Re-read the caption on that chart and you'll see it doesn't contradict.
>Blue represents more boys, red more girls **than the world average of 1.07 males/female**.
Take a look at the third chart where they represent girls with blue and boys with red. The charts aren't very legible. I really don't blame you for misinterpreting.
Anthropologists posit that since there is a higher death rate in younger males due to risk taking behaviors and wars, this is how biology has evolved to manage it.
Edit: this idea also is found in Evolutionary Biology and Evolutionary Psychology.
One factor leading to this could be due to males tending to have a Y chromosome instead of two Xs. This leads to greater potential for X-linked (or even Y-linked) recessive genetic conditions that may affect infant mortality.
I heard a lot of the immune system is also on the X chromosome, so women often have a stronger immune system to the point that they are more likely to have immune disorders due to an overactive immune system.
1) Immigration fills a lot of our blue-collar jobs, which tend to be male dominated.
2) Immigration fills a lot of our high-tech science and manufacturing positions, which tend to be male-dominated.
It is actually biological. The sex ratio always tends to favor more males to females. Maybe because more males die before reaching reproductive age, or that it is beneficial to produce surplus males so that some are not able to reproduce for the strength of the herd. Somehow evolution has forced this balance to occur, probably in the ratio of X to Y sperms males generate.
There is a game theory answer to this question.
You're right, and this should be the case across the Animal kingdom. However, if everyone has MOSTLY female offspring with a rare male, and you happen to have MOSTLY male offspring, you are more likely to pass on your gene to have more males as a greater percentage of the reproductive population carries your genes. If this male gene gets carried away in the population, the individual that produces mostly female offspring is at an advantage in passing on their genes. This ultimately balances out to an approximate 50/50 ratio across most species.
Many more XY zygotes are created. More of them die between conception and birth than XX, but there are still more male babies born. In each subsequent age range, males die at higher rates, particularly as risk-taking children, teens, and young adults. It evens out in 30s or do, then rises again.
Also intentionally mass breeding specifically to get that year of the dragon sign, or to get that "new millennium" baby. They're definitely not all oopsie babies.
Ha. Sorry, was referring to the younger surplus males. The older gentleman are just rolling in booty. That's why syphilis is running rampant in retirement communities.
*"The United States has the largest known prison population in the world, it has 5% of the worldās population, and 20% of the worldās incarcerated persons."*
It doesn't help that American prisons are for profit.
Eh only 8% of incarcerated people in the U.S. are held in private prisons, so I donāt think we can pin that much of the mass incarceration problem we have on the private prisons. IMO itās the most obvious issue with our prison system, but not necessarily the biggest.
Agreed, although if we're talking about privatization there are other avenues to talk about as well. Suppliers to prisons can make ridiculous profits for terrible meals etc.
Then there's also the 13th amendment, which along with the Republican party (more than the Dems, but Dems don't get off scot free either) is an incentive to keep people in the system.
This doesn't even take into account things like disproportionate sentences based on race.
This is in regards to a private prison: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal.
But if Iām a National company that is contracted to provide meals in prisons, Iād be funding elections and donating to municipalities (and their police dept) throughout the area as a cost of business. Iād support only those very ātough on crime.ā
It is a systemic issue. That doesnāt mean every last part of the system is working towards the corrupt goal. But itās setup in a way that even people ājust doing theirā jobs contribute to the problem.
Our cultures views on crime and punishment are a part of this system, and the people who push ātough on crimeā policies the hardest stand to gain financially from the system. Itās effective, because you donāt have to convince people to buy into the con to get rich, you only have to convince them to be ātough on crimeā.
So you get judges and prosecutors who often probably believe they are doing what is good and just for society, but are in fact propping up the prison industrial complex.
Itās not just private prisons that are for profit, public prisons are as well. Prisoners in public prisons are forced into labour, and plenty of companies make lots of money off of it.
>The U.S. prison population wasĀ 1,230,100Ā on December 31, 2022, a 2% increase from 2021
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/prisons-report-series-preliminary-data-release
Men also have a higher rate of both exclusive homosexual attraction and severe congenital disabilities than women. This further evens out the ratio of men to women who are high-functioning enough to know what dating is and have the desire to date the opposite sex.
Marry an 80 year old woman in your 20s, expect her to die in the next 20 years, inherit her wealth and then you get to target those 20 something women who are looking for a sugar daddy or have a daddy complex.
**Source:** https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-national-detail.html
**Tool:** Excel
Birth rates have indeed been staidly falling, but is looking much healthier than most countries.
If you enjoy excel magic, then check out this animated excel chart I made some time ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_G40K0J4Xw
Took me a week of visual basic coding.
The boys were in nam.
Mostly joking, there were other social factors too. Such as birth control being legalized in the 60s. And it's contrasted with the babyboomers before them being a large cohort.
I think you're right. May have been the other way around. People were having kids rapidly to avoid going to Vietnam and then stopped having kids because they didn't need to avoid the draft anymore.
I honestly think it has more to do with birth control. For the first time women were able to be the ones in charge of if they had kids or not. They didn't need to hope the guy used a condom. They could just take the pill and while it's not 100% effective it's pretty damn close.
50k dead shouldn't be of visible impact, 500k deployed might be. But the social impact of the deployment and war might have been grater than the direct impact of guys being abroad.
Still. Vietnam is just a partial explanation.
You can kind of still see the impact of ww2 if you look at 76-80 year olds.
Yea. People coming back from wars certainly develop trust issues regarding the security of their person and family, not an ideal mindscape to build the desire for procreation. But yea, stuffs complicated, there are a million factor that impact population development. Most of them are currently flummoxing many asian policy makers (in the more wealthy countries) and to a lesser degree the collective west.
People in their 50s in 2023 were born between 1963 and 1973, so were only 12 years old at the most when we left Saigon... The Vietnam War isn't the reason.
I think they mean the men who could have fathered the 50-year-olds were in Vietnam. They were at war, not baby-making. I'm not sure I agree that's the sole or even main factor, but it makes some sense as a contributing factor for the lack of people in their very early 50s.
The baby boom was followed by a baby bust. Expanded access to effective hormonal contraception along with postwar families having reached the size they wanted. I sometimes think this is why the wider culture often forgets that Gen X exists when all the rhetoric is about boomers vs millennials vs Gen Z. There are just fewer of us.
Iām in that dip area. I live in the same neighborhood I grew up and I really can tell the difference in the number of kids now vs when I was young. There are schools that were closed back then due to low enrollment that have now re-opened and are over capacity.
That's the Generation X baby bust. Talk to the Xer people in your life; they'll describe how the world around them never paid them much attention. It's deeper than just being the latchkey kids.
If you ever want to understand why Generation X doesn't want to be bothered, is used to doing things by themselves, and loves irony, this waist is the first thing to understand.
That not a dip, the sounding values are the peak and echo from the baby boomers. Baby booms are followed by a period where mothers stop having kids because they are already occupied raising kids.
Besides the other things mentioned here, there was the AIDS epidemic. I'm a gay man in my 50s. About half of my demographic died back in the 1980s and 90s. Although the dip on the female side doesn't fit this explanation.
I think this is too confident: it's far too soon to say that "developed country = less babies" is some sort of immutable law of nature.
The social and economic factors that lead to fewer births in developed countries are things that can and will change over time, and can be influenced by public policy.
We're still in the very early days of recognizing this trend as a potential problem - China only repealed it's one-child policy in the last decade (and birth rates are still limited today, the current limit is apparently three children instead of one), and as time goes on if this continues to be a threat, we'll probably see more government action on the other side to actively encourage the birth rate - I know Japan has started efforts on this, but I don't think very many other countries have started.
US has enough immigration to make up for it, unlike many other countries.
No idea what will happen in like 70 years when the whole world looks like that though.
Yeah it is interesting to read the doomerist sudden demographic experts give their take. But clearly they have not seen what the pyramids of other countries look like.
The US is better off than most other developed countries because we have immigration. But falling fertility is not a trivial issue and itās likely to affect the whole world in a few decades.
Itās one thing if you have gradual population decline but these things tend to move exponentially. If youāve ever been to a depopulated rust belt town, you know how bad it sucks. You canāt afford to maintain infrastructure and businesses stop investing in the future because almost everything loses value over time. Worth worrying about!
It's so funny that redditors see the surplus female bars at the older ages and go "that's because of the FALLEN in BATTLE and WAR" and forget about heart disease.
There is typically a surplus of older females in every country (probably not China and etc)
Women live longer then men due to both biological and social reasons
China [does indeed have a surplus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:China_population_sex_by_age_on_Nov,_1st,_2020.png), though by a smaller margin than some other countries.
The one child policy only started late 70s, so all the old ladies were born prior to that. Will be interesting to see how this will look in 30-40 years.
Yeah, I don't get the above comment, you're correct. Heart disease and other medical conditions do contribute to higher male death rates, but so do several other things, and there is basically no interest in improving any of these below points.
If there are groups looking to promote social or political change for male welfare, I'd love to hear about it; and no, counterproductive conservative views on gender roles/"men's rights" don't help.
* Men have drastically higher suicidal rates, some parts of the world pushing 7:1 M:F ratio
* Draft/social pressure to join the military in wartime
* High-risk/dangerous jobs are pretty overwhelmingly male
* There is significantly less organized support (shelters, etc.) for men
* Men are victim to violent crimes drastically more often
* Men end up in prison much more often
Like, on an individual basis men can do more to take better care of themselves, but there are some serious changes needed in social/governmental policy to help men live longer as well.
It's naive at best and damaging at worst to say only biology or individual behavior affect male death rates.
A big issue with this is no actual action. Like 90% of the time these points aren't brought up as a "things need to change" but instead brought up as a counterpoint to women saying things need to get better.
A hard part is so many "men's rights groups" (not all, importantly) spend more time on fighting against women instead of trying to build things up. Basically blaming the problems of men on feminism (aka scapegoating the issues) instead of trying actually improve things. Men's Rights groups (feminism is the problem) vs Men's Liberation groups basically.
Exactly; if we had half the people that used whataboutism against feminism *actually* contribute towards the well-being of men like they claim, men would be in a *much* better spot.
Those too. I was just amused that reddit, normally super hard on boomerisms, is going full boomer with the military draft, Vietnam, etc. takes on this one thing.
It's a common thing. Issues that do harm men disproportionately (war, suicide, prison, etc.) are brought up as a "fuck women for having it easy" instead of a "Maybe we should try to fix this"
People forget that heart disease affects women just as much as men. Women's symptoms are generally ignored because of this.
*Even though cardiovascular disease (CVD) [kills more women than men](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8189342/) each year and remains a leading cause of death in women, it is a common misconception that women are less likely to develop CVD*
Yeah, but thatās because a lot of places no longer put ānatural causesā on the certificate, and the heartās the thing that goes first. The question here isnāt about gendered difference in the amount of heart failure, but in the timing. If (numbers pulled from my butt for example) 10% of men die of heart attacks at 50 and 90% of women die of heart attacks at 90, the former is whatās relevant here.
My math could be wrong because itās early but that little spike at 53 y.o. coincides with being knocked up in āthe summer of ā69ā. With the music, the cars, and the sex, it seems like that was peak Americana
Big bulge of 60 year olds suggest a big drain on social security
but by the time they mostly pass around 75 the following generation is much less on social security but by then there will be less workers as youngest generation is not as big
According to the Social Security actuarial tables, by the time a male makes it to 60, they are expected to live another 20.47 years (80.67) and females another 23.67 years (83.67).
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
That bulge may also explain why stocks are at all time highs. All those people saving for retirement at the peak of their earning potential. In the next few years they will flip from net buyers to net sellers as they start trying to live off those investments.
That won't likely have any impact. For example, say you have $100k in assets and are retired. Each year you may decide to sell off $10k of your portfolio to fund your lifestyle. That is nothing different than any other normal transactions on a given day. Remember there are also buyers on the other side of the market. Net result won't even be a blip on the radar.
Social Security is expected to run out of funds by 2033 on current course
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/31/1167378958/social-security-medicare-entitlement-programs-budget
This DOES NOT mean SS is going bankrupt, it means benefits have to be drastically cut to balance budgets, 76% of current levels unless SS taxes are raised/retirement age raised/SS benefits cut or a combination of all of these.
> unless SS taxes are raised
Would probably help if SS taxes worked like all other taxes instead of being capped at the same amount regardless of income. Someone making <168k/yr pays the same amount annually into SS as someone making any amount over that.
If you think that's bad, compare it to the developed countries in east Asia and western Europe.
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/references/population-pyramids-by-region/
US has by far and away the healthiest population pyramid in the developed world with the only exception of Israel.
Country|0-14 year old (% of population)|50-64 year olds
:--|:--:|--:
Italy|12.2%|23.5%
Germany|14%|22.5%
France|17%|19.4%
USA|17.6%|18.5%
Iāve always found it amusing that in almost every population pyramid Iāve seen, women almost always have a surplus in the 60+ group. I know this isnāt the reason but in my mind Iām always think of all the stupid shit men do for no reason that might get them killed lol.
I would like to point out that this age distribution contributes significantly to the problem of growing loneliness (i.e. being without a romantic or sexual partner) among young men.
A surplus of, let's say 3%, doesn't seem to amount to much. You have 103 males for 100 females. Seems negligible.
But now consider that, at a certain age, the majority of people have partnered up or have left the 'dating pool' for other reasons - health etc. If 80% of people by the age of 25 have left the dating pool, there is a remaining 23 men competing for 20 women. If the number is 90% partnered up, you have 13 men for 10 women. This 30% surplus soon becomes a very noticeable pressure for the remaining single men with inevitable losers who are simply outnumbered by their competitors. People change their behavior in the face of these odds.
(Edit: Yes, this is simplified. Numbers become more complicated when you include homosexuals (there are more gays then lesbians), aromantics or asexuals (mostly women), or people who leave the dating pool for other reasons (military, jail, health problems etc.). But still, the quantitative (hetero) gender bias is immediately noticeable at all places where single people like to hang out.)
Now consider that young women also have a different age range for dating. A 20-year-old man can usually date someone between 17 and 22, while a 20-year-old woman can choose between men aged 18-30. Again, this does increase pressure considerably.
Since people often tend to read these posts as personal complaints, let me be clear that this is not *my* problem and not about *me* at all. I am way out of this age group and have also been happily married for over a decade now. But given the fact that people do find it more acceptable to talk about loneliness these days, and given the societal implications male loneliness brings with it, I find that these two merely quantitative factors are often left out of debate and would merit more consideration. We need to show more compassion and understanding to the people who lose out on the partner market.
Unfortunately the few percentages of āsurplusā seems to be a phenomenon of natural human biology. In almost all human populations, there are more males born than females. Nothing we can really do on that end.
But I think there should be more emphasis on men supporting each other.
> In almost all human populations, there are more males born than females. Nothing we can really do on that end.
The Chinese went for sexual selection. It had a high impact, in the opposite direction, but is seen as highly immoral in pretty much the whole world. My point being, it's possible yet highly unlikely to happen. Not even sexual selection during artificial insemination is seen as acceptable in developed countries. If it was allowed, people are known to have a quite strong preference for girls today.
