You do not even need a racial explanation for cities like LA losing population - The average rent cost of rent is less than the average pre-tax salary. This gnarly rent to income ratio is a trend across most major US cities. You simply cannot afford to live in them without a high paying salary. In LA, many of those people are fleeing inland, causing prices to increase there as well. It's a problem I'm not sure the solution for.
Really the big issue is lack of housing production, which was significantly lower in the 2010s and we still have not made up for all that lost time: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST
The somewhat informed argument is that a few per cent of well-paying renters drive up the marginal price, and landlords try to stay close to the marginal rate.
You'd intuitively think this is true, but empirically it has not been true anywhere ever.
Rising productivity yields rising inequality. The issue is that land rents rise to swallow all productivity gains (we end up calling this "cost of living," as if it emerges out of the ether).
That's why in ultra-high productivity locales like Palo Alto, $200k/yr is a welfare wage. The land is ludicrously expensive because those prices rise in lockstep with productivity -- which they don't have to. Land costs nothing to exist. It is there ready to be used no matter what the price is.
But everything on the land, which is everything, must then pay rent to the landowners, giving rise to "cost of living."
You can disprove this by showing me a location with high productive power and low land prices, or a location with low productive power and very high land costs (that's not abandoned or a vacation spot for highly productive people).
That explains migration within a country which doesn’t change population counts. Unless you’re claiming that white people are moving out of America because it’s too expensive and simultaneously Hispanics are moving into a higher COL area (even if not high COL cities, America as a whole is going to be higher COL than Latin America).
Based on the news I’ve been following, a more likely explanation is that Biden’s immigration policy has been more welcoming on the southern border at the same time as Latin America destabilizing quite a bit politically and generating a lot of refugee migration.
I just don’t see how high COL or lack of housing being built explains the population growth being dominated by Hispanics.
that is sort of my entire point, pointing to California’s massive population loss is completely irrelevant data for the topic of this article. I don’t have the data in front of me, but I would be willing to bet a large percentage of that is not due to birth rates and is due to emigration.
Sure, but surely you agree that migration within a country and between countries are massively different undertakings and that things that impact one are less likely to impact the other?
Why is this being downvoted? Do you all not know people whose kids are in the same room? Ours are. Someone we know has 4 kids in a 2 BR apartment, those kids are great.
Neither of the anecdotes you've provided imply that children having their own bedroom is a luxury. Only that the opposite does happen, and isn't necessarily bad for the children in every case. There is a wide space between those, and you should pay respect to the differences between different people.
As for an explanation regarding the parent comment: Their use of the word "luxury" in this context antagonizes people by implying their standards are too high or they're spoiled or whatever, when really it's a perfectly reasonable thing to prioritize - and a perfectly reasonable thing not to prioritize. I.e. they have introduced team A vs team B negativity where it doesn't need to exist.
If you compare how humans have lived prior to this century, children having their own room is a recent development and indeed a luxury. Having your own private space is great, but not necessary. Hence, a luxury.
Luxury means "something expensive which is pleasant to have but is not really necessary". My anecdotes were trying to show that they're not really necessary, and the sibling comment further explained that individual bedrooms is a relatively recent phenomenon for the majority.
It's fine to prioritize individual bedrooms if that's important to them for some reason, but it's important to keep a realistic view of things, too. When things become common, then people sometimes forget that the less expensive option is totally acceptable, and means fewer years spent needing to work, more financial freedom, lower financial stress, etc.
I don't think housing costs explain the short-term changes described in this article. I am only answering the question of how housing costs lead to population decreases.
Wouldn’t those still generally be local not national decreases?
If there’s contrary research showing housing prices specifically lead to emigration I’d love to learn more. It’s not representative of any narratives I’ve heard in media or in my personal life.
I could see how a higher COL and needing to work crazy hours is seeing more families delay children and/or having fewer children. But that’s a little more general than “expensive housing” and not something I’ve heard as even a thing for America expats, except those nearing retirement age. So maybe it could be Boomers choosing to retire abroad which could explain it but I haven’t seen this en masse in enough ways to make me believe it could be realistic.
