Let Them In_ The Case for Open Borders - Jason L. Riley [14]
We can’t predict the future, but we can take (accurate) note of trends. A 2007 UN population report says that as a result of declining fertility and increasing longevity, “the populations of a growing number of countries are aging rapidly. Between 2005 and 2050, half of the increase in the world population will be accounted for by a rise in the population aged 60 or over, whereas the number of children (persons under age 15) will decline slightly.”
The seventy-nine countries that are home to 40 percent of the world’s people are reporting fertility rates so low that population decline may be unavoidable. Yes, China has 1.3 billion people today, but Asia’s fertility rate dropped from 2.4 in 1965 to 1.5 in 1995. Over the same period, Latin America’s declined from 2.7 to 1.7, and Europe’s effectively fell to 0. Worldwide, the typical woman had five children in 1950. In 1995 she had three. The number necessary just to replace the current generation is 2.1.
America is headed in the same general demographic direction, but thanks to our open-border policies, it will take the United States a lot longer to reach the point where immigrant-averse Europe and Asia already have arrived. Between 1950 and 2000, the median age in the United States rose from thirty to thirty-five and is projected to hit forty by 2050. Over the same hundred-year period, however, Europe’s median age is expected to jump from twenty-nine to forty-eight, and Japan’s, from twenty-two to fifty-three. In forty years, one-third of the population of our major economic competitors—including Germany, Japan, and South Korea—will be over sixty-five, compared to around one-fifth of the U.S. population.
This matters because population trends can directly affect a country’s bottom line. The age and growth rate of a nation helps determine its economic prosperity. In 2003, the European Commission’s economic and financial affairs division put it this way: “The implications of ageing populations over the coming decades at the global level will be significant in terms of not only a slowdown in the growth rate of output and living standards but also with regard to fiscal and financial market trends . . . falling rates of capital accumulation and a slowdown in productivity growth.”
A smaller workforce can mean less overall economic output. Without enough younger workers to replace retirees, health and pension costs can become debilitating. And as domestic markets shrink, so does capital investment. By contrast, younger growing populations expand the market for goods and services. They also spur research and development. Domestic policies that encourage immigration help keep our population not only youthful but vibrant. Immigrants are giving the United States a distinct comparative advantage in human capital, which is no small matter in an increasingly globalized economy.
YOU HAVE TO ADMIT IT’S GETTING BETTER
In 2006, the U.S. population hit the 300 million mark, some thirty-nine years after surpassing 200 million in 1967. Our numbers have swelled by 30 percent since 1975, the biggest growth spurt in our history. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that about half of that increase is due to immigrants and their U.S.-born children. But for them, our population would be less than 250 million today. So, how’s Mother Nature holding up?
For more than a decade the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute has issued an annual “Index of Leading Environmental Indicators.” The lead author, Steven Hayward, tells me he was inspired by Bill Bennett’s Index