300 Million Reasons to Worry?
By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, October 4, 2006; A25
As always, America is a work in progress. Any day now, the Census Bureau
will announce that the U.S. population has reached 300 million, 39 years
after it passed 200 million (1967) and 91 years after it hit 100 million
(1915). What is more interesting and less appreciated is that, according
to census projections, it will climb to 420 million by 2050. Virtually
alone among big, advanced countries, the United States is experiencing
significant population growth. This is a sign of either impending
calamity or enduring vitality. I'm in the vitality camp, but I admit that
it often seems a close call.
Aging and immigration -- the big population trends -- are vexing. By 2030
the 65-and-over population will be about 20 percent of the total, up from
about 12 percent in 2000, the Census Bureau says. That will involve
staggering costs for Social Security and Medicare. Meanwhile, the
bureau's projections assume annual immigration of about 1 million,
roughly the present level. That will transform the nation's ethnic
profile and could reshape its politics and culture. By 2050 Hispanic
Americans will be almost 25 percent of the total, double their share in
2000, the Census Bureau projects. Asian Americans also will double their
share, to 8 percent, by 2050, while non-Hispanic whites are forecast to
drop from 69 to 50 percent. Blacks are projected to stay around 13 to 14
percent.
Indeed, immigration has already had a profound effect. Demographer
Jeffrey Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that about half of
the last 100 million Americans are immigrants and their U.S.-born
children. Without them, the population would be 247 million, he says. The
Hispanic American population would total 16 million instead of 44
million. Asian Americans would number 2 million, not 13 million.
But history suggests that America will change them more than they change
us. Our national character and culture are enormously powerful and
resilient. In the 1830s the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville -- author of
"Democracy in America" -- identified some American traits, including
rampant materialism, religious fervor (and competing denominations), and
fierce patriotism. In 1830 the population was 13 million. But if he
returned today, de Tocqueville would find the same traits despite massive
changes in people and technology.
Going from 100 million to 200 million, we became a nation of subdivisions
and shopping malls. From 1950 to 1970, two-thirds of metropolitan growth
occurred in suburbs. Some central cities (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland)
lost population for the first time. The upheaval in ensuing decades has
been the rise of the Sunbelt. Since 1970, 84 percent of U.S. population
growth has occurred in the South and the West. How and where we live have
changed radically. The geography of political and economic power has
shifted dramatically. Still, what Americans believe and how they behave
have changed much less.
I suspect that the future holds much of the same. We change and adapt,
even while bedrock principles and attitudes endure. But I could be wrong.
Population growth has raised two serious concerns. One is environmental.
It is that we are creating overcongested communities that will demand
energy and -- particularly in the Southwest -- water that won't be there
or will be there only at an exorbitant price. Population growth will
cause an economic and social backlash.
Perhaps. But this is a big country, and much of it is still empty.
There's plenty of coal. If Southern and Western metro areas become too
crowded or costly, maybe people will return to Cleveland and Milwaukee,
where water is plentiful and housing prices are low (median prices:
$139,000 and $228,000, respectively). Still, population growth shows why
curbing energy use -- and greenhouse gas emissions -- is so hard. The
population is projected to increase 40 percent by 2050. Simply to keep
total energy demand steady would require each American, on average, to
make correspondingly deep cuts in energy use.
The second concern involves immigration -- and its possibly explosive
combination with aging. Up to a point, America's willingness to accept
immigrants is a sign of confidence that promotes economic growth. But our
careless approach to immigration is creating social problems. Many
Hispanic immigrants are poor and have few skills. Their average weekly
wages ($389) are only two-thirds of the average for all workers ($577).
The predominance of poor workers frustrates future assimilation. It's
hard to move into the middle class. All this makes immigration seem
threatening to millions of Americans, who visualize their country being
overrun by an alien underclass.
The potential mixing with aging is obvious. Paying the retirement
benefits of baby boomers could easily require federal tax increases of 30
to 50 percent. Even without immigration, younger workers might object to
such steep burdens, especially because many retirees will be richer than
workers. Now add the impact of immigration. A growing part of the labor
force will consist of Hispanic and Asian Americans. Most won't have
relatives on Social Security and Medicare. They may wonder why they
should pay so much to support somebody else's wealthier parents. The
politics could get ugly.
We might have mitigated all these problems. We might have controlled the
border better and favored more highly skilled immigrants with better
assimilation prospects. We might have reduced boomers' Social Security
and Medicare costs by limiting benefits for younger and wealthier
retirees. We might even have curbed our energy appetite. But we have done
none of these things. So if population growth backfires, we will have
only ourselves to blame.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
-- |
233284. 300 Million Reasons to Worry?
|
|