“Pays Pennies” is a common English phrase that means “a job that doesn’t pay well”. I.e. jobs they pay at or slightly above the minimum wage.
Why should native workers be displaced by those seeking asylum simply because the people seeking asylum are willing to work at OR BELOW minimum wage? I sympathize with their plight but to pretend that many of them aren’t economic migrants vs those who are actually fleeing imminent danger seems naive.
And before the argument is made: I absolutely support crippling fines for those employers who KNOWINGLY hire under the table to skirt minimum wage laws.
I'm increasingly an advocate for removing public comment on planning meetings. Those who show up are too invested and those far away are too underinvested. It leads to warped city planning decisions.
I'm a bit confused because I believe we can have transparency without community input. Compelling the system to speak is orthogonal to letting the community speak.
Define easier. With whose capital would you like to build more houses with?
The people coming over the border are doing so to escape poverty and harsh conditions from their respective country. I don’t think telling them to go buy a new house is gonna work at current US prices, and if you want the government to provide these new houses, then you really need to consider what the effect would be on inflation housing 9 million people at the current housing market would be.
That would mean lifting the Venezuela sanctions, Cuban embargo, and so on. I'm for it.
The US has a dry foot policy specifically for Cuba, encouraging people to seek asylum in the US.
The US involvement in Central America - from Honduras in 2009 and before that encouraged migration and asylum servers, but that bell is hard to unring.
> Has limiting the amount of asylum seekers or people coming over the border to claim asylum crossed your mind
The number of asylum seekers is a tiny proportion of overall immigration of all types so we can basically ignore it.
Population vs housing imbalance in California is not driven by immigrants anyway. The bulk of those people are citizens born to citizens or green card holders. Even if you could stop illegal immigration and simultaneously remove all non-citizens and non-visa holders right now today... that only punts the problem down the road by less than a decade.
The people that has crossed the border are seeking asylum and have been estimated to be in 9 million and probably has something significant to do with the 90% more hispanic population growth since it’s predominantly Latinos crossing.
You don’t think that many people coming into the country has an impact on housing and rent prices?
Corrected wording or not, I think this is simply wrong. A quick Google tells me that median income in LA is $78k (sounds about right given the US household median is $60ish) and per Zillow average LA rent[1] is $2800, so about half that.
One of the biggest problems with meme-driven economics like this (and HN is ground zero for this kind of logic) is the extent to which people just don't cite numbers anymore.
There is some truth here: property values in high-income US cities are growing faster than incomes. And that's a problem, and worth discussing. But that discussion can't happen until people stop with the hyperbole. And needless to say, without discussion there can be no solution. (Which, after all, serves the evolutionary goal of the meme!)
[1] Which surely reflects an average occupancy of 1.5-2 people, so needs to be adjusted even farther downward.
You used the median, I used the mean. I think the latter is more useful here, but regardless, even using the median, that ratio is still god awful and not liveable.
You didn't cite numbers. But if anything the "mean" in a long tail signal like urban incomes is going to be much *higher* than the median, which cuts in my direction, not yours. But if you want to post numbers I'm happy to have the discussion I mentioned.
Anyway I didn’t address the “meme” part of this post - what, IYO, is the meme here? The rent to income ratio is not remotely disputable, and I don’t think “la is too expensive to live on a typical income” is that hot of a take. It is. I’ve lived there my whole life. People are leaving in droves, and that’s backed by the data in this very thread.
So what’s the meme data here? are you disputing the rent to income ratio statistics? because you’re quoting them here. Are you claiming that a 1:2 rent to income ratio in a high cost of living state is actually fine? because that could be a legitimate meme on its own.
> what, IYO, is the meme here? The rent to income ratio is not remotely disputable
It... is. You said it had a certain value. I disputed that and gave numbers.
> Are you claiming that a 1:2 rent to income ratio in a high cost of living state is actually fine?
