Archive for February, 2007

Immigration Substitutes for Births

February 28, 2007

Immigration is a zero sum game for life between immigrants and natives. Search on Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic for the mathematical proofs in detail that immigrants must substitute for births.Briefly, at some point the population stops increasing. At that point, all immigrants must substitute for births, or the population wouldn’t have stopped increasing.

But substitution starts before then. Immigration takes away job security and young adults have below replacement levels of children.

Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973. 51 percent of women live alone as a result. Women’s fertility is below replacement for most groups, which is what happens when men and women don’t live together.

See p60-229.pdf at census. gov around page 14 for graph showing men’s wages below level in 1973.

51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse – New York Times By SAM ROBERTS
Published: January 16, 2007

In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, … preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with nonmarried partners. …”

In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.

Search on google 51 percent women live alone

See new income inequality graph link (old link income inequality graph may not work) at census.gov. Income inequality bottomed out in 1968 after falling from first recorded numbers in 1940′s. It then rose from 1968 to now. This shows the 1965 Immigration Act cutting in, both in men’s median wages and in income inequality. Women’s dropping fertility also shows the direct substitution of immigrants for births.

The pop is 300 mm. If that was the steady state, the arithmetic of substitution is as follows. At 75 years of life, 4mm die per year. If 2mm enter, then 2 mm births in steady state. So 2mm births/4 mm deaths gives a genetic survival ratio of 1/2 per generation. Assume a 25 year cycle birth to parent, then in 3 generations down to 1/8. I.e. in 75 years we have complete genetic replacement.

Even if pop goes to 450 mm and immigration is 1mm per year, we get a survival ratio of 5/6 per generation which implies still rapid genetic extinction.

==

Immigration in the 21st Century
By Frank Morris and James G. Gimpel
Center for Immigration Studies | February 28, 2007
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27129

http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/index.asp?ID=27129&InvWord=0

The article at Front Page Magazine is the sort of hard work that cuts through PC babble. Its hard for the PC police to scream racist when you have such a well researched piece of work.

This reinforces work by Putnam that diversity creates distrust.

Census Income Inequality Graph

February 23, 2007

Figure 1 – Change in Income Inequality for Families: 1947-1998 Census.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204/fig1.html

old link, may not work:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60204/fig1.html

Above is the Income Inequality Graph.

The Census page on income inequality is:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204.html

Immigration has two effects, a direct effect to increase population and a substitution effect, to substitute immigrants for births.

At a certain point, the population has to stop growing. At that point, the direct effect is zero, and every immigrant substitutes for a birth. This is simple, but key to internalize.

Fertility is below replacement in most groups in the US. This is caused by the substitution effect.The substitution effect doesn’t wait for population to reach its maximum, it starts early and is already causing fertility to be below replacement.

The causal mechanism of low fertility is lack of job security which means young adults can’t get married have kids and stay married. When young adults see that, teens
see it. The reason teens and young adults have angst, crime, drugs, is because they can’t get good jobs, get married and have kids themselves out of high school or in or just out of college.

The only society that is safe to live in is one that is child oriented. The only way a society is child oriented is if young adults have job and economic security to get married out of high school or in college and have kids while their biology tells them to.

When society takes away their job security while their biology says have kids, the mixed message results in crime, drugs, and increasing misery of all kinds.

Immigration takes away job security, that is the whole point of it.

This article originally grew out of a comment on an article by Dick Morris. Dick Morris was born in 1948 and became 21 in 1969. The all time low in income inequality was 1968. Income inequality fell during immigration restriction. After the 1965 Immigration Act it went up.

Morris thinks the reason he could have a family and a great career is he is smart and hard working. The real reason is he was born at the right time in the income inequality graph.
The Latino Revolution
By Dick Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 23, 2007

Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act smited Graham family’s stability

February 19, 2007

Two posts at Vdare by Patrick Cleburne and Randall Burns lead into this article’s discussion of how Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act harmed the family of Senator Lindsey Graham while he and his sister were growing up. Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act created income inequality and economic insecurity to further undermine Senator Lindsey Graham and his sister’s start in life when both their parents died.

