US Population Over Last Decade Grew At Slowest Rate Since 1930s (nytimes.com) 219
Over the past decade, the United States population grew at the slowest rate since the 1930s, the Census Bureau reported on Monday, a remarkable slackening that was driven by a leveling off of immigration and a declining birthrate. The New York Times reports: The bureau also reported changes to the nation's political map: The long-running trend of the South and the West gaining population -- and congressional representation -- at the expense of the Northeast and the Midwest, continued, with Texas gaining two seats and Florida, one. California, long a leader in population growth, lost a seat for the first time in history. [...] The numbers are the product of the most controversial census process in decades. The Trump administration tried to add a citizenship question to the Census form, but the Supreme Court eventually blocked that plan. [...] The Bureau also faced a daunting task of conducting the Census during a pandemic. Then, last summer, the Trump administration pushed it to stop the count sooner than planned.
Booming economies in states like Texas, Nevada, Arizona and North Carolina, have drawn Americans away from struggling small communities in high-cost, cold weather states. In New York, 48 of 62 counties are estimated to be losing population. In Illinois, 93 of 101 counties are believed to be shrinking. In 1970, the West and South comprised just under half the U.S. population -- today it's nearly 63 percent. The new decennial census counted 331,449,281 Americans as of April 1, 2020. The total was up by just 7.4 percent over the previous decade. Combined with the decline in inflows of immigrants, and shifting age demographics -- there are now more Americans 80 and older than 2 or younger -- the United States may be entering an era of substantially lower population growth, demographers said, putting it with the countries of Europe and East Asia that face serious long-term challenges with rapidly aging populations. "This is a big deal," said Ronald Lee, a demographer who founded the Center on the Economics and Demography of Aging at the University of California at Berkeley. "If it stays lower like this, it means the end of American exceptionalism in this regard." It used to be clear where the country was headed demographically, Professor Lee said -- faster growth than many other rich nations. But that has changed. "Right now it is very murky," he said.
Booming economies in states like Texas, Nevada, Arizona and North Carolina, have drawn Americans away from struggling small communities in high-cost, cold weather states. In New York, 48 of 62 counties are estimated to be losing population. In Illinois, 93 of 101 counties are believed to be shrinking. In 1970, the West and South comprised just under half the U.S. population -- today it's nearly 63 percent. The new decennial census counted 331,449,281 Americans as of April 1, 2020. The total was up by just 7.4 percent over the previous decade. Combined with the decline in inflows of immigrants, and shifting age demographics -- there are now more Americans 80 and older than 2 or younger -- the United States may be entering an era of substantially lower population growth, demographers said, putting it with the countries of Europe and East Asia that face serious long-term challenges with rapidly aging populations. "This is a big deal," said Ronald Lee, a demographer who founded the Center on the Economics and Demography of Aging at the University of California at Berkeley. "If it stays lower like this, it means the end of American exceptionalism in this regard." It used to be clear where the country was headed demographically, Professor Lee said -- faster growth than many other rich nations. But that has changed. "Right now it is very murky," he said.
Now that's what I call green... (Score:2)
Children are a large carbon footprint. For once the US is a leader in a green initative.
Re: (Score:3)
Carbon aside there is just about exactly ONE thing that correlates with environmental degradation and that is population density. There are modifiers, the more affluent a population the degree of degradation vs density tappers some what but it does not reverse the trend.
We should be glad population growth has tapered and recognize that it also happens naturally as affluence increases - in other words we don't need to start telling people how many children they can have etc. What we should do in the name of
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, we just did it first before anyone knew. EVERYONE ELSE would have done the same things if they'd made the technological advances we did back before climate science was thing. So we owe them NOTHING.
That said we do owe it the world to improve now.
Re: (Score:2)
The long-term dangers of CO2 have been suspected since at least around 1890. We chose to ignore them because changing would be expensive, and it wasn't certain there was a problem until around 1970.
Besides, ignorance is no defense against responsibility. You don't say "That kid's not my responsibility because I didn't know sex could get her pregnant". Much less "You can't hold me responsible for running over that person because I don't actually know how to drive"
And it's *definitely* not an excuse to deny
The world is over-populated (Score:2)
and everyone feels it. Whether they're willing to acknowledge it or not. The only question left is how to control human populations over the longer term - humanely or not? Which generally comes down to birth control or genocide.