No, I'm claiming it's not 1:1, which is what you said the first time. Also that it's not outrageously out of scale with the rest of the country (which pays less rent but makes significantly less) or historical data (housing used to be cheaper, but only by about 30% over 50 years or thereabouts).
The "meme" is basically that The Economy Is Terrible And We Are Going To Hell In A Handbasket. And that's wrong. Something are more expensive, housing among them. Other things (travel, entertainment) are much cheaper. And as those tradeoffs change (slowly) the demographic distributions change (slowly). There's nothing new here, this is how things have always worked.
Your great great grandparents moved west in caravans for precisely the same reason: real estate was cheaper in the frontier!
> No, I'm claiming it's not 1:1, which is what you said the first time. Also that it's not outrageously out of scale with the rest of the country (which pays less rent but makes significantly less) or historical data (housing used to be cheaper, but only by about 30% over 50 years or thereabouts).
You're being pretty dishonest in your replies here. I said multiple times throughout this thread that this trend is across the country. I used LA as a specific example. 1:2 is still bad. It's not really disputable that this is not a sustainable or liveable situation.
> Other things (travel, entertainment) are much cheaper
Good thing those are the things people need to live? You think someone paying $3k a month rent making $50k is super concerned about travel prices? You sound extraordinarily privileged and out of touch and I see nothing to be gained from continuing this conversation.
>Your great great grandparents moved west in caravans for precisely the same reason: real estate was cheaper in the frontier!
My great great grandparents were slaves or the children of slaves - and what a strange analogy. There is no "frontier" now and the government subsidized those moves and stole the land from the natives. You're wildly out of touch and uninformed.
> You're being pretty dishonest in your replies here.
All I'm doing is responding to your (incorrect) numerical assertions. I really don't see how that can be "dishonest". If you don't like the direction of the conversation, I strongly recommend you counter with numbers of your own showing where the problem you think you see lies. That's how we get to a policy discussion on which we can agree. All you're doing right now is shouting at me because I don't see the same reality you do. Let's discuss the reality, no?
Linked in the article, but it looks like Black, Asian and other races will stay relatively stable in terms of % of population all the way to 2050. And the main changes will be that the % of Hispanic population will go up (immigration + higher fertile age population) and % of White population will go down (mostly aging). It's not as much as % of "people of color" going up as it is framed.
Both liberals and conservatives have determined that the two races are "white" and "whatever." More Hispanics means that the "whatever" group is rising.
What I wonder is if they've accounted for the lobbying of various subgroups to leave the "white" category, such as Hispanics themselves did in the late 60s - early 70s (speaking Spanish is neither a race nor a single culture.)
Every time a former white person declares themselves Latino (or MENA for that matter), the ratio changes.
> just Irish/British/German which are practically the same two ethnic groups
Despite wanting to go "back to the way things were", you are viewing that past through a distorted modern lens. Prior to the 20th century someone who was English would see themselves as being from a completely different civilization as a German. Eastern immigrants such as from Poland or Ukraine were treated as non-white invaders. Even the way you just lump the English and Irish together is a very big no-no to this day.
Now, imagine you are walking a graph. English to German is a short trip, English to Ukrainian is farther, and English to Latino is even farther (as it's not European).
These are constructed categories that a given person might agree or disagree with. You are free to identify cultural similarities between an Andalusian and a Neapolitan, but that does not make the change the fact that those two people may view themselves as coming from entirely disparate cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
For example, your decision to categorise "Latino" as non-European is very arbitrary. There are lots of Latinos who speak European languages and participate in European cultural traditions.
Do you think the average Andalusian and Neopolitan would disagree that all Southern Europeans share more culture and genetics than themselves and a German or Russian?
And what's a typical milk-white Asturian/Galician with freckels for you? An alien?
Wait until you find towns in Andalusia with far more blondes than in London, because, oh wait, something-someting Reconquista happened from North to South.
To a mid-Northern Spaniard, Flamenco it's as alien to us as it would be for a Central European, because our folk traditions aren't Morisco/Gypsy at all.
