An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
300 Million: The Magical Number
H/t ‘Interested’
The US population is expected to reach the magical number of 300 million Tuesday:
The Census Bureau projects that America’s population will hit 300 million at 7:46 a.m. EDT Tuesday. The projection is based on estimates for births, deaths and net immigration that add up to one new American every 11 seconds.
And there is room for more:
America still has a lot of wide-open spaces, with about 84 people per square mile, compared with about 300 people per square mile in the European Union and almost 900 people per square mile in Japan.
The speed with which the US population grows is incredible: 100 million in the last 39 years, 50% + in the last half century.
16 Responses to “300 Million: The Magical Number”
I can’t even imagine living in a country with 900 people per square mile (Japan).
900 people per square mile is basically a major metro area. Even 300 people per mile is a major metro area including suburbs and exurbs.
I was recently asked about a comparison of the populations of Milwaukee and the Twin Cities as someone who is familiar with both areas. When I stated that both metros seemed to me to be of similar size, someone pointed out to me that, according to one report, the Twin Cities was twice as large as Milwaukee. I looked at that report and realized that the report used a relatively small area of the Milwaukee metro (which interestingly didn’t even include Racine or Kenosha) and reported a population of 1.5 million with roughly 1000 people per square mile, while using a much larger are for the Twin Cities (roughly 5 times the square mileage) and reported a population of 3 million with roughly 400 people per square mile.
All of Europe has a population density approaching that of the Twin Cities including suburbs and exurbs? All of Japan has a population density approaching that of Milwaukee and some of its suburbs? In a way, it makes me glad I live in a place where I don’t have to travel far to find population densities in the range of 10-20 people per square mile. In another way, this makes one realize why our transportation infrastructure is so expansive (and expensive) and why some areas have trouble supporting mass transit.
Well, exactly…while your probably right that the 900 per square mile is on par with some of our cities, I just can’t imagine having that density throughout the country. I agree with you about the transportation issues though.
I don’t see why the US has to aspire to a greater population density, especially something as insane as Japan. I think wide open spaces are great. If the population density is calculated with sqare miles divided by total population then the ACTUAL japanese density is much greater, as a very large majority of the population lives in it’s cities, and much of the countryside is emty. Then again, that also means that the actual density for a majority of the US population is also greater than it says.
Ryan much the same thing happens in a place like San Francisco. Being a well known city, people imagine that it MUST have a population of at least 2 or 3 million, when in fact it hasn’t even reached 800,000. Of course, San Francisco is directly followed by Daly City, and across the water we have Oakland Berkley San Jose, etc, urban for a long time, so the Bay Area population is much greater more than 7 million. The density for SF is 16,000 people per square mile, which in my opinion is INSANE.
C Stanley, that was exactly my point. The population density of Japan as a whole barely lags behind that of Milwaukee and some of its nearby suburbs and is well ahead of the Twin Cities metro, including exurbs. The EU as a whole is not far behind the Twin Cities metro. I couldn’t imagine whole countries with that kind of population density. The cities have to be incredibly crowded and the countrysides must be relatively small compared to what we have. Honestly, that kind of place does not sound very appealing to me.
Lynx, it is interesting comparing impressions of the size of a city to the actual size. Milwaukee is actually one of the 25 or 30 largest cities in the country and it’s short of 700,000. At its peak, it was in the top 15-20 at around 750,000. It’s when you add the suburbs that you triple the population (and see that the metro is still growing, even while the city is/was shrinking some, they now say the city might have begun growing again). Then, consider that the suburbs of Milwaukee and Chicago have run together and you’re up to 10 million people in one continuous metro area. Again, though, fortunately there’s a lot of open space around these 10 million people where those of us who get claustrophobic at times can go to get some space.
I wouldn’t equate “wide-open spaces” with “room for more.” The limiting factor on population capacity isn’t geographical area, but resource production. At which point is our population no longer sustainable with the resources we develop. Or, more importantly from the European perspective, at which point does America have so many people that it consumes all of the agriculture it produces for food and energy purposes, leaving none for overseas?
This discussion prompted me to look around and I found the National Atlas. A very cool site. Of particular intrest to this discussion is this population density map.
Kevin H,
That is a cool site. I also like these satellite photos of Earth; scroll down for the night pictures and you get an idea, not directly of population density but more to the point of use of resources in the populated and developed areas.
Wonderful sites both, Kevin H and C Stanley.
Limited resources, unlimited wants.
Interesting to see where this leads…
Here’s a perfect example of what Tim in WI means.
It’s time we deport all the people I don’t like. Then we can get our population under control again…
Ah, a final solution, Elrod?
Jim S,
Good point about the groundwater resources. I think water may be the limiting resource to population growth, unless we get on the ball with desalinization technology.
Jim and C Stanley, I definitely agree with both of you. The water issue around here, where the subcontinental divide separating the Great Lakes basin from the Mississippi River basin runs right through the metro, has already become a very big issue. Areas west of the divide want Great Lakes water but areas east of the divide don’t want to give it to them. The politics of this, even in an area where looking around you’d see all the lakes, rivers, and wetlands and think water shortages would never be an issue, are becoming very heated.
An update on the 300 million mark.
It’s rather funny; the Census Bureau is having cake and punch this afternoon to celebrate. Apparently there’s some controversy over whether or not people want to make a big deal over it, in part due to concerns over highlighting illegal immigration.