450 Million by   2050 ?

The Census Bureau has published new population projections for the United States population through 2050. These projections raise a wide range of issues about the future size of the US population, the age and ethnic composition of that population and the distribution of the population across the country.  Immigration is clearly the driving force in our population growth.  And the numbers of immigrants who come to the United States is a policy debate than can and should be had.

To arrive at these projections the Bureau makes certain assumptions about the birth, death, and immigration rates. In the current projections, birth and death rates are held constant while the immigration rates are changed. .The new projections use four models of immigration including high, low, constant and zero immigration rates.  The constant immigration rates assume that the current rates (approximately 1 million people) will remain while the zero immigration rate demonstrates the impact that immigration is having on US population growth.

Based on these different assumptions, the Bureau projects that the population could grow from the currently estimated 308 million to 399 million people with low rates of immigration to 458 million people with high rates of immigration. Under the lowest projection, the   Bureau estimates that the nation will grow by about 30% increasing by 2.25 million people per year.  Under the high projection, the nation will add 140 million people, growing at a rate of about 3.5 million people per year.  With zero immigration the Bureau projects that the nation will have 322 million people.

The immigrants arriving will change the racial and ethnic composition of the country and somewhere between 2040 and 2050 the country will become a majority-minority country which means that no racial or ethnic group will constitute more than 50 % of the country.  The Census Bureau collects information on race and ethnicity. Current national projections are that whites (Hispanic and non-Hispanic white) will be 74 percent of the population while blacks will be 13% and Asians almost 8 percent.  However, the Bureau projects that 46 percent of the white population will be non-Hispanic white and 28 percent of the population will be Hispanic who define themselves racially as white, black or other.

If current internal migration trends continue, the south and west will continue to increase their proportion of the nation’s population at the expense of the North and Midwest.  However, the West has severe water challenges which may not enable that region of the country to accommodate all of the people who are moving there.  

.
Despite the debate that will rage next year about immigration reform, it probably will not include a discussion of what size we want the United States to be, how fast should we get there and how should we plan to accommodate between 100 and 150 million additional people. There will be no discussion of he impact of that many additional people on our roads, our schools, our carbon emissions, or our democratic institutions. Population growth is not a topic in the immigration debate, despite the fact that immigration policy will determine the future size, composition, age structure and population distribution of our nation.  Shouldn’t we have that discussion?  .

TWAS THE EVE OF THE CENSUS

 The Census and the Recession

More than 1.2 million part-time jobs will be created to conduct  the 2010 Census.  Although these jobs will be part-time, they are well paying and will have an impact upon the unemployment rate in the nation. These jobs pay between $12 and $25 per hour.  The hiring for the 2010 Census may reduce the unemployment rate temporarily by perhaps 1percentage point.This is stark contrast to the  2000 Census. 

The 2000 Census was taken in the spring of 2000 when the economy was operating at full capacity and just beginning the downturn from the technology boom.  It was very difficult to find people to work as enumerators and clerks in the Census operation.   The 2010 Census is a completely different picture.  With an unemployment rate of 10% the Bureau is inundated with applications ... and the applicants are quite highly skilled.  

This became apparent with the first massive hiring last April. The Bureau hired 140,000 people to complete the address canvassing effort. People walk the streets with GPS machines to verify every address in the United States.  To hire 140,000 people the Bureau planned to have 700,000 applicants but got more than 1.2 million. In addition, the educational level of the applicants was much higher than in the previous two Censuses. The Bureau  had a significant larger number of college educated applicants than in the past.  One result of this more skilled work force was that the address canvassing was completed in record time with fewer mistakes.

 The Bureau is now preparing to hire more than a million people to complete the Census after the initial March mail-in.  Current estimates are that between 60 and 65% of the estimated 145 million households in the US will return the questionnaire. The number of households is much higher than originally anticipated because of 8 million new units submitted by local governments.  That means that 58 million households will have to be called or visited up to six times by a enumerator. The Census is an extraordinary undertaking, a massive mobilization that gets almost no attention. 

The data from the Census and the American Community Survey is used to measure progress and change in the United States. Leaders have taken great pride in the increasing per capita income of the country. The 2010 Census may show a decline from the $21,587 per capita income in 2000 and the median income of $50,740.  Income questions on the 2000 Census and the American Community Survey are asked about the previous year (99 and 09). The data will be comparing one of the best economic years in our nation's history to one of the worst.

India Will Be Larger than China

The US Census Bureau has projected that India will become the most populous country in the world in 2025, surpassing China in size.  Different fertility rates is the primary reason that India will surpass China in population.  India has a fertility rate of 2.7 births per woman while the Chinese fertility rate is only 1.6, a decrease from 2.2 in 1990. The very low fertility rate in China is the result of the one child family policy, a delay in age at marriage and rapid modernization.  China’s population growth has declined to .05 percent annually while India continues to grow at a rate of  1.4 percent annually. The International Data Base  projects that China and India currently account for 37% of the world’s 6.8 billion people.

