• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What do you think the population of the USA should be?

What do you see as the ideal population of the USA

  • 380 million

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • 400 million

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • 450 million

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 500 million

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • 1 billion

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • What ever happens happens

    Votes: 8 61.5%
  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
chuckiechan

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The best US population estimate today is 328,233,846.

The reason I wonder is that there is an environment cost to population, and a social cost, and those topics are often the news de jure.

Where are you going to live, how are you going to live, and what kind of infrastructure will be need to accommodate everyone.

If history is any guide, the population will be in the big cities and the food will still be grown in the country. So we need to grow and move a hell of a lot of food, not to mention cooking, eating, and getting rid of garbage and sewage. Then we have to get people to and from work and school.

So what's your number?
 
Last edited:
chuckiechan said:
The best estimate today is 328,233,846.

The reason I wonder is that there is an environment cost to population, and a social cost.

Where are going going to live, how are you going to live, and what kind of infrastructure will be need to accommodate everyone.

If history is any guide, the population will be in the big cities and the food will still be grown in the country. So we need to grow and move a hell of a lot of food, not to mention cooking, eating, and getting rid of garbage and sewage.

So what's your number?
Click to expand...

That is an interesting question. Keep in mind that the "social costs" include having the current working generations supporting those that have retired and an economy largely based on staying healthy (only viable?) with a growing consumer base. I guess that my point is basically - can GDP grow without a growing population?
 
By population density, we are not even in the top 100 nations.

The number itself is misleading, it is density that is used to understand economic and social constraint.

Example (and last I checked)... the US was somewhere around the ~87 per square mile by density, China is still somewhere north of ~375 per square mile.
 
Last edited:
Japan has 10x our population density. Most or all of Europe is 3x or more our population density. To be at Japan's pop density, we'd need about 3.5 billion. Europe's would be a billion.

If they can do it, we can, right?
 
OrphanSlug said:
By population density, we are not even in the top 100 nations.

The number itself is misleading, it is density that is used to understand economic and social constraint.

Example (and last I checked)... the US was somewhere around the ~87 per square mile by density, China is still somewhere north of ~45,000 per square mile.
Click to expand...


Your information regarding population density is wrong

China by land mass is roughly the same size as the US, while its population is approx. 4 times that of the US. Making the 45 000 per square mile impossible. It would be more around 350 per square mile.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is an interesting question. Keep in mind that the "social costs" include having the current working generations supporting those that have retired and an economy largely based on staying healthy (only viable?) with a growing consumer base. I guess that my point is basically - can GDP grow without a growing population?
Click to expand...

OrphanSlug said:
By population density, we are not even in the top 100 nations.

The number itself is misleading, it is density that is used to understand economic and social constraint.

Example (and last I checked)... the US was somewhere around the ~87 per square mile by density, China is still somewhere north of ~45,000 per square mile.
Click to expand...

But it's a question no one seems to want to put their name on. I heard a guest talking head once say a billion.

Regarding aging, a gradual increase would create a gradual aging curve.
To build adequate infrastructure you'd have to set aside a lot of environmental laws.

Lord Tammerlain said:
Your information regarding population density is wrong

China by land mass is roughly the same size as the US, while its population is approx. 4 times that of the US. Making the 45 000 per square mile impossible. It would be more around 350 per square mile.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You math is off by assuming everyone can survive by being evenly distributed. There area large areas where no one wants to live other than the "natives".
 
I think the Democratic Party wants at least 1 billion more, with the provision that all are either Latino or Muslim, with white people banned from immigration. To the Democratic Party, "diversity" means Latino and Muslims only.
 
ecofarm said:
Japan has 10x our population density. Most or all of Europe is 3x or more our population density. To be at Japan's pop density, we'd need about 3.5 billion. Europe's would be a billion.

If they can do it, we can, right?
Click to expand...
But should that be a goal?

Is a huge population by itself a desirable goal.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
But should that be a goal?

Is a huge population by itself a desirable goal.
Click to expand...

I'm an environmentalist (see username and signature). But I don't do panic like the OP.
 
chuckiechan said:
But it's a question no one seems to want to put their name on. I heard a guest talking head once say a billion.

Regarding aging, a gradual increase would create a gradual aging curve.
To build adequate infrastructure you'd have to set aside a lot of environmental laws.

You math is off somewhere.
Click to expand...

Mine?

The US has a land mass of 3.79 million square miles, China 3.7 million. US population around 330 million, China just under 1.4 billion. The population density of China as a result would be just over 4 times that of the US
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Your information regarding population density is wrong

China by land mass is roughly the same size as the US, while its population is approx. 4 times that of the US. Making the 45 000 per square mile impossible. It would be more around 350 per square mile.
Click to expand...

Correct, I messed up the stat. I grabbed a province and not the nation as a whole.

