March 24, 2007

Affordable family formation for the few

With the decline in crime, Manhattan is turning back into paradise for families -- for the tiny handful who can afford it. Via Half Sigma, from the NYT:

Since 2000, according to census figures released last year, the number of children under age 5 living in Manhattan mushroomed by more than 32 percent. And though their ranks have been growing for several years, a new analysis for The New York Times makes clear for the first time who has been driving that growth: wealthy white families.

At least half of the growth was generated by children who are white and non-Hispanic. Their ranks expanded by more than 40 percent from 2000 to 2005. For the first time since at least the 1960s, white children now outnumber either black or Hispanic youngsters in that age group in Manhattan.

The analysis shows that Manhattan’s 35,000 or so white non-Hispanic toddlers are being raised by parents whose median income was $284,208 a year in 2005, which means they are growing up in wealthier households than similar youngsters in any other large county in the country.

Among white families with toddlers, San Francisco ranked second, with a median income of $150,763, followed by Somerset, N.J. ($136,807); San Jose, Calif. ($134,668); Fairfield, Conn. ($132,427); and Westchester ($122,240). In comparison, the median income of other Manhattan households with toddlers was $66,213 for Asians, $31,171 for blacks and $25,467 for Hispanic families.

Keep in mind that $284k is the median income of white parents of toddlers, not of teens. I would extrapolate that Manhattan parents of teens going off to college have a median income of somewhere around a half million per year.

You can see how the 1990s fall in crime, which was much sharper in Manhattan that just about anywhere else in America, set off a virtuous cycle (virtuous from the perspective of the extremely wealth), making Manhattan ever more desirable and thus ever more expensive, which in turns drives out more and more of the nonwealthy from south of Harlem, leaving inside traders as the only criminals who can afford to live in most of Manhattan.

By the way, this reminds me that the media routinely gives an unrealistically lowball sense of just how much money it costs to live in the more fashionable parts of the country. It's common for personal business and advice articles in the press to give the impression that making $100,000 per year would be the solution to all your financial problems, when it's just enough to introduce you to a whole new world of problems.

Is the cost-of-living variance among places within this country greater than in the past? It sure seems that way, but I've never seen a study of it.

My published articles are archived at -- Steve Sailer


Anonymous said...

New problems when you make $100K?

Like Woody Allen said on being asked what were the effects of celebrity and success: "I'm being tuned down by a better class of woman."


Anonymous said...

it still makes no sense to categorize people by what language they speak.

while it is strange that the united states has changed it's own census to use this silly latino system, it's even more strange that a similar change was not made to reflect any sort of anglo system.

anglo culture is by far more dominant and influential, yet it does not even warrant an appearance on the census in the nation which projects that anglo culture out into the world.

the new united states is annoying. this post 1965 america is like the inferior sequel to a great original. worse in almost every way.

Anonymous said...


Steve Sailer said...

Jeez, I've issued more praise for Obama (e.g., I referred to his "superlative intelligence" and compared him as a writer to Evelyn Waugh!) than the vast majority of American politicians I've ever written about. I'm now writing an essay for VDARE comparing him to Winston Churchill.

Obama wants to be President of the United States, but no other professional journalist seems to be willing to read his autobiography from one end to the other and discuss it on its own terms as "A Story of Race and Inheritance." We elected a pig in a poke in 2000, so let's take some time to understand each candidate. I'm better suited to write about Obama than about anybody else, because he and I are interested in the same things: race and inheritance.

Anonymous said...


My sister is a teacher in Manhattan. She's been working their about 15 years, so she's fairly high on their pay scale. She also just inherited approximately $200k. She is single and looking to buy a studio apartment (probably 400 square feet or less) and she has been forced to look way uptown. As expensive as Manhattan is for a couple, it's even more expensive for singles.

The upside of this, for folks like me who live near Manhattan as opposed to in it, is that Manhattan is a pleasure to visit these days. Below about 100th Street, it's tough to find a bad neighborhood. Places that used to be sketchy a few years ago -- The Lower East Side, Hell's Kitchen, etc. -- have more trendy restaurants than scary streets.

Anonymous said...

Of course I meant to write "there" instead of the homophone "their". Desculpe.