 Although fertility rates (the number of children estimated to be born over a woman’s lifetime) continue to fall worldwide, the annual number of births is still rising and projected to peak at 137 million in 2013. Very high birth rates in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in an increase of more than 75 million women in the childbearing ages (20-39) during the last decade. The fertility rate in the developing world is estimated to be 2.7 children per woman, a decline from 3.0 in 2001. As a result the world's population is increasing at more than 75 million each year.

In contrast, women in more developed countries average 1.6 births, well below the number required to replace these children’s parents. Birth numbers in the more developed world have been relatively constant in recent years because both fertility rates and the number of women at peak childbearing ages have remained fairly stable.

The United States has a fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman which is higher than other developed countries.  This is a result of higher birthrates among immigrants.  The Census Bureau estimates that the United States will have 350 million people by 2025.

     Currently, nearly half of the world’s countries or areas have fertility levels that are at or below replacement level. Most of these countries are in Europe but a number are located in Asia, including Singapore, Japan and South Korea. Thirty-two countries in the world — mostly in sub-Saharan Africa — have an estimated lifetime fertility of more than five children per woman.

The 10 most populous countries are a study in contradiction in terms of population growth.  Those countries are China, India, United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Russia and Japan. Japan and Russia are losing population; China and Brazil are below replacement fertility while the United States is at replacement.  Bangladesh and Indonesia have fertility rates under 3 children per woman although both countries appear to have stalled in their fertility decline.  Nigeria has a fertility rate of 5.2 children per woman, a figure that has not changed in five years.  Pakistan’s fertility is finally coming down and is just below 4 children per woman. The high fertility among these large countries ensures that world population will continue to grow for many decades, probably surpassing the current projection of 9 billion people. 

Russia:  Then and Now

In 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed and splintered into 15 countries. Russia, the largest of the former Soviet Union countries, has experienced dramatic changes in the health and well-being of the population.  Environmental degradation is wide spread in the country, alcoholism and smoking are major public health problems and income disparity is increasing in Russia.

The Russian population is declining due to low fertility and high mortality. In 1991 the Russian population stood at 148 million but had declined to 142 million by  2008.  The birth rate of Russia rose from its lowest point of 8.27 births per 1000 people in 1999 to a rate of 12.1 per 1000 in 2008. The fertility rate of Russia (number of children per woman) rose from its lowest point of 1.16 in 1999 to 1.49 in 2008. For comparison, the US birth rate was 14.16 per 1000 in 2007.

While the Russian birth rate is currently comparable to that of other European countries, its death rate is much higher, especially among working-age males due to a comparatively high rate of fatalities caused by heart disease and the high rates of alcoholism, smoking, HIV, and other external causes of death. Alcohol consumption has risen from 7.5 liters per person to 10.5 annually.

The Russian death rate in 2008 was 14.6 per 1000 citizens. For comparison, the US death rate in 2008 was 8.26 per 1000.  Life expectancy at birth has fallen from 67.8 in 1991 to 67.5 a small decline but no other developed country has experienced a decline in life expectancy.  In contrast all western countries continue to experience an increase in life expectancy. 

One factor for the high mortality is the increase in the number of people that the UN reports are diagnosed with a serious disease.  Despite a smaller population base almost 10 million more people have a serious disease (from 91million to 109 million).  However, there are almost 50% fewer hospitals to treat seriously ill Russians today than before the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991.

These demographic changes will affect Russia’s ability to produce the necessary economic growth to reduce the wide spread poverty and income disparity in the country.

The Recession and Reapportionment

The Changing Winds of Congress Seats

The decennial Census results in a once a decade reallocation of political power among and within the states.  Every legislative district is redrawn based upon the new population figures collected by the 2010 Census. This results in one of the most radical peaceful redistribution of political power in the world.  This reallocation of power is driven by internal population migration and the destinations that legal and illegal migrants chose, and the number of people who chose not to relocate.

For the first half of this  decade population projections have indicated that there would be a reallocation of seats in the House of Representatives from the Northeast and Midwest to Southern and Western states reflecting the westward journey of the American people. Projections of reapportionment change are prepared by the Census Bureau on an annual basis. 

In 2005, New York and Ohio were projected to lose 2 seats each while 7 states in the Northeast and Midwest would lose one seat each ( Penn, Mass, Mich, Minn, Iowa, Mo and Ill. ) The states that were to gain in 2005 included Florida and Texas with 3 seats each , Arizona 2 seats and Nevada, Utah and Georgia gaining 1 seat each.  All of the gainers were in the South and the West.  Those states were seeing extraordinary economic growth, rapid housing development and an increasing number of immigrants going to the states.

