Red States are the real welfare States?- Started by IDIOCRACY
- Replies: 7
