From the NYT:
Mexican New Yorkers Are More Likely to Live in Poor Households
By KIRK SEMPLE
People of Mexican descent in New York City are far more likely to be living in poor or near-poor households than other Latinos, blacks, whites or Asians, according to a study to be released on Thursday.
Nearly two-thirds of the city’s Mexican residents, including immigrants and the native-born, are living in low-income households, compared with 55 percent of all Latinos; 42 percent of blacks and Asians; and 25 percent of whites, said the report by the Community Service Society, a research and advocacy group in New York City that focuses on poverty.
The rates are even more pronounced for children: About 79 percent of all Mexicans under age 16 in New York City live in low-income households, with about 45 percent living below the poverty line — significantly higher percentages than any other major Latino group as well as the broader population.
While the Mexican immigrants enjoy exceptionally high rates of employment, their salaries are not sufficient to support young families, the study’s authors said.
“Immigrant Mexicans appear to be having great difficulty making ends meet as they start families here,” said the study, which sought to assess socio-economic trends among young people of Mexican origin in New York City. “Incomes that might support one individual on their own or in a shared household are not enough to support a family.”
“The result could be a cycle of poverty that will pass down from generation to generation,” the authors warned. ...
The study was commissioned by the Deutsche Bank Foundation following the publication of an article in The New York Times in 2011 about extraordinarily low educational achievement among Mexican immigrants in New York City.
Mexicans tend to make enough to live as singles, but not enough to have families, but our Anchor Baby legal interpretation makes it stupid for them not to have the children they can't afford.
And at least we eventually learned our lesson and changed the laws to keep the Italians out. Even a belated response seems to now be beyond our abilities.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Mexican immigrants enjoy exceptionally high rates of employment, their salaries are not sufficient to support young families, the study’s authors said.
ReplyDeleteHow much of their salaries are sent back to Mexico to support other family members? Twenty-three billion per year in remittances to Mexico will take a huge bite out of many household's budgets. Of course this is mitigated by Uncle Sam and his welcome basket of bennies.
Who notices the noticers? They are everywhere.Toll roads, street corners, neighborhoods. Where this going is anyone's guess.On another note;Chicago is planning the closure of 50 or so schools.It seems that keeping a school for 80 students is wasteful for a building designed for 1,200 students.Where or where did those unique populations groups wander to?To a county near you. And you thought our prez wasn't doing enough?New importations from Somali also? Who is responsible for this is of some importance.
ReplyDeletePor favor send all the Mexicans to New York and let it be Nueva Yorkez.
ReplyDeleteI would infer from this that the Puerto Ricans in NYC are now doing better than they were.
ReplyDeleteHere's some better news. A vibrancy huckster changes his mind:
ReplyDeleteSHOCKINGLY, YOU CAN’T SAVE CITIES WITH HIPSTER SUBSIDIES: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/20/richard-florida-concedes-the-limits-of-the-creative-class.html>Richard Florida Concedes the Limits of the Creative Class:
“The so-called creative class of intellects and artists was supposed to remake America’s cities and revive urban wastelands. Now the evidence is in—and the experiment appears to have failed. . . .
Burning money trying to become ‘cooler’ ends up looking something like the metropolitan equivalent to a midlife crisis. . . . the creative class doesn’t have much in the way of coattails.”
Shockingly, “largely childless” demographics don’t do much for growth. Plus: “The fastest job growth has taken place in regions—Houston, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Omaha—whose economies are based not on ‘creative’ industries but on less fashionable pursuits such as oil and gas, agriculture and manufacturing.”
Posted at 6:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds (instapundit.com)
I think Steve has previously mentioned more-vibrant-America advocate Mr. Florida.
In his usual passive-aggressive way, putting his editorial into the mouths of others, Prof. Reynolds seems to be in the process of subduing his own previous enthusiasm for vibrancy.
"Immigrant Mexicans appear to be having great difficulty making ends meet as they start families here"
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to the middle class that cannot have children because if anything goes wrong with work or healthcare you are bankrupt.
I personally wonder what happens when the kids grow up. It was not the Great migration blacks that caused the problems, or the original Arab immigrants to France. It was the next generation.
