Coming in October, it would seem:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. population is on target to hit 300 million this fall and it's a good bet the milestone baby - or immigrant - will be Hispanic.
No one will know for sure because the date and time will be just an estimate.
But Latinos - immigrants and those born in this country - are driving the population growth, accounting for almost half the increase last year, more than any other ethnic or racial group.
White non-Hispanics, who make up about two-thirds of the population, accounted for less than one-fifth of the increase.
When the population reached 200 million in 1967, there was no accurate tally of U.S. Hispanics. The first effort to count Hispanics came in the 1970 census, and the results were dubious.
The Census Bureau counted about 9.6 million Latinos, a little less than 5 percent of the population, but the bureau acknowledged that figure was inflated.
In 1967, there were fewer than 10 million people in the U.S. who were born in other countries; that was not even one in 20.
Today, there are 36 million immigrants, about one in eight.
I actually expect this will start to level off soon - and not just because we're about to get serious on border control: Birth rates are dropping all around the world, even in Mexico, and soon there just won't be this massive population of young foreigners eager to come to the United States. Still, 300 million is a lot of people - it shows the genuis of America: in the land where once one or two million scratched out a bare existence, American faith and hard work have produced a dynamic society which fundamentally has no physical limits.
So, here's to our soon-to-be-300 millionth American - welcome to the United States of America, and count your lucky stars.
Posted by Mark Noonan at June 26, 2006 12:06 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/whitehouse.cgi/7377
Comments
Birth rates for non-whites are NOT in decline, they are on the rise. It is whites that are not having as many kids as they once did, or are waiting longer to have them
Posted by: axis at June 26, 2006 01:13 AM
Hey there Mark, I think you are wrong about our resources being unlimited given that it disagrees with all of the -oh, I'll call them "facts" out there. And I'm also letting you know that although I am well on what could be considered the liberal side of most issues, I also consider myself a Conservative because I believe in the fundamental beliefs that this country was founded on,(you could even consider me a "Religious Fundamentalist" in some sense of the term) as well as the all the good traditions that have developed throughout our very short history. You should try digging into something like The New Republic; at least they get their facts right.
If you want to engage in some meaningful dialogue I invite you and to come chat with me. I believe that politics and integrity don't have to be polar opposites. You might find that we disagree on a fair amount. But, you might also find that we have a lot in common.
Posted by:
peaches at June 26, 2006 02:50 AM
Axis,
No, birth rates of all ethnicities are on the decline. Mexico's birth rate as of 2005 was 2.45 children per woman...and that is likely higher than the birth rate of Mexicans and Mexican-descended women in the United States. The birth rate among native American women (of all ethnicities) is only slightly over 2 per woman...we're barely at replacement level and, really, immigration accounts for almost all our population growth.
Even in very heavily populated Bangladesh, the birth rate is 3.11 children per woman...meanwhile, China's birthrate is 1.73, India's is 2.73, Egypt is 2.83...all around the world, birth rates are declining.
This is why UN population projections by 2150 vary from an estimate of 9 billion people to 3 billion people...if birth rates stabilise as they are now, it'll be 9 billion people in 2150, but if they keep declining at the rate they've been declining for the past 50 years, then by 2150 the population of the world will be halved...
Japan isn't building those humanoid robots for the fun of it...they are building them because Japan's birth rate is 1.4...and that means they'll need something to take care of the ageing Japanese population.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at June 26, 2006 03:01 AM
Peaches,
The facts indicate that there is no upward carrying capacity for human population on earth - We are vastly better fed, healthier and living longer with 6 billion people on earth than we did when there were, say, 500 million people on earth. Each rise in population hasn't been met by human ingenuity but, instead, has been stimulated BY human ingenuity - in other words, our population tends to grow with our ability to care for it, people not traditionally being dumb enough to bring people into the world who haven't a chance at survival.
The gloom and doom Malthusians have been wrong ever since, well, Malthus first put forward his absurd theories...
Posted by: Mark Noonan at June 26, 2006 03:06 AM
Perhaps in mexico, however those that are now in the US are having more and more kids.
Posted by: axis at June 26, 2006 10:47 AM
Mark,
I would argue the opposite, need often times is the catalyst for ingenuity, the need to overcome our surroundings, is what breeds the jumps in technology.
If you believe that technology will be the catalyst for utopia, then you're smoking some good stuff, at some point you have to reach a level where natural resources can no longer handle the upward climb of populations, whether that is 6 billion or 60 billion we can debate forever, but at some point, short of making food out of thin air, or finding over-unity energy-drives, the natural resources required to produce food, and travel, and products is going to run out before we stop screwing...this is why Keynes presented a vertical supply line, there are natural limits to our planet, and these infinite growth schmucks, and their models aren't convincing me otherwise
Posted by: Third Eye Open at June 26, 2006 11:17 AM
There is plenty of land and there are plenty of resources, just look at google maps satellite images, it's all mostly green. If we run out of one resource we create another. The future is in alternative energy, from hyperefficient incinerators to chicken factory farms running on chicken crap.
If we can just reduce the amount of chemicals in the ground and water and put a little more thought into commercial and residential planning, we'll be on a roll for utopia!
Birth control for the win!