If you look at p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940’s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since. Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Most Senators timed the income inequality graph perfectly, coming of age as young adults when income inequality was low from the 1940′s to 1960′s and then building or increasing fortunes as income inequality increased from 1968 to the present.

In an earlier article, Graham was compared to several other senators who sponsored or cosponsored the S. 2611 amnesty bill who unlike Graham benefited from low income inequality when they started out as young adults and high income inequality in their peak earning years. Several Senators who conspored S. 2611 built or deepened fortunes from the misfortunes of others on the income inequality graph.

From an earlier Old Atlantic article:

The lives of Arlen Specter and the 6 cosponsors of S. 2611 are reviewed at the end of the article in terms of how they fit on the income inequality graph. Arlen Specter, John McCain and Ted Kennedy were born in the 1930′s and became young adults in the 1950′s while income inequality was falling. They could build careers and have families while still young. Two Senators, Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez were born in 1946. They became 21 in 1967. They had families and full careers as they timed the income inequality graph perfectly, low income inequality when they were young and rising while they got on top. Both became rich on this curve.

Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback were born in the mid 1950′s. Graham had to start out as the curve was getting worse. He had to choose a career or family and chose career. He has never had children. Brownback solved this problem by marrying an heiress and has 5 children and a career. Brownback is running for president.

Patrick Cleburne comments on the prior Old Atlantic article at Vdare.com:
The Senate: In an Income Time Warp?”

Patrick Cleburne

A large number of Americans appear to have realized that income inequality has increased and that massive immigration is substantially responsible. And they are increasingly willing to say so.

A frequently-expressed view of Peter Brimelow’s is that the current generation of political “leaders” was formed intellectually before immigration was discernable as a social problem. Quite possibly they will literally have to die off before public policy will change – people rarely have new ideas.

Personally, though, I still think the more persuasive explanation is that these Senators are selfish, corrupt, and unAmerican.

Mr. Cleburne has some kind words for a previous Old Atlantic column and this blogger, which I thank him for. I am only too well aware of the editing work needed for this blog and I thank my readers for putting up with it.

What To Do With The Senate?” Randall Burns at Vdare.com

Randall Burns deepens our understanding of the comparison of the lives of the Senators by providing information on the life of Lindsey Graham. Burns points out that Graham helped to take care of a sister when both of their parents died.

His sister was taken in by relatives and Graham arranged to do his law school education near to where she was living and also with the military’s assent adopted her so she could take advantage of military health care.

As Burns points out, this was not selfish on the part of Graham. But in the context of the discussion here and in Mr. Cleburne’s column, Graham was distinguished from the selfish Senators as illustrating the impact of economic insecurity as he reached young adulthood. The other Senators’ lives illustrated selfishness and attributing to themselves the advantage of the timing of their birth on the income inequality graph.

The loss of both parents can only be a shock to the sense of economic security of any person. Since Graham had a minor sister at the time, that can only deepen that sense of economic insecurity. In the comparison of the lives above, Graham illustrated how economic insecurity was higher in the late 1970′s and 1980′s as income inequality was going up from its low in 1968 as the effects of Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act cut in.

By pointing this episode out, Burns deepens our understanding of this. Graham was subject to two shocks, one was the loss of his parents while he had a minor sister and the other was the rising tide of income inequality from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. This meant it would be harder for her to have a job during school or for her relatives to support her who had taken her in.

In fact, Graham tells us she got 600 dollars per month from Social Security and that she needed that money. This shows how social security had taken the place for the Graham family of a job market with job shortages and high wages, which is the historic basis of income security for all but the rich.

Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act had taken from the Graham family the economic opportunity it needed both before and after the loss of Graham’s parents. The Kennedy 1965 Immigration Act had left the Graham family unprepared except by social security and the kindess of relatives for one of life’s blows, the loss of the two parents. We can infer that Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act kept Graham’s parents from having sufficient life insurance, and that they couldn’t afford sufficient life insurance because Kennedy took away the wages of both of Graham’s parents with his 1965 Immigration Act.

2001 Abortions 1,303,000 Legal Immigrants 1,064,318

February 13, 2007

NRLC Abortions 2001 1,303,000

FAIRUS 2001 Legal Immigrants 1,064,318

This shows that immigration is substitution for births.  If we stopped immigration completely, legal and illegal, we would just balance the effect of abortions.

CATEGORIES CEILINGS 2001
ADMISSIONS
Relatives 676,144
Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens Unlimited 443,984
Unmarried Adult Children of U.S. Citizens 23,400 27,098
Spouses & Unmarried Adult Children of Legal Residents 114,200 112,260
Married Adult Children of U.S. Citizens 23,400 24,878
Siblings of U.S. Citizens 65,000 67,907
Legalization Dependents 37
Employment-Based Preferences 179,195
Priority Workers 40,040 41,801
Professionally Exceptional 40,040 42,620
Skilled Workers and Professionals 40,040 86,058
Special Immigrants 9,940 8,523
Investors 9,940 193
Other 208,979
Lottery 55,000 42,015
Refugees 90,000 97,305
Asylees 10,000 11,201
Miscellaneous 58,458
LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, TOTAL (est.) 1,064,318

Illegal, who knows. Could be 1 to 2 million per year. Total here could be 10 to 30 million. These numbers are always far more than anyone imagines. 1986 Amnesty brought in far more people than even the most extreme criticis predicted.

==Brimelow:

And if there is a looming labor shortage (hotly disputed), it could presumably be countered by natalist policies—encouraging Americans to step up their below-replacement birthrate. Even the current high immigration inflow is exceeded by the 1.6 million abortions in the U.S. each year.

“Time to Rethink Immigration?”

by Peter Brimelow
from National Review, June 22, 1992

Mr. Brimelow is Editor at VDARE.com.

http://www.vdare.com/pb/time_to_rethink2.htm

 http://www.vdare.com/misc/070212_smith.htm
February 12, 2007
“U.S. Chamber Urging Country On Rome’s Path To Disaster”

I find it ironic that the US Chamber of Commerce is promoting a report “America’s Perfect Storm: Three Forces Changing Our Nation’s Future,” [PDF] (press release here). The report, by ETS’s Policy Information Center, contends that the convergence of three forces—inadequate literacy skills among large segments of our population, the continuing evolution of our economy and the nation’s job structure, and an ongoing shift in the demographic profile of our country driven by the highest immigration rates in almost a century—will have “dire consequences for America”.

==

By Steve Smith

Kennedy McCain rode income inequality wave

February 13, 2007

Most Senators today were born or became young adults in the 1940′s or 1950′s while income inequality was going down. If you look at Change in Income Inequality for Families: 1947-1998 Fig 1 or p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940′s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since.

Census Income home page:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html

Census Income Inequality Home Page:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incomestats.html#incomeineq

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income05.html 

Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-231.pdf page 18 or see p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Specter who sponsored S. 2611 was part of the group that could get married early, have kids, and still have a career. Now he is against the young people of today being able to do this.

The census gov charts show why young adults don’t get married and have kids, they are struggling against the H-1B immigration, amnesty, family reunification that Specter supports.

But Specter and most of the cosponsors rode the chart of income inequality from the time it was going down to the bottom of income inequality when they were starting out to the top where he is now on the top. He takes credit for the chart being his genius. That’s why they had it good and young people today don’t in their minds.

The lives of Specter and the 6 cosponsors are reviewed at the end of the article in terms of how they fit on the income inequality graph. Specter, McCain and Kennedy were born in the 1930′s and became young adults in the 1950′s while income inequality was falling. They could build careers and have families while still young. Two Senators, Hagel and Martinez were born in 1946. They became 21 in 1967. They had families and full careers as they timed the income inequality graph perfectly, low income inequality when they were young and rising while they got on top. Both became rich on this curve.

Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback were born in the mid 1950′s. Graham had to start out as the curve was getting worse. He had to choose a career or family and chose career. He has never had children. Brownback solved this problem by marrying an heiress and has 5 children and a career. Brownback is running for president.

The Senators who voted for S. 2611 with amnesty and more legal immigration rode the same inequality curve. When they started out, inequality was at a bottom and they could get good paying summer jobs, go to college, and have kids right after college. They think their life is normal or their hard work. Many were in the Senate in the 1970′s when income inequality started to go up, and most were in by 1980. So they have been on top while income inequality went up, but in their minds, they worked their way up, because when they were starting out they were doing so at the time of low income equality, the bottom of the income inequality bowl graph.

So they feel morally superior and entitled to vote for immigration, because their success is their hard work. Lobbyists give them money in and out of office and they don’t realize at a gut level its for causing this bowl shape of the income inequality graph by immigration. They know it intellectually, but don’t accept it emotionally because they remember when they started out, there was low inequality and they could work themselves up and have families at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._2611

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/157/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:@@@P

S.2611
Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] (introduced 4/7/2006) Cosponsors (6)
Related Bills: H.R.4437, S.2454, S.2612
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2006 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate with amendments by Yea-Nay Vote. 62 – 36. Record Vote Number: 157.


COSPONSORS(6), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] – 4/7/2006
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] – 4/7/2006
Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] – 4/7/2006
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] – 4/7/2006
Sen Martinez, Mel [FL] – 4/7/2006
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 4/7/2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter 1930http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brownback 1956http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham 1955

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel Born 1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M_Kennedy 1932

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Martinez Born 1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain Born 1936

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter Born 1930

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-191.pdf

You may want to open the above pdf in another window and look at the income inequality graph. It is a bowl shape that goes down from the late 1940′s to bottom out from 1965 to 1968 and then heads back up. It splits into two indices and these reach the 1940′s level of income inequlity sometime between 1980 and 1985. Income inequality then rose to its current levels the most extreme. The bottom of the bowl is the 1965 Immigration Act. Despite the effect of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, income inequality was at its low from 1965 to 1968 for all time that they have statistics.All the bill sponsors and cosponsors benefited from the time period at the bottom of this bowl.

Specter is the bill sponsor. He was born February 12, 1930 and 21 years later, in 1951, income inequality was headed down. That was when he was starting out as a young adult. Income inequality was falling rapidly in the early 1950′s. He could go to law school, get married, and have a family while he was a young adult and attribute all of that to his smarts and hard work.

Edward M. Kennedy was born February 22, 1932 and he was 21 in 1953. Although rich, he could feel that he was part of a generation where income inequality was falling rapidly. He became a young adult and even became a Senator in 1962 while income inequality was falling faster than at any time in history. He was the one who stopped that and reversed it by the 1965 Immigration Act.John McCain was born August 29, 1936 and was 21 in 1957. This was while income inequality was falling rapidly. He started out as a young adult during that time of rising boats for all. He was able to get married during this time. He was in a prison camp from 1967–1973 while income inequality bottomed out. When he returned he would divorce his wife, marry a millionairess and launch his political career. He was helping Charles Keating in the early 1980′s during the S and L scandal and was a member of the Keating 5.”

Melquíades Rafael “Mel” Martínez (born October 23, 1946) is a Cuban-born American politician,”. He started out as a lawyer in 1973 and built his practice for 25 years. He was 21 in 1967. The all time bottom in income inequality was 1968. He too could go to law school like Specter, get married, have a young family and build a legal career all as a young adult.”