Re:The world is over-populated (Score:5, Insightful)
The best way to do that, is to give them jobs and raise their standard of living. Somehow as countries get more comfortable, they tend to have fewer children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The world is over-populated (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a balance. Education and empowerment brings the fertility rate down toward 2.1, the replacement level where population doesn't grow. Cost takes it below that, if people can't afford to have children they tend to only have one when they have been educated and empowered this way.
Population fall is a problem in itself for developed nations - economies are generally set up with the assumption that there will be more younger people working than older people living on pensions and needing medical treatment. When that assumption breaks down it causes immediate problems, and long term ones as the younger folk still working today realize that by the time they retire there isn't going to be enough money to maintain the standard of living they want.
Re: (Score:3)
A feeling is not exactly a strong foundation for a call for genocide.
Wiping out future generations does not seem like the best idea for an economy. Perhaps there could be a once a year purge like event for everyone over 60 or for people who make ignorant comments on Slashdot. Whoever takes them out can claim their assets. It would at least make for a good dystopian novel.
Re: (Score:2)
It would at least make for a good dystopian novel.
You could call it "Nerd Wars: Unmoderated"
Re: (Score:2)
Well no, you have hard defined boundaries and you are responsible for the negative consequences of that including overpopulation, any emigrants from you country that do not exceed the average in possible host countries are rejected and returned, the return enforced if necessary through an in country, militarily deafened refugee return camp, which they are free to leave and return from that protected territory in their country to their country proper. It is not a game, keep your genitals in your pants or suf
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The world is over-populated (Score:5, Insightful)
it's not overpopulated only if you discount the amount of damage which has been done and is being done to the environment. Habitat destruction is a significant problem in the world and it's being directly driven by population growth. But since you are a capitalist moron, you think that destruction of the environment is fine as long as the profits are privatized.
I wonder what you would consider overpopulation ? Do we all have to be eating soylent green ?
If population decline is a major economic problem, then we need a better economic system, not more people, you capitalist fuckwit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Population decline is only a problem for aging boomers who do not work, do not pay tax, vote idiots into office, and get in everyone's way, and as covid has proven: Spread disease by claiming they're "exempt" from masks, and hinder progress in spite of contributing nothing but old coot gibberish and curtain twitching.
Let the boomers rot. They're not worth the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Seriously? You believe that in full?
Remember, you will age and grow old too....if you're lucky.
Do you want the younger generations w
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say old people, I said lazy boomer pieces of shit who do not work, pay tax, or vote properly. My generation demands their obedience, and their money as compensation for their wrongs, as well as self-administering a cyanide pill. We expect their full cooperation in this matter in order to free up wealth for the working class.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem
So yes, you most certainly did. And from where everyone else is sitting, that certainly appeared to be the focus of your objection. It might not have been the only thing, but most of what you were objecting to appeared to be directed at people who have retired.
If not, you're going to have to clarify your position and give a somewhat substantive cause for the opinion, otherwise people are going to,. with good reason, conclude
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to figure out who these people are you're describing?
"Not work". - are you saying people shouldn't be able to retire?
"pay tax" - Not sure who these folks are, whether they are working or retired they are paying taxes.
"vote properly" - I have no idea what it is to "vote properly". Usually older folks are the folks you can count on that WILL actually get out and vote. This past time was really the first time we've see
Did they count the extra 570K Covid Deaths? (Score:2)
Because all the people who died of Covid definitely left their state.
That being said, there are two local trends:
1) Trying to escape the state due to insane taxes (lots of young people and retirees)
2) Housing market (for this area which have typically been low) are going pretty much nuts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
2019 - 2,845,793 deaths out of a population of 329,064,916
2020 - 3,320,435 deaths out of a population of 331,002,647
Mortality rate of the overall population increased from 0.86% in 2019 to 1.00% in 2020, or a 0.14% increase.
The bubonic plague is estimated anywhere from 30% to 60%. On a scale of historical plagues, COVID-19 won't even be visible on a bar graph.
Re:Did they count the extra 570K Covid Deaths? (Score:5, Insightful)
On a scale of historical plagues, COVID-19 won't even be visible on a bar graph.
Half of us worked really fucking hard to keep it that way. We saw what Italy went through early on and said "nope", and now we're seeing what India is going through now and thinking "damn we just barely slid by that".
And the other half of us are like "see? it wasn't a big deal at all ya'll a bunch of loudmouth losers, and by the way we gonna do our best to make sure ya'll ain't never heard from again." Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could also be modern medicine. I mean, the plague happened and we didn't know why, which is why we had the infamous beaked masks and heavily clothed doctors - the beaked masks being filled with pungent herbs meant to neutralize the plague (we didn't know it was passed on by rats).
