Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States

The US Is Flirting With Its First-Ever Population Decline (bloomberg.com) 339

The U.S., whose population the Census Bureau did not expect to start shrinking until 2081, may record its first-ever decline as early as this year because of the Trump administration's accelerating immigration crackdown. Census data released in late January showed US population growth slowed to just 0.5% in the year prior to July 2025 -- the lowest rate since the pandemic -- as net migration fell to 1.3 million from a peak of 2.7 million the year before.

Census experts now expect net migration to drop to only 316,000 in the year prior to July 2026 and say the country is "trending toward negative net migration." A joint study by researchers at the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution estimates that 2026 net immigration could range from a gain of 185,000 to a loss of 925,000. Births exceeded deaths by just 519,000 in the most recent period, a surplus the Congressional Budget Office expects to vanish by 2030. At the low end of the AEI/Brookings range, the overall US population would shrink by more than 400,000 -- something that has never happened since the country began taking censuses in 1790.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The US Is Flirting With Its First-Ever Population Decline

Comments Filter:
  • No Shit! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Computershack ( 1143409 ) on Tuesday February 10, 2026 @03:04PM (#65980574)
    Who would have thought that when you have a government hell bent on turning the US into 1930s Nazi Germany, complete with a law enforcement body (ICE) acting like Hitler's Brown Shirts did, disappearing immigrants both legal and illegal and shooting it's own US born citizens at point blank range that anyone who can leave is and people who would've emigrated to the US are looking elsewhere?
    • Jews in 1930s/1940s Germany wish they had only to deal with ICE.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Give it time. Even the Nazis had to ramp up.

        It's worth studying history for the signs. For example, one of the first things the Nazis did was attack the only clinic in Germany catering to LGBTQ people, who they described as degenerates that were corrupting children.

      • by higuita ( 129722 )

        hey, it started slowly... in the first years (1933) they were just forbidden to work in some places... nothing special... then the list grow bigger and bigger
        in 1935, Jews lost the Germany citizenship
        at the very end of 1941 the Holocaust is ordered, starts being implemented in the first half of 1942

        So yes, 9 years of slowly making a group as outcast, without rights and inferior... not much different ... detentions centers are just to keep "every one safe", just like the Nazi Ghettos

        https://en.wikipedia.org/ [wikipedia.org]

  • Meanwhile (Score:4, Insightful)

    by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Tuesday February 10, 2026 @03:06PM (#65980578)

    Meanwhile we were already looking at major problems supporting Social Security even with our old immigrant driven growth.

    This should have been the expected result of our current immigration policies though as indiscriminately targeting ethnic minorities with government harassment is obviously going to discourage legal immigrants as well as the illegal ones.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If the income level was raised at which Social Security was taxed, this wouldn't be an issue. Currently, the first $176,000 is taxed. Raise that to $300,000 and Social Security would be fine.

      • Re:Meanwhile (Score:5, Insightful)

        by WolfgangVL ( 3494585 ) on Tuesday February 10, 2026 @03:20PM (#65980632)

        Make it even higher than that- or remove the cap all together. What's the big idea giving those who don't need it a pass anyway? Something is going to have to change.

        SS is the carrot that keeps us all quietly working. You want to start a revolution? End SS.

        • Ya, the cap is fucking ridiculous. It should go.
          I've been above the cap for over a decade, now (though not for much longer, it's definitely rising faster than my salary these days)

          I never understood the logic of exempting the dollars that predominantly go to the labor-exploiting class from paying for the retirement of labor, particularly in this day and age where pensions are all but gone.
          • by alcmena ( 312085 )

            So the logic that I've heard by someone who sounded reasonably intelligent (ie: not MAGA) is that Social Security has a hard limit on the payout side. To offset the fact that there is a payout limit, they also limit the amount of income that is brought into it. Reasonable people can argue if that should have been the case or not, but it's a decent justification of the income limit.

