COMMENTARY ON POPULATION : Continued Growth, Immigration Are Keys to Our Well-Being : The demand for public schools, senior services can be met by a robust work force fueled by newcomers, free markets.

The population research unit of California’s Department of Finance in Sacramento recently released revised long-run county population projections. Total population for Orange County is projected to increase from 2,424,100 in 1990 to 3,104,100 in 2010--an increase of 28% over the 20-year period.

On an annual basis, this increase is much lower than previous periods.

The population in Orange County, for example, is projected to increase on average 1.69% per year between 1990 and 2000 and only 0.80% between 2000 and 2010. These increases compare to much higher annual increases of 12.50% between 1950 and 1960, 7.27% between 1960 and 1970, 3.13% between 1970 and 1980, and 2.29% between 1980 and 1990.

In sharp contrast to the past when Orange County’s population growth greatly exceeded that of California and the nation, population increases through the year 2010 will be below California’s and only marginally higher than the United States’.

This slowdown in countywide population growth is likely to be met with relief by those concerned with various quality-of-life issues and the fiscal costs associated with providing public services to a rapidly growing population.

But before becoming too complacent over the projected slowdown in total population growth, it is necessary to analyze the age composition of the population. This type of analysis is necessary because the baby boomers born between 1946-65 were followed by the baby busters born between 1965-75. The resulting peaks and valleys in birth and death rates will create noticeable deviations in the growth rates of specific age groups compared to total population growth.

For example, the rear guard of the baby boom generation in Orange County will be at peak child-producing years during the 1990s. This will result in a sharp increase in the number of people living in Orange County through age 19.

At the other end of the age profile, the increase in net immigration in Orange County from 1950 through the 1970s is projected to lead to a significantly greater number of people over 65 by the year 2010. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. The baby boomers born between 1946-65 will not reach the over-65 age group until after 2010.

By the year 2010, the number of people living in Orange County who are no older than 19 will increase by 36%, and those over 65 will increase by 73%. These increases compare to a much lower 18% projected increase in the 20 to 65 working-age group as net immigration into the county declines.

The socioeconomic implications of these divergent trends in the age profile should be clear. Demand for public education for those under 19 and health care for those over 65 will rise dramatically. At the same time, the ability to fund the costs for these public goods will be constrained by a reduced rate of population and employment growth for those in the 20 to 65 working-age group.

The dilemma we face is perhaps best illustrated by our challenge in funding the costs of kindergarten-through-12th-grade education. In 1990, 375,000 K-12 public school students in Orange County at a cost of about $4,000 per student led to total costs of approximately $1.5 billion.

If the same proportion of students in K-12 attend public school in the year 2010, our population projections suggest that enrollment will increase by 185,000 in Orange County, thereby leading to additional costs of about $750 million by 2010--a 50% increase over 1990 K-12 public education costs.

How can Orange County fund these and the costs of other public goods when the working-age population is growing at a relatively slow pace? Two things come to mind.

First, a change in governmental policy from slow growth (a policy that worked too well!) to one that nurtures and encourages a more positive business environment through lower taxes and regulation will help increase net immigration, thereby reversing the slide in the number of working-age adults.

Given its strategic position in the Pacific Rim trade zone, Orange County is in an enviable position to benefit from a pro-business environment that helps create high value-added jobs. In an intensely competitive global economic environment it will be necessary to create a climate that attracts rather than repels business opportunities.

A second approach to meeting the fiscal demands of a population in greater need of public goods is to provide these goods in a more cost-efficient manner. A structural change in the delivery of K-12 education and public health care is needed for that to happen.

Greater reliance on competition and the free market would spur innovation and productivity and help bring about the structural change that is needed.

It is ironic that the antidote for the socioeconomic problems resulting in large part from a slow-growth public policy is to provide an environment that generates faster growth. What should be clear in all this is that raising the gangplank to preserve what is good for those already “living the good life” does not work.

A dynamic global economy where industry and jobs are increasingly footloose requires continual growth for the “good life” to continue.

DR, B.D. CUMMINGS