The United States is approaching a demographic decline as birth rates fall, the population ages, and immigration slows, which could affect per capita economic growth.

According to data from the US Census Bureau, in scenarios of lower immigration, the US population could fall to 226 million by the year 2100.

During the videoconference “The population of the United States “The United States is shrinking at an incredible rate,” organized by American Community Media (ACoM), experts on the subject discussed the factors that have led to the demographic decline and its economic implications. Dr. Ana Langer, director of the Women and Health Initiative at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said that global trends in population growth are quite consistent around the world and all show a very significant decline.

“Fertility rates have declined very markedly in the last 40 to 50 years. In 1970, the global fertility rate was around five children per woman. In 2024, it is 2.2 in sub-Saharan Africa, which is the region with the highest fertility rate.”

She noted that Asia, another region that was growing rapidly in the 1970s, with an average of five children per woman, now has a fertility rate of 2.1.

“In Latin America and the Caribbean, the change was from 4.5 children per woman in the 1970s to 1.9 in 2024. In the United States, it has fallen from 3.5 in the 1960s to 1.6 in 2024.”

What are the factors influencing the decline in fertility rates?

Langer said that in the United States, various surveys cited a lack of financial resources, negative experiences with difficult pregnancies and complicated deliveries, the high cost of childcare, and concern about the state of the world as the main reasons for this shift.

“The Department of Labor reports that the average American family spends up to 16% of its income on childcare for a single child.

Basic expenses such as food and housing are so high that they force people to prioritize work and income over having children.”

She said that more than a quarter of those surveyed strongly agree that overpopulation and climate change make them anxious about raising children on an already struggling planet.

“There is a growing popularity of the childless option; and persistent gender inequalities in the domestic sphere also play a significant role in delaying or deciding not to have children.”

She argued that women’s higher levels of education and their participation in the labor market lead to starting families later, and concerns about work-life balance also influence the fertility rate.

“Interestingly, and this represents a very positive development, adolescent fertility figures have declined significantly in recent years, reaching new record lows in 2024, largely thanks to better sex education and the use of contraceptives.”

Economic Implications

Anu Madgavkar, a partner at the McKinsey Global Institute, said the first major implication is that demographic change will slow the rate of per capita economic growth.

“If we consider a population with a youth shortage—that is, with fewer people under 65 or in the working-age population of 15 to At 64, the proportion in this age group stabilizes or even declines, while there are many more people over 65.”

He stated that the second major implication over the next 20 years will be increased dependency.

“For example, in Western Europe or the United States today, where there are roughly four working-age people available to support one person over 65, this number drops to just two.”

He said this means we need to be more productive in many ways to generate a larger economic surplus from our work, in order to support a potentially inactive population that is aging and living longer.

“As a business economist, I would say that the productivity factor is the one that really needs to increase, and we have a huge opportunity in the age of artificial intelligence and automation.”

He said if we take advantage of this over the next few decades, we could generate a virtuous cycle of increased productivity, where employed people can produce more and, furthermore, that we can enjoy the benefits of retirement with a functioning economic structure.

The Environment and Population Growth

Dr. Philip Cafaro,An associate professor of philosophy at Colorado State University said that the UN tells us that last year the world's population grew by 60 to 70 million people, and they project that the world's population could stabilize in the early 2080s. “Other demographers have other projections, but we don't have an immediate problem of population collapse or anything like that. Similarly, in the United States, in 2000, according to the census of that year, the US population was 281 million. Today, it is 343 million. That is, 60 million more people than 25 years ago.”

He specified that he has a different perspective on addressing the demographic issue, one that is related to the environment.

“The environmental news hasn’t been good lately: melting glaciers, acidifying oceans, wildfires of unprecedented size and intensity, unusually numerous and severe tropical storms, record droughts, dying coral reefs, disappearing boreal forests, massive bird losses in North America and elsewhere, mass insect extinctions worldwide, and much more.”

He noted that while the details and immediate causes vary, the underlying cause of all this is fairly clear.

“In 1925, 100 years ago, there were around 2 billion people on Earth. Today, there are more than four times that number, over 8.2 billion. We are much wealthier, so that is really driving our environmental problems. Humanity is generating so much atmospheric carbon because there are so many more of us than there were 100 years ago.”

He pointed out that we are displacing birds and insects, frogs and fish, big cats and rare salamanders, because we need their habitats for our own purposes, and the ever-shrinking habitats we leave them are fragmented and degraded by our increased economic activity.

“So here is a radical suggestion: instead of looking for policies to get people to have more children or to attract more people to our countries, I propose that, to begin moving in a more sustainable direction, we must accept population decline.”

He said that if we also consider reducing immigration to the United States, the European Union, and Australia, we could reach peak population much sooner and begin to decline our population. “And this is fundamental for creating sustainable societies.”“Other demographers have different projections, but we don’t have an immediate problem of population collapse or anything like that. Similarly, in the United States, in 2000, according to the census of that year, the US population was 281 million. Today, it is 343 million. That is, 60 million more people than 25 years ago.” He specified that he has a different perspective on addressing the demographic issue, one that is related to the environment. “The environmental news has not been good lately: melting glaciers, acidifying oceans, fires of unprecedented size and intensity, unusually numerous and severe tropical storms, record droughts, dying coral reefs, disappearing boreal forests, massive bird losses in North America and elsewhere, mass insect extinctions worldwide, and much more.”