Anonymous said...

so now every person in the US has to be qualified as to whether they are "hispanic" or not. this has to be one of the dumbest features of the new united states.

i'm now a "non-hispanic white" because there's some mesitzos here.
"non-hispanic whites" sounds so stupid it's crazy.

this is exactly how the new america works. we change the way we identify ourselves and use a foreign minority as a reference point. but it's even worse than that.

look at the way it's phrased. it's now so important to know who is "hispanic" and who is not, that we put your "hispanic" status first, and your less relevant information about your race second.

in just 10 years, "hispanic" status has become the most important thing on the US census. every person is categorized by it.

i can't believe steve goes along with this. it's time for an article about this stupid identity shift.

Anonymous said...

I shed a tear.... not.

For crying out loud, there are 4 other boroughs around here, and even better -- right across the Hudson is some relatively cheap digs in Jersey. So the hoi polloi can't afford a 2-bedroom apartment on 5th Avenue? Then suck it up and move to Jersey City. Heck, it's a faster ride from Jersey to midtown than from Washington Heights.

I'm tired of people bitching they can't live in Manhattan as if it were some violation of their civil rights.

Anonymous said...

Forget Manhattan, it's a bit easier since bridges and tunnels connect it to other places ... but the effect Steve has identified is still the same.

Various media/financial/engineering jobs which have not (yet) been outsourced to cheap labor in India or China require physical presence in expensive cities. SF, Chicago, NYC, LA, etc. In many of them, LA in particular, crime and commutes shape REAL INCOME.

Is a person who pays a LOT to commute yearly or for a tiny place with a lesser commute to LA's studio West Side better or worse off financially in the end to someone who makes less money in say, Nashville but has a shorter commute AND a better living space?

I would say the answer is yes but I have no data just a sense that in aggregate there is more income after rent/commuting expenses in non-Coastal high-income areas.

Steve's point that merely median income in these places might be equivalent to far lower income someplace else is well taken.

One might wonder of course what would happen if another terrorist attack, this time with WMDs, were aimed at these trendy urban centers. Versus say safe and boring Dallas or Nashville.

Anonymous said...


You're preaching to the choir. I live in NJ myself, and I've been trying to get my sister to look to buy here instead. She's set on staying in Manhattan though.

Anonymous said...

i can't believe steve goes along with this. it's time for an article about this stupid identity shift.

Oh, you stupid bitch. Why do you constantly whine about this? Whining about it on the internet is not going to change it. Steve is ignored by the mainstream media, so even if he devoted his attention to this "pressing problem" (LOL!), there would be no change.

If you want someone to blame, blame Nixon. He is the one who approved the Hispanic category.

Anonymous said...

My sister is a teacher in Manhattan. She's been working their about 15 years, so she's fairly high on their pay scale. She also just inherited approximately $200k. She is single and looking to buy a studio apartment (probably 400 square feet or less) and she has been forced to look way uptown. As expensive as Manhattan is for a couple, it's even more expensive for singles.

You've sold me. What's her telephone number?

Anonymous said...

One thing about the Census figures that might seem unusual is that Asian parents of toddlers have much lower median incomes than do white parents of toddlers. That is almost certainly attributable to the relatively poor immigrant Asians in Chinatown. I'll bet that if first-generation immigrant parents could be excluded from consideration the Asian income figures would be much closer to those of whites.

Also, if you wonder how so many very poor black and Hispanic families manage to live in Manhattan, a place where even the gritter neighborhoods such as Harlem and Washington Heights have gotten pricey, the answer is that New York does not hide its public housing projects in the remote parts of the outer boroughs. Many can be found right in Manhattan.

Anonymous said...

So, how far "uptown" can you go and still be safe?

When I first went to NY the squeegee men were still around and really 100th was the highest. I went later and it *seemed* like 125th was limit, atlthough I am not sure about this.

Where are we know?

Anonymous said...

You still hear people talking about a $100,000 a year income as if anyone making that much was really living large. I think that's outdated.

$200,000 is the new $100,000 in terms of how much you need to really live a comfortable life when you have kids. By that I mean cover the normal expenses, cover your taxes, get a decent car when you need it, eat out when you want, take a nice vacation, have necessary work done on your house, and put away money for retirement and college.