For instance, Northern Spain has Celtic culture with bagpipes, rain, green fields, cider and music pretty much non-Flamenco. Fast, uplifting and uprooted on happiness instead of sorrow and despair.
Ah, so my answer rooted to the ground isn't valid? Ok, keep being deluded.
For most Spaniards Andalusia it's anything else with alien culture, totally alien to the Northern (and even the Castilles, as Castilians are infamous of being reservated and rural-calm as they were basically the Farmlandia of Spain) and if you tried to picture Galicia with some flamenco guitarist we would stare at you as it you had a stroke.
Irish were seen as a subrace until WW1. Any 19th century racist would absolutely disagree with your message. In the same way, putting Ukrainian with turkomongol and genoese roots in the same bucket as Russians, or as Poles would be clearly decried by 19th century racists. As lumping Italians and Spaniards, why not, do you lump Greeks in that bucket too? Because 19th century racists wouldn't.
Also english are way, way closer to Spaniards culturally and genetically than eastern Europeans. And Irish and Scotts are way closer culturally to Spaniards than Germans. I never saw any German delegation in an interceltic festival, whereas Galicia is a recurrent participant.
This whole Irish were not considered white thing is a myth people like to throw around, but it's just not true. Also, Greeks are Balkan, which is its own thing.
It's not a myth, but the prescription was highly inconsistent. This is because there is no true definition for "whiteness" as race, ethnicity and culture are made up social constructs. For example, Arabs were officially considered white as recently as 1944[1].
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by subrace, then? I am so used to hearing the "Italians and Irish were not considered to be white" nonsense for so long that that's what I thought you were saying.
They were supposed to be 'inferior', more violent, less intelligent (IQ tests 'proved' that, which prevented Irish immigrants to have leadership roles in the army). They were white, but not 'true' white, and like Italians, you have to protect your wives and your daughters from them (yeah, racists are essentialists, so don't be surprised if the only consistency in their argumentation is their illogical fears tinted by a simplistic view of the world)
Wait until you find mid-Northern Spaniards from the Cantabric mountain ranges where pretty much Celtic/Germanic descendants similar to Irishmen and Mid-North Frenchmen.
When you hit Asturias, León, Cantabria, Burgos... everything you pretended to know about Spaniards/Hispanics goes out of the window.
It was a White "homeland" mathematically speaking until a political/economic decision was made to make it otherwise. Why is that controversial to point out? Motives abound?
>es Hispanics absolutely have their own culture, their own religion, and their own politics.
Which ones? They have several, from mega liberal to far right; and in religion you can have from Jews in Argentine to Catholics, Evangelicals, Buddhists and even die-hard Islamics.
From cultures, 10% of Spain knows shit about each other. If any, they care aboud not just about their province, but their damn country. Then, an average Spaniard knows shit about what actually happens across the pond except major issues in the News. Seriously.
That's like saying the Brits from Leicester are pushing the Utah Bible Belt into the Europeans.
Thus, when you met a Hispanic, unless you know him well, you can't get an actual background at the first glance.
I'm "white" but neither side of my family was considered white when they came to the US.
Hispanics will become "white," as will Asians (East Asians and Desis). The story of America will continue to be blacks getting left behind, and we'll continue to argue about what to do about it.
By that he means that Irish were considered by racists from 100 years ago a subrace of white, as were eastern European until the late 90s (that sentiment still exist in some places), and Italian were considered 'colored' until the 70s.
Racism do not have any internal consistency, that's why I heavily judge the intelligence of those subscribing to it. Indians were 'black' until weren't in my country.
I think you're on to something here. There is definitely a much looser standard for whiteness in the United States. The one drop rule was used only w.r.t. former slaves. But the definition of whiteness in the United States seems to be much broader these days.
Contrast that with Europe, where whiteness is a very strict category. This could partially explain the unrest that's going on in the UK. I saw a group of X users arguing with a British citizen with an Italian surname. They claimed that he was not really English (really what they were implying was, he wasn't white), even though his passport said so. I found it strange, because in the States we often consider Italian Americans to be white.