He observed that while the details and immediate causes vary, the underlying cause of it all is fairly clear.

“In 1925, 100 years ago, there were around 2 billion people on Earth. Today, there are more than four times that number, over 8.2 billion. We are much wealthier, so that is really driving our environmental problems. Humanity is generating so much atmospheric carbon because there are so many more of us than there were 100 years ago.”

He pointed out that we are displacing birds and insects, frogs and fish, big cats and rare salamanders, because we need their habitats for our own purposes, and the ever-shrinking habitats we leave them are fragmented and degraded by our increased economic activity.

“So here is a radical suggestion: instead of looking for policies to get people to have more children or to attract more people to our countries, I propose that, to begin moving in a more sustainable direction, we must accept population decline.”

He said that if we also consider reducing immigration to the United States, the European Union, and Australia, we could reach peak population much sooner and begin to decline our population. “And this is fundamental for creating sustainable societies.”“Other demographers have different projections, but we don’t have an immediate problem of population collapse or anything like that. Similarly, in the United States, in 2000, according to the census of that year, the US population was 281 million. Today, it is 343 million. That is, 60 million more people than 25 years ago.” He specified that he has a different perspective on addressing the demographic issue, one that is related to the environment. “The environmental news has not been good lately: melting glaciers, acidifying oceans, fires of unprecedented size and intensity, unusually numerous and severe tropical storms, record droughts, dying coral reefs, disappearing boreal forests, massive bird losses in North America and elsewhere, mass insect extinctions worldwide, and much more.”

He observed that while the details and immediate causes vary, the underlying cause of it all is fairly clear.

“In 1925, 100 years ago, there were around 2 billion people on Earth. Today, there are more than four times that number, over 8.2 billion. We are much wealthier, so that is really driving our environmental problems. Humanity is generating so much atmospheric carbon because there are so many more of us than there were 100 years ago.”

He pointed out that we are displacing birds and insects, frogs and fish, big cats and rare salamanders, because we need their habitats for our own purposes, and the ever-shrinking habitats we leave them are fragmented and degraded by our increased economic activity.

“So here is a radical suggestion: instead of looking for policies to get people to have more children or to attract more people to our countries, I propose that, to begin moving in a more sustainable direction, we must accept population decline.”

He said that if we also consider reducing immigration to the United States, the European Union, and Australia, we could reach peak population much sooner and begin to decline our population. “And this is fundamental for creating sustainable societies.”

“The environmental news hasn’t been good lately: melting glaciers, acidifying oceans, wildfires of unprecedented size and intensity, unusually numerous and severe tropical storms, record droughts, dying coral reefs, disappearing boreal forests, massive bird losses in North America and elsewhere, mass insect extinctions worldwide, and much more.”

He noted that while the details and immediate causes vary, the underlying cause of all this is fairly clear.

“In 1925, 100 years ago, there were around 2 billion people on Earth. Today, there are more than four times that number, over 8.2 billion. We are much wealthier, so that is really driving our environmental problems. Humanity is generating so much atmospheric carbon because there are so many more of us than there were 100 years ago.”

He pointed out that we are displacing birds and insects, frogs and fish, big cats and rare salamanders, because we need their habitats for our own purposes, and the ever-shrinking habitats we leave them are fragmented and degraded by our increased economic activity.

“So here is a radical suggestion: instead of looking for policies to get people to have more children or to attract more people to our countries, I propose that, to begin moving in a more sustainable direction, we must accept population decline.”

He said that if we also consider reducing immigration to the United States, the European Union, and Australia, we could reach peak population much sooner and begin to decline our population. “And this is fundamental for creating sustainable societies.”

“The environmental news hasn’t been good lately: melting glaciers, acidifying oceans, wildfires of unprecedented size and intensity, unusually numerous and severe tropical storms, record droughts, dying coral reefs, disappearing boreal forests, massive bird losses in North America and elsewhere, mass insect extinctions worldwide, and much more.”

He noted that while the details and immediate causes vary, the underlying cause of all this is fairly clear.

“In 1925, 100 years ago, there were around 2 billion people on Earth. Today, there are more than four times that number, over 8.2 billion. We are much wealthier, so that is really driving our environmental problems. Humanity is generating so much atmospheric carbon because there are so many more of us than there were 100 years ago.”

He pointed out that we are displacing birds and insects, frogs and fish, big cats and rare salamanders, because we need their habitats for our own purposes, and the ever-shrinking habitats we leave them are fragmented and degraded by our increased economic activity.

“So here is a radical suggestion: instead of looking for policies to get people to have more children or to attract more people to our countries, I propose that, to begin moving in a more sustainable direction, we must accept population decline.”

He said that if we also consider reducing immigration to the United States, the European Union, and Australia, we could reach peak population much sooner and begin to decline our population. “And this is fundamental for creating sustainable societies.”to the big cats and the rare salamanders, because we need their habitat for our own purposes, and the ever-shrinking habitats we leave them are fragmented and degraded by the increase in our economic activity.

“So here’s a radical suggestion: instead of looking for policies to get people to have more children or to attract more people to our countries, I propose that, to begin moving in a more sustainable direction, we must accept population decline.”

He said that if we also consider reducing immigration to the United States, the European Union, and Australia, we could reach peak population much sooner and begin to decline our number of inhabitants.

“And this is fundamental to the creation of sustainable societies.”