Charles TimothyChuckHagel (born October 4, 1946) is the senior United States Senator from Nebraska. A member of the Republican Party, he was first elected in 1996 and was reelected in 2002.” Hagel enjoyed the same opportunity that Mel Martinez had, to become 21 in 1967 one year before income inequality bottomed out in 1968. Hagel thus could build his life while income inequality was low and enjoy rising income inequality later when he was an investment banker and businessma in the 1980′s. He could build a fortune in the 1980′s as income inequality was going up from over 20 years of the action of the 1965 Immigration Act. Hagel wants to keep his business network of rich guys in the same sweet spot of when they were born together and doing well so they can hire each other’s kids and avoid the fate that young people who are not children of business moguls like Hagel have to face.

“Lindsey Olin Graham (born July 9, 1955) ” “Graham graduated from the University of South Carolina at Columbia with a B.A. in Psychology in 1977 and from its school of law with a J.D. in 1981, and eventually entered private practice as a lawyer. He is a brother of the Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity. Graham has never married.” Graham unlike the others, could not build a career and have a family as a young adult. Graham is already illustrating the impact of the 1965 Immigration Act, its why he had to choose building a career or a family as a young adult. Graham chose to build a career, so he never had a family as a result.

“Samuel Dale “Sam” Brownback (born September 12, 1956) is the senior United States senator from the U.S. state of Kansas. On January 20, 2007 he announced his intentions to seek the Republican Party‘s nomination for President in the 2008 Presidential election.[1][2]“Brownback is married to the former Mary Stauffer, heiress[citation needed] to a Topeka, Kansas newspaper fortune. The couple are the parents of five children (three daughters and two sons; two of the children are adopted).”

So Brownback avoided Graham’s choice have a career or a family but not both, by marrying an heiress. So he could have both. But not those he governs. Brownback’s S. 2611 puts most Americans in the same boat as Lindsey Graham, if you want to build a career during this time of economic uncertainty, you have to defer marriage and children, maybe forever. For those making this choice, even becoming a US Senator may not be enough to reverse income inequality preventing them getting married and having kids when biology tells them to, as young adults.

==Reference Material

Table IE-6.  Measures of Household Income Inequality: 1967 to 2001*

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Variance        Mean

                        of the logarithmic                Atkinson

                        log of   deviation         -----------------------

 Year            Gini   income   of income   Theil  e=0.25  e=0.50  e=0.75

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2001           0.466    1.007       0.515   0.413   0.098   0.189   0.282

 2000 30/       0.462    0.983       0.490   0.404   0.096   0.185   0.275
1970           0.394    0.805       0.370   0.271   0.068   0.138   0.214

 1969           0.391    0.774       0.357   0.268   0.067   0.135   0.209

 1968           0.388    0.779       0.356   0.273   0.067   0.135   0.208

 1967 12/       0.399    0.813       0.380   0.287   0.071   0.143   0.220

=–

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ie1.html

==

 Table IE-1.  Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion:

      1967 to 2001      (Households as of March of the following year.  Income in current

      and 2001 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars 28/)

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

      Measures of Income Dispersion    2001   2000 30/ 2000 29/   1999
Household Income Ratios of

         Selected Percentiles         95th/20th                        8.38     8.10     8.11     8.26

         95th/50th                        3.57     3.46     3.46     3.48

         80th/50th                        1.98     1.95     1.95     1.94

         80th/20th                        4.65     4.56     4.56     4.62

         20th/50th                        0.43     0.43     0.43     0.42
Gini coefficient of

         income inequality               0.466    0.462    0.460    0.457
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Measures of Income Dispersion    1970     1969     1968   1967 12/

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

       Household Income at

         Selected Percentiles       In Current Dollars:

         20th percentile upper limit   3,687    3,574    3,323    3,000

         50th (median)                 8,734    8,389    7,743    7,143

         80th percentile upper limit  14,661   13,900   12,688   11,841

         95th percentile lower limit  23,178   21,800   19,850   19,000

In 2001 Dollars:

