Is the U.S. over populated? (ethic, legal, deaths, Brown)

[GregW]

As a thought exercise try envisioning a society and economy with a steady state population where the death rate was balanced by the birth rate. How would such an economy grow? How would the income be distributed? Who would take care of the babies and the elderly? Where would the capital be generated? Who would own the wealth? Would it stagnate or would it actually decline?

[GregW]

Related topic -

Now consider the People’s Republic of China where a population control experiment resulted in 30% more males than females. Would you like to be their neighbor?

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by GregW

Related topic -

Now consider the People’s Republic of China where a population control experiment resulted in 30% more males than females. Would you like to be their neighbor?

Totally different culture and different needs

[GregW]

if you are trying to go home from any major city during evening rush hour you will be certain that America is overpopulated. With cars!

[TriMT7]

Yes. The Youtube video "population gumballs" (or marbles, or something like that) pretty much sums up my point of view.

Overtaxed ecosystems and resources, sprawl, traffic, concreteization, loss of agricultural land, etc. are serious problems in this country today, despite the "empty" land we have! Cause remember, just because it's "empty" doesn't mean we should think its ripe for development!

[ParkTwain]

This is not a well formed question. You should add "in relation to [what]."

* compared to any other nation?
* geographical density? (persons per sq. mi)
* availability of sustaining resources? (food sources but esp. water)

On all these bases, the U.S. as a whole is not overpopulated, but in certain locales, human habitation at present levels of consumption (such as groundwater being consumed faster than it is naturally recharged) is not sustainable, as is the case for many locales around the world.

[Hawkeye48]

We are over populated and we are getting to the point where we are verging on being extremely over populated. In many areas local governments are struggling to keep up with demands for services like power and water. Plus looking at the number and types of jobs that have been created over the last decade, most are lower paying jobs. So by expanding our population, primarily by immigration, illegal immigration, and child birth to lower paid illiterate immigrates we are creating a huge underclass that cannot be supported in a meaningful way in the future.

Our government wants the nation to expand its population. More people means more housing. More housing construction means more jobs for carpenters, electricians, carpet layers, washing machine manufactures, couch makers, and many other people who manufacture and sell products used in our homes. Plus more people means more new cars sell, and new car sells account for 20% of the nations sells tax revenue. The government is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Those in Washington are advocating and supporting polices that they know is bad for our nations future but do so anyway for short term financial stability. The real solution would have been to seal the border, deport the illegals, and advocate and support economic policies that would have benefited the vast number of lower and middle class American citizens.

So, can we take in more people? Sure, millions probably. But for the most part, as we take in millions of more people over the next few years it will mean a lower standard of living for the vast majority of Americans in the long run. And the more we take in, the lower our standard of living will be. In fact, in many areas of the country it's already starting to look like a third world nation.

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by GregW

As a thought exercise try envisioning a society and economy with a steady state population where the death rate was balanced by the birth rate. How would such an economy grow? How would the income be distributed? Who would take care of the babies and the elderly? Where would the capital be generated? Who would own the wealth? Would it stagnate or would it actually decline?

The assumption in this paragraph is that we need population growth to grow the economy. You need to ask the question why does the economy need to grow. Many countries with stable populations maintain a comfortable standard of living without growing their economies. the reason growth is needed here, is our goverments economy is based on a pyramid scheme. Pyramids only work as long as more new money is consistantly brought into the system. It is not sustainable long term and must be addressed at some time.

[bluskyz]

Over populated--you bet. I cannot put it any better than Jimhcom and Hawkeye48 so I won't try.

However, I do think it would be easier to accomodate a larger population without the nail on the chalkboard effect if better planning concerning infrastructure and design were present. Yes, that takes money,also.

Certainly we can take better care of the things we have instead of expanding and hope the things we have last forever. Natural resources are not limitless nor is the life of bridges and highways. Some areas are so wheely it is unbelievable--and the poor law enforcement makes it worse.

Have you taken a close look at our country lately? Check appalachia the rust belt and some others---some haven't changed for the better in 30+ yrs.

[Minnehahapolitan]

You have to look at various things. Is Manhattan overcrowded? No. New Yorkers expect to live among alot of people, transportation, food, water and new towers can be built to accomodate literally thousands of new Manhattanites. Is Las Vegas overcrowded? Yes. The city has no room to expand as it does now, has horrible transportation, no local food and no sustainable water sources. Metropolitan Los Angeles is crowded, the City of San Francisco is not. It really comes down to how our density is divided.