April 30, 2014

The wit and wisdom of New York Times readers

As I blogged below, the new David Leonhardt NYT "Upshot" article on how the median income in Canada is higher than in the U.S. doesn't mention the wildly different demographics that have such a big influence on where the median falls: America is now 30.0% black or Hispanic while Canada is 4.1% black or Hispanic. 

I also posted this data as a comment on the New York Times. Here are the four replies that my comment has received. The first one is good but get a load of the last three (which, unfortunately, are typical these days):

Hal 10034

 New York 3 hours ago
But hasn't that been true for a long time, whereas it's news that middle class Canadians are better off. Maybe policies -- taxation, labor law, health care, education -- have more to do with it. Just because there's a demographic difference doesn't mean that race is the cause.
     

Andres

 Florida 2 hours ago
What is your point about demographics?
     

judy

 toronto 1 hour ago
What are you trying to say?
     

Chris

 Arizona 1 hour ago
And your point is what?

44 comments:

Oswald Spengler said...

Don't be too hard on them. They're just being dutiful little goodthinkers as they were so carefully trained to be.

“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”

SFG said...

Hal actually has a point, though I still think you're right overall.

'10034' refers to the northern tip of Manhattan, BTW.

Rachelle said...

Of course they don't get the point. We always knew that only self-described 'geniuses' read the NYT.

Anonymous said...

Careful, Steve. Careful. That's pretty obvious baiting. They're trying to bait you into committing a Thoughtcrime. They just want to hear you commit it in the public realm, so that they then can go "AHA! Gotcha!"

Didn't know the baiters of Thoughcrime would so blatantly inhabit the NYT comments section though.

Or am I wrong?

james wilson said...

Alexander de Tocqueville

The majority in the United States possesses immense actual power and a power of opinion almost as great; and when it has once made up its mind over a question, there are, so to speak, no obstacles which might even retard its onward course long enough to allow it time to heed the complaints of those it crushes as it goes by.

Princes had turned violence into a physical thing but our democratic republics have made it into something as intellectual as the human will it intends to restrict.
What ever the political laws governing men in times of equality, we can predict that the trust in commonly held opinions will devolve into a sort of religion with the majority acting as prophet.

The consequences of this state of affairs are dire and dangerous for the future.

Maxwell Power said...

Social grooming ain't always pretty

Difference Maker said...

Blacks being poor means they have no money. Poor = no money, literally a tautology

Anonymous said...

Do you think they're being purposefully dense or don't they really know?

Cogswell said...

Hal misses the point. Prior to the massive demographic shift in America's population, we had the advantage. It is the increase in the black and Hispanic population that has allowed Canada to surpass us. Americans age 55-65 do quite well in terms of education compared to the same age group in European countries. It is younger Americans who are falling behind, and they are falling behind not because our schools are falling behind, but because they are increasingly black and Hispanic.

Anonymous said...

My usual retort is something along the lines of -

"Demographics is 80% of the game. If you pick a portion of the US with the same demographics as Canada (e.g. 90% Asian + White --- places like Seattle, Orange County, etc. ) the US still has a very comfortable lead over Canada's median income. "

Even though they make similar points, by not calling out Black/Hispanic from the outset, it makes the Red Pill a bit easier for an NYT'er to swallow

Anonymous said...

That group wouldn't understand anything about economics.

give us us free said...

When I write comments there I try to keep it simple, a la "Who do you think is morally worse: indicted arms trafficker Leland Yee, or the owner of the L.A. Amistads"

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Hey Steve, it' a good thing you don't own a basketball franchise.

Dave Pinsen said...

One other factor is Canada's small population relative to its natural resources wealth.

Anonymous said...

If you pick a portion of the US with the same demographics as Canada (e.g. 90% Asian + White --- places like Seattle, Orange County, etc. ) the US still has a very comfortable lead over Canada's median income. "

Seattle has a very large number of Canadians who fled Canada's lack of jobs and its lower income levels.

Seattle's demographic situation?