Not the Donald Trump lifestyle, just living the way most of us who have good jobs would like to live.

Anonymous said...

I heard somewhere that the income of the average American Jew has reached twice as high as the average American Gentile.

Steve, what percentage of Manhattan whites do you reckon are Jewish?

Anonymous said...

The passage of the 1965 immigration reform act has resulted in the globalization of AMERICAN labor and housing markets.

Real wages are going down at a time when housing costs are soaring....especially in asian,muslim,hispanic infested areas of AMERICA.

The NYT reported this past summer that because of high housing costs,there is an increasing population of Whites Males who are living alone and dying alone.

The globalization of American housing and labor markets through massive legal immigration has resulted in an increasing population of WHITE AMERICAN MALES being shut out of family formation.

The consequences of this for social stability will of course be catastophic

It is not unreasonable to conclude that post 1965 immigration policy is genocidal in consequences for the majority NATIVE BORN WHITE population.

LEGAL asian and muslim immigrants-and there "american" born gene-line-are actively involved in the perpetuation of post-1965 immigration policy.

Asian and muslim immigrants are actively involved in the economic an racial annihilation of the majority NATIVE BORN WHITE population of America.

The liberals over at are opposed to blaming legal immgrants for this state of affairs. Acording to blaiming immigrants is immigrant bashing and immigrant bashing is bad.

Legal immigrant asians and muslims are repsonsible for the perpetuation of post 1965 immigration policy. The consequences for the majority NATIVE BORN WHITE population are genocidal. notwithstanding, legal asian and muslim immigrants are responsible, and therefor, deserve to be bashed and then deported as soon as possible.


If things keep going this way, the greedy cheating class will be taken out into an open filed and slaughtered.


Anonymous said...

Blame the passage of the 1965 immigration refrom act.

The passage of the 1965 immigation reform act resulted in the globalization of American housing and labor markets.

Blame legal immigrant asians and muslims who are actively involved in perpetuating post-1965 immigration policy.

The Celts

Anonymous said...

Steve Sailer had a very interesting post on several years back about how California's high housing caused many of his friends to postpone marraige and family formation into their forties.


Anonymous said...

For crying out loud, there are 4 other boroughs around here, and even better -- right across the Hudson is some relatively cheap digs in Jersey. So the hoi polloi can't afford a 2-bedroom apartment on 5th Avenue? Then suck it up and move to Jersey City. Heck, it's a faster ride from Jersey to midtown than from Washington Heights.

I'm tired of people bitching they can't live in Manhattan as if it were some violation of their civil rights.

Manhattan has always been expensive relative to the rest of the city and the rest of the country. The problem with the current situation is not that a few spoiled people can't afford "2-bedroom apartments on Fifth Avenue" - such apartments have been far out of reach for all but the rich since, basically, forever.

The problem is that almost THE ENTIRE BOROUGH is now unaffordable by those who are not at the upper end of the upper middle class. This is unprecendented. It's not a matter of a few fancy neighborhoods anymore. Do we really want the most important part of the most important city in the country to be just a playground for the rich?

As for the other boroughs ...

I used to live in Brooklyn, and it was great - but I lived in Park Slope, which is now almost as pricey as Manh. How many white, middle-class people - especially people moving to New York from other parts of the country - are going to want to live in such, ummm, "tangy" neighborhoods as Bed-Stuy or even in a blue-collar rowhouse hell like Bensonhurst?

New York has always been expensive; previous generations addressed this problem by providing subsidized housing for middle-income people. I'm normally not an advocate for socialism, but places like Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town and apartments built under the Mitchell-Lama program were successful at keeping middle-class people in Manhattan. To me, that's a good thing.

Anonymous said...