China is 375 per square mile, and US is 87 per square mile.

Good catch.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Mine?

The US has a land mass of 3.79 million square miles, China 3.7 million. US population around 330 million, China just under 1.4 billion. The population density of China as a result would be just over 4 times that of the US
Click to expand...

We might also note that China's age demographics are upside down (more old than young). That's a big problem.
 
Last edited:
OrphanSlug said:
Correct, I messed up the stat. I grabbed a province and not the nation as a whole.

China is 375 per square mile, and US is 87 per square mile.

Good catch.
Click to expand...

The 45 000 number would have to be for a city, not a province
 
chuckiechan said:
The best US population estimate today is 328,233,846.

The reason I wonder is that there is an environment cost to population, and a social cost, and those topics are often the news de jure.

Where are you going to live, how are you going to live, and what kind of infrastructure will be need to accommodate everyone.

If history is any guide, the population will be in the big cities and the food will still be grown in the country. So we need to grow and move a hell of a lot of food, not to mention cooking, eating, and getting rid of garbage and sewage. Then we have to get people to and from work and school.

So what's your number?
Click to expand...
joko104 said:
I think the Democratic Party wants at least 1 billion more, with the provision that all are either Latino or Muslim, with white people banned from immigration. To the Democratic Party, "diversity" means Latino and Muslims only.
Click to expand...

>2 billion, but it has to be mostly latino and muslim.
 
OrphanSlug said:
By population density, we are not even in the top 100 nations.

The number itself is misleading, it is density that is used to understand economic and social constraint.

Example (and last I checked)... the US was somewhere around the ~87 per square mile by density, China is still somewhere north of ~375 per square mile.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that you could fit the entire world population in Texas and everyone would have around 1,000 square feet to themselves.
 
ecofarm said:
We might also note that China's age demographics are upside down (more old than young). That's a big problem.
Click to expand...
You're confusing China with Japan. Japan has an inverted age distribution.

China and the United States have similar age distributions—with the United States a tad older due to baby boomers.
The median age is in the late thirties.

This is contrasted with countries like Pakistan, Nigeria or Kenya which have a straight pyramid and have median ages in the teens or early twenties.
 
brothern said:
You're confusing China with Japan. Japan has an inverted age distribution.

China and the United States have similar age distributions—with the United States a tad older due to baby boomers.
The median age is in the late thirties.

This is contrasted with countries like Pakistan, Nigeria or Kenya which have a straight pyramid and have median ages in the teens or early twenties.
Click to expand...

China does as well, as a result of the One Child Policy and social pressure therein towards males.


China:

275px-China_Sex_By_Age_2010_census.jpg


US:

350px-Uspop.svg.png

Both images from wiki pages on each country's age demographics.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
That is an interesting question. Keep in mind that the "social costs" include having the current working generations supporting those that have retired and an economy largely based on staying healthy (only viable?) with a growing consumer base. I guess that my point is basically - can GDP grow without a growing population?
Click to expand...

Japan anyone?
 
brothern said:
It does not: Population of China 2017 - PopulationPyramid.net
It's similar to the US' in that bulges in mid-thirties: Population of United States of America 2017 - PopulationPyramid.net


This is an inverted pyramid: Population of Japan 2017 - PopulationPyramid.net
Which has a median age of ~45 which is around 8 years older than both China and Japan.
Click to expand...

I provided graphics above, in edit, proving my point. It is beyond question. Notice the lack of population at the bottom of China's population pyramid. That's a lack of youth.

Median age is an insufficient measure of age demographics, as the graphics I provided illustrate.

I'm correct. The reasons I cite are correct. I learned these things in class, population demographics, in grad school.

You stand corrected.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
China does as well, as a result of the One Child Policy and social pressure therein towards males.

Both images from wiki pages on each country's age demographics.
Click to expand...
Do those not look similar to you? Both countries have large frequencies in mid-twenties and mid-forties, and balance in the thirties.
 
For sure it should be about 11 million fewer illegal immigrants and considerably fewer liberals and socialist.
 
ecofarm said:
I provided graphics above, in edit, proving my point. It is beyond question. Notice the lack of population at the bottom of China's population pyramid. That's a lack of youth.
Median age is an insufficient measure of age demographics, as the graphics I provided illustrate.
I'm correct. The reasons I cite are correct. I learned these things in class, population demographics, in grad school.
Click to expand...

As it follows, your argument would be that the United States as well has an inverted age distribution?
 
brothern said:
Do those not look similar to you? Both countries have large frequencies in mid-twenties and mid-forties, and balance in the thirties.
Click to expand...

Notice the lack of youth in China's pyramid. When older ages have larger populations than younger ages, that's called having population demographics upside down. China is such a case, as the graphics clearly illustrate.

Median age is not relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom