AHC: Smallest possible US Population without any change in Superpower status

[RY1985]

So the below is my revised population figures in a Alternate Time Line. In OTL, the population was 76.2 million in 1900 and jumped to 92.2 million in 1910.

In the ATL, the US government imposes much harsher immigration laws and the Great Depression hits earlier, which slows population growth. Hence, the population figures for 1910 are 69.43 million. By WW2, the total population is 81.47 million. However, the post-WW2 baby Boom still occurs, which adds about 60 million people from 1945 to 1970, a interval of 25 years. Thereafter, the US population stabilizes at around 140 million and remain stable afterwards till 2020 onwards”

1st scenario:

1910: 75,421,409 (POD due to slower population growth, instead of 92,228,531)

1920: 75,771,670

1930: 81,121,932

1940: 81,472,194 (US enters WW2 with 81 million-sized population instead of 140 million population)

1940: 81,472,194
1941: 82,572,194
1942: 83,672,194
1943: 84,772,194
1944: 85,872,194
1945: 86,972,194 (Start of the Post-WW2 Baby Boom)
1946: 90,905,527
1947: 92,505,527
1948: 94,105,527
1949: 95,705,527

1950: 96,817,937

1960: 127,243,791

1970: 140,231,165 (US total population hits 140 million and stabilizes thereafter till 2020)

1980: 140,873,240

1990: 140,223,502

2000: 141,573,764

2010: 142,924,025

2020: 140,274,287

Okay, I did some further work. Basically, for the US to remain at a arbitrary population figure of 140 million at the year 2020, it would be very difficult unless I am able to go back into the 1920s at least (at least the POD is still after 1900 AD).

So I came up with 2 different scenarios:

1st scenario: POD is from 1910 onwards. Instead of the original population of 92.2 million at 1910 in OTL, the US government imposes a much earlier lock down on immigration. No immigration occurs at all, plus the Great Depression hits much earlier, which shatters the economy and drives down the population rate.

Here is the original population figures from OTL:

1790: 3,929,214

1800: 5,236,631

1810: 7,239,881

1820: 9,638,453

1830: 12,866,020

1840: 17,069,453

1850: 23,191,876

1860: 31,443,321

1870: 38,558,371

1880: 49,371,340

1890: 62,979,766

1900: 76,212,168

1910: 92,228,531

1920: 106,021,568

1930: 123,202,660

1940: 132,165,129

1950: 151,325,798

1960: 179,323,175

1970: 203,211,926

1980: 226,545,805

1990: 248,709,873

2000: 281,421,906

2010: 308,745,538

2020: 330,047,526

 

[RY1985]

So just to add on to my 1st scenario, there are a couple of problems with this:

1) the first is that nearly 60 million Americans were born between the periods of 1945 to 1970. That means that in this ATL where US population stabilizes after 1970 at 140 million people only, the number of Americans between age of 50 and 80 is approximately 58,758,971 out of 140,274,287.

That means about 41.89% of the USA population (ATL population of 140 million) is made up of baby Boomers.

Assuming the USA is able to keep its superpower status at a population size of 140 million from 1970 onwards, I need to assume that the remaining US population of
81,515,316 is split neatly between two different groups: People from age 0 to 25 and people aged from 25 to 49.

Huge assumption here, but it would require the death rate from 1970 to 2020 to be matched perfectly by the birth rate in terms of absolute number, one-for-one. I am not sure if there are any professional demographers here in this forum that could shed light on this, as I am not an expert on this.

2) The USA enters WW2 with a significantly smaller population, and I am unsure if with a population of 81.47 million, if the US could still match the industrial output of airplanes, tanks, naval warships and armaments as it did in the OTL.

So the below is my revised population figures in a Alternate Time Line. In OTL, the population was 76.2 million in 1900 and jumped to 92.2 million in 1910.

In the ATL, the US government imposes much harsher immigration laws and the Great Depression hits earlier, which slows population growth. Hence, the population figures for 1910 are 69.43 million. By WW2, the total population is 81.47 million. However, the post-WW2 baby Boom still occurs, which adds about 60 million people from 1945 to 1970, a interval of 25 years. Thereafter, the US population stabilizes at around 140 million and remain stable afterwards from 2020 onwards”

1st scenario:

1910: 75,421,409 (POD due to slower population growth, instead of 92,228,531)

1920: 75,771,670

1930: 81,121,932

1940: 81,472,194 (US enters WW2 with 81 million-sized population instead of 140 million population)

1950: 96,817,937

1960: 127,243,791

1970: 140,231,165 (US total population hits 140 million and stabilizes thereafter till 2020)

1980: 140,873,240

1990: 140,223,502

2000: 141,573,764

2010: 142,924,025

2020: 140,274,287

 

[RY1985]

Okay, this is my 2nd scenario, where the POD starts from 1910 onwards.