Jews pay a Jew-tax to live together,which artificially drives up the price of their housing. In my towm,which is heavily jewish ( :0 )the houses are far more expensive than you'd think. In Manhattan not only is there the huge demand to live in Manhattan cuz its,well,Manhattan,big time business and cultural place,Central Park,etc-but also the huge number of jews who want to live in a jewish enclave makes iy even more expensive.I think the jews would ideally like the "goyim" to come in in the morning,do whatever work they do,from cleaning the streets to running corporations,and at nite go home. Jews are absolutely desperate to live among white people,but once they are among them,equally desperate to create their own enclave. Given that their money will drive up the cost of housing wherever they choose to roost---maybe we should have restricted neighborhoods where Jews are held to a minimum,and not allowed to engulf the area. This is not so dissimilar to what they do in Oak Park,Ill (home of Hemingway)where there is a defacto "quota" for West Side negroes moving into O.P. (for somewhat different reasons,of course!) PS: I think what Woody Allen should have said is:"I am molesting a higher class of teen." :)

Anonymous said...

Cities rise and fall in importance. By the time a city is hyped around the world, it's probably on the way out. If the trash-piled concrete rat maze known as New York City is on the way out, so be it.

What's that movie where somebody said ... "Nice people don't live here."

Anonymous said...

Given that their money will drive up the cost of housing wherever they choose to roost---maybe we should have restricted neighborhoods where Jews are held to a minimum,and not allowed to engulf the area.

Omigosh, you're on to the secret of Fargo.

Anonymous said...

South of Harlem? Won't take long - my people (nicely employed homosexual men with at least externally vanilla lifestyles) mainly live in Harlem, lately. If I wanna go to the Village they whine about it being so far away. Chelsea is on the VERGE of acceptable travel for them. No real Harlem gay bar scene that I've seen yet, but it can only be a matter of time :)

Anonymous said...


this post 1965 america is like the inferior sequel to a great original. worse in almost every way.

Oh, I'm so stealing that.

Anonymous said...

One thing worth remembering about Manhattan is that there is some great housing stock in currently or recently crappy neighborhoods. For example, parts of Washington Heights used to be an upper middle class Jewish neighborhood; along Riverside Drive in there are still some, beautiful, solid buildings. Pockets of affluence are growing and spreading in once off-limits neighborhoods like Washington Heights.

As for JoshRandall's claim about a "Jew tax": Jews certainly like living where there are other Jews (though most wouldn't want to live somewhere where there are only Jews). Orthodox Jews will bid up prices near orthodox synagogues, because they need to be within walking distance of them. That's not what has spurred the boom in Manhattan real estate though. There have been Jews in Manhattan for a long time.

One big factor has been the purchase of second homes in Manhattan by affluent foreigners, particularly Europeans, taking advantage of the Euro's premium to the dollar.

Anonymous said...

In the Pacific Northwest, we hate southern Californians. The cost of living is so high in southern California that the exiles have money to burn on real estate when they come up north. They have driven up the cost of housing dramatically in the past decade. Inadvertently, residents of Seattle and Portland wind up paying the price for immigration down south.

Anonymous said...

There was an article in the NY Times a year or two ago about $200k being the new $100k. That's pretty true in the NY Metro area, not just Manhattan. For example, if you are married with kids and want to live in a town that's a) within, say, a 40 minute drive of Manhattan; and, b) has first-rate public schools, you're looking at paying about $600k for an average three bedroom house. So a couple with a combined income of about $200k could swing the mortgage, afford decent cars and going out to eat when they want.

Anonymous said...

Keep in mind that $284k is the median income of white parents of toddlers, not of teens. I would extrapolate that Manhattan parents of teens going off to college have a median income of somewhere around a half million per year.

Or more. People still tend the leave the city as the children get older. The cost of private education (and the shortage of slots in the top prep schools) make living in the wealthy Westchester and LI suburbs, with their outstanding public schools, more attractive to people who are merely well off rather than rich. It remains to be seen whether these new urbanites (almost all of whom grew up in the suburbs, of course) with their toddlers resist that urge when their children approach middle- and high-school age.

Anonymous said...

Manhattan has been the superlative example of the urban revival that's been going on in the U.S. for the past ten years or so.

The story is now familiar: a few yuppie pioneers buy fixer-uppers in a bad part of town and begin renovating. Some independent businesses move in, a little buzz is generated, and within a couple of years home prices have skyrocketed and trendy chain restaurants and retail follow.

