Hacker News Reader

Comment by adventured | Hacker News Reader

Birth rates have taken a massive hit in the US in fact. The only reason the US population has continued to expand, is courtesy of vast immigration over the last 40 years.

In 1980, the US was about 80% white demographically. Today it's about 63% white and falling rapidly. The difference between those two, is tens of millions of immigrants from Latin America and Asia. The US has absorbed 10 to 12 million immigrants from just Mexico since 1980.

Remove the immigration from Latin America + Asia and US population growth over the last 30 years in particular falls to barely a trickle; it'd likely be flat at this point.

View on HN

> The only reason the US population has continued to expand, is courtesy of vast immigration over the last 40 years.

Untrue; the US still has a positive rate of natural increase. Immigration is responsible for a hair more growth than natural increase, but isn't the sole source of increase.

Untrue; US natives have a negative rate while immigrants from poorer countries have a positive rate. Among immigrants the birth rate dramatically falls with the second generation. In 2014 the fertility rate was 1.9 which is below replacement.

No, it's absolutely true that the US has a positive natural rate of increase, and that not all population growth is due to immigration; increase due to immigration is the increase from people crossing the border.

Naturally increase in the non-native population isn't increase "due to immigration", either in the terms normally used in population dynamics, or, really, in any meaningful sense other than the way in which all population increase in a place where humanity didn't arise is attributable to some past migration.

Wherever I look at general, completed, and total fertility rates are below replacement rates for US. Do you have any source on this positive natural rate of increase?

Fertility rate below replacement isn't the same as not having positive rate of natural increase; like you, I find every source on fertility rate has it below replacement, but every source on natural increase has it positive. [0]

That's entirely consistent; below replacement fertility doesn't imply a current negative rate of natural increase, though if maintained indefinitely it implies an eventual negative rate of natural increase. [1]

[0] examples: https://knoema.com/atlas/United-States-of-America/topics/Dem... http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-population-... http://www.susps.org/overview/birthrates.html

[1] Assuming the replacement rate is accurate, but current replacement rates are based on projections into the future based on past mortality trends, and can be inaccurate in projecting what is needed for replacement for that reason.

If population continues to grow because of immigration AND it continues to grow in the nations where people are immigrating from, then it's still increasing due to birth rates. I don't know why anyone would take a question that was generally about humanity as a whole and make it US centric.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com