In the OTL, the US has a total population of 106,021,568 in the year 1920.

However, the POD (similar to the 1st scenario) is that the US implements harsher immigration laws but unlike the 1st scenario, the Great Depression does not occur earlier. As such, the population remains slightly optimistic. However, the population growth differs slightly in that there is still some population growth but higher than the 1st scenario.
In this 2nd ATL, the US has a population of 96,021,537 in the year 1920.

By 1939, it has 108,785,000 population instead. There was a drop to 99 million from WW2 casualties.

A key difference is that there was no Baby Boom after WW2. Instead, the population inches slowly from 99 million in 1945 to 140 million in 1982. Thereafter, it remains stable.

1900: 76,212,168
1910: 92,228,496
1920: 96,021,537 (POD: Slower population growth; resulting in 96 million instead of 106 million in OTL)
1927: 94,596,000
1928: 96,654,000
1929: 98,644,000
1930: 100,419,000
1931: 101,948,000
1932: 103,136,000
1933: 102,706,000
1934: 102,922,000
1935: 102,684,000
1936: 103,904,000
1937: 105,358,000
1938: 107,044,000
1939 : 108,785,000 (US enters WW2 with 108.78 million population instead).
1940: 110,333,000
1941: 111,881,000
1942: 109,429,000
1943: 107,977,000
1944: 103,525,000
1945: 99,073,000
1946: 98,028,000
1947: 98,834,000
1948: 99,706,000
1949: 101,160,000
1950: 102,833,000
1951: 104,439,000
1952: 106,164,000
1953: 107,828,000
1954: 109,643,000
1955: 111,572,000
1956: 113,327,000
1957: 115,035,000
1958: 116,749,000
1959: 118,307,000
1960: 119,906,000
1961: 121,586,000
1962: 123,128,000
1963: 124,514,000
1964: 125,744,000
1965: 126,749,000
1966: 127,608,000
1967: 128,361,000
1968: 129,037,000
1969: 129,660,000
1970: 130,252,000
1971: 130,934,000
1972: 131,687,000
1973: 132,434,000
1974 : 133,217,000
1975: 134,092,000
1976: 135,026,000
1977: 135,979,000
1978: 136,922,000
1979: 137,758,000
1980: 138,483,000
1981: 139,221,000
1982: 140,067,000 (Population remains stabilized at 140 million from 1982 onwards)
1983: 140,056,000
1984: 140,061,000
1985: 140,033,000
1986: 140,156,000
1987: 140,386,000
1988: 140,505,000
1989: 140,342,000
1990: 140,969,000
1991: 140,394,000
1992: 140,538,000
1993: 140,459,000
1994: 140,408,000
1995: 140,376,000
1996: 140,160,000
1997: 140,915,000
1998: 140,671,000
1999: 140,215,000
2000: 140,597,000
2001:140,976,000
2002: 140,306,496
2003: 140,648,624
2004: 140,067,312
2005 : 140,518,816
2006: 140,049,632
2007 : 140,805,120
2008: 140,742,368
2009 : 140,785,344
2010 : 140,849,472
2011 : 140,960,908
2012 : 140,201,700
2013 : 140,506,995
2014 : 140,090,013
2015 : 140,405,999
2016 : 140,074,541
2017: 140,842,402
2018 : 141,830,570
2019 : 141,748,590

 

[RY1985]

A key difference between this 2nd scenario and my earlier 1st scenario is that there was no Post-WW2 Baby Boom.

Population growth from 1920 onwards was the "Slow and Steady" model.

Unlike the 1st scenario, where Americans between age of 50 and 80 make up nearly 41.89% of the total ATL population of 140 million, the age distribution of the total US population in the 2nd scenario is much more evenly distributed between the different age categories.

Okay, this is my 2nd scenario, where the POD starts from 1910 onwards.

In the OTL, the US has a total population of 106,021,568 in the year 1920.

However, the POD (similar to the 1st scenario) is that the US implements harsher immigration laws but unlike the 1st scenario, the Great Depression does not occur earlier. As such, the population remains slightly optimistic. However, the population growth differs slightly in that there is still some population growth but higher than the 1st scenario.
In this 2nd ATL, the US has a population of 96,021,537 in the year 1920.

