Corvinus comments:
The 2010 prelimiary birth rate statistics are now available from the CDC.
They revised the birth rates according to the 2010 Census results. Yet again, 2010 continues a trend of the recent recession and poor economy throwing White America into a briar patch. White Americans recorded 1.80 children/woman in 2010; the rates earlier in the decade were revised UP slightly because the Census found fewer non-Hispanic whites than they expected.
The formerly high-flying Hispanic birth rate continues to tank, down about 0.5 child/woman since 2007, and is now down to 2.35. The absolute number of births to Hispanic women fell from 1,062,779 in 2007 to 946,000 in 2010; the drop in fertility is therefore real.
Demographer Emilio A. Parrado argues that Hispanic fertility tends to be concentrated in recent immigrants. I interpret his data as showing that foreigners who can't afford to have as many children as they want in their own countries move to U.S. to have lots of children, which they quickly do.
You often hear these days in discussions of the Coming Hispanic Tsunami that immigration doesn't matter any more, it's the high Hispanic fertility that means that the cake is already baked. But, that's not quite as sophisticated a view as its proponents think. A more subtle insight is that high Hispanic fertility is driven in sizable part by new immigration. The current decline in illegal immigration that appears to have begun with the popping of the subprime bubble in 2007 is significantly lowering overall Hispanic fertility.
Without significant immigration restrictions, however, Hispanic fertility will boom again the next time the economy does well because so many of the births are concentrated among recent illegal immigrants.
The rate for blacks has been tracking whites pretty consistently at about 0.2 child/woman higher since 2002. The recession seems to have hit them marginally in 2008, but quite a bit more in 2010, closely paralleling the loss in government jobs (which started later than those in the private sector, and which is continuing).
Asian rates have been revised to below whites since 1997 by about 0.1 child/woman, except for 2000 (due to the Chinese calendar, I guess; there was a similar spike in 1988). The recent economic troubles have also hurt their rate more than whites'.
For American Indians, it's down to 1.4 child/woman, although I don't believe this, since births in Indian-heavy states like the Dakotas and Montana suggest a rate of about 2.1.
Posts
35 comments:
Good news about falling birthrate. I feel like we still have a few more years to save country, but time is running out fast.
"For American Indians, it's down to 1.4 child/woman, although I don't believe this, since births in Indian-heavy states like the Dakotas and Montana suggest a rate of about 2.1."
I would question how many "Indians" in the census are real Indians and how many are white wannabe Indians.
With 'Hispanics', quality is also an issue, not just quantity. I suppose the 'Flynn Effect' will help some there, but not enough.
You have to factor in mixing - racial, sub-racial, ethnic, cultural, etc.
Just looking at the "white" population, rates of blondism and blue eyes have plummeted over the past 100 years. That alone suggests a major population genetic shift. If you add the other levels it becomes even more significant.
I'm sure the high fertility rates among recent illegal immigrants aren't helped by the birthright citizenship scam.
I know this blog has dealt with Black-White and Asian-White intermarriage extensively, but I don't know if I've ever seen anything here about the Hispanic intermarriage rate. Just from what I've observed, I'd guess it's very high - maybe the highest of all intermarriage rates. And it seems to be evenly balanced between men and women.
Given the racial dynamics of Mexico, you figure that a lot of Hispanics desire to marry Gringos so that their kids will be whiter (Gringos taking the place of the white, upper class Mexican). And Gringos gain from this by having Affirmative Action status granted to their part-Hispanic children. So it's a win-win for both sides.
Fertility has been declining worldwide (except for Kazakhstan, IIRC) for the past forty years or so. It has nothing to do with the recent economic situation. In fact, it is unclear what the cause of the fertility decline may be.
It seems to me that just the threat of deportation might be causing the recent decline in Hispanic fertility. No one in his right mind would want to go back to Mexico and try to support 6 children on the Mexican minimum wage of a dollar an hour. Access to welfare benefits has been driving the fertility rates for recent immigrants. Even the threat of taking away that access will cause it to decline.
Well, a lot of hispanic immirgants still live in the La-Orange Area which is expensive and now they are not as employed as much. A good reason now to have less babies in the case of Santa Ana it might be more expensive to have more kids there than Mexico since the average rent in Santa Ana is around 1400 and at least over a 1000 for a one bedroom.
Without significant immigration restrictions, however, Hispanic fertility will boom again the next time the economy does well because so many of the births are concentrated among recent illegal immigrants.
Everyone so far seems to have missed this. Maybe no one is expecting a recovery for many years.
Environmentalist Republicans (I'm sure there are some in the Midwest) should push for am immigration moratorium. I'm sure there are plenty of rank-and-file GOP'ers who are pro-conservation, anti-congestion and want to preserve lands for hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation.
