With a POD any time in the twentieth century, drive the United States Population to 1,000,000,000 or greater. The US, at the same time, must not hold territory outside North and Central America (beyond a few minor islands, anyway). It can annex Mexico or Canada to meet this requirement, if that would help.
AHC: United States Population Greater than Or Equal to 1 Billion
- Thread starter Polish Eagle
- Start date
Tallest Skil
Banned
… That's OTL. Say the entirety of the Americas acceded to the Union over the course of, say, 150 years. A billion people is the LOW end of the plausible populations. I'd say 1.25 would be in the middle.
If you look at somewhere like the UK and population density then the USA has enough landmass to house in excess of 2 billion people.
Don't be greedy with your land ... just open the floodgates to China and promise them jobs in the construction industry which would boom with all the new homes and infrastructure needed
Don't be greedy with your land ... just open the floodgates to China and promise them jobs in the construction industry which would boom with all the new homes and infrastructure needed
If you look at somewhere like the UK and population density then the USA has enough landmass to house in excess of 2 billion people.
Don't be greedy with your land ... just open the floodgates to China and promise them jobs in the construction industry which would boom with all the new homes and infrastructure needed
Except a US with that kind of population density would have more than a little difficulty feeding itself, a lot of the US's territory is taken up by agricultural land which provide a huge amount of the food eaten by the US. If the US had the kind of pop density you're talking about here this agriculture becomes much harder.
Not necessarily, some of the bigger urban sprawl areas have pretty low density compared to London or Hong Kong. New York City is probably the only major city in the US which really packs people in like other places, even San Francisco with its limited land area doesn't come close to NYC's density per square mile.
The problem here is more cultural than anything else. The perception of having lots of free land in the United States meant many people were moving out west looking for open space and some breathing room. You need some kind of cultural POD to change the American mentality so it is less oriented around taming the frontier and more about building ginormous cities with highly concentrated urbanization.
I made a two-month round trip through the USA. Coming from Central Europe, I would say, your country is still "empty".
The PR of China is roughly the same size as US, and it also contains mountains (the Himalaya), prairies (Mongolia) and deserts (Gobi). Still, more than 1.5billion people live there.
I quote from wikipedia:
"Although China's agricultural output is the largest in the world, only about 15% of its total land area can be cultivated. China's arable land, which represents 10% of the total arable land in the world, supports over 20% of the world's population."
It also says that, apart from "bad years", China can feed itself. Thus, I am sure that the more advanced agriculture in the US can make feeding a billion Americans possible.
I also daresay, that the export of food is not vital to the US economy.
=> so much about point 1: yes, the US could feed 1 billion people
But how do you get these people there? With a post-1900 POD, you do not only need an apocalyptic event to have an incentive to migration on such a scale (I guess even with population growth, you need several hundred million actual immigrants), but also you need the US politics to allow (perhaps even organize) such a large-scale migration.
The PR of China is roughly the same size as US, and it also contains mountains (the Himalaya), prairies (Mongolia) and deserts (Gobi). Still, more than 1.5billion people live there.
I quote from wikipedia:
"Although China's agricultural output is the largest in the world, only about 15% of its total land area can be cultivated. China's arable land, which represents 10% of the total arable land in the world, supports over 20% of the world's population."
It also says that, apart from "bad years", China can feed itself. Thus, I am sure that the more advanced agriculture in the US can make feeding a billion Americans possible.
I also daresay, that the export of food is not vital to the US economy.
=> so much about point 1: yes, the US could feed 1 billion people
But how do you get these people there? With a post-1900 POD, you do not only need an apocalyptic event to have an incentive to migration on such a scale (I guess even with population growth, you need several hundred million actual immigrants), but also you need the US politics to allow (perhaps even organize) such a large-scale migration.
Smart immigration
(1) Stop diversity visa program.
(2) stop allowing anyone to bring in relatives like brothers and sisters.
(3) enforce more agressively our immigraiton laws and allow citizenship to be revoked even after many years if raud is discovered.