By 1939, it has 108,785,000 population instead. There was a drop to 99 million from WW2 casualties.

A key difference is that there was no Baby Boom after WW2. Instead, the population inches slowly from 99 million in 1945 to 140 million in 1982. Thereafter, it remains stable.

1900: 76,212,168
1910: 92,228,496
1920: 96,021,537 (POD: Slower population growth; resulting in 96 million instead of 106 million in OTL)
1927: 94,596,000
1928: 96,654,000
1929: 98,644,000
1930: 100,419,000
1931: 101,948,000
1932: 103,136,000
1933: 102,706,000
1934: 102,922,000
1935: 102,684,000
1936: 103,904,000
1937: 105,358,000
1938: 107,044,000
1939 : 108,785,000 (US enters WW2 with 108.78 million population instead).
1940: 110,333,000
1941: 111,881,000
1942: 109,429,000
1943: 107,977,000
1944: 103,525,000
1945: 99,073,000
1946: 98,028,000
1947: 98,834,000
1948: 99,706,000
1949: 101,160,000
1950: 102,833,000
1951: 104,439,000
1952: 106,164,000
1953: 107,828,000
1954: 109,643,000
1955: 111,572,000
1956: 113,327,000
1957: 115,035,000
1958: 116,749,000
1959: 118,307,000
1960: 119,906,000
1961: 121,586,000
1962: 123,128,000
1963: 124,514,000
1964: 125,744,000
1965: 126,749,000
1966: 127,608,000
1967: 128,361,000
1968: 129,037,000
1969: 129,660,000
1970: 130,252,000
1971: 130,934,000
1972: 131,687,000
1973: 132,434,000
1974 : 133,217,000
1975: 134,092,000
1976: 135,026,000
1977: 135,979,000
1978: 136,922,000
1979: 137,758,000
1980: 138,483,000
1981: 139,221,000
1982: 140,067,000 (Population remains stabilized at 140 million from 1982 onwards)
1983: 140,056,000
1984: 140,061,000
1985: 140,033,000
1986: 140,156,000
1987: 140,386,000
1988: 140,505,000
1989: 140,342,000
1990: 140,969,000
1991: 140,394,000
1992: 140,538,000
1993: 140,459,000
1994: 140,408,000
1995: 140,376,000
1996: 140,160,000
1997: 140,915,000
1998: 140,671,000
1999: 140,215,000
2000: 140,597,000
2001:140,976,000
2002: 140,306,496
2003: 140,648,624
2004: 140,067,312
2005 : 140,518,816
2006: 140,049,632
2007 : 140,805,120
2008: 140,742,368
2009 : 140,785,344
2010 : 140,849,472
2011 : 140,960,908
2012 : 140,201,700
2013 : 140,506,995
2014 : 140,090,013
2015 : 140,405,999
2016 : 140,074,541
2017: 140,842,402
2018 : 141,830,570
2019 : 141,748,590

 

[RY1985]

A key difference between this 2nd scenario and my earlier 1st scenario is that there was no Post-WW2 Baby Boom.

Population growth from 1920 onwards was the "Slow and Steady" model.

Unlike the 1st scenario, where Americans between age of 50 and 80 make up nearly 41.89% of the total ATL population of 140 million, the age distribution of the total US population in the 2nd scenario is much more evenly distributed between the different age categories.

So a couple of further analysis here:

In OTL Baby Boom, there were an actual number of 71,046,797 increase in persons of the US population. about 53.76% increase from a population of 132,165,129 in 1940 to 203,211,926 in 1970.

in my 1st scenario ATL Baby Boom, the increase is 58,758,971, or about 72.12%, from a population of 81,472,194 in 1940 to 140,231,165 in 1970.

 

[fasquardon]

AHC: Smallest possible US Population without any change in Superpower status

Things that slow natural population growth:

Education of women.
Poor treatment of women when women are well educated.
Urbanization.
Economic depressions.
High house prices/rents.
Low average birthrates (people don't like to be the sticking out nail)
Family-formation/marriage being deferred until later in life
High inequality

Many of these reasons feed back into each-other.

Also, it is important to note that the baby boom in the US wasn't really an increase in the birthrate - it was just the US mostly catching up with the birth deficit of WW2. Baby booms most usually are caused by a population partially making good the shortfall of births that has happened due to some disruption such as war or economic crisis. But those families catching up only in very rare situations have more children than they otherwise would have. As such, no US in WW2 would likely lead to a higher population, since families could start having children as soon as they were ready, and not need to defer it.

