One Billion Americans

One Billion Americans Plot Summary

Introduction

America stands at a crossroads of demographic destiny. For generations, the United States has been the world's preeminent economic and military power, but this position is now threatened by simple mathematics. China has over four times the population of the United States, and while Americans remain wealthier on a per-person basis, the gap is narrowing rapidly. Unless something changes, simple arithmetic dictates that China will eventually overtake America as the world's largest economy and most powerful nation. But there is a solution hiding in plain sight: population growth. Through a combination of more immigration and support for families who want more children, America could dramatically increase its population over the coming decades—perhaps even tripling it to one billion. This approach would allow the United States to maintain its global leadership position while creating a more vibrant, dynamic society. The vision requires rethinking core assumptions about housing, transportation, infrastructure, and family policy, but none of these challenges are insurmountable. In fact, many of the changes needed would improve quality of life for all Americans, not just newcomers, while securing America's place as the world's leading nation through the twenty-first century and beyond.

Chapter 1: America's Demographic Challenge: The Case for Expansion

The United States has maintained its position as the world's leading economic power for over a century. This wasn't always inevitable—by the early 1900s, America had already surpassed the British Empire in economic output, setting the stage for American dominance throughout the twentieth century. This economic might allowed the U.S. to intervene decisively in both World Wars, not just through military power but through its capacity to outproduce adversaries and serve as the "arsenal of democracy." What made America's ascendance possible was a fundamental size advantage. Even before World War II, America's GDP exceeded that of Germany, Japan, and Italy combined. The United States had approximately 130 million people compared to Germany's 80 million, giving America a decisive demographic edge. Throughout the Cold War, America maintained its advantage over the Soviet Union through superior economic productivity despite the Soviet Union's comparable population. The Cold War was a relatively "fair fight" in demographic terms, with economic systems being the decisive factor. Today's situation with China is fundamentally different. China has 1.3 billion people compared to America's 330 million—a more than four-to-one advantage. This means China doesn't need to match American productivity to become the world's largest economy; it merely needs to reach about one-quarter of U.S. per capita GDP. As China's economy continues modernizing, the mathematics of population size becomes increasingly difficult to overcome through productivity advantages alone. Predictions about exactly when China will overtake the United States economically vary widely, with some analysts arguing it has already happened on a purchasing power parity basis, while others suggest it might occur sometime in the 2030s or 2040s. The precise timing matters less than recognizing the fundamental trend—barring catastrophic setbacks for China or dramatic policy changes in America, China's economy will eventually become larger than America's, shifting global power dynamics significantly. This trajectory is not inevitable, however. The United States can maintain its position through deliberate demographic growth. This wouldn't require Americans to somehow become more productive than is reasonably possible; it would simply mean having more Americans. Through a combination of higher immigration, support for families who want more children, and policies that enable this population to live and work productively, the United States could chart a course toward a billion Americans—tripling its current population and maintaining its global leadership position even as other nations continue to develop.