Of course an IM wouldn't pass, but making a case for it would expand the Overton Window. The problem for this proposal would be the hysterical reaction of the usual GOP funding sources. This plurality voting system is sh*t-it prevents the US from getting awesome electoral formations like the True Finns.
Just from what I've observed, I'd guess it's very high - maybe the highest of all intermarriage rates.
I assume you're referring to white-Hispanic couplings. I'm in Atlanta, which has a huge Hispanic population, and I see very little intermarriage.
Also, 'Hispanic' is terribly misleading. This can refer to Iberians like Placido Domingo or Meso-Americans like 64"-tall 'Juan' with deep reddish-brown skin tone, sparse body hair and jet-black scalp hair. In the case of the latter, I don't see too many white women chasing them.
BTW, are there any prominent Meso-Americans? I can't think of a single one.
The Commentariat is going ape over Newt's amnesty proposal. Likely more Soccer Mom pandering, Hotair (yes RINO central) has various Rasmussen polls showing support for amnesty among the general voting population, and even among Republicans.
Much of the mid Twentieth Century onwards has been pumping up Hispanic/Mexican fertility at the expense of White fertility. Idiocracy of course is revealing, since the high IQ guy was not very sexy, surely the woman would have kids early on with a sexy/dominant high IQ man. The problem is, those types are rare.
Sexiness (among men) is at least as important as economic opportunity. I think Steve's error is ASSUMING that economic issues trump everything else in family formation. I think the evidence suggests it does not, even in the downturn Mexican/Hispanic fertility and illegitimacy are larger than Whites. Suggesting strongly that High IQ men simply are not as sexy as those lower down (less impulsiveness, dominance, fighting, etc.) A woman is sexy based on her body, age, and partner count, higher IQ (less partners) makes her more not less attractive, all other things being equal. For guys it is social dominance mostly.
Economic success (Japan, South Korea, Germany, Finland) requires male cooperation, higher IQs, diligence, future time orientation, all which tend to radically depress fertility by making men unsexy. Look at Twilight -- the gal does not love Edward Cullen (and before that lust for him) because he's nice or does lots of calculus, but because he dominates her. Millions of tweens and their moms agree.
icr said:
This plurality voting system is sh*t-it prevents the US from getting awesome electoral formations like the True Finns.
That's what it was designed for. The Dems and the GOP are two sides of the same coin, funded by the same big donors, and pandering to the same lobbies. They don't want rivals, and those who fund them don't want them to have rivals.
Just looking at the "white" population, rates of blondism and blue eyes have plummeted over the past 100 years. That alone suggests a major population genetic shift. If you add the other levels it becomes even more significant.
I would like to see a source for that. You could be using statistics that lump in Hispanics with whites. If not, I have read a study showing fairness in the white population significantly lower in 1960 than in 1910, but that could be accounted for by a large number of darker Catholics, especially Italians, who were very fertile until the Vatican II revolution. But nowadays, Italian-Americans on average are less fertile than other white Americans.
So either way, I'd say your assertion is overblown. In my part of the country, blondes are certainly in no immediate threat of extinction.
I would question how many "Indians" in the census are real Indians and how many are white wannabe Indians.
That's the only explanation I can think of; that a few million hard-left whites with a small fraction of Indian ancestry call themselves Indians in the census, and depress the Indians' fertility.
"In fact, it is unclear what the cause of the fertility decline may be."
it's very clear. the technology to have sex without having a kid.
as you say, fertility has been falling for the past 40 years or so...this matches up strangely, almost perfectly, with the development of reliable oral contraceptives. it's almost like...women started using them.
"Just looking at the "white" population, rates of blondism and blue eyes have plummeted over the past 100 years. That alone suggests a major population genetic shift. If you add the other levels it becomes even more significant."
I don't know about blue eyes but one of the reasons blond hair was more common 100 years ago is because people spent more time outside in the sun. Light brown/medium brown hair will usually turn golden if you spend enough time outside. That's why so many white homeless guys are blondish, same goes for construction workers.
But, that's not quite as sophisticated a view as its proponents think.
"Sophisticated", on the contrary, may be the perfect descriptor for such analysis. It derives from "sophist".
For American Indians, it's down to 1.4 child/woman, although I don't believe this, since births in Indian-heavy states like the Dakotas and Montana suggest a rate of about 2.1.
What else do the Dakotas and Montana have in common? C'mon, iSteve readers, all together now: "Affordable Family Formation". It's *cheap* to live in nearly empty states with no yuppie resorts, so the few white people who actually do live there (you can throw in Wyoming, and it's still less than 1% of the U.S. population) can afford to have larger families.
