In the last 117 years the population of the US has only once declined against a steady background of population growth. The world was hit by a massive influenza pandemic during that period but could that alone have accounted for this anomaly or was there another factor operating
July 1, 1919 104,514,000 1,306,000 1.26
July 1, 1918 103,208,000 -60,000 -0.06
July 1, 1917 103,268,000 1,307,000 1.27
Barry,
I think that the July 1, 1918 U.S. population number is unreliable. Prior to 1940 the U.S. Census Bureau did not count U.S. citizens that were stationed overseas in the military. Since over 4 million U.S. soldiers were mobilized between August of 1917 and the summer of 1918 the U.S. Census Bureau had to estimate how many were overseas versus living but not counted in the States. I'd say that the margin of error probably covers that supposed decrease.
There also could have been a decrease in births in due to an immediate anticipation of U.S. involvement in the war. While 1917 looks like a negative growth, there was a substantial decrease in population growth during the Great Depression. It was only after the economy crossed the threshold of where it was at the time of the start of the depression in 1929 that the population continued its more regular trend. Interestingly, from an historic perspective, there was an increase in the U.S. birth rate in 1940 that continued through World War II. This increase in U.S. population growth probably consisted of wartime babies in families that were recovering from the Great Depression and had elected not to have children due to the economic conditions at the time.
JAG
Excellent answer James. The US census was indeed skewed by a failure to properly account for US Servicemen stationed overseas.
I was interested to know if the effects of WW1, in particular the economic effects were causing a downturn in the birth rate well prior to the US entering the war in 1917.
Barry,
There were very minor outbreaks of influenza in the United States in 1905-1906 and in 1916-1917, but the severe outbreak was in 1918-1919. Influenza shouldn't have been a factor in the 1917 census.
Economic indicators also say otherwise. According to the U.S. Census Bureau data, the Net National Product went from 28.9 billion (1907-1911) to 36.9 billion (1912-1916) to an astonishing 70.3 billion (1917-1921). Person income numbers look similar for those three periods at 26.7 b, 33.7 b, and 62.5 b. Disposable income also followed that trend with 26.4 b, 33.3 b, and 61.0 b. Data show that the average wage and the Consumer Price Index started an upward trend in 1916, with a substantial jump in 1918. These numbers suggests that the increased production and wages that resulted from the U.S. being on wartime footing is the cause for both the almost doubled growth in National Product and Personal Income and the increase in wages and the CPI. That being said, there shouldn't be any financial reason for people to not have children, thus a negative growth in 1917.
It is an interesting question. More investigation is needed to eliminate the 1917 anomaly as a bad census estimate, but my feeling is that the answer does lie in the way the Census Bureau counted the military.
JAG
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1975/compendia/hist_stats_colonial-1970/hist_stats_colonial-1970p1-chF.pdf
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1975/compendia/hist_stats_colonial-1970/hist_stats_colonial-1970p1-chD.pdf
This may happen due to several possible errors (assignable and/or random) if there was really a population growth anomaly in the United States in 1917.
However, it is also possible that population can decrease.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Microbiology
- Virology
- Virus