(4) raise - slightly - the financial requirements for immigration from 125% of poverty guidelines to 150% so that folks are not arriving and immediately seeking financial support from the state - AND audit these financial sponsors so one person with a $50K income is not sponsoring 100 people (as has happened)
(5) eliminate universal, politically correct immigration- such that we essentially ban immigration from many islamic countries where the populayions are hostile towards the US and security concers require far too many resources ...
This would create a sense of confidence in what is happening with our immigraiton policies, especially amongst conservative, white, christian voters ...
THEN ... OPEN THE FLOODGATES!
Essentially allow anyone else with basic English language skills and a Bachelor's degree from a legitimate educational institution (which can easily be verified by our overseas diplomats and NGOs) to come to America with a 10-year residency requirement that does not automatically lead to citizenship (i.e. if they commit crimes, or end up needing welfare, etc)
You would have tens of thousands of Indians and Chinese arriving annually, plus many hundreds and thousands from other countries in S. America and Eastern Europe ...
10,000 Indians + 10,000 Chinese + 5,000 S. Americans + 5,000 E. Europeans per year (and these might be EXTREMELY LOWBALL ESTIMATES) = 30,000 per year of young, post-college immigrants who get marrie dand have approx. 3 children per couple X 50 years.
this is 1.5 billion plus the current population, plus all children.
Start this in 1985 and only run it for 25 years, you get 750,000 plus the current 300,000 = 1.05 billion.
(1) Stop diversity visa program.
(2) stop allowing anyone to bring in relatives like brothers and sisters.
(3) enforce more agressively our immigraiton laws and allow citizenship to be revoked even after many years if raud is discovered.
(4) raise - slightly - the financial requirements for immigration from 125% of poverty guidelines to 150% so that folks are not arriving and immediately seeking financial support from the state - AND audit these financial sponsors so one person with a $50K income is not sponsoring 100 people (as has happened)
(5) eliminate universal, politically correct immigration- such that we essentially ban immigration from many islamic countries where the populayions are hostile towards the US and security concers require far too many resources ...
This would create a sense of confidence in what is happening with our immigraiton policies, especially amongst conservative, white, christian voters ...
THEN ... OPEN THE FLOODGATES!
Essentially allow anyone else with basic English language skills and a Bachelor's degree from a legitimate educational institution (which can easily be verified by our overseas diplomats and NGOs) to come to America with a 10-year residency requirement that does not automatically lead to citizenship (i.e. if they commit crimes, or end up needing welfare, etc)
You would have tens of thousands of Indians and Chinese arriving annually, plus many hundreds and thousands from other countries in S. America and Eastern Europe ...
10,000 Indians + 10,000 Chinese + 5,000 S. Americans + 5,000 E. Europeans per year (and these might be EXTREMELY LOWBALL ESTIMATES) = 30,000 per year of young, post-college immigrants who get marrie dand have approx. 3 children per couple X 50 years.
this is 1.5 billion plus the current population, plus all children.
Start this in 1985 and only run it for 25 years, you get 750,000 plus the current 300,000 = 1.05 billion.
I'm still not sure even over such a long time span could such numbers even be found :/
I think you over-estimate the eagerness of well-educated people to immigrate to the USA. Not only those who migrate have reasons, often also those who stay.
Also, your POD actually removed several incentives for immigration to the US.
On top of that, you seem to have grave mathematical mistakes in your assumptions. You have 30 thousand immigrants per year in the first calculation, and frankly, even over time, these don't make much of an impact. You multiply these 30,000 by 25 and have 750,000. NOT 750million which you add to the existing US population in order to get past 1 billion.
Last edited:
OK, here is a half-way realistic demographic calculation for the US with 1910 as a POD.
I assume:
-the 1910ish peak of 1.2 million immigrants per year is kept year by year, and actually raises each decade by 100,000. Until the 1960s, when it remains at 1.7million. In 1990, the annual immigration raises to 1.8million (which was the new peak around that time, so it is not impossible) and remains there until now.
-then I set the natural growth rate of the population at 1.6%, which is the level of the most booming baby-boomer-years
US population in 2013 is at 788 million. That's already close.
Note: growth rate is more important than the actual immigration. Keeping the annual immigration numbers climb per decade by 100,000 instead of capping them (so it would be 2.2 million annually now) would only change the numbers to 801 million.