            Remember SS was never designed to be another tax. It was meant to be a taxpayer funded safety net with very strictly defined

            • Congress can't "rob" the money, though.
              FICA dollars are immediately invested in special treasuries and dropping into the FICA trust funds. They're untouchable by Congress (without major legislative overhaul, which has never happened)

              On one hand, sure you don't want the trust funds to overfill, because Congress must pay the interest on the bonds (which is how the SS trust funds grow), but it's not too hard to think of ways to handle the issue of overshooting growth targets.
        • Re:Meanwhile (Score:4, Interesting)

          by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Tuesday February 10, 2026 @03:32PM (#65980668) Homepage
          You could just do what Canada did and (partially) fund it. Meaning Canada saw the demographics happening and long ago instituted a plan where some of the Canada Pension Plan premiums are paid into an investment trust which invests the money (in a broad range of assets) and is designed to keep the program funded even after the demographics have shifted and the ratio of retired people to working people increases. But of course we all think Canada is evil now, so we can't possibly admit that they might have had a good idea.
          • My understanding is that was the original intent, but congress stole all the money and turned Social Security into a Ponzi scheme.

            • by RobinH ( 124750 )
              Canada's original CPP was a pay-as-you-go system. It was reformed in 1998 to add partial funding through investment. Then later on they added a fully funded "enhancement". Given reasonable assumptions, the plan should be solvent through at least 2075.
      • by skam240 ( 789197 )

        That's a fantastic idea except we've known about this looming problem for a couple decades now and have not implemented it.

      • No it wouldn't. Anyone taxed at the higher cap would be eligible for increased social security payments in the future. You're still robbing Peter to pay Paul.

    • Immigrants have to pay into social security like everyone else.

      In fact a lot of undocumented people pay taxes (usually using someone else's SSN, which has happened to me personally) and they pay into social security but won't be able to collect any. It will be HARDER to fund it without them.

      Maybe try learning how any of this works before blathering

  • Not declining, just getting more small-minded.
  • by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Tuesday February 10, 2026 @03:19PM (#65980618)

    This is so obvious that it seems to need no explanation, yet the entire science of economics is based on the fantasy of endless growth
    We need steady-state sustainability
    There is a chance that population decline along with increased use of automation might balance out

  • As with all "westernized" countries that are looking at population cliffs. Hopefully policies can be enacted that promote people having more or even at least one child.

    Right now things are far too overpriced, with a lot of uncertainly. With the proper policies and support that could be changed.

    But this isn't just a US problem. Most of Europe, and the "westernized" Asian countries like Japan and Korea are also experiencing this exact same problem.

    But when you have young people coming out of college with hund

    • by dskoll ( 99328 )

      It's not just "Westernized" countries, whatever that means. Birth rates are down everywhere, even in countries with traditionally high birth rates.

      Examples: Kenya had 7.65 live births per woman in 1960 and is now at 3.26. India went from 5.92 to 1.99. Lebanon 5.88 to 2.26. Saudi Arabia 7.63 to 2.28.

      There are no incentives in the world that can meaningfully change those numbers. We just have to adapt to a new reality.

  • For the MAGA dimwits, getting rid of negative value non-white people results in an effective population increase.

  • It sounds like a nightmare for capitalist.
  • My guess is that we're entering the final stage of Universe 25.

  • If you are relying on illegal immigration to maintain or grow a population, there's already a big problem.
    • Bingo. Financial strain, delaying starting families for a career, and abortion are the real factors we have a declining population. Two of those three are really uncomfortable for many to confront though, so it's easier to point the finger elsewhere.

  • by slasher999 ( 513533 ) on Tuesday February 10, 2026 @04:30PM (#65980904)

    You cant rely on illegal immigration to prop up falling birth rates. That's absurd. If we're concerned with why we have a population decline, we should be looking at falling birth rates, not importing bodies.

  • by galabar ( 518411 )
    Pre-AI, I think this would be a bad thing. Post-AI, it seems like it might actually be preferable.
  • I couldn't imagine trying to raise a family in the current economic environment. Wages have stagnated, prices and costs have increased. I feel like i'm just barely keeping my head above water. I couldn't imagine having to also pay to house, feed, clothe, pay for activities, toys, hobbies and tech for a couple kids these days.
  • by twocows ( 1216842 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2026 @01:31AM (#65981644)
    I'm not really interested in getting bogged down in immigration politics, but initially when I saw the headline my first thoughts were about how a lot of people just aren't dating. It hasn't reached critical mass, not even close, but it definitely feels like an increasing trend over the past some odd while that people are just checking out of relationships and focusing on other parts of their lives. And while at an individual level that might be the right choice for some people, if the trend continues upward, obviously it's going to have some effects on population growth.

    Whether Trump's immigration policy is a trend that outlasts his presidency or a 4-year blip remains to be seen, but I wouldn't be surprised if population levels stagnate or decline anyway.

The finest eloquence is that which gets things done.

Working...