> And the main changes will be that the % of Hispanic population will go up (immigration + higher fertile age population) and % of White population will go down (mostly aging).
This is misleading, because it's not tracked like this on the US census. Hispanic is a separate question from race - people are "White Hispanic" or "Black Hispanic" or "(something) Hispanic", not just "Hispanic".
Per the report [0] linked in TFA, your understanding is wrong. More than twice as many hispanics came from natural increases (~2.21 million), compared to net immigration (~0.94 million)
I hit the paywall. Is this due to illegal immigration (including the spikes in asylum applicants / refugees) or cultural differences leading to higher birth rates or something else (like location)?
New immigrant/less wealthy women lose less money by deciding to have children than wealthier women (historically white due to distance from equator effects).
The wealthier you are, the more financial sense it makes to have zero children. Until the government decides that subsidizing families is worth doing until the population pyramid is stabilized, every wealthy subgroup will experience decline (except the practicing religious subgroups of those).
I'm really surprised that you're having a bad time on Tinder and women don't seem to want to settle down with you. It's probably because they're awful people or whatever.
Because it was clear you meant replacement theory without saying it.
> Freedom to learn the language and customs of those who have more kids, who will then have more political representation and ultimately rule over you.
No. Replacement theory is about the replacement of a specific group of people and for specific and intentional reasons which is not something I believe at all.
But demographic changes do happen and the origins of the US is an example of that. The US was first inhabited by Native Americans.
Then what are you worried about? Embrace the change and live a full life. You have nothing to lose, the world around you will change regardless, and we all die eventually.
The fertility rate has collapsed even in Mexico City, for example.
> In Mexico City, one of the world’s most populous metropolises, babies are becoming a rarity.
> Official figures show that the average number of children expected to be born to a woman over her lifetime — the fertility rate — has collapsed to 0.96, from 1.34, in only five years. That fall matches an astonishing decline on a national and regional level: Latin America’s aging, slow-growing population is now similar to those in Europe and North America.
I suggest therapy (without any snark and from a polite place) if the future scares you, change is inevitable. All races converge to US fertility rate eventually, immigrants after a single generation. We’re all racing to 0. Try to not stress about things you can’t control.
Framing this issue as some sort of breeding competition is…unproductive, and does not give individual agency and self determination the due it deserves.
I promise you, the rest of your life will be so much easier if you can become okay with people who are different from you. Morality aside, it's just not going to be a good outcome to spend your life mad about something that's inevitable.
They also bring a lot of happy couples together, it's not just a barren wasteland even though it's definitely hostile ground (but dating in general isn't easy).
I personally know many couples who met on Tinder and some other dating apps, and I'm also in a long-term and very happy relationship with someone I initially met on Tinder.
Population growth was about 3.45m, 3.15m of that was hispanic, 1.18m was asian, 0.6m was black, 0.6m was 2+ races, and white were -2.1m (yes negative). Numbers according to the article, as well as categories.
It's important to note that Hispanic is an ethnicity and not a race. These two get conflated often. To be considered hispanic you just need Spanish roots, I think it's nonsense that people from Spain are not considered "White" but generally all other countries in Europe are. My point being that it's strange that other colonizing peoples descendants (Britain & France) are not tracked the same way descendants of Spanish people are.
133 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 125 ms ] threadReally the big issue is lack of housing production, which was significantly lower in the 2010s and we still have not made up for all that lost time: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST
Rising productivity yields rising inequality. The issue is that land rents rise to swallow all productivity gains (we end up calling this "cost of living," as if it emerges out of the ether).
That's why in ultra-high productivity locales like Palo Alto, $200k/yr is a welfare wage. The land is ludicrously expensive because those prices rise in lockstep with productivity -- which they don't have to. Land costs nothing to exist. It is there ready to be used no matter what the price is.
But everything on the land, which is everything, must then pay rent to the landowners, giving rise to "cost of living."
You can disprove this by showing me a location with high productive power and low land prices, or a location with low productive power and very high land costs (that's not abandoned or a vacation spot for highly productive people).
"It's too expensive, no one lives there anymore"?