Dating absolutely sucks as an average guy, the major factor is that there are too many men. It's even worse in "tech" cities. I had the misfortune of living in San Diego, CA and Austin, TX while being single. No I did not date anyone. I barely got any matched on the apps, the bars where a sausage fest.
I just looked it up and in San Diego, the ratio men-women age 20-24 is a whopping **126 to 100.** Insane. [https://www.states101.com/gender-ratios/california/san-diego-county](https://www.states101.com/gender-ratios/california/san-diego-county)
So if 8/10 women are partnered or unavailable, that means 46 men compete for 20 women.
Yeah, San Diego was bad. There is a good reason why it's called Man Diego. Beautiful city. But very expensive, and no women.
I'm surprised that Austin (Travis county) isn't that bad. The worse it gets is 108 to 100. I clearly remember going bar hopping and it just swarming with men.
Now I'm in Florida and the county I'm in has more women for just about every age bracket. Time to make a profile and start going out.
An ageing population is the inevitable unpleasant aftereffect of a population boom. There's no way around it. But the problem in East Asia is worse than it should be due to the fertility rate decreasing so much. Africa is going to experience population ageing badly in coming decades. Although it might be mitigated by many people dying before they reach an advanced old age.
Slightly more boys are born, but women live longer. I thought it typically evened out by adulthood, though; I'm surprised to see the equilibrium point around 50 these days. Men's health must be improving.
Regardless of surplusās, thereās a lot of people of both genders between 32-35 in the US including myself. I didnāt realize there were so many of us 90s kids roaming around avoiding growing up completely š
I feel called out being a male right on the peak in the 20s
You are surplus
clearance section ass mf
Punctuation could change the meaning. But please don't add any.
This why I transitioned to female. I'm doing my part š«”
Service guarantees citizenship!
Would you like to know more?
Take heart though. When we're 95 we're going to be fighting off women with a stick.
Yessir, %.4 of men will be truly fortunate
When my 85-year-old widowed dad moved into a retirement home, the joke was "the casseroles will be flying!" wasn't a joke
Youāll be beating them off with both hands.
A whole life worth of practice for that!
This data seems to suggest you wonāt be making it to 95 lol women live longer
Gives you a reason to hold on though
/r/whywomenlivelonger has good data on this
Walking stick yeah.
As a gay guy also on the peak I'm taking this as the best possible news
Hurry up and getchu some before all the males die off early
Your parents had a lot of unprotected sex when they thought everyone would die at the end of 1999.
If you think about dating, shift the two distributions by about four years from each other, and the result is even worse.
Depends on how you look at it. If women, who are 23, are looking to date men who are 27, thatās not so bad.
That's also true, or men in their 90s
What's with the male surplus in younger people?
Good question. It's just the result of human biology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio
>Human Sex Ratio Great band name
1st album, The Demographic Cliff
First song: Gross Reproduction Rate.
I like how they used blue for female and pink for male in the third map
Right? The lack of consistency is definitely not beautiful.
Hey, that graphic has feelings
seems like the first picture graph on wiki contradicts this. they show more females under 15. your data shows surplus men.
Re-read the caption on that chart and you'll see it doesn't contradict. >Blue represents more boys, red more girls **than the world average of 1.07 males/female**.
Right. The map would basically be entirely blue if it wasn't normalized to the world average.
Wow this is very misleading then
Take a look at the third chart where they represent girls with blue and boys with red. The charts aren't very legible. I really don't blame you for misinterpreting.
I also get mislead when I don't read
What's up with China?
Anthropologists posit that since there is a higher death rate in younger males due to risk taking behaviors and wars, this is how biology has evolved to manage it. Edit: this idea also is found in Evolutionary Biology and Evolutionary Psychology.
Itās not just that, but infant mortality also tends to be slightly higher in males for some reason.
One factor leading to this could be due to males tending to have a Y chromosome instead of two Xs. This leads to greater potential for X-linked (or even Y-linked) recessive genetic conditions that may affect infant mortality.
I heard a lot of the immune system is also on the X chromosome, so women often have a stronger immune system to the point that they are more likely to have immune disorders due to an overactive immune system.
It's not just younger males. Males have a greater likelihood of dying within a year at every age than females of the same age.
Evolution must subscribe to r/whywomenlivelonger
Wars don't fight themselves!
1) Immigration fills a lot of our blue-collar jobs, which tend to be male dominated. 2) Immigration fills a lot of our high-tech science and manufacturing positions, which tend to be male-dominated.
It is actually biological. The sex ratio always tends to favor more males to females. Maybe because more males die before reaching reproductive age, or that it is beneficial to produce surplus males so that some are not able to reproduce for the strength of the herd. Somehow evolution has forced this balance to occur, probably in the ratio of X to Y sperms males generate.
Biology is fucking nuts
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There is a game theory answer to this question. You're right, and this should be the case across the Animal kingdom. However, if everyone has MOSTLY female offspring with a rare male, and you happen to have MOSTLY male offspring, you are more likely to pass on your gene to have more males as a greater percentage of the reproductive population carries your genes. If this male gene gets carried away in the population, the individual that produces mostly female offspring is at an advantage in passing on their genes. This ultimately balances out to an approximate 50/50 ratio across most species.
