

U.S. and World Population Clock - recardona
http://www.census.gov/popclock/

======
shutupalready
Notice that there are many more males than females in the USA for in the age
bracket when relationships form. The ratio is 1.07 (.73/.68 = 1.07) for 19
year olds. It's incredibly high and I wonder why that is?

Think about the implication: No matter what those 107 guys do there will be
only enough girlfriends/wives/lovers for 100 hundred of them. The ratio
reverses only after age 45.

This might explain the extraordinary effort by men to meet women in the U.S.
as compared to some other countries and earlier times in U.S. history. The
dating sites, the PUA courses, and even Zuckerberg's original motive for
Facebook. The competition is super intense because it's a zero sum game. For
7% of men it's futile. (I'm simplifying by ignoring 19 year olds with 45 year
old girlfriends, gays relationships, and many other factors.)

Most people know that women outnumber men _overall_ , but are unaware that the
statistics for young people are reversed.

~~~
logicchains
I've seen some statistics (not sure about their validity) stating that around
10% of the population are gay/bisexual, so if this were the case then having
7% more males than females wouldn't necessarily be a problem.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Unless 10% of females are also gay/bisexual, then it all cancels out. Also,
gender disparities could affect the gay/bisexual communities just as much as
the straight community.

~~~
logicchains
That's true. Well at least the imbalance is only in a single age group, not
for instance like in China where selective abortions have lead to a nationwide
gender gap[1].

[http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-
pacific...](http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-
pacific/china/110615/china-and-the-worst-ever-man-made-gender-gap)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Dating was actually easier for me in china, and my now Chinese wife says is
still is sort of hard for girls to find the right guys especially at the
higher end of the socioeconomic spectrum. It's complicated.

~~~
logicchains
I lived in China for a couple of years and found the same, but I don't think
our experiences would be representative of those of the average mainland
Chinese male.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Average no, upper class definitely.

------
habosa
Wow, I can't believe that birth is only 5x as common as immigration in the US.
I knew there were a lot of people coming into the country but I didn't think
it would be that significant.

~~~
anigbrowl
We need more if we are to sustain our tax base; immigration only seems high
because fertility is relatively low. While it's a lot in absolute terms, the
US is only around 180th in terms of population density, well below average.

[http://ssab.gov/Documents/IMMIG_Issue_Brief_Final_Version_00...](http://ssab.gov/Documents/IMMIG_Issue_Brief_Final_Version_000.pdf)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_de...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density)

~~~
MrZongle2
Or we could consider _spending_ less.

~~~
anigbrowl
No we couldn't. Entitlement spending (eg social security) is mandatory, by
law. The architects of that system (and of Medicare) did not foresee the bay
boomer generation and the sudden drop in fertility. US pensions are not
especially generous, though Medicare costs could certainly be controlled. I
urge you to read the SSAB report; this isn't something you can conserve your
way out of, same way that you can't conserve your way out of rising carbon
pollution.

Sure, Congress could pass a law to cut entitlements significantly. But good
luck explaining to voters who paid payroll taxes all their working lives that
they can't have what they paid for.

------
D9u
I see a discrepancy between the listing of the 10 most populous nations, and
the counter...

[http://i.imgur.com/Jm9uQSF.png](http://i.imgur.com/Jm9uQSF.png) 3\. United
States 318,892,103

But the counter for the USA (as I write this) says: 317,760,552.

~~~
itafroma
The data for the top 10 countries are being pulled from the Census Bureau's
International Database. Here's the US data:
[http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/regi...](http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/region.php?N=%20Results%20&T=13&A=separate&RT=0&Y=2014&R=-1&C=US)

There, you can see 2014's mid-year population is identical to the top 10
chart.

So 318,892,103 is the estimated mid-year population for 2014 (July 1), whereas
317,760,552 is the estimated population as of today (March 27).

------
tesseract
This has been around a long time in one form or another. I remember being
fascinated by it as a kid in the early 90s when I was first introduced to the
Internet. (Does anyone have a screenshot for comparison? Sadly it doesn't seem
to be on archive.org.)

------
largehotcoffee
Interesting that the population age drops off right at 65 (also the retirement
age).

~~~
yahelc
That's a function of the Baby Boomers starting to enter their mid-60s.

~~~
stormen
I would guess it's rather that the birth rate during the war was rather low,
given that a lot of young males were either in Europe and/or killed?

~~~
adventured
That's not correct. Population growth increased from the 1930s compared to the
1940s, and accelerated during the war (it was eg twice as high in '45 and '46
as '33). The great depression had a much greater impact on population growth
than WW2 did. The only negative modern year being 1918 (combination of WW1 +
deep recession post war + flu pandemic). Live births also increased during
WW2.

[http://www.multpl.com/us-population-growth-rate/table/by-
yea...](http://www.multpl.com/us-population-growth-rate/table/by-year)

[http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html](http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html)

------
tzs
It would be neat to have some kind of public display that shows two scrolling
lists. One is a real time list of births in the US. The other, a real time
list of US deaths.

The birth and death rates are low enough that most of the time both lists
would be changing slow enough that you could easily keep up reading them, but
high enough that you could see movement and see that the birth list is growing
faster.

The death list would probably be the most interesting, as it would be less
steady. You'd occasionally see blocks of deaths all in the same location as
accidents and disasters happen.

~~~
TorKlingberg
That would require a live feed of births and deaths, which I don't think
exists. The site is probably based on projections from census data.

~~~
nivertech
Minority Report has live feed of future non-natural deaths.

------
spikels
Interested in the world's population and got 43 minutes to spare? Joel Cohen
of the Rockefeller and Columbia has an excellent discussion. You may be
surprised what you learn.

[http://www.floatinguniversity.com/lectures-
cohen](http://www.floatinguniversity.com/lectures-cohen)

Also on YouTube:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vr44C_G0-o](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vr44C_G0-o)

------
binarytrees
The slow demise of the world and it's resources clock.

------
vixen99
Poorly-worded heading! Net gain of one person every 16 seconds while the World
Population counter ticks merrily away at around two or three per second!

------
camus2
That's no clock,but a ticking time-bomb!

------
Baily
'One death every 12 seconds'___I didn't notice it before.

------
elementary2014
Quite interesting so many of the top countries are Muslim (Bangladesh,
Pakistan, big chunks of Nigeria and India).

I wonder what will happen in the near future when the Muslim population
inevitably dominates over the other groups.

~~~
stormen
As it gets more educated and gains a higher level of living standard, the
muslim population will slow its birth rate. A high birth rate is primarily
visible in countries where you HAVE to have kids to survive when you get old.

~~~
camus2
It is specifically about women getting emancipated.

Nigeria is really an oddity. Wonder why the birthrate is that exponential
there.