Based on the news I’ve been following, a more likely explanation is that Biden’s immigration policy has been more welcoming on the southern border at the same time as Latin America destabilizing quite a bit politically and generating a lot of refugee migration.
I just don’t see how high COL or lack of housing being built explains the population growth being dominated by Hispanics.
As for an explanation regarding the parent comment: Their use of the word "luxury" in this context antagonizes people by implying their standards are too high or they're spoiled or whatever, when really it's a perfectly reasonable thing to prioritize - and a perfectly reasonable thing not to prioritize. I.e. they have introduced team A vs team B negativity where it doesn't need to exist.
It's fine to prioritize individual bedrooms if that's important to them for some reason, but it's important to keep a realistic view of things, too. When things become common, then people sometimes forget that the less expensive option is totally acceptable, and means fewer years spent needing to work, more financial freedom, lower financial stress, etc.
If there’s contrary research showing housing prices specifically lead to emigration I’d love to learn more. It’s not representative of any narratives I’ve heard in media or in my personal life.
I could see how a higher COL and needing to work crazy hours is seeing more families delay children and/or having fewer children. But that’s a little more general than “expensive housing” and not something I’ve heard as even a thing for America expats, except those nearing retirement age. So maybe it could be Boomers choosing to retire abroad which could explain it but I haven’t seen this en masse in enough ways to make me believe it could be realistic.
Has building more housing crossed your mind?
Importing masses of unskilled labor puts downward pressure on wages. This is basic supply and demand.
Citation needed
> They’re just not willing to work for pennies
What jobs pay pennies?
> This is basic supply and demand
In a universe where more people in the country doesn't also increase demand, sure. That's not the universe we live in though.
“Pays Pennies” is a common English phrase that means “a job that doesn’t pay well”. I.e. jobs they pay at or slightly above the minimum wage.
Why should native workers be displaced by those seeking asylum simply because the people seeking asylum are willing to work at OR BELOW minimum wage? I sympathize with their plight but to pretend that many of them aren’t economic migrants vs those who are actually fleeing imminent danger seems naive.
And before the argument is made: I absolutely support crippling fines for those employers who KNOWINGLY hire under the table to skirt minimum wage laws.
https://www.epi.org/blog/immigrants-are-not-hurting-u-s-born...
>>1) The unemployment rate for U.S.-born workers is the lowest rate on record ( 3.6% )
>>2) The rate of U.S.-born individuals aged 25–54 with a job is at its highest rate in more than two decades
>>3) Immigrants only make up 18.6% of the labor force.
By any metric you look at , it become obviously clear that immigration is not causing high unemployment among U.S.-born workers.
The people coming over the border are doing so to escape poverty and harsh conditions from their respective country. I don’t think telling them to go buy a new house is gonna work at current US prices, and if you want the government to provide these new houses, then you really need to consider what the effect would be on inflation housing 9 million people at the current housing market would be.
The US has a dry foot policy specifically for Cuba, encouraging people to seek asylum in the US.
The US involvement in Central America - from Honduras in 2009 and before that encouraged migration and asylum servers, but that bell is hard to unring.
The number of asylum seekers is a tiny proportion of overall immigration of all types so we can basically ignore it.
Population vs housing imbalance in California is not driven by immigrants anyway. The bulk of those people are citizens born to citizens or green card holders. Even if you could stop illegal immigration and simultaneously remove all non-citizens and non-visa holders right now today... that only punts the problem down the road by less than a decade.
You don’t think that many people coming into the country has an impact on housing and rent prices?
too late to edit now but other than the butchered sentence I meant the cost of rent is higher than the pre tax salary.
One of the biggest problems with meme-driven economics like this (and HN is ground zero for this kind of logic) is the extent to which people just don't cite numbers anymore.
There is some truth here: property values in high-income US cities are growing faster than incomes. And that's a problem, and worth discussing. But that discussion can't happen until people stop with the hyperbole. And needless to say, without discussion there can be no solution. (Which, after all, serves the evolutionary goal of the meme!)