The Spanish or Kansas flu at least happened when medicine was undergoing a revolution in breakthroughs. Much of the anti-vaxxer debate on measles requires modern medicine - without which the death rate of measles would be muc
Re: (Score:2)
Lockdowns and anti-covid measures didn't work precisely because (as the AC said) half the damn population was actively circumventing them. Had it not been for the other half taking it seriously there would have been a LOT more dead. Look at the countries that did real lockdowns with a population willing to do the right thing and where they are at in this pandemic.
Dropping an Xtian conservative blog pointing at a single study as your citation doesn't help your assertions.
Re: (Score:3)
The limited effectiveness of lockdowns explains why, after one year, the unconditional cumulative deaths per million, and the pattern of daily deaths per million, is not negatively correlated with the stringency of lockdown across countries.
That assertion is directly from the article. Are you claiming its untrue? Do you have evidence to the contrary? Not a single datum but real evidence or are you just continuing the gaslighting?
And for the record one of the explanations offered is that people in places with less strict lockdowns VOLUNTARILY took steps prevent the spread of COVID. Its almost like if just make good quality information available and let people use their own judgement about what is and isn't sensible in terms of safety for thei
Re: (Score:2)
You still have the option to do things voluntarily, even when they are mandatory. They are not mutually exclusive. Stop acting like making it mandatory somehow made it impossible to choose to do the right thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All deaths are no equivalent. Dying of old age is different to dying of unaffordable medicine, both of which are different to dying of COIVD.
Also the fact that "only" half a million Americans died of COVID is down to some people making the effort to keep the numbers as low as possible. Without action taken to limit the spread it would have been much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I give up, what reason would the Chinese have to loose a dangerous virus on the world that would only hurt their markets?
They (and you) would have to count on the stupidity of the former alleged administration to attempt to make a virus political (paraphrasing the former alleged president: .Hydroxychloroquine: "it's a game changer!!", the virus will magically disappear by summer of 2020, can we investigate using bleach internally, I caught it and I feel great) and the stupidity of a good segment of the Amer
Re: (Score:2)
No one's really saying the did it on purpose.
But, they have impeded investigation and they were spreading falsehoods about the virus to "save face" for what possibly was an accident.
Whatever the reason, if they'd been forthcoming at the beginning and more cooperative, we might have gotten a much needed earlier jump on this thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that count stopped at latest December 2020 which would have been 360k deaths if all were corrected. In reality, the count was basically done by Summer when we had only about 150k deaths. Regardless half a million people is only about 0.15% difference in the growth of from the 308 million to 332 million we saw.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, even slim margins matter. For example, New York only lost a representative by coming up 89 people short [nbcnewyork.com]. Imbalances in death rates could shift the allocation.
Re: (Score:2)
Most hardly give a shit about taxes. If all you want is a big fucking house out in the middle of nowhere, it's not that hard to come by in the US. The hard part is affording an interesting place, having an interesting job, and/or good weather.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly the case - looked at land values lately. unless you criteria for the middle nowhere is - it will be more than hours ride even Dollar General its $$ for anything more than handful of acres. Exceptions to that rule being there is something terrible about it like it being directly adjacent to an interstate.
Crisis Alert: The second derivative is negative (Score:2)
Is the US population higher than it was before: Yes, ok, we have a positive first derivative.
Is the number of people added the the US between 2010 and 2020 low than from 2000 and 2010? No, instead of adding 27 million, we added 24 million people. Ok so the second derivative is negative.
How on Earth is that a crisis? Is the US going to be more successful with 560 million people in 2100 if every decade since 2010 we added another 28 million people compared to our current trend of having 524 million people in
Re:Crisis Alert: The second derivative is negative (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you living in 1850? We don't use millions of manual laborers to extract value from land any more.
Direct employment stats for our resource extraction industries look something like this based on the last few years of data:
Mining: 673k
Forestry: 953k
Farming: 2.6 million people work 2 million farms
All fossil fuels: 2 million.
Out of 330 million people in the country, about 170 million are in the age range for manual labor and fewer than 10 million people are directly involved with working the land to extract
Re: (Score:2)
Land we have, half is owned by the Federal Government who will not sell, but even so there is enough land.
Water, on the other hand, is in short supply in most of the west. 8 inches of rain a year is the local expectation, and this is officially semi-arid. I think the low evaporation in the winter is all that saves us from officially being a desert.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen the correlation between wealth and population.
The US economy is a house of cards built on continual growth - both economic and population. The only way Social Security remains solvent is either a high birth rate or a high legal immigration rate.