Steve's post raises an interesting issue. Gentrification is almost entirely a childless phenomenon. Childless couples (and particularly, as Steve has written, gay male couples) are just about the only ones willing to take the risks of moving into bad neighborhoods to make a buck. And those doing it sure as hell aren't going to send their kids to any nearby public schools.

What are the birthrates for upper-middle class people and above who move into such areas? I suspect they're well below replacement levels. Some of this has to do with costs. Some probably is influenced just by the size of most urban living spaces (who'd want to share an 800 sq ft. studio with a 16-year old?).

The irony is that, just as urbanists criticize energy- gobbling suburbs for their unsustainability, it's urban areas that literally can't sustain themselves because they diminish their own numbers over time. The city has become a hospice for American culture.

Anonymous said...

I detect a whiff of anti-semitism in the poster discussing Jews bidding up prices. For one thing, many Jews today live in suburbia, so the idea that Jews are concentrated in a few urban areas is false.

Secondly, I can speak to the existence of the Jewish community in New Orleans pre-Katrina. New Orleans had historically been friendly to Jews unlike other Southern Cities, had lots of shipping related jobs, and ties to NYC. There was a long tradition of NYC Jews attending Tulane. Touro Synagoge was a national landmark. You'd see a number of families attending synagoges in Audobon Park.

How that city has fared post-Katrina as far as how many Jews and other white middle class people stayed I cannot say.

BUT I think New Orleans merits examination. A terrorist WMD attack on NYC might produce similar results and cause movement away from high-income cities as business and jobs move to safer inland areas. It would not take a nuke per se. Think Andrew Litivenko and a weaponized form of Polonium 210 in particle form in Times Square. Or something similar.

Luke said...

As someone observed, the best places in the world are always secrets. Wonder why?

Anyway, not to foul my own nest, but the best places to live in the United States these days are ones you never -- or barely ever -- heard of, small- to medium-cized cities in areas of real natural beauty. Of course every community has its blighted areas, but when you sample the ambience of upper-middle class suburban areas of places like Birmingham, Alabama, or my own hometown of Chattanooga, Tennessee (forget Nashville, it has already been "discovered") you will hardly believe the quality of life, both physical and social, that, say, $100,000/year will allow. More than a million elsewhere. Of course you still need to travel, to get away from time to time. So what? You could say the same about Manhattan or L.A. x 10.

Anonymous said...

Post birth-control and post-legal abortions............I dont EVER see cities having high birth rates in free countries.

There is just too much sexual shopping for families to form while partners are young enough to have multiple kids. People end up marrying in their late twenties in the cities because they are "shopping" for the best deal they can get romantically. They enjoy bed-hopping too much during the female's prime breeding years.

The model Gisele Bundchen recently stated that she's "only 26" and nowhere near ready to have kids in response to speculation she might be pregnant with Steve's favorite football player's, Tom Brady's, kid. I wanted to laugh. By world historical standards, she should have had 3 kids by now and getting ready to have her last 2. My grandmother was a grandmother at 36. Now lots of women aren't even mothers by 36.

Our whole economy/culture/real estate/housebuying/debt "set up" seems to be hardwired to make parenthood something that happens after one has a college degree, a few steady years in their profession, and have earned enough credit to get a home loan in a "safe" area that is a good place to have children. In other words its hard for responsible people to have kids before 30 these days. That is simply too late for people to have their first child if we want a birthrate of 2-3 children per female. It ain't gonna happen.

Out in the sticks though......where land is cheap, and people can live in cheaper houses and trailers, there are many more people with a second and third child.

It is astonishing to conetemplate how many women born between 1965-1980 who are going to wind up childless. I think the trend will ebb when so many of these women are in their mid-forties and know its too late for sure. Their bitching about it so loudly will be a forewarning to younger women, who will be alerted to the danger of putting family off year after year. People need to start looking for their mates at about 21 years of age in earnest after fooling around from 18-21. This would get most married by 25 after a screw-up or two. That way people could usually have that second, third, and sometimes fourth kid. This marry by-30 or 35 nonsense does not mathematically work out.

Anonymous said...


I'm not sure how "secret" the smaller/mid-sized city thing is. Every year, magazines put out lists like this one. On other lists, Madison, WI comes up a lot.

Anonymous said...