[1] Which surely reflects an average occupancy of 1.5-2 people, so needs to be adjusted even farther downward.
So what’s the meme data here? are you disputing the rent to income ratio statistics? because you’re quoting them here. Are you claiming that a 1:2 rent to income ratio in a high cost of living state is actually fine? because that could be a legitimate meme on its own.
It... is. You said it had a certain value. I disputed that and gave numbers.
> Are you claiming that a 1:2 rent to income ratio in a high cost of living state is actually fine?
No, I'm claiming it's not 1:1, which is what you said the first time. Also that it's not outrageously out of scale with the rest of the country (which pays less rent but makes significantly less) or historical data (housing used to be cheaper, but only by about 30% over 50 years or thereabouts).
The "meme" is basically that The Economy Is Terrible And We Are Going To Hell In A Handbasket. And that's wrong. Something are more expensive, housing among them. Other things (travel, entertainment) are much cheaper. And as those tradeoffs change (slowly) the demographic distributions change (slowly). There's nothing new here, this is how things have always worked.
Your great great grandparents moved west in caravans for precisely the same reason: real estate was cheaper in the frontier!
You're being pretty dishonest in your replies here. I said multiple times throughout this thread that this trend is across the country. I used LA as a specific example. 1:2 is still bad. It's not really disputable that this is not a sustainable or liveable situation.
> Other things (travel, entertainment) are much cheaper
Good thing those are the things people need to live? You think someone paying $3k a month rent making $50k is super concerned about travel prices? You sound extraordinarily privileged and out of touch and I see nothing to be gained from continuing this conversation.
>Your great great grandparents moved west in caravans for precisely the same reason: real estate was cheaper in the frontier!
My great great grandparents were slaves or the children of slaves - and what a strange analogy. There is no "frontier" now and the government subsidized those moves and stole the land from the natives. You're wildly out of touch and uninformed.
Not but those are the sort of things people who say stuff like this need to you to purchase to keep you complaisant
All I'm doing is responding to your (incorrect) numerical assertions. I really don't see how that can be "dishonest". If you don't like the direction of the conversation, I strongly recommend you counter with numbers of your own showing where the problem you think you see lies. That's how we get to a policy discussion on which we can agree. All you're doing right now is shouting at me because I don't see the same reality you do. Let's discuss the reality, no?
Yes, it's still substantially higher than other ethnic groups, but not by as much as it used to be.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/census-shows-americas-pos...
What I wonder is if they've accounted for the lobbying of various subgroups to leave the "white" category, such as Hispanics themselves did in the late 60s - early 70s (speaking Spanish is neither a race nor a single culture.)
Every time a former white person declares themselves Latino (or MENA for that matter), the ratio changes.
Despite wanting to go "back to the way things were", you are viewing that past through a distorted modern lens. Prior to the 20th century someone who was English would see themselves as being from a completely different civilization as a German. Eastern immigrants such as from Poland or Ukraine were treated as non-white invaders. Even the way you just lump the English and Irish together is a very big no-no to this day.
For example, your decision to categorise "Latino" as non-European is very arbitrary. There are lots of Latinos who speak European languages and participate in European cultural traditions.
Wait until you find towns in Andalusia with far more blondes than in London, because, oh wait, something-someting Reconquista happened from North to South.
To a mid-Northern Spaniard, Flamenco it's as alien to us as it would be for a Central European, because our folk traditions aren't Morisco/Gypsy at all.
For instance, Northern Spain has Celtic culture with bagpipes, rain, green fields, cider and music pretty much non-Flamenco. Fast, uplifting and uprooted on happiness instead of sorrow and despair.
Irish were seen as a subrace until WW1. Any 19th century racist would absolutely disagree with your message. In the same way, putting Ukrainian with turkomongol and genoese roots in the same bucket as Russians, or as Poles would be clearly decried by 19th century racists. As lumping Italians and Spaniards, why not, do you lump Greeks in that bucket too? Because 19th century racists wouldn't.
