(Comstock)
A recent editorial in The New York Sun argues that all this political bickering about immigration among Republican candidates misses an important truth: America is actually underpopulated. From the article:
[N]ot a single Republican candidate has spoken up for the idea that America is an underpopulated country. In terms of population density, it is, at 83 persons a square mile, an impoverished country, barely a quarter of the rich density of China, which is running way behind India. America just has enormous room for population growth.
And a desperate need.
What do you think, readers? Is America under-populated? Would Montana and Wyoming, for example, benefit from a few more people?
(HT: Paul Kedrosky)
and 
. You can also watch it on 
New immigrants would be unlikely to go to areas of low population density such as Montana and Wyoming, and more likely to go to places like New York city and Boston. This is not an argument for or against, but just something that should be take into account in the discussion of immigration policy. I would be interested to hear whether it would be good for the country to encourage moving to areas of low population density, and how these incentives might be structures.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
1
Actually tying work visas to residency requirements has been remarkably effective in recruiting doctors and other professionals to under served areas. Often times they even choose to stay. Same goes for asylum seekers.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Temporarily, anyway. Unless the professional is really into rural and wilderness pursuits, she will put in her time and then move to somewhere that she can buy harina masa and put her child into Saturday Mandarin classes and find Bollywood movies for rent.
Hey! I resemble that remark. Except I’m a statistician, not a doctor (dammit).
Yes, the US is underpopulated relative to most of the world. We have so many resources that we are able to have this luxury and not even think about all the wide open spaces. This has resulted in huge metropolitan areas with low density (the only true exception is NYC). People in the US generally want a single family home with a half-acre yard rather than living in buildings. There is a reason most mass transit systems are a waste in this country. This is not good from an efficiency or an environmental point of view since the average commute in the US keeps growing, spending more gasoline, wasting tire rubber and brakes, motor oil, etc. and less quality time pursuing one’s interests or exercise or spending time with family. In order to have the white-picket-fence American dream, we prefer to spend 2-3 hours per day stuck in traffic.
With higher population density, the US would have even more space for farmland, harvesting natural resources such as oil/gas/coal, and for renewable energy projects as well. A balanced approach to sustainability even with much higher population.
Reasonable population growth does in fact enable higher economic growth as more goods and services are required to serve the population. Export-driven economies are fantastic, but there is nothing like having strong local demand as well, especially from a small & medium business perspective.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
“People in the US generally want a single family home with a half-acre yard rather than living in buildings.”
Is this really any less true of people in other countries, with the difference being that it’s more attainable in the US than most other places?
This really seems to be a recurring pattern in urbanization from at least Roman times. (Yes, the Romans had suburbs too, and generally land was the reward for service in the legions.) People move to urban areas to make money. The small percentage who actually manage to do so take their money, return to the country, and buy land.
Not necessarily. My city, Ottawa Canada, is currently finding that there are more apartments being sold than houses. It seems the Boomers are downsizing to downtown.
I should note here that Canada does not have the surplus of housing that you guys do, because we did not have a housing bubble and burst.
That’s a sweeping generalization that doesn’t hold true, I think, for children born and grown in large urban areas. I grew up in a giant metropolis and moving to the country, money or not, has all the attraction of watching dust settle on an empty dirt road.
From the point of view of a transit geek, yes the US is underpopulated. We live in a 6 story elevator doorman building in NYC with two kids and no car (by choice) and are able to do almost everything by foot or public transit. This would not be possible with lower density – our neighborhood in Queens is mostly comprised of buildings like ours (large 6 story buildings) as well as some houses of various sizes and a few larger buildings. Our lifestyle is simply not tenable in most of the country since the population density is not sufficient to provide an efficient public transit system or the density of amenities within walking distance that we have. I consider our standard of living very high – we have a decent amount of space in a nice building and access to so much nearby and even more just a short subway ride away.