Non-Hispanic white: 66.3%
Asian: 13.8%

Black: 7.9%
Hispanic: 6.6%
American Indian, Alaska native, Hawaiian: 1.2%
Other: 2.4%

White+Asian= 80.1%
NAM = 18.1%

Right across the water in the more affluent and less "liberal" Bellevue, WA (closer to Microsoft and such in Redmond):

White* (incl. Hispanics): 62.6
Asian: 27.6

Black: 2.3%
Hispanic: 7%
American Indian, Alaskan native, Hawaiian: 0.6%
Other: 3.9%

White+Asian= 90.2% minus subset of 7%, probably in the 85-86% range.
NAM= 13.8%

So, yes, demographics similar to Canada plus America's more business friendly policies mean substantially higher affluence and income.

Of course, Canada has Vancouver.

White (European): 46.2%
Asians*: 47.9% (sum of Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean South Asian and Southeast Asian)

Black: 1%
Hispanic: 1.6%
Aboriginal: 2%
Other: 0.2%

White+Asian= 94.1%
NAM = 4.8%

Anonymous said...

Generally spaeking, HBD denialists responding to newspaper comments sections confirm to three categories. Firstly you have the lefty boneheads. Complete f*cking ideology driven idiots - and massive, shameless, barefaced liars to boot. They lie and lie and lie and distort everything and turn it on its head to score petty little points.
Than you have the 'nice but dim' idiots. Not frothing at the mouth dogma wild dog driven like the marxists, but more 'kumbaya' feminine nonsense, denial but not swivel eyed stick a hatchet in your head denial, more school ma'am 'trying to see the best in everyone'.
And then you get NAMs themselves - whose numbers are legion and, of course, have a vested interest in hippopotamus style 'scatter-dumping' of quite reserved and sensible HBD comments.

Miguel S. said...

I lived there a while ago and I had to go back on business recently. At dinner with a large group, I suggested that immorality might result in illegitimacy and crime.

I forgot what a delicate bubble they live in: I thought peoples' heads were going to explode. Everyone at the table roared, "No! It was slavery!"

I suggested that they consider the billion or so Africans pursuing affordable family formation African-style.

Anonymous said...

Canada is only temporarily richer than the US due to an energy boom and a strong currency. Canada's GDP per hour worked is still 30% below the US despite Canada's superior demographics. This productivity deficit hasn't changed much since the 19th century. Paradoxically, the productivity deficit got worse as Canada shifted into high-margin / high cost methods of mineral extraction.

Anonymous said...

Canada is only temporarily richer than the US due to an energy boom and a strong currency.

Yes, yes, yes. All temporary.

What will happen, say, 50 years from now when Canada is 50% white, 40% Asian and 10% NAM and the United States is 35% white, 15% Asian and 50% NAM?

When the disparity is 90 and 10 on Canada's side and 50 and 50 on ours, will our superior "system" as such still be able to trump their demographic advantages? What will our respective PISA scores look like when they have more far higher proportions of whites and Asians and we of blacks and Hispanics?

Anonymous said...

Question: is it better to be 50% white, 0% Asian and 50% NAM OR only 35%, 35% Asian and 30% NAM?

Do you want the highest percentage of whites possible? Or do you maximize the white-Asian combo with a goal of minimizing NAM numbers?

Which is economically better? Socially?

Orlando said...

"What will happen, say, 50 years from now when Canada is 50% white, 40% Asian and 10% NAM and the United States is 35% white, 15% Asian and 50% NAM?
What will our respective PISA scores look like when they have more far higher proportions of whites and Asians and we of blacks and Hispanics?"

50 Years? PISA scores? Demographic shift will wreck US political system much faster than that and with much more disastrous consequences.

The Robot said...

Careful, Steve. Careful. That's pretty obvious baiting. They're trying to bait you into committing a Thoughtcrime. They just want to hear you commit it in the public realm, so that they then can go "AHA! Gotcha!"

Danger, Will Robinson, danger!

Anonymous said...

Btw, the majority of asians in Canada are not from high-IQ east asia. Of the 5 million asian-canadians 1.6 million are from south asia; 0.8 million are from west, southwest and central asia; and 0.7 million are filipinos. On the IQ charts all these asians score below the global average and cluster with african-americans.

Silver said...