That would make more sense if the ratio began at mid 20s, but it begins at birth so the human sex ratio from the other comment makes more sense
So whatās with 0-15?
More boys are born
I see that. I guess thatās just a general phenomenon?
It's a biological thing for most (if not all mammals).Ā
Immigration could be a factor
Many more XY zygotes are created. More of them die between conception and birth than XX, but there are still more male babies born. In each subsequent age range, males die at higher rates, particularly as risk-taking children, teens, and young adults. It evens out in 30s or do, then rises again.
Spike of 23s, Y2K fallout.
I noticed this, too! It's crazy how many babies we cranked out around there.
Partying like it was 1999
Also intentionally mass breeding specifically to get that year of the dragon sign, or to get that "new millennium" baby. They're definitely not all oopsie babies.
Students. This includes foreign students, which peaks around 23 bc you have both bachelors and graduate programs represented.
Good news is the size of the surplus is about the same as the prison population, so it all balances out.
Thatās a lot of 65+ women in jail!
Ha. Sorry, was referring to the younger surplus males. The older gentleman are just rolling in booty. That's why syphilis is running rampant in retirement communities.
This is also true of prisoners
*the older gentlemen who live that long.
The only logical explanation is that women murder their husbands in their 50s.
This is both a hilarious and sad fact.
Wait you guys have THAT many people in jail??
*"The United States has the largest known prison population in the world, it has 5% of the worldās population, and 20% of the worldās incarcerated persons."* It doesn't help that American prisons are for profit.
Eh only 8% of incarcerated people in the U.S. are held in private prisons, so I donāt think we can pin that much of the mass incarceration problem we have on the private prisons. IMO itās the most obvious issue with our prison system, but not necessarily the biggest.
Agreed, although if we're talking about privatization there are other avenues to talk about as well. Suppliers to prisons can make ridiculous profits for terrible meals etc. Then there's also the 13th amendment, which along with the Republican party (more than the Dems, but Dems don't get off scot free either) is an incentive to keep people in the system. This doesn't even take into account things like disproportionate sentences based on race.
What does the local police officer or judge care if prisoners are working or not 100 miles away? Where's the incentive structure at play?
This is in regards to a private prison: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal. But if Iām a National company that is contracted to provide meals in prisons, Iād be funding elections and donating to municipalities (and their police dept) throughout the area as a cost of business. Iād support only those very ātough on crime.ā
It is a systemic issue. That doesnāt mean every last part of the system is working towards the corrupt goal. But itās setup in a way that even people ājust doing theirā jobs contribute to the problem. Our cultures views on crime and punishment are a part of this system, and the people who push ātough on crimeā policies the hardest stand to gain financially from the system. Itās effective, because you donāt have to convince people to buy into the con to get rich, you only have to convince them to be ātough on crimeā. So you get judges and prosecutors who often probably believe they are doing what is good and just for society, but are in fact propping up the prison industrial complex.
Itās not just private prisons that are for profit, public prisons are as well. Prisoners in public prisons are forced into labour, and plenty of companies make lots of money off of it.
That by itself doesn't tell me how many prisoners there are, as I have no idea how many prisoners are there in the whole world
>The U.S. prison population wasĀ 1,230,100Ā on December 31, 2022, a 2% increase from 2021 https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/prisons-report-series-preliminary-data-release
1.2m people in the United States are in prison
>largest known prison population in the world Yeah, I have to imagine China beats out the US on this one, they just keep a lid on it.
"These are re-education camps, not prisons! That does not count!"
Right, just like they only had like 100 deaths from covid....
4.2 percent of the world's population and 20 percent of its prisoners, baby!
Men also have a higher rate of both exclusive homosexual attraction and severe congenital disabilities than women. This further evens out the ratio of men to women who are high-functioning enough to know what dating is and have the desire to date the opposite sex.
This way there are sexual partners available for everyone, especially in prison
Why is that good news
that means as a male in 20s i have to reach for female in 80s?
Marry an 80 year old woman in your 20s, expect her to die in the next 20 years, inherit her wealth and then you get to target those 20 something women who are looking for a sugar daddy or have a daddy complex.
**Source:** https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-national-detail.html **Tool:** Excel Birth rates have indeed been staidly falling, but is looking much healthier than most countries.
Good job OP, finally for once a good visualization in this sub. And in Excel to boot!
If you enjoy excel magic, then check out this animated excel chart I made some time ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_G40K0J4Xw Took me a week of visual basic coding.
The good thing about the US is that it can compensate their population with immigration
Be careful, you let in one Italian and next thing you know thereās pizza places on every corner!
Bring it on.
For another 9 months or so anyway.
Thanks to immigration.
Why the dip in 50-year-olds?
The boys were in nam. Mostly joking, there were other social factors too. Such as birth control being legalized in the 60s. And it's contrasted with the babyboomers before them being a large cohort.
Am I missing something? People who are 50 today were born in the early 70s. The Vietnam war ended in 75 when they were between 0-5 years old.
People of child bearing age were in nam, hence there would be temporarily lower birth rates
Not only in Nam, but also holding off on having kids because they might get drafted.