"Everyone so far seems to have missed this. Maybe no one is expecting a recovery for many years. "
The economy can't really recover until they are gone.
The Anabaptist population doubles about every 15 years. The Hasidic Jewish population doubles in about 20 years. In about 100 years these 2 groups combined will make up half the population of the USA.
Is the statistic of 1.80 children per women described in the article the total fertility rate (TFR)? I am trying to get some historical perspective by comparing it with TFR rates during the Great Depression.
Using this source:
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haines.demography
I was only able to find rates for census years.
In 1930 - partially including babies conceived before the October 1929 crash and well before the worst of the Depression hit - the white TFR was 2.45. Bear in mind that the white infant mortality rate that year was 60.1, roughly the same level as Cameroon or Mauritania today. (The US white infant mortality rate today is about 5.7.)
In 1940 - well after the worst of the Depression - the white TFR was 2.22. The infant mortality rate had declined to 43.2, similar to the rate in South Africa or Iran today.
I'm pretty sure the TFR declined below replacement rate in the early 30s. Does anyone have those numbers?
This is worth knowing because it tends to corroborate the idea that today's low white TFR is partly due to the economy and may rebound, assuming the economy recovers.
This points to one (small) point for optimism- there are things that can be done about demographics. It's hard to be too optimistic that anything will be done, but it does show that changes in policy can change the trends and outcomes.
This points to one (small) point for optimism- there are things that can be done about demographics.
There certainly are, even in areas with high NAM concentrations. Make gated communities accessible to those of modest means, with residency requirements including no criminality. Schools of choice, ditto. If family formation is affordable, people will do it.
The flip side is that family formation for the illiterate, unproductive or criminal ought to be prohibitive.
I would like to see a source for that. You could be using statistics that lump in Hispanics with whites. If not, I have read a study showing fairness in the white population significantly lower in 1960 than in 1910
"Blue eyes are increasingly rare in America"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/world/americas/18iht-web.1018eyes.3199975.html
"About half of Americans born at the turn of the 20th century had blue eyes, according to a 2002 Loyola University study in Chicago. By mid-century that number had dropped to a third. Today only about one 1 of every 6 Americans has blue eyes, said Mark Grant, the epidemiologist who conducted the study.
Grant was moved to research the subject when he noticed that blue eyes were much more prevalent among his elderly patients in the nursing home where he worked than in the general population. At first he thought blue eyes might be connected to life expectancy, so he began comparing data from early 20th- century health surveys. Turns out it has more to do with marriage patterns.
A century ago, 80 percent of people married within their ethnic group, Grant said. Blue eyes -- a genetically recessive trait -- were routinely passed down, especially among people of English, Irish, and Northern European ancestry.
By mid-century, a person's level of education -- and not ethnicity -- became the primary factor in selecting a spouse. As intermarriage between ethnic groups became the norm, blue eyes began to disappear, replaced by brown."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color#Distribution
"A 2002 study found that the prevalence of blue eye color among Caucasians in the United States to be 33.8 percent for those born from 1936 through 1951 compared with 57.4 percent for those born from 1899 through 1905.[12] Blue eyes are continuing to become less common among American children, with only one out of every six or 16.6% of the total population, and 22.3% of the white population having blue eyes.[35][36][37]"
@ - "In 2010, 40.8 % of all births in America were to unmarried mothers, down marginally from 41.0% in 2009. "
A nice point of departure for your discussion.
However, the difference between 40.8% and 41.0% is well within the margin of error + or - two or three percent maybe.
This is a too often ignored issue affecting all economic data. We need to always keep it in mind, especially since you can be absolutely sure the mass media don't.
Oskar Morgenstern's little masterpiece, On the Accuracy of Economic Observations, explores the problem in all its messy dimensions, of which there are more than a few.
"BTW, are there any prominent Meso-Americans? I can't think of a single one."
One of my professors was obviously higher IQ than you being that he was in a very competitive field. I'd say he was one of the more popular instructors as well despite giving very challenging exams.
Fame is overrated as are most of the famous.
'"By mid-century, a person's level of education -- and not ethnicity -- became the primary factor in selecting a spouse. As intermarriage between ethnic groups became the norm, blue eyes began to disappear, replaced by brown."'
This is one of those articles with extrapolations that don't make much sense. I'd wager there's been significant mingling with traditionally swarthier Europeans: First the Italians, then the Jews. Also, Irish already had a number of brown-eyed brunettes. The hugely diverse Irish population has to be much larger than the earlier waves of Northern Europeans.
What seems more important is that those few subcultures that were almost exclusively blue-eyed and blond seem to have immigrated earlier and in smaller numbers.