         20th percentile upper limit  14,556   14,789   14,350   13,474

         50th (median)                34,481   34,714   33,436   32,081

         80th percentile upper limit  57,881   57,519   54,790   53,181

         95th percentile lower limit  91,505   90,209   85,717   85,334

Household Income Ratios of

         Selected Percentiles

95th/20th                        6.29     6.10     5.97     6.33

         95th/50th                        2.65     2.60     2.56     2.66

         80th/50th                        1.68     1.66     1.64     1.66

         80th/20th                        3.98     3.89     3.82     3.95

         20th/50th                        0.42     0.43     0.43     0.42

Mean Household Income

         of Quintiles

In Current Dollars

         Lowest quintile               2,029    1,957    1,832    1,626

         Second quintile               5,395    5,216    4,842    4,433

         Third quintile                8,688    8,335    7,679    7,078

         Fourth quintile              12,247   11,674   10,713    9,903

         Highest quintile             21,684   20,520   18,762   17,946

In 2001 Dollars:

         Lowest quintile               8,010    8,098    7,911    7,303

         Second quintile              21,299   21,584   20,909   19,910

         Third quintile               34,300   34,491   33,160   31,789

         Fourth quintile              48,350   48,307   46,261   44,477

         Highest quintile             85,607   84,913   81,019   80,601

Shares of Household Income

         of Quintiles

Lowest quintile                   4.1      4.1      4.2      4.0

         Second quintile                  10.8     10.9     11.1     10.8

         Third quintile                   17.4     17.5     17.5     17.3

         Fourth quintile                  24.5     24.5     24.4     24.2

         Highest quintile                 43.3     43.0     42.8     43.8

Gini coefficient of

         income inequality               0.394    0.391    0.388    0.399

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60tb1.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60191.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ineqtoc.html

“income inequality” site:census.gov

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2611
January 29, 2007
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein

“Yes, Tyler, Income Inequality Is Real. And Immigration Is A Cause.” More on Rubenstein‘s ESR Research, which does statistical research.

Time to Rethink Immigration?
by Peter Brimelow
from National Review, June 22, 1992

Mr. Brimelow is Editor at VDARE.com.

Above is the famous Brimelow piece at National Review, when William F. Buckley was still for us on immigration restriction. William Kristol is now editor of National Review. Kristol, born in 1952, rode the income inequality wave and has pulled up the ladder on the generations that came after him.

The above was rewritten from a comment at Front Page Magazine on

The GOP’s Moment of Truth
By William Kristol
The Weekly Standard | February 13, 2007

William Kristol was born in 1952. He rode the same income inequality wave.

==Comment that was rewritten into above:

Kristol was born in 1952 while income inequality was going down. If you look at p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940′s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since.

Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Kristol was part of the group that could get married early, have kids, and still have a career. Now he is against the young people of today being able to do this.

The census gov charts show why young adults don’t get married and have kids, they are struggling against the H-1B immigration, amnesty, family reunification that Kristol supports.

But Kristol rode the chart of income inequality from the bottom of income inequality when he was starting out to the top where he is now on the top. So he is against us. He takes credit for the chart being his genius. That’s why he had it good and young people today don’t in his mind.

You can simply type in the names of the pdf files into google and those will give the link to the pdf files at the census site, you don’t have to hunt through it.

The Senators for S. 2611 with amnesty and more legal immigration rode the same inequality curve. When they started out, inequality was at a bottom and they could get good paying summer jobs, go to college, and have kids right after college. They think their life is normal or their hard work. Many were in the Senate in the 1970′s when income inequality started to go up, and most were in by 1980. So they have been on top while income inequality went up, but in their minds, they worked their way up, because when they were starting out they were doing so at the time of low income equality, the bottom of the income inequality bowl graph.

So they feel morally superior and entitled to vote for immigration, because their success is their hard work. Lobbyists give them money in and out of office and they don’t realize at a gut level its for causing this bowl shape of the income inequality graph by immigration. They know it intellectually, but don’t accept it emotionally because they remember when they started out, there was low inequality and they could work themselves up and have families at the same time.

