{"id":"5fb796ce6cee070007267346","slug":"one-billion-americans-en","title":"One Billion Americans","audio_url":"https://hls.blinkist.io/bibs/5fb796ce6cee070007267346/5fb796ce6cee070007267348-T1605867324.m4a?Expires=1653054455&Signature=SPE4QWUYNdrHtKqfyFAotWDNQVdtzyu~tZobIe0lHZMTSmKZNS~4bwoZbth8QNF9lPzz9EKSNA1bnOHIpiYnHQsP7XjRUrW26u~U--TL4CscN4otuY0QoEIXXz57ylEWeYpVCU~hr6jkiu-DI0leHRzJb~bikKGP8Miu3WReDE0HS39kQzJe1csVue67Kspdwb48aWeOXlg6Gjw-zee5woHCfCZfir5WR2MhKVnZt3u8gOA9XWDgpezG~UJyzEV~RYI-d7AUVCXF0UYAjUIA7dCcYyqURC9Z8uii50k8rItjlYVW1LZscx88IUKMUjz96dAcf6IOOIena5bU6d6ktA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJXJM6BB7FFZXUB4A","chapters":[{"id":"5fb796ce6cee070007267348","title":"To retain its economic power, America needs more people.","text":"

For over a century, the United States has been the world’s economic kingpin. By the time World War I was declared, its per-person income had overtaken the British Empire’s. And by 1938, America’s gross domestic product, or GDP, was greater than that of Germany, Japan, and Italy combined. This economic strength meant the US had superior wartime resources, and its soldiers were better equipped, both to fight and to stay healthy. And this helped America to win wars and conquer its enemies.

But the United States’ economic stronghold is being threatened by rising wealth in China. Americans are currently four times wealthier than Chinese people. But the gap between each country’s GDP is shrinking. China has over one billion people; the US has just 330 million. And if the Chinese population became just half as wealthy as Americans, China would become the world’s top economy. This is set to happen within the next 20 years.

The key message here is: To retain its economic power, America needs more people.

Many people assume that a large population leads to poverty. And this was true before the Industrial Revolution. But, today, a higher population helps our modern economy thrive. More people need more services, which means more business transactions. So, increasing America’s population would stimulate the economy, generating more wealth for the country. Tripling it to one billion people would help America retain its economic power.

A country the size of the US could comfortably accommodate a billion people. There are currently 93 people per square mile. Even if this figure were tripled, the number of people per square mile would still be considerably lower than in developed countries like Singapore, South Korea and even Belgium.

At one billion people, the US would be about as densely populated as France. If you visit the land of baguettes and fromage, you probably won’t feel overwhelmed by locals unless you’re on the Metro during rush hour. And even then, the density is nothing like what you’d find in the United Kingdom or Italy.

Of course, increasing a country’s population dramatically has ramifications, from housing shortages to environmental impact. But with the right policies in place, the government could overcome these challenges. In the blinks ahead, we’ll explore what would need to change for a billion-person US to work, and how America would benefit from tripling its population.

"},{"id":"5fb796ce6cee070007267349","title":"A higher population leads to better consumer options.","text":"

Imagine you’re in a small American town and it’s time for dinner. The menu in the town’s only restaurant spans a vast array of cuisines. When your meal arrives, it’s mediocre. Your reasonable assumption is that the locals don’t appreciate a good meal.

But you’d be wrong. In a town with a limited population, businesses like restaurants have to be as broadly appealing as possible, rather than specializing in one area in which they could really shine. But if that same town were to triple in size, it might become big enough to support three restaurants. And having more potential customers means there’s room for specialization. Those competing eateries would need to distinguish themselves from each other by each offering something unique, and raising their quality.

This is the key message: A higher population leads to better consumer options.

In any major city, you’re bombarded by choice – from where you buy your morning coffee to the hair stylist you use. These options are possible because there are enough people in a large city to support competing businesses. And these businesses in turn create employment opportunities. A competitive restaurant scene creates a demand for produce suppliers and food critics, who contribute to the economy with their own goods and services.

But a higher population doesn’t just broaden consumer options. It also increases innovation. We live in an era of rapidly evolving technology. Two hundred years ago, we didn’t have electricity in our homes. Now, technology lets us work from home, connects us with loved ones across the globe, and saves us time on household tasks.

Areas of high population have played an important role in technology development. Exposing people to new ideas stimulates their problem-solving abilities when they imagine how an idea could be adapted for a new purpose. But for this cross-pollination to happen, people must be in contact with each other and with developing technologies. Because of this, people in isolated areas don’t tend to innovate as much as city dwellers.