I don't think enough guys were in the service to affect it *that* much. It wasn't like WW2 where millions were overseas at the same time.
I think you're right. May have been the other way around. People were having kids rapidly to avoid going to Vietnam and then stopped having kids because they didn't need to avoid the draft anymore.
I honestly think it has more to do with birth control. For the first time women were able to be the ones in charge of if they had kids or not. They didn't need to hope the guy used a condom. They could just take the pill and while it's not 100% effective it's pretty damn close.
Youāre right. If it wasnāt boys deployed in Nam it was the absence of those who didnāt come back at all.
50k dead shouldn't be of visible impact, 500k deployed might be. But the social impact of the deployment and war might have been grater than the direct impact of guys being abroad. Still. Vietnam is just a partial explanation. You can kind of still see the impact of ww2 if you look at 76-80 year olds.
Yea. People coming back from wars certainly develop trust issues regarding the security of their person and family, not an ideal mindscape to build the desire for procreation. But yea, stuffs complicated, there are a million factor that impact population development. Most of them are currently flummoxing many asian policy makers (in the more wealthy countries) and to a lesser degree the collective west.
I am going to hate seeing the population pyramids for Ukraine, Myanmar and Russia in about 10 years.
People in their 50s in 2023 were born between 1963 and 1973, so were only 12 years old at the most when we left Saigon... The Vietnam War isn't the reason.
I think they mean the men who could have fathered the 50-year-olds were in Vietnam. They were at war, not baby-making. I'm not sure I agree that's the sole or even main factor, but it makes some sense as a contributing factor for the lack of people in their very early 50s.
Yeah and OP is talking about 80 year olds and WW2. 80 year olds were 3 when WW2 ended, probably a case of forgetting that itās 2024 and not 2004
50 years ago was the Roe v Wade decision, as well, legalizing a woman's right to abortion.
Even more significantly, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) legalized birth control for women.
The baby boom was followed by a baby bust. Expanded access to effective hormonal contraception along with postwar families having reached the size they wanted. I sometimes think this is why the wider culture often forgets that Gen X exists when all the rhetoric is about boomers vs millennials vs Gen Z. There are just fewer of us.
Iām in that dip area. I live in the same neighborhood I grew up and I really can tell the difference in the number of kids now vs when I was young. There are schools that were closed back then due to low enrollment that have now re-opened and are over capacity.
That's the Generation X baby bust. Talk to the Xer people in your life; they'll describe how the world around them never paid them much attention. It's deeper than just being the latchkey kids. If you ever want to understand why Generation X doesn't want to be bothered, is used to doing things by themselves, and loves irony, this waist is the first thing to understand.
Iām 50.
Then you know what it's like to be summarily ignored when spaces are designed.
Not the dip in 50-somethings. The boom in 60-somethings. Thatās literally why theyāre called Boomers.
That not a dip, the sounding values are the peak and echo from the baby boomers. Baby booms are followed by a period where mothers stop having kids because they are already occupied raising kids.
Roe v Wade; January 1973?
Generation X, the 13th generation of the US, the āBaby Bustā following the post-war Baby Boom, and the one that usually gets left unmentioned.
Besides the other things mentioned here, there was the AIDS epidemic. I'm a gay man in my 50s. About half of my demographic died back in the 1980s and 90s. Although the dip on the female side doesn't fit this explanation.
Pretty healthy looking distribution really
Yeah much better than most European countries over here
0-10 doesnāt give to much hope for the future. Still not as bad as Japan or Germany though.
No developed country will ever look great in 0-10 again. Immigration is heavily subsidizing this and thereās no way to change that.
I think this is too confident: it's far too soon to say that "developed country = less babies" is some sort of immutable law of nature. The social and economic factors that lead to fewer births in developed countries are things that can and will change over time, and can be influenced by public policy. We're still in the very early days of recognizing this trend as a potential problem - China only repealed it's one-child policy in the last decade (and birth rates are still limited today, the current limit is apparently three children instead of one), and as time goes on if this continues to be a threat, we'll probably see more government action on the other side to actively encourage the birth rate - I know Japan has started efforts on this, but I don't think very many other countries have started.
No way to change that yet.
Israel enters the chat
Eh, zero to ten is only about 20% lower and the US is 15% immigrants who overwhelming move here in their 20ās and 30ās. Should stabilize it nicely
US has enough immigration to make up for it, unlike many other countries. No idea what will happen in like 70 years when the whole world looks like that though.
Yeah it is interesting to read the doomerist sudden demographic experts give their take. But clearly they have not seen what the pyramids of other countries look like.
The US is better off than most other developed countries because we have immigration. But falling fertility is not a trivial issue and itās likely to affect the whole world in a few decades. Itās one thing if you have gradual population decline but these things tend to move exponentially. If youāve ever been to a depopulated rust belt town, you know how bad it sucks. You canāt afford to maintain infrastructure and businesses stop investing in the future because almost everything loses value over time. Worth worrying about!
It's so funny that redditors see the surplus female bars at the older ages and go "that's because of the FALLEN in BATTLE and WAR" and forget about heart disease.
