The US population has slowed the most in terms of growth rates in a century due to declining birth rates.
The past year’s population growth rate in the United States was the slowest in a century due to declining births, increasing deaths and the slowdown of international migration, according to figures released Monday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The U.S. grew from 2018 to 2019 by almost a half percent, or about 1.5 million people, with the population standing at 328 million this year, according to population estimates.
That’s the slowest growth rate in the U.S. since 1917 to 1918, when the nation was involved in World War I, said William Frey, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution.
For the first time in decades, natural increase — the number of births minus the number of deaths — was less than 1 million in the U.S. due to an aging population of Baby Boomers, whose oldest members entered their 70s within the past several years. As the large Boomer population continues to age, this trend is going to continue.
“Some of these things are locked into place. With the aging of the population, as the Baby Boomers move into their 70s and 80s, there are going to be higher numbers of deaths,” Frey said. “That means proportionately fewer women of child bearing age, so even if they have children, it’s still going to be less.”
Four states had a natural decrease, where deaths outnumbered births: West Virginia, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont.
International migration decreased to 595,000 people from 2018 to 2019, dropping from as many as 1 million international migrants in 2016, according to the population estimates. Immigration restrictions by the Trump administration combined with a perception that the U.S. has fewer economic opportunities than it did before the recession a decade ago contributed to the decline, Frey said.
“Immigration is a wildcard in that it is something we can do something about,” Frey said. “Immigrants tend to be younger and have children, and they can make a population younger.”
Ten states had population declines in the past year. They included New York, which lost almost 77,000 people; Illinois, which lost almost 51,000 residents; West Virginia, which lost more than 12,000 people; Louisiana, which lost almost 11,000 residents; and Connecticut, which lost 6,200 people. Mississippi, Hawaii, New Jersey, Alaska and Vermont each lost less than 5,000 residents. (source)
The concept of the “Great Replacement” has been spoken of often and is not without root in observation in the Western world. However, what is often ignored intentionally is the CAUSE of said “replacement”, which would seem to be more accurately described as “self-abolition”.
The Western world is not China, which forcibly murdered babies and sterilized women in order to “reduce” their population. People instead chose to sterilize themselves and commit infanticide in all forms so they could live a more easy and luxurious life. While government policies and economics did play a role, it ultimately came down to personal decisions. Since having more than 2 children many times was considered taboo and “expensive” in that people could not live to the same levels of indulgence as they did before, they aborted and contracepted as they desired.
People say that such things do not work, and in the moral or long-term social sense they do not, but in the short term of causing a massive population decline, they were very effective, and people enjoyed their lives. However, the problem was that this “decline” created a social vacuum that needed to be filled so that people could continue to live at and to the standards they were accustomed, and to raise them as well, for what was once nice becomes mundane and a higher standard is pursued. However, this cannot happen with low-wage work, since money must be exchanged for goods, and the more expensive the goods, the more money must change hands, and one has to get that money from somewhere, and it does not come from doing low-paying but necessary work that keeps a society together. In order to do this, nations began to bring in people from poor countries, as the wages in their lands is so meager, that the lowest paying work in the US or Western Europe makes a tremendous increase in their lives.
As these workers came over and continued to labor, they had families and increased. However, this also created a large and poor underclass that also strove to better herself. The difference was that while the “natives” only had two, one, or no children many times, these people would have at least two, and often times three or four. It would only be a matter of time before the “natives” would become a minority, or would be mixed into the other population so much that either they would be overtaken or a new culture would form and that which previously existed would cease to be.
This is why the whole idea of “migrants” destroying jobs is laughable, because what the “migrants” are doing is to take up necessary social roles that the “natives” have made untenable through their own economic policies aimed at bettering their own lives, and as they refused to seriously reproduce, they consumed their share and that for their children, left nothing for their progeny, and created a gap into which those with children could place their own and take the spot created by the previous generation.
The blame is squarely before those who were in control of society and refused to reproduce as well as chose to take the future for themselves now and leave their children with an empty inheritance.
Children are the future of any society. If you want to see the future of any place, look at the people having families. God does not discriminate on race or group, but only for those who love Him and do His will.
How can we be mad at Armando from Guatemala with four children who works in a low-end factory job somewhere in Ohio for at least twelve hours a day, or at Christopher from Cameroon who drives the cab in London, or at Mohammed from Egypt who operates a Kebab cart on a street corner in Venice, or at Ghenghis from Kyrgyzstan who cleans the toilets in the homes of wealthy Muscovites, when they are working hard jobs for low pay that are crucial to society and care about their work, want to make honest money, and are having children when the “natives” in their new countries refuse to do this?
Likewise, there is a lot of international work that Americans are able to do and pays equivalent and higher salaries that is emerging in Asia and Africa. Few have availed themselves of these opportunities, but one has to wonder why, and if this trend will happen to change in the future.
The fact is that no matter how much population is brought up as a topic of discussion, it ultimately comes to the will of the people and their desire to be in society. If they will not have children to keep their society as they would like it or take the opportunities needed to do so, who is to fault those who do such critical work?