However, the recession and the collapse of the housing market has resulted in very different international and internal migration patterns in the last two years which may result in fewer congressional changes than anticipated. Fewer immigrants are coming and many fewer people are moving from the Northeast and Midwest. Previous projections of population change assumed that people would continue to move out of sending states (Northeast-Midwest) at the same rate as in the past.  2008 data shows a halt to the exodus from the Northeast and Midwest despite the terrible job market.  Many say that the imploding housing market has made it difficult for people to move to better opportunities.

Texas and Arizona were projected to gain 4 and 2 seats; however, current projections indicate that the rapid decline in internal migration and immigration may result in Texas only gaining 3 seats and Arizona only 1.  Florida has suffered from this recession and current projections are that Florida will only gain one seat after the 2010 Census.  On the other hand New York will only lose 1 seat as a result of the 2010 Census. 

The redistricting within the states will have an equally significant impact upon the composition of Congress. The choice of newcomers about where to live within states influences the allocation of political power.  Metropolitan areas have seen dramatic increases in their populations while rural parts of New York, Pennsylvania, and California have continued to lose population in contrast to the metropolitan areas.  Legal immigrants are attracted to large metropolitan areas which means that New York, Chicago and Los Angles have countered the outflow of native born residents. 

Population tides ebb and flow.  Internal mobility is at a 60 year low and will surely increase after the recession is over.  Whether it will return to the levels of the late 90’s and early 00’s is not known. The Baby Boomers are entering retirement and leaving those age groups when mobility is highest. The changing political spectrum is driven by our population changes and the 2010 Census will document who we are and where we live… and then our political system will begin process of reallocating power to reflect those changes.

More than 16 percent of the American work force is foreign born according to the US Census Bureau.  This is the highest proportion of foreign born workers since 1920. Over 100 years ago, 21 percent of American workers were foreign born but that began a steady decline until 1970 when only 5% of the workforce was foreign born.  The percent of the workforce that is foreign born has grown steadily since  reaching 16 percent in 2007. There is no reason to think that the foreign born share will not continue to increase because of high rates of  legal and illegal immigration. 

Four states had a work force of 25 percent or more of foreign born. Those were California (35%), New York (27%), New Jersey (26%) and Nevada (25% ).  The states with the fewest percentage of foreign born workers were North Dakota (2.6). South Dakota (2.4), West Virginia ( 1. and Montana( 1.7).

The median income for immigrants was $50,867 in the first generation. This compares with a median income of $33,916 for black families, $38,679 for Hispanic families, $54,920 for non-Hispanic white families and $66,103 for Asian families.  These income figures include income for foreign born and native-born families.  The study shows that immigrant families enjoy a progressively  higher income over each  generation.  Family income rose from $50,867 among first generation immigrants to  $65,144 in the third generation.  It is important to remember that immigrant income is also include as part of the median income for all American families. 

Little attention is paid to the remarkable events that enabled the United States to absorb the millions of immigrants that came during the last turn of the century and their children.  The depression, World War II, the GI bill for education and home ownership changed our landscape.  They provided a shared experience, a common language, and  living next to each other.

Children who grew up in ghettos in northern cities moved to the suburbs and got their home by where they stood in line on Long Island or the south suburbs of Chicago. Their children (from  many different ethnic groups and religious groups) grew up playing Little League ,going to schools, having cook outs in the suburbs rather than isolated stick ball in the streets of the city... and the children did not know they were ethnically or religiously different.  

How do we do this again?  How does the nation integrate and assimilate so many different ethnic groups in a period when ethnic politics and identity are a crucial part of our political and national landscape?  How do we create a new whole from many different parts?

The new study from the 2007 American Community Survey and the 2008 Current Population Survey provides both current status data and inter-generational data on immigrants and their children.

In 2008, the Korean fertility rate fell to 1.19, one of the lowest in the developed world. This fertility rate was 184 out of 185 countries ranked by the World Bank. With a strong son preference, South Korea has one of the highest in-balances in the sex ratio at birth.  One result of the 30 year drive for smaller families is a growing shortage of Korean women as partners.

One result is that there has been a large increase in the number of foreign women migrating for arranged marriages.  This is particularly true in the rural areas of the country where there is strong son preference and women have migrated to the cities looking for a better life.

Marriages to foreign born women increased to 11 percent of all marriages in 2008.  Currently less than 1 percent of the 12 million children under 19 in Korea are under 19. One result of the rising numbers of  international marriages will be an increase in the number of multicultural children.  The Ministry of Agriculture estimates that 49 percent of all children in rural Korea will be multicultural by 2020.

This increase in multicultural children is occurring at a time when Korea’s fertility rate is falling which means that children from international marriages will be a larger part of the nation’s future.

There are signs that this will challenge Korea’s social fabric because the nation as long seen membership in the nation as being based on blood.  These children will face many daunting challenges including being from rural Korea where education is not as valued, the inability of their mothers to help them navigate the high pressure education system and the large age difference between their fathers and mothers.   Korea does not have a history of grappling with ethnic diversity and will have to struggle to adapt to a rapidly changing world.