And it strikes me that the rise of a far-right ideology instead of New Deal progressivism would do a pretty good job of suppressing the US population. Poor treatment of the relatively well-educated women of the US would depress birth rates and marriage rates, bad economic policies could lead to flight from the countryside to the cities and to the economic problems of the depression becoming a long-term malaise. Low productivity coupled with crony capitalistic corruption in the finance sector could lead to ballooning house prices and rents while salaries, wages and house-building stagnated. Bad economic policy+racism would lead to high inequality. Poor treatment of immigrants, racist migration laws and a poor economy could reduce immigration while encouraging emigration.

A more extreme right-wing regime might also be prone to violence (or tolerating in-group terrorism against out-groups) that could reduce population growth further by killing its own people before they could start families. Or by forcing out-groups to emigrate.

And if such a regime suffered significant deaths of young soldiers due to WW2 (maybe such a regime is unable to develop the atomic bomb in time and ends up invading Japan at the cost of millions of its own soldiers) then those dead soldiers won't be starting families after the war.

A longer WW2 and poor policies after WW2 when the soldiers come home could also each reduce the size of the baby boom. A longer WW2 would mean a smaller baby boom (even if US losses were the same as the OTL losses to WW2) simply because some soldiers will be away from their families too long to have children when they return. In OTL, the US handled its demobilization extremely well, which left its former soldiers (especially the white ones) well positioned to gain civilian skills, buy houses, and support families. Had the US government simply cut its military after the war with no effort to help the civilian economy absorb this labour, lots of men would have lacked the skills to get good jobs in civilian life, would not have been able to buy or rent homes large enough for children and would not have been able to support a wife and children. Oh, and the large resentful population of ex-soldiers would have destabilized the country's politics, likely leading to further economic miss-management.

By the 1930s, the US is already so big and powerful that such a miss-managed America could still remain the most powerful country on the planet.

Continue the right-wing miss-management of the economy long enough, and small family sizes and high inequality could grow so entrenched that even a return to more enlightened management might not put the US on a better demographic path, just as Japan and Germany have not demographically recovered from their periods of right-wing miss-management.

If we go with, right-wing government with bad economic policies that is not particularly violent (so these aren't a genocidal bunch) that treats women and ethnic minorities poorly, limits immigration but doesn't try to force people out of the country on a mass scale, takes part in WW2 as a leading ally and experiences a brutal fight when it invades Japan, miss-manages the post war return to normalcy and falls after a failed intervention in the Chinese civil war (which leads to even more young men dying before they can form families) and is replaced by a much more moderate and competent bunch who while anti-immigration still manage to lead the US to victory in the Cold War... I think it might be plausible to have a US population that stagnated at around 140 million.

If you had the above and a full on US descent into fascism for a generation or two, you could get an even lower population.

How small can the population of USA get without any change in its political, military and economic strength throughout the 20th century and early 21st century (up till 2020)?

I think over 100 million at least. I would say probably 120 million. Once the country was under better management, I figure a population of 100-140 million could have achieved levels of economic productivity great enough to have comprehensively out-competed the USSR.

fasquardon

 

[Bellacinos]

The only realistic solution I can think of that would butterfly a lot of the American population is if the Manhattan project fails, the US invades Japan which probably kills 1,000,000 Americans and removes another 1,000,000 from injuries and you don’t have baby boom as a result. This probably butterflies like 30,000,000 people away.

 

[RY1985]

I think over 100 million at least. I would say probably 120 million. Once the country was under better management, I figure a population of 100-140 million could have achieved levels of economic productivity great enough to have comprehensively out-competed the USSR.

Would it affect the outcome of the Space Race?

Actually, I have no idea if a minimum population size exists for a country to develop a manned mission to the Moon.

 

[RY1985]

So I decided to rework the time. In my previous posts, I described 2 different scenarios, albeit the 1st scenario, on retrospect, had the impact of an ageing population by the 21st century.
So something more gradual then.