The USA has been making being a parent harder. (Score:5, Insightful)
This should come at no surprise. Just about every aspect of our society is hostile towards having kids. They are expensive, economic policies make the financial choices difficult to make, health care costs is like playing financial Russian roulette with each baby.
Our built environment leaves very few places for kids to live and grow. Excessive auto-oriented development has made most communities dangerous for children without close parental supervision. Suburban America might be an OK place to shelter children, but it isn't a place to raise them.
Politicians in DC and State governments are constantly trying to ruin state schools, wanting to leave everyone unable to afford expensive private schools to fight for scraps.
The USA is the only developed country with no mandated paid maternal leave, or paternal for that matter.
And of course, the party that claims to be about family values is at the forefront of fucking all this shit up. It's a disgrace for the wealthiest country on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, it's cliche but it sounds like you want to live in a socialist utopia. Every single bitch is not enough government-granted stuff.
I have four children now in their 20s.
We deliberately moved to the exurbs of Minneapolis (basically rural MN) to raise them because metro areas are indeed toxic shitholes to raise children.
We definitely sacrificed some career choices to live here.
Our kids had infinite place and space to play, live, and grow. Our schools were decent (elementary was great, middle school
Re:The USA has been making being a parent harder. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do poor people manage to raise more children than people who think they can't afford to raise any?
Why is it the fault of the GOP that Democrat-run schools and systems are in the toilet?
Come to think of it, how many of the problems you listed are directly caused by Democrat policies? Democrats run almost every major city and many suburbs, so if there's a "built environment" problem, who is responsible? Democrats don't run many rural areas, and those areas don't have the problems you're talking about. They're safer, cleaner, affordable and happier.
Boy was I wrong (Score:3)
I had been telling everybody that because last year was like 1665, the plague year, that this year would be 1947, the year of so many babies. Despite all the commentary we have been hearing, apparently people took the lockdowns and distancing really seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually freaking sociologists out (Score:2)
Genocide! (Score:2)
The US government are obviously committing genocide on the US population.
*Thankfully!* (Score:3)
There is no better way to prevent resource wars, hate, global warming, animal cruelty, and pretty much all our current problems, than to reverse overpopulation.
And it seems that we got very lucky, as wealth results in less drive to make children. So we can do good by making our lives better.
The only thing is, that we need to get Africa, India etc such a good life too, for it to work. At least before the Internet completely breaks our society.
Don't send food. Send education!
Re:*Thankfully!* (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the story here. The story is that life in "Western" nations like the United States is changing and we must adapt to it.
Firstly the cost of living is rising and wages are falling, relatively. Once upon a time a single person working full time could support a family, buy a decent house, car, and then retire with a comfortable pension. These days two people working full time will struggle to do that in many places.
There are all sorts of reasons for this. Employees have not enjoyed the benefits of increased productivity, there are fewer decently paid manual labour jobs and apprenticeships for them. Jobs have moved to cities causing demand for housing in those areas to rise. Environmental problems mean no more cheap fossil fuels, while at the same time many items that used to last a lifetime have become disposable.
Lower population growth is just a symptom - children are expensive to raise.
We have an opportunity now, with the great Work From Home experiment, to make a real positive change to address some of these problems. Heavy investment in renewable energy could also make energy cheaper for everyone, as well as powering the economy out of the pandemic induced slump.
A temporary phenomenom (Score:2)
Kids from large families tend, on average, to grow up and have larger families than kids from small families. Due to nature and nurture.
Over time (100s of years) large families will again dominate. It is called natural selection.
Our current values are skewed. We prefer living well to having lots of grandchildren. And we can have sex without having babies. But that will change, as natural selection takes over.
It is, after all, natural selection that gave you all your current goals and moral values. (U
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming that humans act like most other animals, but we don't. What actual evidence -- from everywhere in the world -- shows is that as humans get wealthier and better-educated, and child mortality decreases, they have fewer children, not more. This effect is independent of culture. Parents who have reason to believe that their children will survive to adulthood have few children and invest more into them. Parents who aren't sure their kids will survive, and who need the additional labor to help out
Re: (Score:2)
The opposite happens. In Bangladesh the fertility rate was around 9 in the 1960s. Now it's about 2.4. Clearly the younger generations are reaping the benefits of education and reducing family size. There has been a big campaign to empower women to control their fertility and see the benefits of having fewer children.
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time a single person working full time could support a family, buy a decent house, car, and then retire with a comfortable pension.