Raising America’s population to a billion will foster innovative thinking, an essential step in tackling climate change. Carbon emissions are already a huge issue in the United States, and increasing the population would certainly make it worse. However, if American scientists could develop technology that makes quality living sustainable, then having a larger population wouldn’t damage the planet.

"},{"id":"5fb796cf6cee07000726734a","title":"To increase the population, Americans need more financial support.","text":"

The US birth rate is at an all-time low. Women now have an average of just 1.72 children. Of course, it’s completely legitimate to have only one or two children, and just as legitimate to have no children at all. With more work opportunities than in previous generations, many women decide to pursue a career rather than create a large family.

But a disturbing fact emerges if you look at data about how many children parents want. The most recent General Social Survey shows that women would, on average, like 2.6 children. And men want at least two as well. But parents are shying away from having their ideal number of babies. They simply don’t have enough money to care for a second or third child.

Here’s the key message: To increase the population, Americans need more financial support.

Government policy has long been helping to keep birth rates low. Since the 1990s, it’s promoted the idea that college education is an important investment – one worth going into debt for. The government attempts to counter this burden by making student loans readily available at low interest rates.

In the past, adults in their early 20s would have already finished their formal education or established their careers. Their thoughts would then turn to starting families. But now, many young adults of the same age have only just finished their education, and are job-hunting. They’re also saddled with huge student debt.

Since the cost of childrearing has outpaced the growth rate of income, Americans in this position often delay parenthood until they’re more financially stable. This delay in starting a family narrows the window in which they can have babies. As a result, fewer families end up with the number of children they long for.

In recent years, the birth rate has fallen primarily in Black and Hispanic families. The median age among Black Americans is 34, meaning most of them are young enough to have children. But the support to help them do this just isn’t there. If you look at the average age of white Americans – 44 – the reason behind a lack of policy supporting parenthood becomes clearer. A political agenda catering to white nationalists won’t initiate programs to support families with new babies, since the average white American is too old for pregnancy. But this is a shortsighted view, since having more people leads to greater economic wealth. If the government wants to build a stronger nation, it must shift its thinking away from itself and to the country as a whole.

"},{"id":"5fb796cf6cee07000726734b","title":"America is wealthy enough to provide universal social welfare.","text":"

In the US, a shocking 21 percent of children live in poverty. This is more than double the rate in Sweden. And since the United States is the world’s top economy, wealth isn’t the reason for this travesty. It’s government policy.

In Europe, parents receive money from the government to help raise children. This doesn’t happen in the US. The child tax credit does provide parents with around $2,000 per child each year, but this isn’t enough. And worse, very poor families often don’t receive it because they aren’t working enough. But denying poor families cash benefits doesn’t motivate them to get jobs. All it does is lead to unnecessary suffering in the world’s richest country.

The key message here is: America is wealthy enough to provide universal social welfare.

A healthy, productive population contributes to the economy by working and paying taxes. To achieve this, parents must be supported so they can care for their children, and pursue employment if they want to. European countries like Germany offer universal child allowances to help people do just that. For instance, Germany’s Kindergeld provides parents with a minimum of 2,448 euros per child each year.

In stark contrast to the US, Kindergeld isn’t means-tested, meaning all families receive the payment regardless of their income. In America, wealthy families don’t receive a child tax credit, since they theoretically don’t need it. But this is like saying that wealthy Americans have no right to borrow books from a public library, even though their income is taxed at a higher rate. It also sets the precedent that not everyone is entitled to support, making it easier to penalize families at the opposite end of the scale.

Since paid parental leave isn’t widely available in the US, most parents have to return to work soon after the birth of a child. But without affordable day care, this is extremely difficult. A 2018 New York Times poll found that the cost of childcare was the top reason why families didn’t have as many children as they wanted to. After all, even when children reach school age, they still need care in the afternoons before their parents leave work.

If the US wants to retain its position as the world’s economic leader, it needs to develop policy that supports child-rearing. This would make it possible for families to have more children, while also allowing parents to return to work – so they can help stimulate the economy.

"},{"id":"5fb796cf6cee07000726734c","title":"Immigration injects able workers into the economy.","text":"

In 1783, George Washington told newly arrived Irishmen that they were welcome in America regardless of their wealth, religion, or even respectability. But this was no act of charity. Washington had a vision. He wanted the United States to become a great nation. To achieve that, he needed people. And Washington understood that the most efficient way to get them was from overseas.