Chapter 2: Population and Power: How Size Drives Global Influence

Throughout history, national power has consistently correlated with population size, but with an important qualifier: it's the combination of population and productivity that truly determines a nation's strength. Early in America's history, leaders like George Washington understood this dynamic intuitively. Washington welcomed immigrants not merely out of charity but because he recognized that greatness required great numbers of people. The young republic's westward expansion, homesteading policies, and relatively open immigration system all reflected this understanding that population growth was essential to national development. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, America's growing population provided the human capital that powered industrialization. When the United States faced Nazi Germany in World War II, the demographic advantage was decisive—America had not only more people but also higher industrial output per person. The combination made American victory nearly inevitable once the nation fully mobilized. Similarly, during the Cold War, America's substantial population combined with its more productive economic system allowed it to outperform the Soviet Union despite comparable territory and resources. Today, catch-up growth in developing economies follows predictable patterns. Poorer countries can adopt technologies and methods pioneered elsewhere, allowing them to grow rapidly as they close the gap with developed nations. China's extraordinary economic expansion over recent decades demonstrates this principle—it hasn't needed to reinvent economic development but could instead adapt existing technologies and methods to its circumstances. This "catch-up growth" is naturally faster than the growth possible in already-developed economies like the United States. The implications for American power are profound. Even if China's per capita GDP never fully catches up to America's, it doesn't need to. If China reaches just half the productivity of the average American, its economy would still be twice the size of the U.S. economy. This would fundamentally alter global power dynamics in ways Americans haven't experienced in living memory. The United States wouldn't face invasion or collapse, but it would increasingly find itself unable to shape global affairs as it has for generations. What makes this challenge particularly difficult is that preventing Chinese economic development isn't a viable or morally defensible strategy. The rapid growth in China over the past generation has been one of history's greatest forces for good, lifting hundreds of millions from poverty. Similar development in India and other populous countries represents tremendous human progress. America's strategy cannot be to keep others poor, but rather to grow itself. By increasing America's population substantially, the United States could maintain its position without requiring impossibly high productivity gains or hoping for setbacks in other countries. A nation of one billion Americans would remain the world's largest economy even as China and India continue developing, ensuring America's continued ability to shape global affairs and defend its interests for generations to come.

Chapter 3: The Empty Heartland: America's Untapped Geographic Potential

America is, by global standards, remarkably empty. With just 93 people per square mile, the United States is far less densely populated than most developed countries. Even if the American population tripled, the resulting density would still be lower than France, and less than half that of Germany. The 48 contiguous states, without Alaska, currently have about 105 people per square mile—tripling this population would create a country with roughly the density of France, hardly an overcrowded dystopia. This emptiness becomes even more striking when examining specific regions. While coastal cities struggle with housing shortages, vast swaths of America are experiencing population decline. Cities like Detroit have fallen from 1.85 million people to about 380,000. St. Louis has lost 65 percent of its peak population. Philadelphia has lost 500,000 residents, Cleveland another 500,000. Even many suburban counties surrounding these cities are now shrinking. These places already have infrastructure, housing, schools, parks, and cultural institutions designed for much larger populations than they currently host. The economic consequences of this emptiness are severe. When a city loses population, the remaining residents must bear the cost of maintaining infrastructure built for many more people. Tax bases shrink while fixed costs remain, creating a downward spiral of service cuts and further population loss. Property values in many declining cities have fallen below replacement cost, meaning houses sell for less than it would cost to build them new. This discourages maintenance and new construction, leading to deterioration of the housing stock. Rural areas face similar challenges but with different manifestations. As population declines, hospitals close, broadband internet becomes economically unviable to deploy, and basic services become harder to maintain. In the last decade alone, hundreds of rural hospitals have shuttered, leaving residents to travel increasingly long distances for medical care. Without sufficient population density, even essential services become economically unfeasible. What makes this situation particularly frustrating is that many Americans have internalized a Malthusian view that more people means less prosperity, when modern economies actually work in the opposite way. While in agricultural societies, more people often meant less land per person and lower living standards, in today's service and knowledge economies, population density creates economic opportunity. Restaurants, shops, professional services, and cultural institutions all become more viable and diverse with larger populations. Higher density enables more specialized businesses and services to thrive. The irony is that America's emptiness represents enormous untapped potential. The country has plentiful fresh water, abundant farmland, and vast natural resources. A significantly larger population could revitalize declining cities, strengthen rural communities, and create the economies of scale needed for better infrastructure and services nationwide. Rather than seeing population growth as a threat, America should recognize it as the key to unlocking greater prosperity and maintaining global leadership in the decades ahead.