By the way: I just remembered that I have been to your hometown once on business a few years ago. During the summer. Charming town, but humid as all get out. It gets humid here in the Northeast, but geez... I don't know how Southerners can live in the South.


Anonymous said...

Two-professional family, wife got spooked by pace and asphalt of NYC after 12 years. Moved to a smaller beautiful Sun Belt city, some professional re-jiggering required, but not serious.

Live very well on less income ($100K), easy commute, green back yard. Music [check:university classical and avantgarde]. Books [check: Amazon] Theater [check, certainly good enough].

No real satisfying companions, conversation is family, real estate, or predictable politics. Example: intelligent-looking woman reading program in next theater seat. "Who's Tennessee Williams? Sounds like he had a hard life."

Plenty of money to lunch in a good restaurant. Fortunately, there are big-city newspapers and magazine subscriptions for company, and the internet. It's like exile in a well-ordered foreign country, letters home are irreplaceable.

Anonymous said...

Jody about the absurdity of Hispanic classification. It seems to me like the democrats wanted to make reparations to blacks and so they came up with affirmative action and to combat that the Republicans tried to push the democrats to an absurdity position thinking that this would kill the whole thing whole AA thing. So they pointed out the Hispanics and other groups do as poorly as blacks but to the Republican’s shock the democrats accepted this and proposed to extend AA to Hispanics and still found a constituency. And so we have absurdity of AA for immigrants. I support reparations for blacks who descended from slaves not because I thing it will gate Blacks to stop whining for more but because then maybe whites will say hay you got your reparations no more. BTW this is why black “leaders” reject a lump sum reparations payment.

BTW A pure Spanish argentine doctor qualities as Hispanic same an Indian farm worker from Mexico. Talk about absurd.

Does anybody know if a person from Spain qualifies for AA?

Anonymous said...

"It is not unreasonable to conclude that post 1965 immigration policy is genocidal in consequences for the majority NATIVE BORN WHITE population."

I believe that slow growth policies and construction regulation play an even bigger role than immigration. After all immigrants build houses not only live in them. Population growth was higher in 1965 America.

Also to undermine both of our arguments a little, home ownership is higher than it has ever been, pointing to social factors as the biggest (but not the only) reason for singleness.

Anonymous said...

"Does anybody know if a person from Spain qualifies for AA?"

I knew a woman from Spain who openly said she was going to call herself Hispanic when looking for academic positions. She claimed, in all seriousness, that she had been oppressed. An upper-class Spaniard who had been in this country just a few years for grad school. I guess you are whatever you claim you are, and she had the last name and knew Spanish, so I'm sure the bean counters would be happy with her.

Anonymous said...


The US population in 2007 is much larger today than prior to 1965. The US population today is somewhere between 300-330 million...and fullspeed ahead to possibly a billion in 25 years if amnesty is passed.

Your point about building more homes. Well this does get to the heart of the issue.

For a short period of time, it mught be possible to accomdate both legal immigrants and their offspring and NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERIANS....but at a very high cost.

The scale of home building required means that this society would have to write off endangered speices,farmland,land for watersheds-very big problem in NYS-amenities such as open space,the great national and state parks(if we manage to save a few of them, the waiting list to get in will extetnd to several decades..eventually the lifetime of a human being. What you are proposing is insane. America would no longer be worth living in.

You solution is the typical corporate worshippers solution(free market libertarians).

American society is not reducible to market transactions. Like every other nation-china,India,Pakistan Mexico...NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS have a gene/blood connection to the land of AMERICA. NON white LEGAL immigration pose very serious threat to the special relationship NATIVE WHITE AMERICANS have to their homeland.

NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERCANS are being turned into a NATION OF EXILES(Malcolm Crowley wrote an essay about this)



Anonymous said...

I suppose we can always pave over Gettyburgs Battlefield for the growing hindu and chinese family. After Gettysburg, we can go down the road to Haggersville and pave over the next one.

Would have been a much better idea to develope home-grown scientific talent in places such as Appalachia-John Nash was from WV- rather than importing the tech workforce.

There would have been a lot more open space if we had.

Protect open space,endangered speices,framland and all the rest...BRING BACK THE CHINK EXCLUSION ACT


Anonymous said...