==Comments at Vdare on this post

The Senate: In an Income Time Warp?”

Patrick Cleburne

A large number of Americans appear to have realized that income inequality has increased and that massive immigration is substantially responsible. And they are increasingly willing to say so.

A frequently-expressed view of Peter Brimelow’s is that the current generation of political “leaders” was formed intellectually before immigration was discernable as a social problem. Quite possibly they will literally have to die off before public policy will change – people rarely have new ideas.

Personally, though, I still think the more persuasive explanation is that these Senators are selfish, corrupt, and unAmerican.

Mr. Cleburne has some kind words for this column and this blogger, which I thank him for. I am only too well aware of the editing work needed for this blog and I thank my readers for putting up with it.
– Also

What To Do With The Senate?” Randall Burns at Vdare.com

These are discussed further in this article.

in Hillary v. McCain, Nader appeals right and left

February 13, 2007

Nader is not the open borders advocate that Hillary and McCain are. Nader is too smart not to see that immigration reduces wages and gives power to employers. So are Hillary and McCain for that matter. The difference is Nader tells the truth. Nader will get votes from right and left.

Where does that leave the race? The anger on the left against Hillary is white hot, but they also want to win. By 2008, we may also face a different world, one where we have gone to war with Iran or they have agreed to real inspections, disclosed their secret sites, given up their Russian anti-ship missile buying program all as part of working together with regional parties to make peace in Iraq and to get Pakistan to give up its nukes.

OK, so war is more likely. McCain is part of big immigration. He has betrayed the Republican voters as much as Bush. Republican voters have shown they will go to a Perot in 1992 and 1996. But Nader is not a Perot.

If the Republicans nominate a Tancredo, Republicans will come out and vote. But the left may also come out for Hillary.

If we are in Iran and Hillary supports it, she may lose the left, but could gain in the center. A Hillary who supports a war in Iran that is ongoing is safe for centrists. In that case, Republicans may vote for Nader instead of McCain.

If we invade Iran and Hillary opposes it, she may gain the left, but will lose the center and she will lose, whether Nader runs or not.

Comments on

Hillary’s Nightmare: Ralph Nader
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 13, 2007

Census p60-191: Inequality fell before ’65 Immigration Act, Rose After

February 9, 2007

See p60-191.pdf for a report including graph that income inequality has gone up since 1968. It is going up for reasons “still not entirely understood.”

“Although the Census Bureau has been measuring incomes for a half-century and a a large number of factors have been identified as contributing to changes in inequality, the root causes are still not entirely understood.”

The root cause is the 1965 Immigration Act, i.e. legal immigration is the root cause of the income inequality the census measures. The graph shows inequality went down during the period before the 1965 Immigration Act, the immigration restriction period. Inequality bottomed out around 1965 to 1968 and then went back up.

No immigration the graphs shows inequality going down, after legal immigration, income inequality goes up on the graph. The graph shows that just around 1965 and for a couple years, income inequality bottomed out. This is despite the passage in 1964 of the Civil Rights Act.
See Census gov p60-229.pdf page 14 of pdf for graph of men’s median wages which are lower than in 1973. After 1973, men’s wages flatlined. This supports identifying the 1965 Immigration Act and legal immigration as the cause.

Senators who voted for S. 2611, amnesty and the path to more income inequality.

Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Ye
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Nay Warner (R-VA), Yea

Immigration Substitution Effect Europe Fertility Map

February 8, 2007

Europe Fertility Map , Europe Fertility Rates in a table.

Google image search: fertility map europe, good selection.

Global Fertility Map

UN Fertility Map: 21st Century: “Century of Population”

It took a record low 13 years from 1987 to 2000 to grow from 5 billion to 6 billion. It could take even less time to grow to 7 billion. How could this be with the expansion of family planning programs?”
BBC Map with links to info on parenthood policies. 24 March 2006, with selected fertility rates. Ireland at 1.99 highest of those reported on.