Do you want the highest percentage of whites possible? Or do you maximize the white-Asian combo with a goal of minimizing NAM numbers?

Which is economically better? Socially?


This is the HBD sector's equivalent to the hostile denier NYT reader.

You offer a false choice, asshole. How about no asians and no "nams"?

Silver said...

Sailer, you could tell NYTers that in dealing one-on-one with individuals - which is what 95% of life consists of - knowledge of group differences is essentially of no importance, so it's probably a good idea to keep such knowledge out of the hands of the masses, who would misunderstand it and abuse it and make a mess of things. But it's important for thinking people like NYTers to be aware of the details of such differences because that knowledge is very important when it comes to policy-making.

So in step (1) you allay their fears and in step (2) you flatter them. That seems like a winning combo to me.

Big Bill said...

Careful, Steve. Careful. That's pretty obvious baiting. They're trying to bait you into committing a Thoughtcrime. They just want to hear you commit it in the public realm, so that they then can go "AHA! Gotcha!"

This is easily finessed. When they try to set you up, you say that a gross US/CA comparison is inappropriate because it compares apples to oranges.

That is what Steve did when he analyzed "America's falling school test scores". He split out the scores by race/ethnicity, which showed that "America's falling school test scores" are due to whites dying out and America filling up with Mexicans and blacks.

I expect Steve did not take the same tack with his questioners in this case because he did not have the racial/ethnic data handy. Not that the data doesn't exist, mind you, but that it is hard to gather from disparate sources.

Anonymous said...

But hasn't that been true for a long time, whereas it's news that middle class Canadians are better off. Maybe policies -- taxation, labor law, health care, education -- have more to do with it. Just because there's a demographic difference doesn't mean that race is the cause.

The first part of his comment basically says, so what about the fact the USA has more blacks and hispanics than Canada. We've always had more blacks and hispanics than Canada, and up until now, we've still fared better.

The point that you need to drive home to guys like this is not just that the US has more blacks and hispanics than Canada, but that the USA, at 30% and rising, now has reached a critical mass of blacks and hispanics that the dwindling white majority can longer paper over, even with a growing asian presence.

Think of it like a school district that is forced to accept 5 percent NAM students. It will still be pretty functional. But once they reach 10 percent, you will start to see problems. As it approaches 20 percent, whites with means will start to seek alternatives. Above 30%, and you will see wholesale white flight.

The Rick Sanchez In The Iron Mask said...

Don't misunderstand: when people are trying to bait you into an incautious word so that the secret courts will ruin you, you cannot win them over.

Donald T. Stirling thought he could "explain things" to V. Stiviano. He was wrong.

dearieme said...

I suppose President Hellary will just invade the poor buggers.

Anonymous said...

"Maybe policies -- taxation, labor law, health care, education -- have more to do with it. " - who votes for policies? and why would they support or oppose them?

Anonymous said...

One of the biggest (always self-defeating) drawbacks of this HBD blog is that many so-called HBDers don’t even have a unified mutually agreeable terminology, even Steve himself included sometimes. How sad is that?

Any “HBDer” who opens his mouth with the terms like “Asian” or “Asians” is either completely ignorant or super lazy against his own point and hence can be taken seriously.

I don’t know for how many times that I commented here that there is no such a thing as “Asian” or “Asians”. Those are precisely the terms used by all mainstream non-HBDers to cause confusions, either deliberately or ignorantly.

For the love of HBD, I’d say it again:

If Filipinos were “Asians”, then Cubans and Mexicans must be “North Americans”.

If Indians were “Asians”, then Moroccans and Ethiopians must be “Europeans”, and Australians must be Asians, too.

There are 4 groups almost completely different from each other in or near the East side of Eurasia:

1. East “Asians” (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and some Mongolians). They are Mongoloid. They have avg IQ of 105.