Based on some comments here, racist whites are obviously sorry losers because they just can not compete against Asian or Muslim. They need CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT to survive.

It does not matter wether there is white supremacy. These haters are committing genocuiside because they are just pure losers which should be wiped out by Darwin evolution.

Anonymous said...


If you would just drop the more outrageous declarations from your comments you might actually have a chance of getting through to some people. Your concern for the country, its land, and certain of its people comes through in a compelling way, but then you always have to spoil it by ending your comments with something outrageous like "and then [so and so] will get a bullet in the head."

Actually, I probably shouldn't even bother saying this, since if you really do think these things you are too far gone to be reasoned with.

Anonymous said...

People need to start looking for their mates at about 21 years of age in earnest after fooling around from 18-21. This would get most married by 25 after a screw-up or two. That way people could usually have that second, third, and sometimes fourth kid. This marry by-30 or 35 nonsense does not mathematically work out.

From a demographic perspective, I agree completely. Earlier marriages would also cut down on the insufferable prolongation of adolescence that Steve has talked about before.

However, your argument seems to be aimed at women, whereas the ones who need the most convincing are men. In the days of earlier marriage, young men had an overriding motive to marry: sex. Since casual hook-ups provide sex without marriage or even romantic commitment, there is no reason for most men to seek marriage until they feel the hot breath of middle age on the back of their necks.

If you want to promote earlier marriage, you have to be ready to advocate chastity*, re-stigmatize out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and convince men (and women, too, although they will need far less convincing) that adulthood is a GOOD thing, not a thing to be avoided at all costs.

*Or at least convince women that it is in their best interests to give sex only in the context of a long-term commitment that stands a good chance of leading to marriage.

In other words, re-create the sexual politics of 1960.

Good luck with that. I'm rooting for you but not betting on you.

Anonymous said...


I use harsh language because the situation is beyond the pale.

I see no point in literary pretenses.

I view asian,muslim,african hispanic legal immigrants and their offspring as a very serious threat to the continued existence European Americans.

Yesterday in the library, a young pregnant Chinese legal immigrant woman sat down at the computer terminal next to me. I glanced at her computer screen. She was looking for a home in the area. This an area where the housing stock is very scarce relative to the number of people looking for homes. She and her fellow legal immigrant Chinese are waging a racial/demographic war against the majority Euro-American population.

Chinese and hindu/sikh legal immigrants drive up massively property taxes and the market value of homes. This is an indisuputable fact.

Several people have already lost their homes-homes with mortgages paid off-in tax lien sales to predatory and wealthy pPkistani legal immigrants. These Pakistani legal immigrants buy(steal) these homes in tax lien sales and give them to their twenty one year old sons-off the boat-who need a nice respectable middle class home to breed in so as to continue the race war against the Euro-American majority.

I am in a fighting state of mind. There is no turning back.

Bush is very likely on the verge of nuking Iran. A young Pakistani "American" will probably detonate a suitcase mini-nuke in retaliation downtown in a major American city.

Every one has their limits


Anonymous said...


A few thoughts for you:

1) Do you know what the population density of this country is? The continental U.S. is larger than China and has one sixth its population -- and China even has plenty of open space. There is plenty of room for more people here.

2) There is no national real estate market; there are hundreds of local real estate markets. Affluent immigrants have increased real estate values in cities they've moved to, like mine. That's a good thing for people like me and the other 69% of Americans who own their own homes. My condo has more than doubled in value in 7 years. Thanks, Hindu immigrants!

3) If you don't own your own place, or you don't like Hindu immigrants, there's good news for you: you can move to town in the South or the Great Plains with no Hindus, Jews, or immigrants. Just broke-ass white folks like yourself. And you know what? Real estate will be a lot cheaper for you. You can literally buy houses in parts of Alabama and elsewhere for $10-$15k.

So it's really a win-win for you, Jupiter: you don't like Hindus, so you can move somewhere where there aren't any. And you can find cheaper real estate there to boot. You're basically complaining about the real estate prices in places you'd never want to live in anyway. Go move somewhere where you can keep your car on cinder blocks in the front yard with your coon hound sitting on the roof. Let the highly-skilled Hindu immigrants live elsewhere and pay taxes to subsidize broke folks like yourself.

