18 Oct 2006

America Reaches 300,000,000

Today is the day that the population of the United States is estimated to reach 300,000,000. This is noted in an Economist article, and is viewed rather positively by the article's author. However, for a rare occasion, I must say that I do not agree with the esteemed British newspaper.

I find this article too optimistic, especially in how it states that the expanding US population will solve more problems than it creates. The US is unique among developed countries in that its population is rapidly expanding, growing at about 1% annually (by contrast, the Russian population is decreasing by .4 percent annually). The Economist argues that such a population expansion arises from America's religiosity and optimism (although I've seen different causes in different sources, including greater patriotism!). Population growth will allow the US to avoid problems paying public pensions, as the graying European states and Japan are facing. The American population is even expected to reach 400,000,000 or more by 2043, a doubling in less than 80 years! The article closes with a look at Houston, a city with no zoning laws, gated communities with relatively affordable housing, and a growing population, one that is increasing mixed and Hispanic. The America of the future will look like Houston, the article proclaims. Let us rejoice!

Well, nonsense I say. Let us at other elements in the picture. First of all, there are environmental concerns, issues that are poo-pooed by The Economist. Americans already consume vast quantities of resources and energy in a very inefficient manner: should we be thrilled that such a population will rampantly increase?

Furthermore, the article notes that America has wide-open spaces, perfect for child rearing and much more desirable than Japan and Singapore. True...but once again, what does this mean, really? Half of overcrowded China is unpopulated because it is mountain and desert, seventy percent of Japan is unpopulated because it is mountainous, and likewise most of the American West is arid and rugged terrain. The coastal areas are overcrowded because quite simply those are the places most suitable for habitation. How many Las Vegases and Phoenixes can America realistically support?

Further, there are economic considerations that are overlooked. I will admit that by economic calculations are a little hazy, but I know this much: as Paul Kennedy pointed out, growth in GDP only has real meaning in relation to its per capita increase. While the American economy continues to grow, so does its population. The American economy grew quickly in the 1990's, but how many times can the Internet be invented? The average annual GDP growth in the US since 1945 has been about 1-2%. If that trend continues, it looks to me like economic growth could be nullified by population gain (although admittedly I'm not sure how to compare the two...any assistance would be appreciated).

Other economic concerns are such: it seems to me that the statement that a young population will help pay for pensions is a cop out. America and other industrialized economies need to reform their public pensions so that it is less like a "pyramid scheme", as a friend of mine pointed out. Currently younger workers pay the pensions of retirees in the hopes that when they retire there will be enough workers to pay their pensions, etc. etc. Saying America is strong because its population is rapidly increasing and will not face this problem in the near future is a fudging of the fact that someday it will have to deal with pension reform (or massive overpopulation!).

Then there are social concerns. America may have, in the optimistic macro-picture, a young and relatively well-educated workforce, but what sections of the population are growing the fastest? Mostly immigrants and poorer classes and regions. It's not the lawyers in New York or the accountants in California that are having five children (although it's not unheard-of). Considering that America is less socially mobile than European countries, and that social stratification is hardening, will this increasing population actually have access to the social infrastructure and education that they will need to be really competitive? I question whether they will.

Finally, there is the aesthetic argument. Riding the subway in New York already reminded me of New Delhi...do we really need to make America that overcrowded? And yes, America can look like Houston, but do we want the model of the future to be such a reviled and soulless city? What about a more enjoyable, higher-quality life? Can megacities with gated communities, hourlong commutes and Mcmansions give us that?

I think these are all questions that need to be asked. And therefore I think we need to be sceptical in our assessment of how wonderful unchecked population expansion in America will be.

5 comments:

the cyberpanopticon said...

Mark, you should send this post, or a version thereof, to a newspaper or other major media outlet. Your analysis is spot-on.

Anonymous said...

Mark, I too am in perfect agreement with you. I was shocked when I read that absurd Economist article. America as it stands is a terrorist state in its foreign policy and environmental destruction. More Americans means more problems unless something radical occurs to make a greater US population non-polluting stewards of peace and prosperity around the World. I do not see that happening. The world would be better off if the US had Russia's growth rate.

And holding up Houston as the model for development!!!? The author wants the World to look like Houston, an ugly wasteland of eternal suburban sprawl. That sounds like hell to me. Wait until gasoline is properly priced at $7-10 USD/gallon and the global warming category 5 hurricane hits then watch what happens to the cheap, comfortable, and 'ethnically diverse' living of Houston.

Kochevnik said...

Thanks for the favorable responses on this one. Tim, who should I send it to, maybe The Economist itself?

the cyberpanopticon said...

Mark, I'd send it in to the Economist.

Kochevnik said...

This post in edited form has been forwarded to the Economist. If they like it then they will further edit it and shorten it, and whatever is left will be published. We will see.