Right the labor force is to large, so labor is devalued. We need to rethink the policies that enable and encourage single parent homes and the lower of w2 wages in two income house holds should be taxed at the highest rate to discourage two income house holds / force employers to pay wages high enough to make work pay.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more to do with the post-war boom and cheap petrochemicals with little regard for the environment or climate change. Plus as the developing world started manufacturing that labour got less valuable.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, once upon a time, a car was what your family had. Nowadays, it tends towards one car per driver for a moderately successful family. Plus a computer per person, instead of a computer per household. Plus....
Yeah, if you want to live with a 1970's standard of living, you can
Re: (Score:2)
https://transportist.org/2015/... [transportist.org]
The one statistic you always hear touted in this debate is average home size, but that leveled off over the last decade:
https://www.marketplace.org/20... [marketplace.org]
and look at average lot size, it plummeted:
https://nahbnow.com/2020/10/me... [nahbnow.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There are all sorts of reasons for this. Employees have not enjoyed the benefits of increased productivity, there are fewer decently paid manual labour jobs and apprenticeships for them. Jobs have moved to cities causing demand for housing in those areas to rise.
In the US there are significant labor shortages in the trades while salaries are rising. Fewer people want to do the work.
Environmental problems mean no more cheap fossil fuels, while at the same time many items that used to last a lifetime have become disposable.
Energy is still as cheap as dirt here in the US due to production efficiencies. Energy costs are not driving living costs any more than they have been.
We have an opportunity now, with the great Work From Home experiment, to make a real positive change to address some of these problems.
If everyone lived in a 300 sqft cube and nobody owned a vechicle the world would still be full of double income no kids struggling to pay the bills. Less is not more.
Re: (Score:2)
As usual for your ill thought out posts, this has nothing to do with population. It has to do with immigration.
Lack of Optimism and Lack of Maturity (Score:4, Interesting)
Another factor is the lack of maturity among, well just about everyone. People aren't learning HOW to be adults, they're being coddled and shielded from responsibilities well into what would normally be the beginning of your adult years (mid/late 20's / early 30's). It started with my generation (Gen X) and seems to getting worse with each successive generation. I'm not talking about 'Working in the coal mine at age 7' kind of maturity, I mean just basic life skills like being able to hold a part time job, manage your time, or make a simple budget kind of maturity. When you don't know how to be an adult or you're still struggling with 'Adulting' (I hate that term), you're really not thinking about having kids. Kids would just be another issue you don't know how to deal with.
Rather than trying to import people to fix a slowing population (which is a temporary and short sighted solution), maybe we should try and fix the reasons behind the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Further, the fallout crime from illegal immigration makes life less pleasant, too, if one's area is adversely affected by it.
And more "bad news" makes parents want to lock down and "protect" their kids even more.
The root cause of anthropogenic climate change (Score:2)
119 per parent per year is the US average for having a kid.
001.6 for a single roundtrip transatlantic flight.
002.1 per person per year, is the interim average maximum TOTAL budget to prevent a catastrophic 2C increase.
058.6 per parent per year is the global average for having a kid.
(Wynes 2017 [iop.org])
Chart with global averages. [guim.co.uk]
We have to vote for parties that will jail people who exceed 2.1 tonnes per year. We need to have at most 0.01 kids per person for about a century to have a chance
As a Norwegian... (Score:2)
...I wanted ALL my life to Move to America.
Why? Because I largely grew up on American ideals and the love of freedom. I fully believed in the Constitution and thought it was the finest thing on earth, one of my favourites was:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Over the years, my dreams darkened, I became older and it was h
Maybe (Score:2)
Maybe. Or maybe the vast influx of illegal aliens was greatly undercounted.
Re:Red states win! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That argument is crap. Its based on GDP and considers the entire basket of goods. Necessities like wheat and lumber are far more critical in the end than intellectual property and financial products. Society radically distorts the value of these things. Take the 'red states' contribution away and just imagine what would happen to the value of the products coming out of most of those blue places.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you describe is mercantilism with a shiny veneer. The fact is the system is not maintained by innovation its maintained by heavy military intervention and trade policies around dumping that prevent the development of those intellectual industries in those places.
The wheat, lumber, cotton, remain necessities, irreplaceable ones. On the other hand the dollars and financial instruments can be replaced. See basically every socialist revolution anywhere in the world. Its never a lack of financial tools tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Red states win! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weird how your link looks only at revenue spent, and not revenue recieved.
The solidly blue state of Massachusetts alone was responsible for more federal tax revenue than the red states of Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Mississippi, Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska combined in FY2019.
