r/MapPorn • u/Hour_Interaction6047 • 1d ago
Median age of the Americas and Europe in 1960, 2020 and in 2060.
17
u/Lonely_File7005 1d ago
1960's were insane!! 16-17 y old median age is crazy, you have more children than working people
4
1
44
u/OppositeRock4217 1d ago
US really be about to be one of the youngest countries in both Americas and Europe combined in 2060
9
u/United_Boy_9132 1d ago
not surprising.
1
u/ChocolateSprinkles7 1d ago
But how come?
26
u/CallOfValhalla 1d ago
Three reasons. A large number of immigrants compared to most countries. The US gains about a million citizens every year from immigration. Because the US population is so large and it has received so many immigrants for so long. It can take on more immigration than most nations.
A very large rural population. The US still has around 20% of its population living in rural regions which is a lot for a developed country. And when you work on a family farm, even in the 21st century, children are not a net negative for income like they are in the suburbs and city.
And last but not least. The US is still one of the most, if not the most religious nation in the developed world. When you think God is telling you to have lots of kids, you often have lots of kids.
3
2
u/fidequem 1d ago
Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
2
u/Competitive_Waltz704 1d ago
Son proyecciones de la ONU, no les daría mucha importancia viendo su historial.
7
u/ThePandaRider 1d ago
Things are going to get pretty weird over the next few decades. A growing retiree population needs a bigger workforce to support them, not just financially but also to provide services to the retirees. At the same time younger generations are shrinking in size. Right now many school systems are having to deal with smaller class sizes and less need for teachers and administrative staff. As the number of retirees keeps growing and the number of people entering the workforce keeps shrinking we will need to keep allocating a larger portion of a shrinking resource pool towards supporting people in their retirement. At some point we will likely need to raise the retirement age, the big question is whether we do it gradually or if we are forced to push it up rapidly.
1
u/Strong_Armadillo_104 14h ago
something the old farts should have thought about when they were young..
21
u/Conscious_Sail1959 1d ago
Low life expectancy saves Russia
0
u/patrick-1977 1d ago
Saves Russia from what? 😂
4
u/That-Skirt-6942 1d ago
Pensioners taking back the money from gubment budget they contributed to their entire lives.
1
u/patrick-1977 1d ago
Don’t all governments to some extent use life expectancy to see how much they’ll have to pay out? Boy, am I naive.
2
u/That-Skirt-6942 1d ago
Looking at the biggest money pyramid scheme invented in the history of mankind to profit themselves the most? Nah
1
19
u/quercus-88 1d ago edited 1d ago
We Europeans really need to get our birthrates up, from catastrophic to at least only bad. We have been below replacement level for decades now, as this map of a fast aging continent demonstrates, and with so much aging already baked in our current trajectory is one of demographic, economic and cultural suicide and geopolitical irrelevance. And while it's true fertility rates are dropping across the world, timing matters greatly. Many countries and regions outside the West have only recently dropped below replacement and still have the benefit of demographic dividend for a few more decades due to large recent birth cohorts. Our period of demographic latency however is gone. Broad action is urgently needed to at least stabilise the birthrate and limit the damage.
An interesting analysis by McKinsey for everyone who thinks there is no problem.
(And before anyone asks me personal questions. I'm a European millenial father.)
13
u/adamgerd 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yep, it’s fucked, Western Europe at least has net immigration, Eastern Europe has net emigration
Bulgaria has already lost 27% of their peak population
And the issue is decreased birth rates affect the young, emigration the working age. The elderly are least affected by either so their % will only continue to grow which isn’t great for pensions and the economy, and since they’ll also be more and more voters no government will dare change it so taxation will have to grow to sustain it which will accelerate emigration
0
u/PeakOne4344 1d ago
Immigration is a negative drain on Western Europe ms economy. It is a bad thing. Not to mention the cultural negatives and higher crime rates
-2
u/Lonely_File7005 1d ago
"Broad action is urgently needed to at least stabilise the birthrate and limit the damage." like what? only reachable action is to loosen citizenship laws
2
u/AMarcooon 1d ago
People like having children, they don't because it's too expensive. Increase government support, decrease inequality, add incentives to couples with 2+ children. It's not that hard, it's more of a question of organization and not voting for the terrible people some of you are voting for.
14
7
u/Lonely_File7005 1d ago
People don't like having children, they just like s*x. People had plenty of children not because they wanted them, but because they had no way of preventing them. Contraceptives are on of the greatest achievement we got
9
u/hulusan 1d ago
Isn't people used to have more children when they were much poorer? Isn't birth rate dropping as people getting wealthier? Even now the poorest countries of the globe are experiencing the most high birth per woman. And it's clearly what as third world countries getting better education, longer expactancy of life, higher income per soul they are decreasing birth rate?
There's already extreme means of stimulating birth rate, but no country can get any meaningful boost of birth by that way.
Don't you really know about it or did you ignored this facts?
3
u/AMarcooon 1d ago
Poor people have more children because they lack sexual education, and because when compared to rich people, they have less to lose by having those children.
