I want to let the forum examine a presentation and see what we make of it. Do we accept the numbers? Do we have problems with the analysis? Does it in any way seem flawed? Now, if we accept it at face value, what then do we make of this?
It means Americans are still making babies and they're getting relabeled as illegal Mexican immigrants? I love how citing a pew research poll is lying. Number of births in US in 2014: 3,988,076 Number of deaths in US in 2014: 2,626,418 Net gain, about 1.4 million per year. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm
Per census.gov the population has increased by a little more than 2.3 million per year since the 2010 census. Nearly 1 million 'legal' immigrants acquire permanent status each year, and an additional 11 million or more or estimated to currently reside illegally in the U.S. The 2020 census should be around 332 million.
Population growth in the USA is rooted similarly to the past 200 years; we have immigrants, we have illegals, and we have natural born. Maybe the percentages vary slightly but so what? The only thing that truly matters is if our replenishment rate is on the right path. As the nation, and the world, continues to deal with population growth, the ONLY thing that matters is the number of humans and their demands on Earth, and how society responds to these demands...
Bottom line, the U.S. has enough people. Stop immigration. The population of the U.S. has doubled in my lifetime.
Food for thought- if only 1% of the 100,000 muslim immigrants into the USA each year are extremists, that's 1000 potential killers on US soil every year-
Don't you think we should create enough new people to replace those who die and/or leave? And do you propose banning new births? What population do you believe is correct for the USA? - - - Updated - - - How many are 'enough'?
At this point in time I think the answer to that question should be a resounding 'no'. I don't think banning new births is the answer, but holding the persons responsible for the life they have created my be a good place to start. What population do you believe is correct for the USA?[/QUOTE] Hard to set a number, but I think it would be something close to what would meet the production of the needs of our employed individual/family population combined with our previously employed retired population. Note: The above questions to which I gave answers were not addressed to me in the post I have responded to, although I provided answers from my point of view. The below question was directed to me in the post to which I am responding. I asked 'when' is enough enough, but I'm open to knowing 'how many' is enough. Probably the answer to that question should be relative to our needs, but while population increase results in a production need for consumption it does not equally increase the employment needs for production which results in an increasing need to subsidize a growing number of the population. While there is strength in numbers, such strength is most often only usable in times of war or elections. A democratic process?
Ndividual wrote: At this point in time I think the answer to that question should be a resounding 'no'. Obviously you don't understand the Ponzi scheme that Social Security is... ... it takes not a stagnant population but an ever increasing one to stay viable. The real problem is vetting those we allow in... ... at a rate we can control and manage... ... the present policy doesn't do that.
Social Security is funded by those who are employed. Entitlement programs are also funded by those who are employed. Immigration is another issue and our population grows even without immigration.
So you wish to lower the current population? I believe the US is already below the replenishment levels? There is no means to hold someone responsible for giving birth? I'm not sure 'responsible' can even be defined? How many will tell you when...obviously the Earth can handle a finite number of humans but more critical is the impacts on local areas. And many local areas are already in trouble with too many humans. IMO we won't do anything at all about population growth effects except to chase our tails...
Do we not have enough yet? Was that meant to be a question or a statement? Perhaps that should be looked into. How about accountable or liable then? I'm sure a breaking point will occur eventually, perhaps another war to end all wars WWIII?
Our Ponzi scheme is half the problem. Are you willing for Americans to have babies they can't afford or invite illegals to swarm over our border to pass the cost of the Ponzi scheme to your grandkids? Social Security became a Ponzi scheme because we let our government blow the money from Social Security until there is nothing left and current contributions don't keep up with current demand. We are now to the point that benefits have to be lowered or there will be NOTHING left when I am scheduled to retire in 15-20 years. Should we invite a kazillion Syrians and Mexicans into the country so that my kids can deal with the social problems they bring and also their retirement disappearing while my retirement stays solvent just long enough for me to get old and die?
Nd wrote: Immigration is another issue and our population grows even without immigration. But not enough to sustain Social Security w/o cutting benefits... ... due to the 'bulge in the snake' known as the baby boomer demographic... ... which is currently in the process of retiring.
Or raising the payroll tax. Currently the U.S. population is estimated to be about 322,762,018 The number full time employed is estimated to be about 123,960,000 The total number of persons receiving SS benefits is 60,661,228 Retired workers and dependents 44,006,482 Survivors 6,014,913 Disabled workers and dependents 10,639,833 The average SS benefit is about $14,172 per year Retired 'workers' as of June 2016 totalled by age: age 62-69 = 14,914,600 age 70-79 = 16,874,218 age 80-89 = 7,340,009 age =>90 = 1,594,765 In 2015 5,400,000 were awarded SS benefits. U.S. Life expectancy is currently about 78 years. To receive SS benefits, the basic requirement is that you have acquired 40 credits, and for each $1260 earned in a year you receive 1 credit with a maximum of 4 in a single year. 40 credits can be acquired by earning $5040 or more each year for 10 years. Requirements vary and are less for survivors and disability benefits. Currently, about 70% of the population survives to age 65, and some take reduced benefits at less than 65. Social Security is funded solely by the working population, NOT the total population who many are partially or totally dependent on the working population as well. The surplus revenue collected for Social Security is borrowed and spent by the Federal government and repaid with interest which is also assessed on the working population and as it needs to be used increases the burden on funding the through the income or other taxes. Even if 100% of the population worked their entire adult life until age 67 Social Security would not remain solvent as it now exists. But that is not the purpose for which it was created.
Using your numbers above, 123,960,000 and 60,661,228 and $14,172/year; This is basically saying that 123,960,000 workers need to fund (60,661,228 recipients * $14,172 / 2) each year, or; $430 Billion per year...divided by 123,960,000 workers...equals...$3,469 each per year average. $3,469 divided by 52 pay periods is $67 per pay period. Assuming my math is correct, FICA withholding solely for 60,661,228 SS recipients can easily be increased by 10% and not hurt anyone...this is $6.70 more per pay period. If the FICA cap is raised a bit this makes increasing FICA withholding even easier for lower and middle class workers. IMO the ONLY thing between insolvency and solvency of SS is tweaking the FICA withholding formula...