It's the net spending that people are looking at when they are saying that blue sta
Re: (Score:3)
I like how none of these links mention the ratio of blue vs red taxes PAID to the government, and only focus on the taxes received, as if everybody pays the same amount of tax. Lets dig into that a bit...
Blue states Fed tax per capita: $12,648
Red states Fed tax per capita: $8,788
Blue states Fed spending per capita: $2,124
Red states Fed spending per capita: $1,879
What does this show us? Blue states pay into the Fed 50% more than Red states, but only get about 13% more in spending. Put another way, Blue state
Re: (Score:2)
:-) They're gonna turn your red state blue...
Re:Red states win! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The purpose of the census is to allocate representation. Non-citizens aren't entitled to a vote and therefore to representation.
If there are only enough citizens for one district but enough non-citizens for five you'd be improperly giving those citizens five times the voice of other citizens who pay the same taxation and are entitled to the same representation.
"Citizenship isn't mentioned in the appropriate text in the Constitution"
That is a bug. If the intention were for n
Re: (Score:2)
No taxation without representation ! [google.com]
Can't remember where I heard that before...
I suppose you want to let those non-citizens live tax free?
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that a citizen in one state has more representation than another state isn't a bug, it's a feature, and it's even written in the Constitution to give states both a proportional vote (House) and an equal vote (Senate).
If California doesn't like having less voting power per capita than Wyoming, they are free to follow Virginia's lead and split up into multiple, smaller states, gaining two more senators per new state in the process. But that won't happen because California enjoys being a big state and
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Red states win! (Score:5, Insightful)
The census is supposed to count people, not citizens. Making it look like it's intended to count citizens is an unconstitutional attempt to subvert its purpose.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because this count determines allocation of Representatives and EC seats, counting non-citizens means that votes by citizens in some states will count more than votes by citizens in other states.
The wording about this in the Constitution goes back to the Three Fifths compromise, which gave slave-keeping states more representation because they kept enslaved people. Is that the moral position you are defending?
Re: Red states win! (Score:4, Informative)
You really should study a bit more history. The 3/5ths compromise was to done to give the slave states less representation. They wanted the full count as it would have allowed them to overpower the free states and oppose emancipation.
Re: (Score:3)
The free states wanted to give zero weight for enslaved people, specifically so that the free people would not have their votes count for more than those of free people in states that prohibited slavery. It was a compromise between those two positions -- and now the people who want to count non-citizens are defending the same logic as the states that enslaved people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Red states win! (Score:2)
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.
Re: Red states win! (Score:2)
But, it was basically superseded by the Fifteenth Amendment, which forbade the southern states for doing it, so they kind of
Relevant source text (Score:2)
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Re
Re: (Score:2)
What's the problem with population? Pollution? Make it illegal to pollute. What are we running out of? It's just a matter of generating energy cleanly. If we develop technology to do that, there's no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
What are we running out of? Well, in Arizona and Nevada at least water would be a good answer.
Re: The US is overpopulated (Score:2)
So energy, then. Because if you have energy you can build pipelines or canals and to bring in purified or desalinated water from anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
It takes a lot more than energy to build pipelines. You also need manpower, technical expertise and political support. The last of which is nearly impossible to get in many places and tend to disappear on you at the worst time. The Keystone Pipeline for example is still not complete due to repeated protests across almost a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I heard* it was all the gay frogs they were putting in the water supply.
Giving us low sperm counts. [google.com]
*I may not have been completely paying attention. Something like that anyway...
Re: Legal population that is (Score:2)
Yes. People too stupid to fill out a census form, or dumb enough to think census workers are "in on it" so abuse them until they leave.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me some Europeans are very good at pretending there is no problem. I've been to France twice, before the wave of immigrants and after the wave. The number of times someone tried to pickpocket me increased from 0 to 4.
Of course, an anecdote is not statistically significant. So what does the statistics say? Well according to report [feantsa.org]:
The overall number of homeless people (including recognized homeless refugees) rose by 150% from 2014 (335,000) to 2016 (860,000).
This breaks down into the two following categories:
o Homeless people: 420,000 over the course of a year
o Recognized refugees experiencing homelessness in shelters for asylum seekers: 440,000 over the course of a year
Moreover, it's getting worse [dw.com]:
Among those with without a migrant background, homelessness levels went up by 1.2%, compared to 5.9% among those with a migrant background.
If the refugees are integrating and building a better life for themselves, why is the number of homeless going up? And note this was happen