Chapter 4: Family Policy: Removing Barriers to Population Growth

American fertility rates have reached historic lows, with women now having an average of just 1.72 children over their lifetimes—well below the replacement rate of 2.1. What's particularly striking is that this decline doesn't reflect changing preferences. When surveyed, American women consistently say they would ideally like to have about 2.6 children on average. The gap between desired and actual fertility is at its highest level in 40 years, suggesting structural barriers rather than shifting values are driving the fertility decline. The economics of raising children in modern America explain much of this gap. The cost of essentials like child care, education, and healthcare has risen dramatically while wages for most Americans have stagnated. Child care alone can cost more than college tuition in many states. This economic pressure coincides with what economists call Baumol's cost disease—the phenomenon where labor-intensive services like education and child care become relatively more expensive over time because they can't easily benefit from technological productivity improvements. While manufacturing has become more efficient, raising children remains inherently time-intensive. Higher education represents another significant barrier to family formation. Unlike the mid-twentieth century, when public universities were inexpensive and accessible, today's young adults often graduate with substantial debt that delays marriage and childbearing. The shift from viewing education as a public good to treating it as a private investment has created an extended adolescence, with financial stability—a prerequisite for many potential parents—arriving much later in life than for previous generations. The social safety net's structure creates additional obstacles, particularly for working-class families. Programs like Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), and the Earned Income Tax Credit often contain significant marriage penalties, where combining incomes can result in benefit losses that exceed any financial gains from marriage. A single mother earning $20,000 who marries her child's father earning $20,000 can lose thousands in benefits, effectively being penalized for forming a stable family unit. These disincentives further complicate family formation for those with modest incomes. Addressing these barriers requires a comprehensive approach to family policy. A universal child allowance—direct monthly payments to families with children—would significantly reduce child poverty while acknowledging the value of raising the next generation. Paid family leave, universal preschool, affordable child care, and summer programming would reduce the time and financial pressures that make parenting so difficult. Restructuring social programs to eliminate marriage penalties would remove artificial barriers to family formation. Rather than viewing such policies as mere social welfare, they should be understood as investments in America's demographic future. Countries that have implemented family-friendly policies, from Sweden to France, have generally maintained higher fertility rates than those without such support. By making it easier for Americans to have the families they already say they want, the United States could significantly boost its population growth while improving quality of life for millions of families. This approach represents not just good social policy but smart national strategy for maintaining America's position in the world.

Chapter 5: Immigration as National Strategy: Historical Perspective

Throughout American history, immigration has been a powerful engine of national growth and development. When George Washington welcomed Irish immigrants in 1783, he wasn't merely expressing humanitarian sentiment but articulating a strategic vision: "America is open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions." This approach reflected an understanding that national greatness required population growth, and immigration was the fastest way to achieve it. The contemporary immigration debate has become distorted by framing the issue as a choice between selfishness and charity—whether America should "put America first" or help foreigners. This misses the historical understanding that immigration primarily benefits the receiving nation. Studies consistently show that immigration generates economic benefits for native-born citizens. Even controversial cases like the 1980 Mariel boatlift, when 125,000 Cubans arrived in Miami over just a few months, had minimal negative impact on wages or employment for locals despite increasing Miami's workforce by 7-8% almost overnight. America's current immigration system drastically limits these benefits through arbitrary caps and bureaucratic hurdles. The country turns away millions of potential immigrants who would contribute to economic growth and innovation. Immigrants already make up a disproportionate share of America's entrepreneurs, patent holders, and scientific researchers. They founded more than half of America's high-growth startups and have been critical to technological development in sectors from medicine to computing. A thoughtful expansion of immigration would target various skill levels and needs. Specialized visa programs could bring medical professionals to address healthcare shortages, skilled workers to revitalize declining cities, and entrepreneurs to create new businesses. The "National Renewal Visa" concept would allow immigrants to live in specific locations experiencing population decline for a period before gaining full mobility rights, helping to stabilize communities that desperately need new residents and economic activity. Common objections to increased immigration—that immigrants strain public services or change cultural dynamics—largely misunderstand the evidence. Studies from the National Academy of Sciences show that immigration is a net fiscal positive, particularly over the long term, as immigrants and their children become taxpayers and contributors. And while cultural concerns are subjective, America's history demonstrates its remarkable capacity to integrate newcomers while allowing them to contribute their own perspectives and talents to the national fabric. The simple mathematics of global competition make immigration essential to America's future. Without significantly increased immigration, the United States cannot plausibly maintain its position relative to China and other rising powers. But beyond geopolitical competition, immigration represents an opportunity to revitalize communities, drive innovation, fill critical workforce needs, and enhance America's dynamism and cultural vitality. By reimagining immigration as national strategy rather than charity or threat, America can unlock enormous potential for growth and renewal.