If I instead go for a 2% pop growth instead of (already very high) 1.6%, then the I reach 1.098 billion US inhabitants by 2013.
I assume:
-the 1910ish peak of 1.2 million immigrants per year is kept year by year, and actually raises each decade by 100,000. Until the 1960s, when it remains at 1.7million. In 1990, the annual immigration raises to 1.8million (which was the new peak around that time, so it is not impossible) and remains there until now.
-then I set the natural growth rate of the population at 1.6%, which is the level of the most booming baby-boomer-years
US population in 2013 is at 788 million. That's already close.
Note: growth rate is more important than the actual immigration. Keeping the annual immigration numbers climb per decade by 100,000 instead of capping them (so it would be 2.2 million annually now) would only change the numbers to 801 million.
If I instead go for a 2% pop growth instead of (already very high) 1.6%, then the I reach 1.098 billion US inhabitants by 2013.
Dialga
Banned
Now you've already got two quandaries right there:
1. How to keep the floodgates of immigration as high as they were during their heyday (1880s-1910s). Not sure how you would do that, other than eliminating restrictions on immigrants (Lord knows the 20th Century provided plenty of opportunities for refugees to arrive on our shores);
2. How to keep the birth rate ridiculously high. Perhaps butterfly away birth control or the women's rights movement? Of course, that would have all sorts of implications of its own.
Dialga, I am absolutely aware of that. But I think that before we discuss PODs, we need to know the numbers.
I kept calculating during the last minutes, and what you actually need in order to get from 76million in the 1910 census up to 1 billion in 2013 is a growth rate of 2.5% annually - population growth and immigration combined.
Now the natural change is variable between OTL's below 0.5% as in the present and 1.6% (achieved in 1947 and 1953, almost reached in 1956/57).
Immigration can be nearly zero (as during the World Wars), but 1.2million immigrants in 1910 mean a growth by 1.56% in one year by immigration alone. At present day population, that meant close to 5 million immigrants.
In 1910, the world population was at ca. 1.7 billion, so in that year 1 in 1416 human beings immigrated to the US. Apply that to 7 billion people globally, and again you have almost 5 million.
=> population growth and immigration, you can actually play with both levers......
I kept calculating during the last minutes, and what you actually need in order to get from 76million in the 1910 census up to 1 billion in 2013 is a growth rate of 2.5% annually - population growth and immigration combined.
Now the natural change is variable between OTL's below 0.5% as in the present and 1.6% (achieved in 1947 and 1953, almost reached in 1956/57).
Immigration can be nearly zero (as during the World Wars), but 1.2million immigrants in 1910 mean a growth by 1.56% in one year by immigration alone. At present day population, that meant close to 5 million immigrants.
In 1910, the world population was at ca. 1.7 billion, so in that year 1 in 1416 human beings immigrated to the US. Apply that to 7 billion people globally, and again you have almost 5 million.
=> population growth and immigration, you can actually play with both levers......
Then yiu are not well acquainted eith visa appkication numbers over the last 35 years.
I addressed (1) how to keep the numbers up ... make the only qualification basic english and a college degree ... demand far outstrips the numbers I have listed ... and (2) I reached the sought after figure even before accounting for a lower +/- only 3 kids per couple.
Not sure how or where any of tbat was unclear.
Finally the creation of refugees in the last century versus their ability to rereeach our shores are distinct factors. They were largely prevented from coming ... google the st. Louis during the holocaust or look at stats of refugees from vietnam or iraq now living in the US let alone conflicts in which we have no invvolvement.
The thing is would the US be able to remain that attractive? I mean that is a lot of people coming in over a relatively short space of time can the US industrial, urban and agricultural sectors expand to faciltiate these numbers each year? I'm not disagreeing I'm simply curious because I have little knowledge in these areas.
Shadow Master
Banned
Curious here. What if the 1900 government started a program that gave tax break incentives for larger families in the higher tax breakets? This way, the rich have more babies (which are not going to become welfare recipients---we hope), and thus have a larger section of young people from very well off families. Would this work?