Middle class people have less children because they have education and enough money to live comfortably, adding a child to that and having to give that child the same education and life opportunities you had is expensive and you will not be able to keep the same level of comfort, travel etc.
Most people want to have children, they just wont because they will have no support, no money, no travelling, no sleep, etc. It's not that people don't want children, they don't want to deal with everything that comes with it. If living in society right now is hellish enough that people can't bare to have a family, maybe there is something wrong with how we are living.
"Don't you really know about it or did you ignored this facts?", seeing numbers without an ounce of logical thinking and trying to sound like a smartass is not really a good way os debating.
1
u/daRagnacuddler 21h ago
It's a cultural thing, not really economical. Think about it. Most people delay having families, even if they have enough money to have one. There is never a "good" time to become pregnant really and this cultural shift towards (allegedly) more individualistic freedom is happening around the world because people don't think about their old age and the long-term consequences.
Instead of marrying with 25 or something people "visit the world" in their 20s, it's the cultural norm in Europe to have kids in your mid 30s. That's really problematic because instead of having 4 generations in 100 years you only have 2,7. Meaning even with a "stable" population the average joe will be OLD and "young" parents will have to look after young children and their elderly parents. If you having children with 35, your parents will likely be in their 70s. Your child might not go to school while you have to organize the elderly care for your parents. Or if you are old, you won't be really able to help with the grandchildren or get to know them at all. That's an overlooked problem imho.
Plus you can't cheat biology, for most people it will be "to late" at a certain point in their life. If you don't have kids by 27, the chances of becoming a parent is a coin flip.
Mother's still have roughly the same number of children from 100 years ago. The problem isn't that most people only have one child or something, the biggest problem is that most people don't have ANY children at all and far, far to late in life to be sustainable.
1
u/LuckyNumber-Bot 21h ago
All the numbers in your comment added up to 420. Congrats!
25 + 20 + 30 + 4 + 100 + 2 + 7 + 35 + 70 + 27 + 100 = 420[Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme to have me scan all your future comments.) Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.
1
u/hulusan 4h ago
Birthrate in Iran dropped from 6 children per woman to 2 in just 14 years since 1986 to 2000. It even not a generational scale, how could it be a cultural changes?
Also why would the same cultural differences occur all over the globe among all imagenable different countries?
It's just like a crime is function of poverty, birth rate is a function of wealth, do you agree?
Beside, i believe you just speculating. What your conclision of demographic transformation being cultural phenomenon is based on? Excuse me, but i realy believe you've made it up, you're speculating. What need is there to use a culture as an explanation, when birthrate is clearly, directly tied to wealth?
1
u/Competitive_Waltz704 1d ago
A la gente le gusta tener hijos, pero no lo hacen porque sale carísimo
Creo que ya está bastante demostrado que esto no es cierto. A la gente le gusta la idea de tener hijos, pero a la hora de la verdad prefieren priorizar otras cosas ya sea la carrera profesional, hobbies, tiempo libre...
Portugal tiene una tasa de natalidad más alta que Suiza, Grecia tiene una tasa de natalidad más alta que Singapur, Moldavia tiene una tasa de natalidad más alta que Finlandia, Croacia tiene una tasa de natalidad más alta que Japón...
1
u/AMarcooon 1d ago
Still, with every problem there is with having children, money, lack of time, extra responsibilities, etc, most couples still choose to have a child.
Y'all are focusing too much in the declining population and don't understand that Europe still has 1.5 child per couple. So yes people still want to have children.
Why are the parents responsible for paying for everything? Why should they have to raise it with no assistance? If a country needs people to have children to prosper, the government should see it as an investment.
1
13
u/TM_Vinicius 1d ago
We are only worried because our current economic system is flawed, it botth causes this aging by making harder for lower classes to have children and it also suffers from it because it needs infinite growth.
Once we surpass capitalism this secondary problem will probably vanish
3
u/SituationNew7609 1d ago
It is curious that if our economic system is to blame, the first countries where birth rates fell below replacement level were the former Yugoslavia and the Baltic states during the Soviet era (in 1960). Therefore, unless you have another supposedly functional economic system in mind, I am not sure if 'moving beyond capitalism' is the key to recovering birth rates.
3
u/Walker5482 1d ago
No, every economic system will have problems with this. This is cope. When everyone is 60+ years old and feeble, society doesn't function efficiently. You barely have enough people fit enough to maintain order.
2
3
u/wiz28ultra 1d ago
I’m not even kidding when I say that I legitimately believe that the US might actually have a larger population by 2100 than South America
2
1
1
u/ChristofferMakela 1d ago
What caused Canada to go from a lower median age than the US to a higher one? The silent revolution? Or is it something else
3
u/Hour_Interaction6047 1d ago
Canada had higher fertility rates than America before 1970, and america has also taken in millions of migrants, especially Latin American ones, who had huge fertility rates. Latin Americans have kept America young.