Chapter 6: Rebuilding Cities: Revitalizing America's Urban Centers

Many American cities that once stood as industrial powerhouses have experienced dramatic population decline over recent decades. Detroit's fall from 1.85 million residents to under 400,000 represents one of the most dramatic urban contractions in modern history, but it's far from unique. St. Louis has lost 65% of its peak population. Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Buffalo, and dozens of other cities have experienced similar hollowing out. This abandonment represents an enormous waste of existing infrastructure, housing, cultural institutions, and urban potential. The causes of this decline began with technological and social changes—automobiles enabled suburban expansion while deindustrialization eliminated manufacturing jobs that had been economic anchors. But over time, population loss became self-perpetuating. As residents leave, the tax base shrinks while fixed costs for maintaining infrastructure remain largely the same. This creates a downward spiral: fewer residents mean higher per-person tax burdens or deteriorating services, which drives more people away. Meanwhile, property values fall below replacement cost, meaning houses sell for less than it would cost to build them new, discouraging maintenance and new construction. Reversing this cycle requires a coordinated strategy focused on bringing jobs and people back to these cities. One powerful approach would be decentralizing the federal government. While most federal employees don't work in Washington, DC, many agencies that have no compelling reason to be in the capital region remain concentrated there, occupying expensive real estate in a thriving metropolitan area. Relocating agencies to cities like Cleveland, Detroit, or St. Louis would bring thousands of stable, well-paying jobs while freeing up space in overheated housing markets. Private sector relocation could play an even more significant role. When Amazon conducted its search for a second headquarters, it ultimately selected already-thriving areas (Northern Virginia and, initially, New York City) rather than cities that desperately needed economic revitalization. This pattern persists because businesses find it safer to locate where talent already exists. Breaking this cycle requires coordinated relocation efforts—perhaps incentivized by federal policy—where multiple companies move together, creating instant industry clusters rather than isolated outposts. Higher education investment represents another powerful tool for urban revitalization. Research universities generate economic activity through direct employment, student spending, and technological innovation that spawns new businesses. Federal investment in new universities or major expansions of existing institutions in declining cities could catalyze broader renewal. Studies show that university research spending creates more positive economic spillovers than simply increasing student enrollment, making it particularly effective for regional development. Immigration policy could be specifically designed to support urban revitalization through place-based visas that direct newcomers to cities needing population growth. These "National Renewal Visas" would allow immigrants to live in specific cities for a period (perhaps five years) before gaining full mobility rights. Cities would opt into the program, receiving population growth and economic activity while immigrants would gain access to affordable housing, job opportunities, and a path to permanent residency. Evidence from places like Utica, NY, which embraced refugee resettlement, shows how newcomers can revitalize neighborhoods, open businesses, and breathe new life into declining areas. Rebuilding America's hollowed-out cities represents not just an economic opportunity but a chance to preserve unique cultural heritage, utilize existing infrastructure, and create more balanced national development. Rather than continuing to concentrate growth in a handful of increasingly expensive coastal cities, a deliberate strategy to revitalize former industrial centers would distribute opportunity more equitably while accommodating a much larger national population.