Here is the actual population growth figures for OTL:


1790 3,929,214
1800 5,236,631
1810 7,239,881
1820 9,638,453
1830 12,866,020
1840 17,069,453
1850 23,191,876
1860 31,443,321
1870 38,558,371
1880 49,371,340
1890 62,979,766
1900 76,212,168
1910 92,228,531
1920 106,021,568
1930 123,202,660
1940 132,165,129
1950 151,325,798
1960 179,323,175
1970 203,211,926
1980 226,545,805
1990 248,709,873
2000 281,421,906
2010 308,745,538
2020 330,047,526

Here is another revised version:

1790 3,929,214
1800 5,236,631
1810 7,239,881
1820 9,638,453
1830 12,866,020
1840 17,069,453
1850 23,191,876
1860 31,443,321
1870 38,558,371
1880 49,371,340
1890 62,979,766
1900 75,212,168
1910 75,421,409 (POD: Instead of 92 million, it is 75 million instead)
1920 75,771,670
1927 77,985,465
1928 78,199,260
1929 79,413,054
1930 81,121,932
1931 81,129,932
1932 81,132,932
1933 81,139,265
1934 81,144,765
1935 81,150,265
1936 81,155,765
1937 81,161,265
1938 81,166,765
1939 81,172,265
1940 81,472,194
1941 81,002,122
1942 80,532,050
1943 80,061,979
1944 79,591,907
1945 79,121,835
1946 81,103,835
1947 82,785,835
1948 83,867,835
1949 85,849,835
1950 87,381,835
1951 87,503,835
1952 88,992,502
1953 90,500,216
1954 91,807,931
1955 93,415,645
1956 94,923,359
1957 96,448,693
1958 97,987,835
1959 99,540,788
1960 101,107,550
1961 102,688,121
1962 104,282,502
1963 105,690,693
1964 106,998,407
1965 108,196,121
1966 109,759,735
1967 111,292,455
1968 112,797,974
1969 114,376,293
1970 115,927,410
1971 117,479,849
1972 119,034,348
1973 120,590,907
1974 122,149,527
1975 123,710,208
1976 125,272,949
1977 126,837,750
1978 128,404,611
1979 129,973,533
1980 131,544,515
1981 133,117,558
1982 134,692,661
1983 136,269,825
1984 137,849,048
1985 139,430,333
1986 141,013,677 (US population stabalizes at around 140 million or so)
1987 142,599,082
1988 142,599,082
1989 141,239,082
1990 141,971,082
1991 141,291,082
1992 140,966,682
1993 140,642,282
1994 140,317,882
1995 139,993,482
1996 139,669,082
1997 139,344,682
1998 139,020,282
1999 140,695,882
2000 140,371,482
2001 140,647,082
2002 140,922,682
2003 141,198,282
2004 141,473,882
2005 141,749,482
2006 141,825,082
2007 141,900,682
2008 141,976,282
2009 142,051,882
2010 140,906,531
2011 140,982,131
2012 140,691,445
2013 140,400,760
2014 140,110,075
2015 140,819,389
2016 140,528,704
2017 140,238,019
2018 140,947,333
2019 140,656,648
2020 140,365,963

Some of the problems would be that the US enters WW2 with a significantly lower population than in OTL. Would it still be capable of a massive industrial output of armaments?

 

[fasquardon]

Would it affect the outcome of the Space Race?

Actually, I have no idea if a minimum population size exists for a country to develop a manned mission to the Moon.

The US was so far head of the USSR, if it wants to get to the moon first, it totally can.

But with a PoD in the great depression, you can't bet on the circumstances pushing the US that way, in OTL it took a politically weak president, the Bay of Pigs, Sputnik, Gagarin, the weak president getting martyred and his successor being Mr NASA himself (who not only had gotten in deep by pushing Eisenhower to form NASA, but also saw NASA as a way to develop the Southern US states). The odds are, in any TL but ours the space race would look very different. Added to that, the US really ended up behind the Soviets in the early stages due to accident - the Soviets gave Korolev too much rope and he scored a series of unexpected propaganda coups for them at a time when the US programs lagged for reasons that seemed good at the time - but might not with someone other than Eisenhower leading the country.

Before Sputnik was launched, no-one thought the space race was all that important, so it's extremely vulnerable to butterflies since one well motivated person could change the trajectory of all humanity.

And there's probably a minimum country/economy size, but it also depends on how big a priority it is. I'd say the limit was around the population limit of great power-dom, since it is hard to imagine why a country that didn't see itself as a leading power would want to show off on the surface of the moon, or feel secure enough to divert resources in what is a really enormous long-term investment.

Here is another revised version:

OK. What's supposed to be going on in this history? Why does the population stagnate after 1900?

fasquardon

 

[Alternator]

One simple (but not easy) method is to improve the economy of Mexico and Central America - if the southern neighbors are stable and reasonably prosperous, they'd siphon away part of the US immigration (mostly from other nations in the Americas, to be sure) and also not see as much emigration into the United States.

This also likely drives up the price of food, since there wouldn't be as ready a supply of cheap migrant labor for harvesting, which might have a small impact on population as well.