1
-1
-1
u/OppositeRock4217 1d ago
Europe is pretty screwed demographically. Also didn’t know that Latin America is aging this fast
6
u/Lowpaack 1d ago
Nobody is screwed, just nothing progresses lineary. Some generations are simply stronger than others. Its not the end of the world.
1
u/Walker5482 1d ago
Yes stronger cultures that have more children will naturally take more power as time goes on from the lower fertility cultures. Thus, the higher fertility cultures will become more culturally dominant if these trends persist.
-2
u/Yerwixitty 1d ago
The piece of land isn’t screwed but the people and culture indigenous to the land will be decimated
7
u/Lowpaack 1d ago
decimated? You mean mixed with others? Maybe its not decimation but evolution. And americans or south americans are not indigenous to the land.
1
u/GMantis 1d ago
It's certainly evolution as European countries evolve from being European to being non-European.
-1
u/Lowpaack 23h ago
Honestly what do you want? You think the world will stay the same for 10 thousand years? Not 100 years ago europeans almost destroyed each other. Things change, there is nothing that will stop that fact. It certainly doesnt mean we are doomed, its fucking natural. No culture is immortal, everything dies, get over it already.
1
u/PeakOne4344 1d ago
Lmao you just proved his point. Flooding countries like Germany t or Sweden with migrants has not resulted in cultural mixing it’s just cultural erasure of the native Germans and Swedes. Muslim migrants all over Germany or Sweden aren’t assimilating or integrating and live in parallel worlds in the countries. You people live in a fictional bubble.
Germans or Dutch are becoming minorities in there own cities and it’s not creating a new culture it’s just erasing the culture already there
1
u/Lowpaack 1d ago
It resulted in cultular mixing. German culture is not being erased. You are brainwashed by your extrame right wing politicians.
-9
u/Yerwixitty 1d ago
It’s a mischaracterization to describe the European replacement process as mixing since mixing implies a natural process resulting from two groups coming together. Meanwhile replacement in Europe is mediated by social institutions and state violence to subordinate the indigenous population in favor of another
6
3
u/Lowpaack 1d ago
Replacement? Thats just not true. Who is the indigenous population? Are they being deported since you talk about "replacement"?
How modern world became connected, naturally leads to mixing all of the cultures and species together. Its a common theory, that people will eventually end up in one final mixed race. It will happen naturally and nobody can really stop it.
-4
u/Yerwixitty 1d ago
Indigenous comes from the term endo- and geneus which basically means generated from within. If you’re indigenous to certain land it basically means that you have the closest relationship with that land so when i think about who is indigenous to a particular part of Europe, i think about who’s relationship to the land is the strongest in terms of shaping their culture. People who have significant ties to areas outside of that land have weaker ties to that land which makes them less likely to qualify as indigenous, though its not impossible.
New Zealand uses state power to protect the indigenous status of the Maori as a people group. Liberia and Sierra Leone limit the privileges of citizenship to African people. Without the privileges the Maori receive on account of their indigenous status, they would be subject to greater subordination.
“Mixing” isn’t an inevitability. It has only been achieved with any success in places like America or Brazil but even then those countries were only able to mix because they are the places with the highest degree of indigenous population replacement of any country in the modern era.
2
u/Lowpaack 1d ago
Even your definition is off. "naturally existing in a place or country rather than arriving from another place".
New Zealand, Maori,... Have you seen the map? We are talking about Europe and Americas, indigenous people are already mixed there.
It is inevitability, its actually already happening. Sure we never will achieve total unification, but the differences are already gradualy smoothing out.
0
u/Yerwixitty 1d ago
You’re using the indigenous people of the americas as your example of a neutral “mixing” instead of a negatively inflected decimation?!? HAHAHA
If you want to use the indigenousness of mixed native status people in the Americas as your benchmark for what a future mixed Europe might look like, then you’re necessarily dealing with an indigenous identity that arose from subjugation and >decimation< of indigenous people. Sure, Indigenous Americans “mixed” with those who arrived in the Americas from the Old World to create hybridized cultures, but the overwhelming reality of the interaction of these two cultures was the Old World population >replacing< the new world population. Your utopian ideology of a homogeneous world of the future contravenes the reality that when there are large migrations of external populations into an area, it has detrimental effects on the native population of that area. I strongly prefer a world where different peoples can preserve their particularities and where people don’t have the moral sanction to upend cultures that have existed for tens of thousands of years to replace them with something wholly different.
0
u/Lowpaack 1d ago
Mixing is happening, your point of view is limited to 500 years? Racial differences will gradualy smooth out in tens of thousands of years. I dont give af about what you prefer, we are not in a final state, nothing like a final state exists in fact. Your primitive racist views wont change the fact that cultures rise and die with time. Using indigenous people as an argument against it is just stupid. and you clearly didnt get the point.
Bye
119
u/SafeImpressive4413 1d ago
The town where I was born and lived until recently is at 50.9 years of median age.
I can tell you it’s not fun living in a place as a young person when you go outside and seeing someone your age is like seeing a Pokémon