Three Hundred Million Strong

The United States population has reached the three hundred million mark, and the Washington Post is providing all kinds of reasons why we should be acting apoplectic.

Immigrants, legal and illegal, account for about 40 percent of population growth. Immigration is also an important reason the "natural increase" in the population -- excess of births over deaths -- is significantly higher in the United States compared with Europe or Japan. Hispanics from Latin America, by far the largest share of recent immigrants, are driving the natural increase here. On average, Hispanic women have one more child than non-Hispanic white women.

So conservatives should be worried about the influx of breeding, papist Irish – oops, I mean Hispanics – that are diluting the culture. But the secular materialists should be all a-dither too, since the environment, their stand-in for religion, is also at risk by the increase of folks here in America:

Three hundred million is also a discomfiting reminder of a nation that, on its east and west coasts, at least, is running noticeably low on elbow room. More humanity is stirring up more traffic, more sprawl, more rules against growth, more protests against anti-growth rules, and more of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. A surging population in the arid Southwest is also straining the supply of water. The growth is adding to a country that represents 4 percent of the world's population but consumes 25 percent of the planet's oil.

But evidence suggests that large, young populations are vital for a growing economy, innovation, and the efficient use of resources. Ireland, for example, was once a nation that lost millions to America in the decades following the industrial revolution – which was slow to benefit the emerald isle. (And many conservatives at the time did bemoan the cultural impact.) But today Ireland has a young population with much more growth and prosperity than the average EU nation.

All sorts of useful comparisons and counter-examples abound: Witness the birth dearth in Italy and Japan, or the terrific problem brewing in Europe as a result of a large influx of ultra-traditional immigrants from Middle East clashing head-on with declining nations that have never had the cultural infrastructure to integrate new arrivals. If you read past the doom and gloom the WaPo article does finally mention the positive impact of population growth and immigration

.Many demographers believe it is shortsighted to be anxious about the 300-million marker. They regard it as a symbol of an economically dynamic democracy that remains popular in much of the world.

"As almost nothing else can, immigration-led growth signals the attractiveness of the American economy and polity," said Kenneth Prewitt, a former head of the Census Bureau and now professor of public affairs at Columbia University. "You don't see large numbers of immigrants clamoring to move to China."

No kidding. For all of the endless kvetching of the college socialist lefties they never seem to explain why millions of people are still willing to risk life and limb to escape their decrepit regimes and make a start in America. Aside from Hollywood types like Alec Baldwin and the faculty of Columbia – people who keep threatening to leave but never buy a ticket – there’s simply no one headed in the other direction. But I digress. The article does go on to cite a few numbers that may get the authors fired for violating the doom principle of the mainstream media:

Indeed, lots of good news is embodied in the lives of the 300 million. Longevity has jumped from 55 years in 1915, to 71 years in 1967, to 78 years now. Over that time frame, the percentage of the adult population with a high-school diploma has jumped from 14 percent to 85 percent. Homeownership has risen from 46 to 69 percent. The death rate from tuberculosis has fallen from 140 to 0.2 per 100,000 people. While houses are 4.5 times as expensive (in constant dollars) as they were in 1915 and twice as expensive as in 1967, a gallon of milk in 2006 costs less than half what it went for in 1915 and in 1967.

I can’t help but think of Julian Simon – the contrarian statistician who made a bet with the apocalyptic “population bomb” environmentalists of the 1970s that the cost of a market basket of resources would be lower over time. He won every time – and he passed on this tradition to others like Peter Huber – whose numbers-heavy book, Hard Green should be on the bookshelf of anyone willing to challenge the average environmentalist sputtering ill-understood factoids. When you kids demonstrate a thorough understanding of topic like yield-per-acre land usage statistics in America between the 17th century and today – then we’ll talk. Otherwise you’re not environmentalists. You’re socialists who loathe the market and have a resentment complex. Be honest about it.

Meanwhile, somewhere out there the 300 millionth American came into existence, perhaps in a maternity ward – perhaps by way of boxcar in the Southwest. Either way we should be optimistic and welcome them to our marvelous nation.