"This is worth knowing because it tends to corroborate the idea that today's low white TFR is partly due to the economy and may rebound, assuming the economy recovers."
You're new to iSteve, aren't you? I'd say go back to about 2008 and start perusing past entries for the answer. Alas, last time I tried this, quite a few of the earlier articles had been misplaced.
What else do the Dakotas and Montana have in common? C'mon, iSteve readers, all together now: "Affordable Family Formation".
White fertility in those states does indeed run in the 1.9-2.0 child/woman range. In Idaho it's 2.1, and curiously enough, it doesn't vary much between the Mormon and non-Mormon parts of the state.
Is the statistic of 1.80 children per women described in the article the total fertility rate (TFR)?
Yes.
"About half of Americans born at the turn of the 20th century had blue eyes, according to a 2002 Loyola University study in Chicago.
Anon: Thanks, that was indeed the same study I saw. Okay:
Blue eyes are continuing to become less common among American children, with only one out of every six or 16.6% of the total population, and 22.3% of the white population having blue eyes.[35][36][37]"
Now, if 16.6% of the total population has blue eyes, and 22.3% of the white population, then that means that the white population is 74.4% of the total population. In other words, the study does lump in Hispanics together with whites, since in the 2000 Census, non-Hispanic whites were already below 70% of the population. If we cut out the 26.0% of "white" children (in 2000) who are actually Hispanic, it brings the proportion of white children with blue eyes up to 28.1%.
Now, back to this:
"A 2002 study found that the prevalence of blue eye color among Caucasians in the United States to be 33.8 percent for those born from 1936 through 1951 compared with 57.4 percent for those born from 1899 through 1905.[12]
I am pretty sure that it was Italian immigration and high fertility (which lasted until the late 1960s) that drove the proportion of blue eyes down from 57.4% to 33.8%. Again, in my part of the country, which has few Italians, the proportion of people with blue eyes, from personal observation, cutting out all non-Europeans, seems to be about two-thirds.
A drop from 33.8% in the 1940s to the corrected 28.1% now (cutting out Hispanics) is much smaller than from 57.4% to 33.8%. Indeed, most if not all of this further drop likely occurred between 1951 and 1970, when Italians stopped outbreeding other Americans.
"The economy can't really recover until they [illegal Latinos] are gone."
The economy can and has recovered quite well...for the people at the top. Business profits, if you haven't noticed, are scraping the stratosphere. It's the people at the bottom for whom the economy has not recovered. Bonus points to the first party in power to figure that one out and then do the right thing. Republicans and Democrats are both getting paid very well by the cheap labor advocates not to figure it out.
My guess is the that the two parties will be swapping control at regular intervals for a long time to come. The real power won't be swapping hands much - just the number of (R)'s and (D)'s behind the names of the puppets in Congress.
"Blue eyes are increasingly rare in America"
Not if American movies are anything to go by. The blue eye rate for white American actors must be at least 50%.
Now, if 16.6% of the total population has blue eyes, and 22.3% of the white population, then that means that the white population is 74.4% of the total population. In other words, the study does lump in Hispanics together with whites, since in the 2000 Census, non-Hispanic whites were already below 70% of the population. If we cut out the 26.0% of "white" children (in 2000) who are actually Hispanic, it brings the proportion of white children with blue eyes up to 28.1%.
In the 2000 Census, the non-Hispanic white population was 69.1%.
If 16.6% of the total population had blue eyes, and whites were 69.1% of the total population, then 24% of the white population would have had blue eyes.
"What seems more important is that those few subcultures that were almost exclusively blue-eyed and blond seem to have immigrated earlier and in smaller numbers."
The only subgroups that would've been almost exclusively blue-eyed and blond were Swedes/Finns who came over in the mid 1800s...
Our first settlers (the Brits, French, Scots, Germans and Dutch) would've probably had slightly more brunets than blonds, and a significant minority of brown eyed people too. Even the blond regions of England have large amounts of dark-haired people. Just check out some old portraits of Englishmen for reference. Mostly blue-eyed with a few exceptions (Shakespeare) however also almost "exclusively" brown haired.
edgy gurl - you had an Aztec-descended professor? Where?
"The economy can and has recovered quite well...for the people at the top. Business profits, if you haven't noticed, are scraping the stratosphere. It's the people at the bottom for whom the economy has not recovered. Bonus points to the first party in power to figure that one out and then do the right thing. Republicans and Democrats are both getting paid very well by the cheap labor advocates not to figure it out."
The destruction of wages and capital caused largely by immigration is why it won't recover. Even the elite will eventually find that all that paper is meaningless without a nation to back it up.
Post a Comment