Amato Evan land use map

http://www.news.wisc.edu/11907.html Article with large maps scroll down and click on maps to enlarge. Best source for these maps.

Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE)

Farming Claims Almost Half Earth’s Land, New Maps ShowEarth running out of room. Also here.
Fertility change in Southern Europe.

NumbersUSA Vdare Mexico invasion map of Arizona

Fax US Rep and Senators on current immigration related legislation:

http://www.numbersusa.com/faxcenter
Immigration has a substitution effect of substituting immigrants for births. In the US it has operated to keep men’s median wages lower than in 1973.

See p60-231.pdf graph page 18 Census.gov “http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

51 percent of women live alone in the US. By taking away job security, immigration makes young adults defer having children. Young adults forecast that without a stable job, they can’t know they will stay married after having children. So they can’t have children. So they don’t get married. The result is a society that is not grounded as it was in the 1950′s by having young adults transition into good jobs, houses and families.

Over time the substitution effect operates. Since total population is bounded, as population rises, substitution of immigrants for births takes over from the direct effect of increasing population. At the peak population all immigration substitutes for births.

But this happens even before then. Search on “Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic” or look at the page below.

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.blogspot.com/2006/08/unpleasant-immigration-arithmetic.html“>
Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic

Sweden can not escape this inevitable arithmetic. Over time, the existing population will go extinct.

Charts and maps of European fertility are in the search below:

http://images.google.com/images?q=Europe%20fertility%20&sourceid=mozilla-search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wi“> Europe fertility

<a href=”http://www.mimas.ac.uk/focus/03dec/newsletter_p1.htm“> Europe fertility map</a>
http://mahalanobis.twoday.net/stories/1574875/

APA: High youth unemployment has a negative effect on fertility rates in Europe. This is the finding of a recent study conducted by two sociologists, Max Haller and Regina Ressler.

The Wiener Zeitung came up with a chart (see above) depicting youth unemployment (blue bars) and total fertility rates (red bars) in 2003 for 26 European countries.

Arguments over statistics. Scroll down there to see arguments of no causation unemployment to fertility and arguments that it does exist.

Could there be two groups? Middle class birth rates are depressed, but lower class are not?

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/02/immigrants_welc.php

Immigrants Welcomed In Sweden

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_dem1.html

Ground Invasion of Iran Cuts the Gordian Knot of Retaliation

February 3, 2007

We have to surge our troops if we do a missile strike in case
Iran retaliates and we need a ground invasion. So when does Iran retaliate? After we pull our troops out. So when can we pull our troops out? Never.

So we have to surge to deal with retaliation from our strike,
but we can’t pull the troops out because the retaliation comes when they leave.

Same applies with military and civilian ships in the Persian
Gulf. They have to be pulled out until the risk of retaliation
is over. But the retaliation doesn’t happen until they come
back in the Gulf.

Its Catch-22 Iranian style. The way you cut this Gordian Knot is a ground invasion.

Left has created a Diversity Bomb to divide us

February 1, 2007

The Left has worked for years to create a diversity bomb that destroys our society. They are attacking our will to fight.

The Left says we don’t have the right to live, so we won’t fight. We will accept surrender.

Lawrence Auster has a discussion of the French Army giving up in 1940. They had already lost the will to fight. This is the Left’s plan for us.

The Left works away during time of peace, so that when the time to fight comes, we can’t.

After 9-11, we should have conquered Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Syria. We should have raised an army and conquered in 19 months, the time from April 6, 1917 to Nov 11, 1917. That was when we declared war on Germany and won.

Our army went from 200 thousand men to 4 million, 2 million in France.
By May/June 1918 we had 1 million men in France from a total army of 200 thousand in early 1917.

Trotsky was in New York in 1917. President McKinley was killed by leftists in 1900. They attacked again after WWI against AG Palmer, that’s where the Palmer raids come from.

The Left has been fighting this war since before 1900. They have targeted America for destruction.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.