Also english are way, way closer to Spaniards culturally and genetically than eastern Europeans. And Irish and Scotts are way closer culturally to Spaniards than Germans. I never saw any German delegation in an interceltic festival, whereas Galicia is a recurrent participant.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_th...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_th...
"Irish were seen as a subrace until WW1."
What you said:
"This whole Irish were not considered white thing is a myth people like to throw around, but it's just not true."
I totally agree with you, but I've never said that. Don't strawman me?
Wait until you find mid-Northern Spaniards from the Cantabric mountain ranges where pretty much Celtic/Germanic descendants similar to Irishmen and Mid-North Frenchmen.
When you hit Asturias, León, Cantabria, Burgos... everything you pretended to know about Spaniards/Hispanics goes out of the window.
It was a White "homeland" mathematically speaking until a political/economic decision was made to make it otherwise. Why is that controversial to point out? Motives abound?
Perhaps you could explain more in detail. I mean, Hispanics aren't pushing out Christianity and pub food... And they like Americans plenty.
Side note: If your economy would otherwise be shrinking because of a shrinking population/labor pool, immigration is good.
ETA: anyone not following can read about it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement
Which ones? They have several, from mega liberal to far right; and in religion you can have from Jews in Argentine to Catholics, Evangelicals, Buddhists and even die-hard Islamics.
From cultures, 10% of Spain knows shit about each other. If any, they care aboud not just about their province, but their damn country. Then, an average Spaniard knows shit about what actually happens across the pond except major issues in the News. Seriously.
That's like saying the Brits from Leicester are pushing the Utah Bible Belt into the Europeans.
Thus, when you met a Hispanic, unless you know him well, you can't get an actual background at the first glance.
Hispanics will become "white," as will Asians (East Asians and Desis). The story of America will continue to be blacks getting left behind, and we'll continue to argue about what to do about it.
Racism do not have any internal consistency, that's why I heavily judge the intelligence of those subscribing to it. Indians were 'black' until weren't in my country.
Contrast that with Europe, where whiteness is a very strict category. This could partially explain the unrest that's going on in the UK. I saw a group of X users arguing with a British citizen with an Italian surname. They claimed that he was not really English (really what they were implying was, he wasn't white), even though his passport said so. I found it strange, because in the States we often consider Italian Americans to be white.
That’s a broad generalization about what people believe.
This is misleading, because it's not tracked like this on the US census. Hispanic is a separate question from race - people are "White Hispanic" or "Black Hispanic" or "(something) Hispanic", not just "Hispanic".
[0] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/census-shows-americas-pos...
The wealthier you are, the more financial sense it makes to have zero children. Until the government decides that subsidizing families is worth doing until the population pyramid is stabilized, every wealthy subgroup will experience decline (except the practicing religious subgroups of those).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/11/03/millennia...
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/among-you...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/women-children-study-1.711984...
https://www.visionmonday.com/business/research-and-stats/art...
https://theharrispoll.com/briefs/birth-rates/
TLDR Freedom > kids. Educated, empowered women delay having kids and have less kids overall.
But well, no need to care about your kids' future if you have no kids.
> Freedom to learn the language and customs of those who have more kids, who will then have more political representation and ultimately rule over you.
But demographic changes do happen and the origins of the US is an example of that. The US was first inhabited by Native Americans.
The fertility rate has collapsed even in Mexico City, for example.
> In Mexico City, one of the world’s most populous metropolises, babies are becoming a rarity.
> Official figures show that the average number of children expected to be born to a woman over her lifetime — the fertility rate — has collapsed to 0.96, from 1.34, in only five years. That fall matches an astonishing decline on a national and regional level: Latin America’s aging, slow-growing population is now similar to those in Europe and North America.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-08-07/latin-... | https://archive.today/RFf3U
Framing this issue as some sort of breeding competition is…unproductive, and does not give individual agency and self determination the due it deserves.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-...
I personally know many couples who met on Tinder and some other dating apps, and I'm also in a long-term and very happy relationship with someone I initially met on Tinder.
It's definitely eliding a lot of the nuance of the article, but technically it's not wrong.