Politics

978 readers

115 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up

Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)

Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

138

US population projections shrink because of declining birth rates, less immigration (abcnews.go.com)

submitted 11 months ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@sh.itjust.works

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months 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