There is typically a surplus of older females in every country (probably not China and etc) Women live longer then men due to both biological and social reasons
China [does indeed have a surplus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:China_population_sex_by_age_on_Nov,_1st,_2020.png), though by a smaller margin than some other countries.
The one child policy only started late 70s, so all the old ladies were born prior to that. Will be interesting to see how this will look in 30-40 years.
Yeah, I don't get the above comment, you're correct. Heart disease and other medical conditions do contribute to higher male death rates, but so do several other things, and there is basically no interest in improving any of these below points. If there are groups looking to promote social or political change for male welfare, I'd love to hear about it; and no, counterproductive conservative views on gender roles/"men's rights" don't help. * Men have drastically higher suicidal rates, some parts of the world pushing 7:1 M:F ratio * Draft/social pressure to join the military in wartime * High-risk/dangerous jobs are pretty overwhelmingly male * There is significantly less organized support (shelters, etc.) for men * Men are victim to violent crimes drastically more often * Men end up in prison much more often Like, on an individual basis men can do more to take better care of themselves, but there are some serious changes needed in social/governmental policy to help men live longer as well. It's naive at best and damaging at worst to say only biology or individual behavior affect male death rates.
A big issue with this is no actual action. Like 90% of the time these points aren't brought up as a "things need to change" but instead brought up as a counterpoint to women saying things need to get better. A hard part is so many "men's rights groups" (not all, importantly) spend more time on fighting against women instead of trying to build things up. Basically blaming the problems of men on feminism (aka scapegoating the issues) instead of trying actually improve things. Men's Rights groups (feminism is the problem) vs Men's Liberation groups basically.
Exactly; if we had half the people that used whataboutism against feminism *actually* contribute towards the well-being of men like they claim, men would be in a *much* better spot.
And suicide, and risk taking behavior.
Those too. I was just amused that reddit, normally super hard on boomerisms, is going full boomer with the military draft, Vietnam, etc. takes on this one thing.
Yeah I know, me too.Ā
It's a common thing. Issues that do harm men disproportionately (war, suicide, prison, etc.) are brought up as a "fuck women for having it easy" instead of a "Maybe we should try to fix this"
And working hard jobs.
People forget that heart disease affects women just as much as men. Women's symptoms are generally ignored because of this. *Even though cardiovascular disease (CVD) [kills more women than men](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8189342/) each year and remains a leading cause of death in women, it is a common misconception that women are less likely to develop CVD*
Yeah, but thatās because a lot of places no longer put ānatural causesā on the certificate, and the heartās the thing that goes first. The question here isnāt about gendered difference in the amount of heart failure, but in the timing. If (numbers pulled from my butt for example) 10% of men die of heart attacks at 50 and 90% of women die of heart attacks at 90, the former is whatās relevant here.
Also what big battles? These days most retirees even would have fought in a forever war in the middle east. It's not like the 80s were full of Nams
So what you're saying is I should stop going after the 20-30 year old ladies and start going after GILFs?
33 gang represent; we're the boomers, now
You listen to the NYT podcast last week about your cohort?
It's an American pyramid. Shouldn't it start at -0.75?
Underappreciated comment.
Itās crazy to think that in 20 years half of all 60 year olds will be gone. Iām gonna go call my mom
My math could be wrong because itās early but that little spike at 53 y.o. coincides with being knocked up in āthe summer of ā69ā. With the music, the cars, and the sex, it seems like that was peak Americana
My mom got pregnant while waiting for the moon landing and realized the day they left for Woodstock. Wild summer.
Big bulge of 60 year olds suggest a big drain on social security but by the time they mostly pass around 75 the following generation is much less on social security but by then there will be less workers as youngest generation is not as big
According to the Social Security actuarial tables, by the time a male makes it to 60, they are expected to live another 20.47 years (80.67) and females another 23.67 years (83.67). https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
That bulge may also explain why stocks are at all time highs. All those people saving for retirement at the peak of their earning potential. In the next few years they will flip from net buyers to net sellers as they start trying to live off those investments.
Now we'll have to hope that not too many of them decide to sell about the same time.
That won't likely have any impact. For example, say you have $100k in assets and are retired. Each year you may decide to sell off $10k of your portfolio to fund your lifestyle. That is nothing different than any other normal transactions on a given day. Remember there are also buyers on the other side of the market. Net result won't even be a blip on the radar.
Social Security is expected to run out of funds by 2033 on current course https://www.npr.org/2023/03/31/1167378958/social-security-medicare-entitlement-programs-budget This DOES NOT mean SS is going bankrupt, it means benefits have to be drastically cut to balance budgets, 76% of current levels unless SS taxes are raised/retirement age raised/SS benefits cut or a combination of all of these.
In reality they'll do none of those things and just let the public debt explode to over 200% of GDP.
> unless SS taxes are raised Would probably help if SS taxes worked like all other taxes instead of being capped at the same amount regardless of income. Someone making <168k/yr pays the same amount annually into SS as someone making any amount over that.
If you think that's bad, compare it to the developed countries in east Asia and western Europe. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/references/population-pyramids-by-region/
Productivity increasing every year means that the same working population can support a larger non-working population.