2. South East “Asians” (Thais, Laotians, Vietnamese, Malays, Filipinos, Indonesians, etc). They are Mongoloid-Australoid mix. Of course, historically there’re many ethnic Chinese living in SE Asia so that many SE Asians in America are in fact ethnic Chinese (e.g. “ex-Filipino” Amy Chua, many of “Boat People” refugees in CA from “Vietnam”, etc.) They have avg IQ ranging from mid/high 80s to low/mid 90s (particularly in Northern Vietnam thanks to large amount of historical Han Chinese paternal genes)

3. Central “Asians” ( Afghans, Stanlanders, Turks, Iranians, Arabs, etc): they are either Caucasoid or Mongoloid- Caucasoid mix, only with a small amount of pure Mongoloid. They have avg IQ of high 80s.

4. Indian Sub-Continentals ( Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Srilankans, etc): They have nothing to do with “Asia” geographically, culturally, genetically and linguistically . They sit on their own geo plate – a continent on its own right. They are either Australoid or Australoid-Caucasoid-Mongoloid mix. They have avg IQ of low 80s.


Is this a very IQ-consuming concept to grasp, I wonder?

Anonymous said...

And then you get NAMs themselves - whose numbers are legion and, of course, have a vested interest in hippopotamus style 'scatter-dumping' of quite reserved and sensible HBD comments.

In my online conflict this latter category are as rare as hens teeth. Sure, go on Facebook you'll find them but on most MSM sites they are almost totally AWOL.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Hal's comment, 'what's changed'?

For at least the last 1/2 century, people have always talked about how pleasant Canadian cities were -- Toronto and Vancouver. Toronto vs Detroit was an especially sharp contrast.

Urban living without the distopian elements of most large US cities.

But the recent income increases in Canada are driven by oil. And their political system tends to help this wealth trickle down into the middle class. Or perhaps a better way to look at it is that their new found oil wealth has allowed them to more successfully implement their social welfare policies.

If being of white, european stock was all it took -- what happened to Argentina?

Minus the oil wealth, I would still prefer Toronto and Vancouver. Plus the $US would go a lot further.

Anonymous said...

Since we're their major trade partner, I think Canada has a huge stake in the future of this country.

jody said...

it doesn't mention anything about oil production either. in 1981 canada produced 1.3 million barrels of oil per day, and a barrel of oil sold for 30 bucks. in 2014 canada produces 4 million barrels of oil per day and a barrel sells for 100 dollars.

1981 oil money = 1300000 * 30 = $39 million a day
2014 oil money = 4000000 * 100 = $400 million a day

that's 10 times as much oil money as 30 years ago. how much has the population gone up in 30 years?

1981 census: 24 million
2011 census: 33 million
let's call the 2014 population 34 million

so in the last 30 years the population went up 10 million people, or about 45%, but the oil production money went up 360 million per day, or about 900%. pretty easy to see where the bulk of the growth in GDP per capita is coming from.

now, canada cannot even refine a lot of the oil it produces, mainly the oil from the oil sands, which is the main reason for the keystone XL pipeline. keystone XL will carry about 25% oil from north dakota, which is trapped in place in the midwest currently moving slowly on rails, and the other 75% will be heavy crude from canada. the canadians want to move their crude to refineries in the US or to ports for export. they will either get keystone XL or, if obama denies it outright or delays it long enough, they will start building their own pipeline out to the west coast for export to china.

canada has 35 million people and produces 4 million barrels of oil per day. that means they are producing 1 barrel per 9 people. the US produces 8 million barrels per day and has 320 million people, for a ratio of 1 barrel per 40 people. if the US produced at the ratio canada does, it would be producing 35 million barrels of oil per day worth about 35 billion dollars per day. i'm pretty sure that would boost GDP per capita into the stratosphere. for reference, norway produces 1 barrel for every 3 people, and the GDP per capita in norway is about 102,000 dollars per year.

jody said...

typo. 35 million barrels of oil per day would be worth 3.5 billion US dollars per day, not 35 billion. lol. that would be 1000 dollar per barrel oil. today it is only 100 dollars per barrel.

i'm glad the US will never approach any oil production or oil income like that, because as with everything, the conservatives will have done most of the work and all the heavy lifting, then the liberals will fly in and take control of it, using US energy production as a bludgeon and a weapon to accomplish their cultural marxist goals. it was the very first thing they wanted to do when they precipitated the conflict with russia. "We'll use our oil and gas to ruin your economy! Do what we say or we'll crash your exports by flooding the market with ours!"

oil and gas that is pumping out ONLY due to conservatives. bash conservatives when they do something productive for america that helps everybody, take control of their work when it suits your ends. great country we have to look forward to here.

