Without immigration, the U.S. population will shrink starting in 2033 in part “because fertility rates are projected to remain too low for a generation to replace itself,” the Congressional Budget Office said.

The reduced projections from last year were the results of a decline in projected fertility rates over 30 years from 1.70 births per woman to 1.60 births per woman and less immigration because of an executive order last June that temporarily suspends asylum processing at the border when U.S. officials deem they are overwhelmed, the budget office said. Replacement happens at a rate of 2.1 births per woman.

  • pelespiritOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    FYI, birth rates falling is really bad for a country with capitalism. It becomes top heavy with older people and no one to work for the older people’s retirement benefits. That’s how you know all of this immigration crap is racism and breaking the government.

    • remi_pan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      In a non-capitalist system the problem seems to be exactly the same…

      • Jiggle_Physics
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Among US citizens there are 52.9/1000 birth for white women, 55.6/1000 black, Asian/Pacific island 446.6/1000, and 5/1000 native. The rate needs to be 2.1/1 for there to be minimal population growth. Without immigrants these numbers need to be 2001/1000 for minimal population growth.

        You aren’t making up for this deficit

        • taladar
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Without any migrants in either direction you would still need to account for deaths before having children, infertility and similar effects, that is why the figure given for a stable population is usually 2.1 and not 2.001 or something similar like your 2001 figure.

          • Jiggle_Physics
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            yeah, I was saying the 2001 as like, a simplification, in a vacuum, absolute minimum needed. Just something to illustrate the issue, reality is usually different, more complicated