As far as Ellis Is. Italians go:
WOP!: A Documentary History of Anti-Italian Discrimination [Paperback]
http://www.amazon.com/WOP-Documentary-History-Anti-Italian-Discrimination/dp/1550710478/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363920039&sr=1-9&keywords=wop
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIt is not just the anchor baby thing. it's not even just immigrant fertility boost. Or being too stupid to use contraceptives effectively.
The largest (by $) "welfare" scheme in the US now is EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) which pays quite large subsidies to low-wage workers if they have children (and not much otherwise). See this paper for extensive details:
http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_quarterly/2010/q3/pdf/athreya.pdf
So now they're combining blacks and Asians, since if they broke out Asians separately they would have lower poverty rates than whites?
ReplyDeleteRecently immigrated Asians have notoriously high poverty rates, especially from China and SE Asia. Many literally come with nothing but the shirt on their back.
The recent immigrants are different from the students or family units that immigrated during the 60's and 70's. That group seems almost cherry picked, made up mostly of doctorate-level students and professionals from Taiwan and S Korea. I think the "model minority" stereotype is mainly based on the children of that professional group and not the behavior of SE Asians or recent East Asian immigrants. Of course there were also many Vietnamese refugees in the 70's and 80's.
"New Yorkers slowly starting to notice Mexicans aren't Ellis Island Italians"
ReplyDeleteThat's okay, blacks kill and rob enough to make up for the Mafia
It's a small price to pay so that Michael Bloomberg can have a well-manicured golf course.
ReplyDeleteSteve, why is it that any mention of a whiff of grapeshot towards Cohen and his ilk never makes it past Komment Kontrol, but damned if Whiskey and Desert Lady can word vomit all over the place?
ReplyDeleteWell, Mexiccans seem not to learn. They already tasted the La-Orange which isn't a cheap rential market. New York tends to be even more expensive if if they can't afford kids in Santa Ana why have them in New York City.
ReplyDeleteShockingly, “largely childless” demographics don’t do much for growth. Plus: “The fastest job growth has taken place in regions—Houston, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Omaha—whose economies are based not on ‘creative’ industries but on less fashionable pursuits such as oil Housing is cheaper for Mexicans but Houston and Dallas Mexicans still have poverty issues. Texas without adjusting for cost of living has a 16.8 poverty rate, its even behind Ariozna which is at 15.3. And Ok is doing great either its in the 15 to 16 ranged and is more white. Mexicans do better in Utah.
ReplyDeleteIn New York lots of hispanics are Puerto Ricans or Dominicans. Why would they be doing better than Mexicans?
ReplyDeleteWhy Mexicans appear to hav high employment rates is they tend to be on average younger than whites and more whites are retired. It might be that those with less education including illegals are less employed than studies show. I know that in California the cities with the highest illegal populations also tend to have the highest unemployment. Not saying that they take away low skilled jobs from kids or the low income native born but studies don't reflect that Hispanics legal or illegal and Mexicans in particular still have a small group of the senior population which means that there employment will look better than it is.
ReplyDeleteBetter late than never. I guess.
ReplyDeleteSteve, why is it that any mention of a whiff of grapeshot towards Cohen and his ilk never makes it past Komment Kontrol, but damned if Whiskey and Desert Lady can word vomit all over the place?
ReplyDeleteSailer can't be muzzled for being criticized.
Of course, as part of a future Democrat voting bloc, Mexicans will vote for redistributionist policies (ie wealthy whites will be taxed at a higher rate), that will make their family formation more affordable.
ReplyDeleteBring the Mexicans on, however this discomfits the middle class. At this point the more poverty, welfare, chaos, crime the better. Whatever destroys that impostor, the Republican Party, sooner, the better. We can fight back when we have a real alternative to left liberalism. Carthago delenda est. The Republicans must be destroyed.
ReplyDelete@Steve Sailer
ReplyDelete"New Yorkers Slowly Starting To notice Mexicans aren't Ellis Island Italians."
Actually, the Italian immigrants that came to America in the first half of the 2oth century were LESS educated than current Mexican immigrants, and they caused MORE increase in criminality - Cosa Nostra, anyone?
