MORE IS MORE
A Wall Street Journal article titled "The Coming Crunch" from yesterday, discusses a topic that's been on my mind for quite some time now. The main premise is laid down thus:
The U.S. population will hit 300 million at 7:46 on Tuesday morning, says the Census Bureau. But it's the 400 million milestone, which the U.S. will reach in about 35 years, that has demographers and economists really talking.
Those additional 100 million people, many of them immigrants, will replace aging baby boomers in the work force, fill the Social Security coffers and, in all likelihood, keep the economy vital and life interesting.
But they also will further crowd cities and highways, put new strains on natural resources, end the majority status of whites, and probably widen the gulf between society's haves and have-nots."
It's a generally balanced look at the pros and cons of population growth and immigration flows, but the title seems to tip the balance to the cons of these issues.
An important point that the article does make is that the current population density of the United States, although concentrated on two coasts, is less than some other countries, including China and India (see chart).
A full reading is very much recommended.
In my view, these issues will fundamentally determine the sovereign ranking of the United States over this new century vis a vis China and India, on most metrics that matter.
With immigration being a currently hot topic, fueled by the fear-fanning, politically motivated calls to "enhance" our national security (in front of the upcoming elections), this may not be the right time to say this.
It's one person's opinion, but I think the U.S. is potentially facing a "Coming Crunch" not envisioned by most of the political and media discussions to date.
Very strong and secular technology, globalization, and demographic trends, are creating a perfect storm over the next couple of decades that may fundamentally alter the calculus of how most sovereign state has traditionally thought about immigration (with one not-so minor exception, to come back to later).
It's an irony that businesses, large and small around the world, have recognized this before nations:
that rather than being a liability, people are increasingly an asset to compete for, in the game of globalisation.
And in that context, the competition is increasingly a numbers game.
Citing my post from last October,
"The catalyst has already been ignited, when two of the six billion people on the planet switched from the "barely developing" to "rapidly developing" column, just over the last decade and a half.
China and India's sprinting in this direction hopefully will stir the remaining two billion in the still "barely developing" category to start to look beyond their near-sighted focus on today's politics, to the future global competitive realities for their children and grand-children.
These near-sighted politicized issues include:
- equality for women,
- demographic time bombs hinging on aging populations,
- and unemployment for the burgeoning youth in the developing world.
These are the THREE BIGGIES, flavored liberally by the always popular tribal, cultural and religious squabbles we've grown so good at since stepping down from the trees."
And these two countries are very much focused on the grand prize, although each is following a different political path towards it. As I stated in a post this past May,
"Roughly two billion people in China and India, about a third of humanity, are racing towards our current standards of living, and will likely achieve them over the next few decades.
Another third are following in their footsteps across today's "third-world" countries. And far bigger percentages of these populations are younger than in Europe and America.
There are only 300 million or so Americans, growing to a little under half a billion over the same time frame."
To cut to the chase, the nations that have the biggest pools of productive, middle-class people that share common aspirations of a better life for themselves and their children, AND a commitment to Globalization, win. And unless something goes seriously awry, there will be a lot more countries that share this formula in a few years than today.
The children are important not only because they represent the pinnacle of every family's raison d'etre, but because they truly are the economic seed corn for the long-term welfare of a nation's population.
Right now, China and India have the absolute numbers in their favor, with the U.S. in solid third place.
And in terms of a growing younger demographic in their populations, India is in the cat-bird's seat with the U.S. in solid second place.
The rest of the developed world, including Europe and Japan are aging much faster than the U.S., and are far less open to immigration driven solutions.
So as we, as Americans, think about our long-term, sovereign well-being, we need to give thought to "the Coming Crunch" of large nations competing for more immigration over time than less.
It's a radical, counter-intuitive, and politically incorrect thought for the current times.
But something that is more likely to be a reality sooner than we all think.
If any nation can make this mental shift sooner than later, it's the United States.
Immigration has been part of our "secret sauce" from the very beginning, despite the many times in our history that we've gone through anti-immigration cycles for generally short periods of time, for near-term political reasons. Like right now, of course.
We need to temper these anti-immigration political cycles, and in time make them a thing of the past. Less "Macaca"-mongering and Lou Dobbs over time.
But before all that, we need to understand that the traditional notion of a "Coming Crunch" when it comes to population and immigration, is seriously out-dated.
P.S. See this earlier post from last year for more on this subject.
Comments