Posted by: grosseMann at June 26, 2006 12:02 PM
grosse,
If we are going to rely on burning that green stuff, then we are gonna be out of resources within a century. Who knows how much oil is left, OPEC won't allow us to see, coal is a non-starter, unless you want that utopia to be under a glass bubble. So, unless we can find a zero-point energy engine, or some other over-unity drive, then we do have a very finite level of population we can expect the world to hold and feed, our agricultural revolution in the past century was financed on the back of oil-based fertilizers, so a fuel source that uses agriculture (ethynol) is going to crash and burn eventually, so we need to figure out cold fusion or mass produce hydrogen, and in a hurry.
Posted by: Third Eye Open at June 26, 2006 01:18 PM
Even Mexico's birthrate is in deep decline. In the 1970 is was 6 or even 7 kids per family. Not is is about 2.3
Posted by: Ames Tiedeman at June 26, 2006 08:48 PM
When my grandmother graduated from Cal in 1929 the population of California was less than 5 million!
Amazing!~
Posted by: Ames Tiedeman at June 26, 2006 08:49 PM
Post a comment
Birth rates for non-whites are NOT in decline, they are on the rise. It is whites that are not having as many kids as they once did, or are waiting longer to have them
Hey there Mark, I think you are wrong about our resources being unlimited given that it disagrees with all of the -oh, I'll call them "facts" out there. And I'm also letting you know that although I am well on what could be considered the liberal side of most issues, I also consider myself a Conservative because I believe in the fundamental beliefs that this country was founded on,(you could even consider me a "Religious Fundamentalist" in some sense of the term) as well as the all the good traditions that have developed throughout our very short history. You should try digging into something like The New Republic; at least they get their facts right.
If you want to engage in some meaningful dialogue I invite you and to come chat with me. I believe that politics and integrity don't have to be polar opposites. You might find that we disagree on a fair amount. But, you might also find that we have a lot in common.
Axis,
No, birth rates of all ethnicities are on the decline. Mexico's birth rate as of 2005 was 2.45 children per woman...and that is likely higher than the birth rate of Mexicans and Mexican-descended women in the United States. The birth rate among native American women (of all ethnicities) is only slightly over 2 per woman...we're barely at replacement level and, really, immigration accounts for almost all our population growth.
Even in very heavily populated Bangladesh, the birth rate is 3.11 children per woman...meanwhile, China's birthrate is 1.73, India's is 2.73, Egypt is 2.83...all around the world, birth rates are declining.
This is why UN population projections by 2150 vary from an estimate of 9 billion people to 3 billion people...if birth rates stabilise as they are now, it'll be 9 billion people in 2150, but if they keep declining at the rate they've been declining for the past 50 years, then by 2150 the population of the world will be halved...
Japan isn't building those humanoid robots for the fun of it...they are building them because Japan's birth rate is 1.4...and that means they'll need something to take care of the ageing Japanese population.
Peaches,
The facts indicate that there is no upward carrying capacity for human population on earth - We are vastly better fed, healthier and living longer with 6 billion people on earth than we did when there were, say, 500 million people on earth. Each rise in population hasn't been met by human ingenuity but, instead, has been stimulated BY human ingenuity - in other words, our population tends to grow with our ability to care for it, people not traditionally being dumb enough to bring people into the world who haven't a chance at survival.
The gloom and doom Malthusians have been wrong ever since, well, Malthus first put forward his absurd theories...
Perhaps in mexico, however those that are now in the US are having more and more kids.
Mark,
I would argue the opposite, need often times is the catalyst for ingenuity, the need to overcome our surroundings, is what breeds the jumps in technology.
If you believe that technology will be the catalyst for utopia, then you're smoking some good stuff, at some point you have to reach a level where natural resources can no longer handle the upward climb of populations, whether that is 6 billion or 60 billion we can debate forever, but at some point, short of making food out of thin air, or finding over-unity energy-drives, the natural resources required to produce food, and travel, and products is going to run out before we stop screwing...this is why Keynes presented a vertical supply line, there are natural limits to our planet, and these infinite growth schmucks, and their models aren't convincing me otherwise
There is plenty of land and there are plenty of resources, just look at google maps satellite images, it's all mostly green. If we run out of one resource we create another. The future is in alternative energy, from hyperefficient incinerators to chicken factory farms running on chicken crap.
If we can just reduce the amount of chemicals in the ground and water and put a little more thought into commercial and residential planning, we'll be on a roll for utopia!
Birth control for the win!
grosse,
If we are going to rely on burning that green stuff, then we are gonna be out of resources within a century. Who knows how much oil is left, OPEC won't allow us to see, coal is a non-starter, unless you want that utopia to be under a glass bubble. So, unless we can find a zero-point energy engine, or some other over-unity drive, then we do have a very finite level of population we can expect the world to hold and feed, our agricultural revolution in the past century was financed on the back of oil-based fertilizers, so a fuel source that uses agriculture (ethynol) is going to crash and burn eventually, so we need to figure out cold fusion or mass produce hydrogen, and in a hurry.
Even Mexico's birthrate is in deep decline. In the 1970 is was 6 or even 7 kids per family. Not is is about 2.3
When my grandmother graduated from Cal in 1929 the population of California was less than 5 million!
Amazing!~