But who cares about the facts, right? You are just a dogmatic conservative with a clear agenda. BTW, I am still waiting for you to explain the 1924 Immigration Act.
The Puerto Ricans and Dominicans got there first. With immigrant groups it's all about the support system, and the Latinos from further south already absorbed the scarce resources available.
ReplyDeleteGood news, Jeff Sessions spoke at David Horowitz group. So more mainstream Republicans are opposed to the anmesty.
ReplyDeleteSteve, why is it that any mention of a whiff of grapeshot towards Cohen and his ilk never makes it past Komment Kontrol, but damned if Whiskey and Desert Lady can word vomit all over the place?
ReplyDeleteJoin the club.
Many, many folks who were once regulars at iSteve have given up trying and have left for more fertile grounds.
Nicky:"Actually, the Italian immigrants that came to America in the first half of the 2oth century were LESS educated than current Mexican immigrants, and they caused MORE increase in criminality - Cosa Nostra, anyone?"
ReplyDeleteNicky, good to have you back! I needed a chuckle. As for comparing Italians to Mexicans, one might note that Italians have done much better than Mexicans in terms of assimilating to American norms. As numerous studies have shown, Mexican progress in the US stalls out by the second generation.For even better evidence of Mexican mediocrity, just look at New Mexico.
Nicky:"But who cares about the facts, right? You are just a dogmatic conservative with a clear agenda. BTW, I am still waiting for you to explain the 1924 Immigration Act."
What's to explain? It was a clear winner for American society. The 1924-1965 period counts as the apogee of America as a nation state.
Actually, the Italian immigrants that came to America in the first half of the 2oth century were LESS educated than current Mexican immigrants, and they caused MORE increase in criminality - Cosa Nostra, anyone?
ReplyDeleteYour statement is true, but you are being a little disingenuous. First, even native white Americans and other Europeans of 100 years ago rarely went beyond 6th grade if they had a formal education at all. So technically, Mexicans of 2013 have completed more years of formal schooling than people 100 years ago.
Second, only 5 million Italians ever came to the US over 400 years. In the past 30 years, several times more Mexicans than that have come to America. Yet despite their higher education, their economic standing is still pretty low and their kids have a 50% dropout rate.
Here's something for you to consider. Mexico and Mexicans have had the past 100 years to watch as America and other Europeans discovered and created things that the people of 100 years ago could never have dreamed. We've invented everything a country needs to know in order to build successful political, economic and educational institutions. In fact our blue print is so good, a nation like South Korea, leveled in 1953, was able to follow our example and become a dominant nation.
Meanwhile Mexico and the Mexicans, untouched by war and living right next door to the poster child of 20th century success, have failed miserably despite being more educated than the people of 100 years ago.
What's the problem amigo?
Paul Theroux is an intellectual lightweight. Naipaul's astute analysis of Argentina in the Return of Eva Peron still hold's true.
ReplyDeleteRecently immigrated Asians have notoriously high poverty rates, especially from China and SE Asia. Many literally come with nothing but the shirt on their back.
ReplyDeleteThe immigrants themselves may struggle, but by all accounts their US-born children do fairly well for themselves. Poverty among Asians seems limited mostly to immigrants.
My guess is that New Jork Puerto Ricans and Dominicans are those who would be at least middle class in their home island/country.
Most of the Puerto Rican migration to New York and elsewhere in the Northeast was working class. As far as I know the Dominican immigration is not substantially different.
Peter
>>My guess is that New Jork Puerto Ricans and Dominicans are those who would be at least middle class in their home island/country
ReplyDeleteYour guess is wrong. Dominicans and Puerto Ricans are at least as dysfunctional as Mexicans. If you continue being ignorant please stop commenting.
No surprise. The Mexicans were allowed to come here to be serfs, not a well-paid working class. It's one of the dividends of having a greedy class of overlords running America.
ReplyDeleteJust think... there are many more blacks than gays... but I'll bet there are many more gays than blacks(and Mexicans combined) in many haute blue areas. What does that tell you?
ReplyDeleteYou suppose there will come a day when DC will have more gays than blacks too?
"No surprise. The Mexicans were allowed to come here to be serfs, not a well-paid working class. It's one of the dividends of having a greedy class of overlords running America."
