There was an article in the Oregonian about how in 5 years, Oregon is going to start having more deaths than births. OK, this isn’t a huge surprise. The birth rate in the US is below replacement, so some states are going to be on the low end of the birth:death ratio. What I’m wondering is what other states are also having a low ratio.
There’s a website caled Worldometers that has this kind of demographic info for countries. Does anyone know of a similar site for states?
BTW, don’t think that this means Oregon is going to be losing population. The ratio is only half of the story; the migration rate is the other half. I expect we’ll still be getting enough in-migration to make up for it.
Unfortunately this website is countries and continents only:
But generally, the population is set to decline now or within a decade or three for most countries. The USA population is projected to keep going up due to immigration.
Wikipedia has a page called List of U.S. states and territories by birth and death rates. As of 2017, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, and the northern New England states (Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont) have negative rates of natural increase.
Thank you. Interesting that if you sort them by birth rate, Guam has the highest (19.7) while Northern Marianas has the lowest (6.9). I wouldn’t think those two would be that different.
My general impression - most of the world is headed to peak population. China is almost at the peak, India within a couple of decades. (Check the world population pyramid links above including projected population graphs) The majority of the population increase of 1 or 2 billion is projected to happen in Africa, which leads to the question - how will Africa support all these extra people? Perhaps the migration crisis in the Mediterranean is the first sign of the problems this increase will bring.
In 1950, there were about 2.5 billion people; currently, we number about 7.7 billion, with nearly 11 billion predicted by 2100. However, population growth is uneven: Japan and South Korea, e.g., are already at or near peak population, while China is likely nearing its peak and will likely start declining in another decade or so. Much of eastern Europe already has falling populations. Meanwhile, sub-Saharan Africa is expected to triple in population over the next 80 years or so.
Which points at another important issue. The rates themselves hide other factors besides how often people of child bearing age in an area choose to have children.
Even with migration inside the US being slower than in the 50s people do still move around. Guam is a more extreme case where a decent chunk of the population is military being rotated in and out during child bearing years. Places that are winners or losers in movement to start careers right after college might see some adjustment to their birth rate. Similarly for big movement patterns around retirement, we might see influences on death rates. Places that get lots of international immigrants from cultures that still have higher birth rates might see some influence as well That could be both from adjusting the age demographics due to the immigration itself and different cultural influences on having children for that first generation or two.
I’ve been wondering the same thing. Nigeria alone is expected to double its population (from 200 to 400 million) in the next 30 years. Although I’ve been watching that Worldometer site for several years now. It used to predict Nigeria would be almost 500 million in 2050, so the prediction for that country has gone down some.
Japan actually reached its peak about 5 years ago. It’s now declining about a third of a million people per year and that decrease will increase.
Eastern Europe never really recovered from the fall of communism. They’ve all been losing population since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Some of that was Russians repatriating to Russia from former SU or Soviet-block countries, but the loss of essentially free health care and increases in alcoholism and drug use have also been significant.
The Japanese situation could be an interesting case study, if we were the kind of nation given to introspection and planning for future (slow) changes. But we do not appear to be that kind of nation [cough]healthcare[cough].
In rural and subsistence economies, more children is good, because they support you in old age - plus, on farms or third world cities, children can be put to work at lesser tasks quite early. As a country industrializes, children become much more of an expense, people can save for old age, and governments are able to provide some pension support for everyone. While China used laws to enforce population control, India is arriving at that point more slowly by becoming richer.
For the east European countries, it’s not so much alcoholism or health care - it’s that as an industrialized region, child labour is outlawed, children go to school, and children cost money. Meanwhile, there was a decade or two of economic adjustment, followed by the 2008 recession. Children were too expensive. Look at the country population pyramids. People just stopped having children.
Nigeria, according to the link, is almost 200M, expected to have 400M by 2050 and 600M by 2080. Can the land even sustain that many people? Especially, considering all their neighbours will be performing likewise? Only South Africa appears to be levelling off. I think we are headed for a catastrophe the likes of which the world has never seen, an appointment with Malthus.
Outside of sub saharan Africa, the rest of the world is already at replacement levels minus a few outliers (Afghanistan, etc). The world population is expected to grow by 3-4 billion in the 21st century, and about 85% of that growth will occur in sub saharan Africa. The rest of the world is population stable.
You need a total fertility rate (TFR, number of children born per woman) of 2.1 to keep population stable. So 10 women need to have 21 kids between them to keep the population stable.
Once a nation hits about $5000 in per capita income, the TFR drops to 2-3, and by around $15,000 or so it drops below replacement level. It is far more common for a nation to be below 2.1 when they are high income than to be above it.
Places like eastern europe or east asia have a TFR of only 1.3 or so. Which means if you have 100 women, they only have 130 kids. Seeing how you also need men to create those kids, you could in theory go from as high as 200 people down to 130 in one generation.
Bangladesh was the poster child for population disaster. But look at the total fertility rate column ["]here](Demographics of Bangladesh - Wikipedia[6). Nearly 7 in the 70s to 1.7 now. A lot of it due to woman having more opportunity/choices. (Notice the shift in percentages in age groups in earlier tables.)
It’s not a Garden of Eden by any means, but it bodes well down the line.
So, will Nigeria go through the same sort of change soon? Note that, technically, Nigeria can trade oil for food. But look at what has happened in Venezuela.
National Geographic had an article on this a couple of years ago. It stated that, wherever women have access to education and birth control, the birthrate drops below replacement level.
I have read that, in the United States, religious people tend to have larger families than secularists. This increases the probability that, when we get old, we secularists will end up in nursing homes run by the religious zealots’ children. Won’t that be fun?
Seriously, play with this website for a while, looking at assorted countries.
The upper right has a projected population curve. Japan’s projected population falls steadily over the rest of the century, from about 125M today down to 84M by 2100.
But predicting trends too far forward will be a exercise of fantasy. Will countries start offering perks for kids - free daycare, paid nannies or stay-at-home salaries, etc.? or will they think that a shrinking population is a good thing based on future ecological trends? Will they start buying out and closing whole suburbs (or inner cities) rather than maintain the infrastructure for sparse occupation?
“As of Jan 1 2065, all occupants must leave Springfield and the power, water and sewer service will be shut off, access roads dug up and bridges demolished to minimize taxpayer maintenance costs…”
Or like Paradise CA, the decision will be made by higher powers.
One immediate issue will be that the number of taxpayers supporting each retiree will drop. I vaguely remember hearing that it would go from 5 funding each retiree to about half that over several decades as baby-boomers moved from employment to retirement in Australia. And then they also decided to live longer, the selfish bastards!
But as they remain a potent voting block their demands for Rolls-Royce health care and social services will ensure that tax revenues will keep being spent disproportionately on them.
Yeah, I had a feeling someone was going to be confused by that phrasing. Let’s just say the further into the future, the more that population decreases every year. That is, currently Japan’s population is going down about 300,000/year. By 2045, it’ll be going down by 765,000/year.
One of the reasons Japan is investing so much in robotics is that they see a big need for automation in elderly care.
For some reason, I prefer numbers to graphs. Not sure why, but it’s the reason I keep linking to the worldometer site. It has graphs but also tables of numbers.
Have The Simpsons already done that episode, or do you predict it for the upcoming season?