While increasing family size is one way to boost population, it means that the workforce won’t grow significantly for at least 20 years. But when immigrants arrive in a country, they’re capable of working straight away. In fact, without the many people who’ve moved to the United States over the years, US wealth would have already fallen behind Chinese wealth.

This is the key message: Immigration injects able workers into the economy.

President Trump’s views on immigration were quite different than Washington’s. It’s already very difficult for foreign-born people to move to the US. Some refugees are welcomed, but this is framed as a humanitarian burden, not an opportunity for the US to gain new workers. Trump’s plans to cut legal immigration in half would actually shrink the economy by 2 percent over the next decade, making it even easier for China to eclipse the US.

One argument against immigration is that foreigners steal low-paying jobs from the locally born population. But this isn’t what happens. A 2017 study by researchers Patricia Cortés and José Tessada found that women living in cities with low-skilled immigrants are better-educated than in cities without them. They earn more, too. This is because those immigrants provide services like babysitting and housekeeping, freeing women from domestic duties so they can study and work.

But it isn’t just unskilled workers who improve American life. Skilled immigrants could potentially solve America’s health-care crisis, lifting the standard of living. Many Americans can’t afford health care, because insurance is so expensive. This is partly because American doctors are paid at unusually high rates. Even if the system were overhauled, easing the financial burden on patients, the cost of this would likely be passed on to the taxpayer, meaning the problem wouldn’t necessarily be solved.

But doctors born elsewhere might be willing to provide care more cheaply. If they didn’t need to undertake additional training to practice medicine in the US, more of them could enter the workforce sooner, easing costs for everyone.

"},{"id":"5fb796cf6cee07000726734d","title":"Increasing America’s population would revitalize diminishing cities.","text":"

Across the United States, cities and rural areas alike are turning into ghost towns. Around 24 percent of them have lost residents to big cities with better services and job opportunities. When people move in large numbers, neighborhoods deteriorate. An empty city can’t support museums, churches, or hospitals.

As a result, the people left behind suffer. A lack of demand means land values drop. This discourages landlords from maintaining buildings, and structures fall into disrepair. With a reduced customer base, amenities become scarce, making the area even more undesirable. This fate has befallen many significant cities, like Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Louis. These cities have plenty of residential capacity. But they need more people to create thriving communities.

Here’s the key message: Increasing America’s population would revitalize diminishing cities.

When population and income rise simultaneously, land values increase, because more people need housing. This encourages companies to invest in new buildings, or to maintain existing ones. And this in turn provides work opportunities for tradespeople and service industries.

But you can’t expect thousands of people to relocate to ghost towns just to help revive them. That’s why the government needs to lead the way by supporting decentralization.

As a starting point, the government could decentralize federal agencies. Modern technology means that marginal agencies no longer need to be in Washington, DC. For example, with careful planning and handling, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing could relocate to Youngstown, Ohio, without any impact on its work practices. This would provide Youngstown with a well-paid population that would use local services and buy local goods, stimulating the community’s economy. As a result, everyone’s standard of living would improve.

New government legislation could also support decentralizing the private sector. Often, industries stay in a place for historical rather than practical reasons. For instance, in the nineteenth century, pirating novels from England was big business for book publishers. So, many of them set up offices on Wall Street in Manhattan, close to the port, so they could get their hands on books shipped from England before their competitors.

But since pirating books isn’t on the agenda anymore, these publishers don’t need to be close to a port. If they relocated to Philadelphia, they could rent office space far more cheaply. And their presence in Philadelphia would bolster the local economy – as the city’s working population increased.

"},{"id":"5fb796cf6cee07000726734e","title":"Housing scarcity is the result of politics, not a lack of space.","text":"

Before COVID-19 hit the US, many cities like Seattle were experiencing an economic boom. Unemployment was falling – but something disturbing was happening at the same time: homelessness was rising dramatically. And this wasn’t happening just in Seattle. Long before the wave of unemployment caused by the global pandemic, hundreds of thousands of people were unhoused every night.

In the US, housing security deteriorates when the broader economy grows. This is because the cost of housing in wealthy cities increases to the point where some people can’t afford a home. Now, the United States has the technology and resources to solve this issue – but the easiest means of providing affordable housing is, for the most part, prohibited by law.

The key message here is: Housing scarcity is the result of politics, not a lack of space.