ReplyDeleteMaybe the hippie idea wasn't such a bad thing. Maybe a lot more whites and blacks, as hippies, would have chosen the agricultural life and picked fruits instead of hanging around cities.
You suppose the New United Fruit Company has more control over America than the old United Fruit Company did over Guatemala?
ReplyDelete" I think the "model minority" stereotype is mainly based on the children of that professional group and not the behavior of SE Asians or recent East Asian immigrants. "
ReplyDeleteUnlikely - studies of recent East Asian immigrants of various socio-economic levels has found that they tend to perform similarly at school.
New York is poor according to this - if close to 2/3 of the city is non- white as I have read. This is a poor city by these rates. But since I see massive wealth in Manhattan, I can definitely now say we have achieved a Latin American social structure. Next you will tell me a short dictator is in power there.
ReplyDeleteTo Nick Diaz;
ReplyDeleteNICKY!! Your back! Your like the proverbial bad penny! I thought you were too intellectually superior for us, sport?
Italians 100 years ago were less educated then Mexicans today? Well how about comparing oranges to oranges? A fairer comparison would be to compare both groups TODAY. The truth is neither Italians then or Mexicans now are really well educated groups. But 100 years ago, not too many Americans were college graduates you know?
As for Italians committing more crime then Mexicans overall, I highly doubt it, and you provide no sources to show otherwise. Italians got involved in organized crime, - kind of like your barbaric Mexican drug cartels of today - but this didn't directly touch most ordinary Americans in their day to day lives. Also the mafia got a huge gift from god handed to them on a silver platter, prohibition (undoubtedly the stupidest act of social engineering in U.S. history).
As for the 1924 act, there is nothing to explain. America can open or close its doors anytime it wants too, to anyone it wants. Immigration is only a privilege, not a right. Americans wanted to preserve some measure of their country's cultural, social and religious balance. And as immigrants were arriving at about 1,000,000 annualy since the 1880's, it was felt that the tap had to be turned off to digest them. The 1924-65 immigration "drought" was a very good thing for America over all. How many people did Mexico take in during this period sport?
>since I see massive wealth in Manhattan, I can definitely now say we have achieved a Latin American social structure<
ReplyDeleteDrive all over the Palm Beach/West Palm Beach area in Florida. The visible contrasts are grotesque - it doesn't seem like America. Makes any borough of NYC look like Norman Rockwell. (I've lived in both places.)
NYC's ban on sugared sodas bigger than 16 oz or whatever is also designed, at least in part, to make living in NYC less pleasant for the chubs and squats, who are often non-Whites.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteNew York is poor according to this - if close to 2/3 of the city is non- white as I have read. This is a poor city by these rates. But since I see massive wealth in Manhattan, I can definitely now say we have achieved a Latin American social structure. Next you will tell me a short dictator is in power there. This has been true for years. Its been an immirgant town for decades so income inequaity is high. Los Angeles back around 1970 was the opposite but on immirgation La decided to copy New York in the high immirgation and the same thing happen to it. People comment that both places are different since New Yorkers take public tranaporation and have more high rise buildings but they are very similar as Steve as pointed out on immirgation and the income inequality.i3/22/13, 7:56 PM
Shockingly, “largely childless” demographics don’t do much for growth. Plus: “The fastest job growth has taken place in regions—Houston, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Omaha—whose economies are based not on ‘creative’ industries but on less fashionable pursuits such as oil Housing is cheaper for Mexicans but Houston and Dallas Mexicans still have poverty issues. Texas without adjusting for cost of living has a 16.8 poverty rate, its even behind Ariozna which is at 15.3. And Ok is doing great either its in the 15 to 16 ranged and is more white. Mexicans do better in Utah.
ReplyDelete3/21/13, 9:22 PM
Even Dallas and Houston have had some genfrication, its great I prefre some childless whites over immirgants with babies. El Paso and Santa Ana Ca would like more genfrication, conservatives are stupid for being so angi-genfrication and think all whites should be in the burbs.
Sailer, is there some li'l code or script that you could implement so that whenever someone types 'Nick Diaz' it'll show up as 'Angry Spaniard fop'?
ReplyDelete