Of course that is just the transit perspective – but I do wonder what higher density and increased public transit and walkable communities would mean as far as other issues are concerned. To what extent would the environmental costs of increased population be offset by increased efficiency – less driving, lower heating and cooling costs, etc.?
It’s all in the eye of the beholder. You obviously consider the things you have within walking distance to be amenities; I’d consider them to be urban blight, and would have to travel – oh, maybe 50 miles or so – to get to most of the things I want.
I don’t think anyone has made the argument that we should have fewer immigrants because the country is overpopulated.
If you’re talking immigration,who are the kinds of people who’d be happier in Wyoming than the hellhole they came from? Maybe in generations you’d have a resurgence. Look at the climate forecasts, where will be nice 50 years from now? Is nationalism really that important?
That assumes that China and indias concentration of citizens is acceptable.
I like austrailia’s immigration model…..you want to live here, you better have some income producing work lined ip. It’s not the amount but the quality of the immigration that concerns me here ib the US.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
3
The US has a pretty similar system. If you aren’t related to a citizen, you need to have significant skills to come here (check the requirements for EB immigrant visas), and if you do come over on a relative visa, your family needs to prove they can support your financially.
In the UK we have this conversation a lot.
The trouble is people want to live where there are jobs which is where people already live.
This gives the UK a relatively low population density as a whole but in the South East and London individually a greater density than any European country and most of the world.
The US could take a extra million immigrants, if they were willing to live in the Arizona desert or the Alaskan tundra, but not if they wanted to live in New York city.
In the last UK general election the Liberal Democrats came up with the idea that when granting work permits for immigrants the permits would be geographically locked so they could only go to work in the lower density areas, but it was ridiculed for being unworkable.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Others make valid points about whether it’s a good thing to aspire to the population density of India, but I suspect that immigration from countries with high birth rates to countries with lower birth rates would lead to a reduction in the global population growth rate as immigrant populations tend to adopt the culture of their new countries over time.
Also, high population growth in any country, whether due to births or immigration, doesn’t necessarily lead to a more uniform distribution of population. There are plenty of places in China that are relatively empty, for the same reasons that Wyoming and Montana are. China just has more really big cities that are closer together, which is likely what will happen in the U.S. as the population grows.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Except that those with the money are likely to be those with the fewest children to begin with — those with huge families aren’t going to have the resources to fund a migration. Having those with the most resources, relatively, leave doesn’t do anything to curb the growth of the country they leave behind.
Again, high birth rates in many countries are a result of the need for large families so that some children will survive to adulthood and support the parents. To get away from this a country needs an infrastructure that includes better maternity care, legal and affordable birth control, good medical care for children (and adults), high employment, and an old age pension system.
Most First World countries have these in place. Developing countries, including China and India are struggling towards them. Just reducing the birth rate is not enough.
As a limey – I think you lot have nothing to worry about. The current population of England is 50 million, but by 2056 the figure will be 68 million, meaning an average of 1,349 people will live in every square mile. At the moment England’s population density is 1,010 people per square mile. *3 per square mile – its why I love coming to the US – so much space !!
Thanks to intelligent land use policies there is still a great deal of open and rural spaces in the UK. Living in high density urban environments isn’t bad, its just different. I have always lived in high density areas and I much prefer it to a house out in “no bars country”.
This seems to be a relativistic argument, rather along the lines of “you should be happy you’re just 50 lbs overweigh ’cause I’m pushing 400 lbs.”
Our family was never so relieved as when our parents left their quasi-rural suburb for a city residence.
At eighty-five plus, they had to drive to get groceries and the nearest hospital was over 30 kilometres away. When pa fell off a ladder and broke his arm, it took 20 minutes for the ambulance to arrive and another 20 to get to the emergency.
In my city home, I can walk to the grocery store (and the farmers’ market, dozens of good restaurants, a second run movie house, two pet food stores, three bookstores, and a bunch of other mostly owner-operated shops) and the hospital is five kilometres away. The paramedic station is one km.