Most Americans currently live in a detached house – one that stands alone with a yard around it. But this style of housing uses a lot of space. Duplexes save land while still providing that all-important yard for children or a dog, and they’re cheaper to build, too. Town houses are even more economical.

So if there’s a housing shortage, why aren’t more Americans living in higher-density housing?

The answer is zoning regulations. Across most of developed America, it’s illegal to build any type of home except a detached house. Take Seattle, where three-quarters of the city is zoned this way. This contributes to housing shortages. And that, in turn, leads to homelessness. To fix this problem, zoning regulations must change so that developers can build higher-density housing.

There’s also room for improvement in cities that allow residential apartments. For example, in Washington, DC’s RF-1 zone for residential apartments, only 60 percent of a block can be used for structures. On top of that, there are a number of other restrictions, like limiting buildings to three stories. Buildings in this zone could easily hold quadplexes, which would significantly increase the volume of affordable housing.

But because land use policy is determined by locally elected officials, rezoning is a rare event. Typically, the community members with the loudest voices are rich, white, older landowners who oppose development. These people don’t represent the majority of the community – or those in need of a home. If America wants to address its housing shortage, both to support its current population and to cater to a growing one, it needs to change its policies so homes can be built where they’re needed.

"},{"id":"5fb796cf6cee07000726734f","title":"Well-designed transport systems could accommodate a larger population.","text":"

There’s nothing positive about traffic jams. They eat up time, frustrate commuters, and cause pollution. Even though automotive technology has advanced significantly since the 1960s, travel time has actually lengthened. In 1982, the average motorist spent 20 hours a year sitting in traffic. By 2017, this figure had nearly tripled, to 54 hours.

Traffic congestion is often used as an argument against increasing population. If people already struggle to get to work, how will the transport system support an even higher volume of commuters? But shouldn’t the nation that sent an astronaut to the moon be able to tackle this problem? There are already some great systems running in other countries that the US could easily adopt.

This is the key message: Well-designed transport systems could accommodate a larger population.

In the US, 80 percent of the population lives in auto-dependent suburbs. Since roads in poor condition add to traffic congestion, state departments of transportation should focus resources on maintaining them. But they often use funding to build new roads instead, since this creates good PR. Ironically, this only increases overall maintenance costs.

Something that would certainly reduce traffic congestion is a better commuter railroad system. Commuter railroad systems in America are common, running primarily at rush hour to help employees get to and from work. But they’re expensive to run and don’t tend to offer service on weekends or after hours. This means that the people who use them often still need to own a car.

Germany had a similar railroad system until it hosted the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich. To help commuters cross the city between its eastern and western train stations, it built the S-Bahn. This underground electric train track runs through a tunnel below the city, with multiple stops along the way to ease pedestrian congestion. Its cheap fares and integration with other public transport networks, like buses, mean that commuters rarely have to drive. Now, S-Bahns are used in cities across the entire German-speaking world.

A system like this does come with a hefty price tag. But it completely transforms commuter transport for the better. Many cities like Philadelphia and Washington, DC, already have tracks that could be used as the basis for their own S-Bahn systems. By investing in infrastructure, just as Germany did, America could lower road-maintenance costs, reduce pollution, and effectively cater to a population of one billion people.

"},{"id":"5fb796cf6cee070007267350","title":"Final summary","text":"

The key message in these blinks:

While growing the population of the United States to one billion may sound completely absurd, it is a valid strategy for retaining the nation’s position as the top economic power. Achieving this goal will take long-term commitment from the federal government, along with changes to policies concerning housing, transportation, social welfare, and immigration. But the benefits to all Americans would outweigh the initial costs and effort. Increasing the population to one billion would reinvigorate American cities, improve everyone’s standard of living, and fuel an insurmountable economy.

Got feedback?

We’d love to hear what you think about our content! Just drop an email to remember@blinkist.com with One Billion Americans as the subject line and share your thoughts!

What to read next: The Next Great Migration, by Sonia Shah

As you now know, immigration could play a key role in revitalizing America’s economy, so that it isn’t eclipsed by China. But many people harbor deep fears about immigration, believing that migrants threaten their security or way of life. And yet migration is a normal part of life on our planet, as demonstrated by numerous species that shift with the seasons. So why have humans developed such a negative view of it? To find out where this perspective came from, and why migration is beneficial, check out the blinks to The Next Great Migration.

"}]}

Log in to Blinkist

Sign up for Blinkist

Learn more, live more