Chapter 7: Infrastructure and Housing: Creating Space for Growth

Any vision of a significantly larger American population must address two fundamental questions: where will these people live, and how will they get around? Current housing and transportation policies in many parts of the country are already failing to accommodate existing populations, leading to housing shortages, traffic congestion, and infrastructure strain. However, these problems stem not from any inherent capacity limits but from policy choices that artificially constrain growth. America's housing crisis is particularly acute in coastal metropolitan areas where restrictive zoning laws prevent adequate construction. In cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and New York, the cost of buying a house far exceeds the cost of building one—a clear sign that regulations, not physical or economic constraints, are limiting supply. The majority of residential land in most American cities is zoned exclusively for single-family detached homes, making it illegal to build duplexes, townhouses, or apartment buildings even in areas with excellent access to jobs and transit. These restrictions reflect a political system that gives outsized influence to existing homeowners who often oppose new development. Local zoning meetings are dominated by participants who are older, whiter, wealthier, and more likely to own homes than the broader community. This creates an asymmetric politics where the concentrated interests of current residents outweigh the diffuse interests of people who might move to an area if housing were available. The result is artificial scarcity that drives up prices and limits opportunity. Reforming these barriers requires action at multiple levels of government. Some states have begun to override local restrictions—Oregon and California have largely eliminated single-family-only zoning, while Minneapolis became the first major city to do so citywide. A national growth compact could tie federal infrastructure funding to housing production, rewarding jurisdictions that allow more construction while penalizing those that maintain artificial barriers. Transportation infrastructure faces similar challenges. America's existing transportation network is deteriorating faster than it's being repaired, with the percentage of roads in poor condition rising from 14% to 20% between 2009 and 2017 despite increased funding. State transportation departments typically split their budgets evenly between maintenance and new construction, even as existing roads crumble. They also divide maintenance funding equally between rural and metropolitan roads, despite 80% of the population living in metro areas. More efficient use of existing infrastructure could accommodate significant population growth. Congestion pricing—charging drivers to use crowded roads during peak hours—has successfully reduced traffic in cities from Stockholm to Singapore while generating revenue for transit improvements. Modern technologies allow for more sophisticated management of transportation systems, from dynamic pricing to improved transit operations. America could also learn from international best practices. German cities have transformed their commuter rail systems into integrated "S-train" networks that provide frequent, all-day service throughout metropolitan regions. Construction costs for transit infrastructure in the United States are dramatically higher than in peer countries—New York's Second Avenue Subway cost $1.7 billion per kilometer compared to $230-260 million in Paris or Berlin. Adopting more efficient procurement, design, and construction practices could allow America to build much more infrastructure for the same cost. The technical challenges of housing and transporting a billion Americans are entirely surmountable with existing technology and reasonable investments. The primary obstacles are political and institutional—outdated regulations, fragmented governance, and systems that prioritize the status quo over growth and change. By reforming these systems, America could accommodate a much larger population while improving quality of life for all residents.

Summary

Throughout this exploration of America's demographic future, one central tension emerges: the United States faces relative decline on the world stage not because of internal weakness but because of basic mathematics. With China's population more than four times larger than America's and its economy rapidly modernizing, the United States cannot maintain its position as the world's leading power through productivity improvements alone. This fundamental challenge requires a proportional response—dramatically increasing America's population through a combination of increased immigration and support for families who want more children. The path forward is surprisingly straightforward, though politically challenging. America has abundant physical space, with population density far lower than most developed countries. Its hollowed-out cities have infrastructure and housing for millions more residents than they currently host. The technology and resources needed to accommodate growth already exist—what's lacking is the political will to reform outdated policies that artificially constrain development. By reimagining immigration as national strategy rather than charity, supporting families who want more children, revitalizing declining cities, and reforming housing and transportation systems, the United States could chart a course toward continued global leadership while creating a more prosperous society for all Americans. The question is not whether America can grow to one billion people, but whether it has the vision and determination to embrace its full potential in the century ahead.

About Author

Loading...

Matthew Yglesias

Read more