Anonymous said...

I have met many NATIVE BORN WHITE refuges from the hindu/sihk infested aeas of the nation. I have yet to met one who was happy about seeing their towns racially transformed. The asianization of these towns goes hand and hand with skyrocketing housing costs..and a declining real wage.

Along with the above, is the unpleasant experience of being a foreigner in ones own country.

I know White people whose jobs required them to move to the silicon valley area.
They all found living among the asians a very unpleasant experience.

There is no benefit to ordinary Euro-Americans when they are racially replaced in towns across America by asian immigrants and there offspring.

It is an invasion and a conquest. The benefits go completely to the invaders.

Asia immigrants, as you concede, do drive housing costs up and proprty taxes .

The kids leave with the grandkids . The grandparents can either move to florida or loose their home in a tax lien sale to a predatory legal asian immigrants. Move to Florida and very little contact with children and grandchildren.

Legal asian and muslim immigration is causing a massive uprooting of NATIVE BORN WHITE FAMILES. This is direct attack on NATIVE BORN WHITE communites. This is not a healthy state of affairs.

If this society is serious about protecting endangered species,farmland,land for watersheds open space-a very nice amenity-there will have to be greater restrictions on where NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS can flee to. Housing costs are rising in different housing markets across the country as are proerty taxes.

Equillibrium will eventually be reached. And when it is reached, it won't be so easy to sell your home to a predatory hindu ar paki legal immigrant for a profit.

But before get to this point in time the level of ecological destruction will be enormous.

NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS should have a choice as to whether or not they want to be driven out of their towns and cities.

If given they were given a choice,asian immigration would be completely shut down.

Freds post is an example of the massive contempt that the greedy cheating class has for ORDINARY WHITE AMERICANS.

Of course, if legal asian immigrants weren't in America, housing costs and property taxes would be much lower and NATIVE BORN WHITE COMMUNITIES wouldn't be forcefully dispersed and disconnected around what's left of AMERICA



Anonymous said...

Fred - has it occured to you that a Hindu who doesnt like white people also has somewhere to go to get away from them. Its called India. He wont have to move around his own country to escape because it is his own country. Why arent we allowed the same?


Luke said...

Yea, Dave, Chattanooga is awfully hot and humid in the summer, but only down in the valley. Up in the mountains, which is where I am talking about, it is 10 degrees cooler with a lot more shade.

As for intellectual companionship, you will find it if you look, even if not next door. Plus, nowadays, there's the web!

Anonymous said...

Manhattan is breeding an entire island of future Matt Yglesiases? Wow, it's like Jupiter's second-worst nightmare!

Anonymous said...

I don't know how much breeding is being done by Jews in Manhattan (more in Fairfield County, CT and Bergen County, NJ, perhaps). One trend which will blow Jupiter's mind in the next fifteen-twenty years will be an army of Jewish ethnic Chinese women raised by Jewish women who waited too long for Mr. Right and then adopted Chinese babies when it was too late for them to have their own.

Most of these older Jewish women are raising their girls with an understand of Chinese language and culture as well as a Jewish background. This will probably have a significant impact on the American Jewish community over the next twenty years. They will attract some Jewish men who were going to stray to the Asian side anyway (extremely popular for nerdy white guys to date Asians in New York), and perhaps add some hybrid vigor to American Ashkenazis.

Also, these women will likely act as a bridge between the Jewish and Chinese communities (imagine the conspiracy theories this will spawn!).

Should be interesting...

Anonymous said...

If universal health care becomes law, you'll see even less marriage. It will whack off 10-15% of a young man's income just as he is starting out in life. This will make it much harder to accumulate enough capital to get married (car, nice clothes, down payment for house). Marriages will be delayed out so long that many won't even bother. I think every Euro country that has "single payer" has a birth rate way below replacement. No money = No capital = No marriage.

Anonymous said...

I just spent a few days in Madison, WI. The place has dropped precipitously in rankings of places to live over the last few years. The reason? Well, double digit violent crime increases, for one. Higher property taxes, home prices, and increasing numbers of school children below the poverty line...
Anyone want to guess what the (quite visible) reason for this is?