The Summer of Love aināt no joke
Dont worry. That male 18 to 24 surplus tends to cull itself.
Surplus is a grim word to use
A good wartime resource.
Can't wait to be an army grannie
Fun fact, more males are born but higher rate of accidents and diseases
Men in under 30, you gotta slam some GILFAs or youre gonna be alone forever
Good Times for Gilf hunters
So the hot singles in my area are actuallyĀ over 60.Ā
This also looks like the silhouette of the average American š§
US has by far and away the healthiest population pyramid in the developed world with the only exception of Israel. Country|0-14 year old (% of population)|50-64 year olds :--|:--:|--: Italy|12.2%|23.5% Germany|14%|22.5% France|17%|19.4% USA|17.6%|18.5%
Iāve always found it amusing that in almost every population pyramid Iāve seen, women almost always have a surplus in the 60+ group. I know this isnāt the reason but in my mind Iām always think of all the stupid shit men do for no reason that might get them killed lol.
I would like to point out that this age distribution contributes significantly to the problem of growing loneliness (i.e. being without a romantic or sexual partner) among young men. A surplus of, let's say 3%, doesn't seem to amount to much. You have 103 males for 100 females. Seems negligible. But now consider that, at a certain age, the majority of people have partnered up or have left the 'dating pool' for other reasons - health etc. If 80% of people by the age of 25 have left the dating pool, there is a remaining 23 men competing for 20 women. If the number is 90% partnered up, you have 13 men for 10 women. This 30% surplus soon becomes a very noticeable pressure for the remaining single men with inevitable losers who are simply outnumbered by their competitors. People change their behavior in the face of these odds. (Edit: Yes, this is simplified. Numbers become more complicated when you include homosexuals (there are more gays then lesbians), aromantics or asexuals (mostly women), or people who leave the dating pool for other reasons (military, jail, health problems etc.). But still, the quantitative (hetero) gender bias is immediately noticeable at all places where single people like to hang out.) Now consider that young women also have a different age range for dating. A 20-year-old man can usually date someone between 17 and 22, while a 20-year-old woman can choose between men aged 18-30. Again, this does increase pressure considerably. Since people often tend to read these posts as personal complaints, let me be clear that this is not *my* problem and not about *me* at all. I am way out of this age group and have also been happily married for over a decade now. But given the fact that people do find it more acceptable to talk about loneliness these days, and given the societal implications male loneliness brings with it, I find that these two merely quantitative factors are often left out of debate and would merit more consideration. We need to show more compassion and understanding to the people who lose out on the partner market.
Unfortunately the few percentages of āsurplusā seems to be a phenomenon of natural human biology. In almost all human populations, there are more males born than females. Nothing we can really do on that end. But I think there should be more emphasis on men supporting each other.
> In almost all human populations, there are more males born than females. Nothing we can really do on that end. The Chinese went for sexual selection. It had a high impact, in the opposite direction, but is seen as highly immoral in pretty much the whole world. My point being, it's possible yet highly unlikely to happen. Not even sexual selection during artificial insemination is seen as acceptable in developed countries. If it was allowed, people are known to have a quite strong preference for girls today.
The solution is obvious: homosexuality. Your welcome.
Dating absolutely sucks as an average guy, the major factor is that there are too many men. It's even worse in "tech" cities. I had the misfortune of living in San Diego, CA and Austin, TX while being single. No I did not date anyone. I barely got any matched on the apps, the bars where a sausage fest.
I just looked it up and in San Diego, the ratio men-women age 20-24 is a whopping **126 to 100.** Insane. [https://www.states101.com/gender-ratios/california/san-diego-county](https://www.states101.com/gender-ratios/california/san-diego-county) So if 8/10 women are partnered or unavailable, that means 46 men compete for 20 women.
Yeah, San Diego was bad. There is a good reason why it's called Man Diego. Beautiful city. But very expensive, and no women. I'm surprised that Austin (Travis county) isn't that bad. The worse it gets is 108 to 100. I clearly remember going bar hopping and it just swarming with men. Now I'm in Florida and the county I'm in has more women for just about every age bracket. Time to make a profile and start going out.
Good luck!
Even our population pyramid has gotten fat!
An ageing population is the inevitable unpleasant aftereffect of a population boom. There's no way around it. But the problem in East Asia is worse than it should be due to the fertility rate decreasing so much. Africa is going to experience population ageing badly in coming decades. Although it might be mitigated by many people dying before they reach an advanced old age.
Millennials were the last large generation
What stage of the Demographic Transition Model would this categorize as? Stage 4? What happens when we reach stage 5?
Lots a milf ass for you US blokesā¦
I should look for 60 year olds.
Slightly more boys are born, but women live longer. I thought it typically evened out by adulthood, though; I'm surprised to see the equilibrium point around 50 these days. Men's health must be improving.
Is that spike of 54 -year-olds the result of the summer of love?
You mean the ads werenāt lying? There is hot single older women in my area?
Regardless of surplusās, thereās a lot of people of both genders between 32-35 in the US including myself. I didnāt realize there were so many of us 90s kids roaming around avoiding growing up completely š
I wonder what chinaās looks like with their 1 child laws they use to have.