Anonymous said...

"This is the HBD sector's equivalent to the hostile denier NYT reader.

You offer a false choice, asshole. How about no asians and no "nams"?"

You dumb, imbecilic sack of shit. It's called a thought experiment.

Anonymous said...

I am the person who posed the question. Could we refrain from name calling please? I don't care to be called an "asshole" by a stranger on the net but I wouldn't want him to be called a "a sack of shit" by another stranger either.

Let's stick to the point of contention at hand.

Anonymous said...

Haha, leftits.

Prior to the massive demographic shift in America's population, we had the advantage. It is the increase in the black and Hispanic population that has allowed Canada to surpass us. Americans age 55-65 do quite well in terms of education compared to the same age group in European countries. It is younger Americans who are falling behind, and they are falling behind not because our schools are falling behind, but because they are increasingly black and Hispanic.

Liberal law of matter-antimatter; these two ideas are not supposed to interact.

Libs are the first ones to tell you that oh, golly, the poor poor blacks! The poor poor "latinos"! Poor poor NAMs! They're all so poor and uneducated and afflicted by crime! Oh woe!

But if you point out that having more of your country composed of these poor, illiterate, crime-ridden demographics means you have a poorer, less literate, more crime-ridden country as a result, well, then it's time for some feigned ignorance and some leading questions from the leftits; they immediately know you're the enemy.

Svi

netizen said...

some guy said...
One of the biggest (always self-defeating) drawbacks of this HBD blog... For the love of Laotians... Australazoid... Is this a very IQ-consuming concept to grasp, I wonder?

TL;DR

Anonymous said...

So, again, the same question as before: which would be more desirable for iSailer readers? 1) To maximize the white percentage even if it means higher rates or NAM or 2) to maximize the combination of white + Asian in order to minimize the percentage of NAM?

I am not suggesting that either is the most desirable outcome or the absolute ideal, but I am curious of how most iSailerites weigh the two possibilities.

Silver said...

You dumb, imbecilic sack of shit. It's called a thought experiment.

Protesting a little too much over a simple "thought experiment," aren't you?

If you're Asian, you're just the standard ethnic striver. Nothing new here.

If you're white, you calling me a dumb sack of shit is delightfully ironic but supremely tragic.

To the person who posed the question, how do you propose to "maximize" the number of whites and asians? The easiest way to boost a population's numbers is immigration, and it's obvious that asians have the upper hand there. Another 500 million asians and another, say, 50 million NAMs would serve to "maximize" white and asian numbers but what's in it for whites? On the assumption one cares whites, the best this strategy could offer is to increase asian numbers to the point they're equal to whites and hope that that combined population represents a maximization vis-a-vis other groups.

Of course, if one's interest is in securing long-term racial existence then the above isn't any solution or strategy in itself, though it could potentially be of some value.

Speaking for myself, I would prefer maximizing white numbers, even if it means higher rates of NAMs. I would definitely prefer 70% white 30% NAM as opposed to 40% white 40% asian 20% NAM, easy choice. Hispanics and blacks are by no means natural allies. The average hispanic has far more in common with the average white than he does with the average black and has far more in common with the average white than the average asian does. In the long run eugenics/demographic management can improve the qualities of the NAM population, so this aspect isn't as problematic as it may seem at first glance.

Anonymous said...

"some guy said...
One of the biggest (always self-defeating) drawbacks of this HBD blog... For the love of Laotians... Australazoid... Is this a very IQ-consuming concept to grasp, I wonder?"

TL;DR


Haha, funny, I had the exact same reaction, and almost mustered the will to post it.

Svi

Anonymous said...

Hispanics and blacks are by no means natural allies.

You don't say!

The average hispanic has far more in common with the average white than he does with the average black and has far more in common with the average white than the average asian does.

So in your view, Asians commit crimes, fail out of high school and have children out of wedlock at rates closer to blacks while Hispanics study hard, commit little crime and get married first and then have kids like whites (or at even better rates than whites).

That makes perfect sense.