Archive for the '1965 Immigration Act' Category

Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem

June 4, 2007

Assume that

1. Population is bounded from above
2. The flow of immigrants is unbounded from above
3. The survival probabilities of the genes of each immigrant are equal.

Then

For any given cohort of immigrants at time t, the survival probability of their genes at T > t, p(t,T) must go to zero as T goes to infinity.

Proof

Let N(t,T) be the flow from t to T.

The expected number of genes that exist at some date T is the sum of p(t’,T) N(t’) where t’ is an entering cohort and N(t’) entered at time t’ and have a survival probability p(t’,T) at T.

The sum of the N(t’) from t to T is N(t,T).

If p(t’,T) was bounded from below by epsilon, then we would have

N(t,T) epsilon

as a lower bound to the expected number of genes for the entire flow from t to T. Since N(t,T) grows without bound, so does its product with epsilon greater than zero where epsilon is fixed.

Thus the expected number of genes,

sum over t’ of the N(t’) p(t’,T) > N(t,T) epsilon

But we assumed there existed some upper bound B to population. Thus the expected number of genes will exceed the bound on them B as T grows larger.

So we have a contradiction. Thus there is no lower bound epsilon greater than zero for the survival probability of the immigrants.

So every immigrant gene that enters at time t eventually goes extinct.

QED.

Assume that for some positive k, the survival probability of those here already is bounded from above by k times the immigrant survival probability.

Then the survival probability of those here must also vanish, i.e. is not bounded below as T goes to infinity for q(t,T) where q is the survival probability for those here.

Proof

Since p(t,T) the immigrant survival probability falls below any epsilon1 for T sufficiently great, k times p(t,T) also falls below any epsilon2. Take T sufficiently great that p(t,T) falls below epsilon2/k. Then k p(t,T) is now less than epsilon. Since q(t,T) < k p(t,T), it follows that q(t,T) < epsilon. Thus q(t,T) vanishes as T grows larger.

What happens is that q(t,T) is between k p(t,T) and 0, q is squeezed between a vanishing quantity, k p(t,T), and zero, so q vanishes as well.

QED

Thus sustained immigration under these assumptions implies extinction of each year’s cohort that comes here as well as everyone here at any point in time.

Note that its only necessary to have one immigrant group whose numbers entering are unbounded and whose survival probability times some positive value is an upper bound to the rest for the theorem to apply to all those who enter and to all those here.

=

Thus the Bush Kennedy Kyl McCain amnesty bill with its guest worker provision and its annual flow that is bounded from below above zero implies genetic extinction of all those who come here and all those who are here.

So does existing law.

Any law that does not require that annual immigration vanish, i.e. approach closer to zero than any positive bound, implies that the survival probabilities of those who come here and those here all go to zero, i.e. complete genetic extinction.

The causal mechanism by which the law operates is the substitution of immigrants for births. When population reaches a maximum, immigrants must substitute for births or it wouldn’t be a maximum.

This drives the fertility rate below replacement.

This can happen quite quickly.

Assume US population at 300 million was the maximum. If people live 75 years, then 4 million die per year. If 2 million enter then births = 4million deaths – 2 million entrants = 2 million.

The ratio of births to deaths is 2/4 or 1/2. The time from birth to parent is roughly 25 years. So in 50 years, one has 1/4, and in 75 years 1/8 of the starting genes.

Even if population went to 450 million, deaths per year are 6 million. With even one million entrants that gives a survival ratio of 5/6. So the number left after 25*n years is (5/6)^n which goes to zero as n goes to infinity.

It goes to zero rapidly in fact.

The above implies that any law with immigration above zero on a sustained basis is unconstitutional and a crime against humanity. Causing the extinction of a group is a violation of treaties the US has passed.

The current US law is thus void. So is the proposed law.

The drop in fertility from 1800 to 1990 in one graph shows this substitution effect pressure from immigration.

Look at the graph of fertility from 1800 to 1990 below:

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

Fertility falls except during the period of immigration restriction from the 1920’s to 1965. During part of that period fertility rose, which is called the baby boom. This was a departure from the uniform fall in fertility.

Fertility is now below replacement for many groups in accordance with the theorem.

The same applies in Europe where it also violates EU law as well as international law.

Blogs for immigration restriction even have names like those of the theorem, e.g. Vanishing American:

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/

June 14 to 16 all across America is March for America. Even if you can’t march, there are ways to participate.

http://www.lframerica.com/march2.html

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007957.html

1965 Immigration Act Causes U inverted U in Income Inequality and Fertility

June 1, 2007

Immigration caused a U shaped effect in income inequality from 1914 to present as immigration restriction was put in place in the 1920’s and taken off in the 1960’s. But looking at post WWII, we also see an inverted U shape in fertility. Fertility rises from 1945 to the late 1950’s in some studies where it peaks and then falls to below replacement today.

If we look at the long trend from 1800 to 1990, we see that fertility starts falling in the 1820’s and continues to 1990, the end of the chart, except for a brief interlude from around 1940 to c. 1960 and then it resumes falling with a big pickup in falling in the mid to late 1960’s. From the 1820’s to 1990 we had massive immigration.

The baby boom happened during the period of immigration restriction. There is no period outside the period of immigration restriction from 1800 to 1990 when fertility went up. Thus we can say that in the US since 1800, immigration has been the irresistible force pulling down fertility.

The period of immigration restriction didn’t cause an abnormal rise in female fertility to 3 and as high as 3.5 children per woman during the peak of the baby boom. Immigration restriction allowed female fertility to return to the normal level of 3 or 3.5 or higher that occurred in the 1950’s. The 1950’s were not abnormally high female fertility, they were normal, and even still low female fertility.

What ended the return to normal female fertility in the 1950’s, or even still low female fertility in the 1950’s? It was the resumption of immigration in the 1960’s. That returned to the abnormal fall in female fertility. Falling female fertility can’t be normal because below 2.1 is below replacement and leads to human extinction, which is not normal.

The fall in female fertility from the 1820’s to 1990 except during the post WWII normal period during immigration restriction is what is abnormal. That falling graph of female fertility is highly abnormal. That was during the period of immigration.

When it falls after 1965, it falls like a rock. The exact location of the peak for social science data is really confirmed by the events around them, its not a hard physical peak. Its partly random. So its really a soft peak. Its the drop in the 1960’s that really makes the peak happen in the late 1950’s.

Both the U of income inequality and the inverted U of fertility show the impact and timing of post war immigration. When immigration is low, income inequality is falling, and thus job security is rising, and fertility is rising. When immigration starts in 1965, this virtuous cycle is cut off immediately. If one regards the peak as in the 1950’s, the 1960’s confirms the peak.

Fertility didn’t peak in 1945 when man came home from war, it peaked in the late 1950’s. Fertility dropped like a rock in the 1960’s when immigration was restarted and immigrants came here to work. That is when income inequality stopped falling and started to rise.

The result was to create job insecurity for the young. They could no longer trust in the future to bring them better jobs. So the young couldn’t get married young, have kids, stay married, and have more kids. Instead, they had to postpone children. For some, forever.

The facts and timing to be explained for the U of income inequality and the inverted U of fertility, and their being mirror images in the post 1945 period are explained only by immigration and its timing.

We shall first review the math of the immigration substitution effect. Then we review material on income inequality and wages including Vdare’s Edward Rubenstein’s analysis of the U in income equality and his quotations from Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon. We then review a graph from 1800 to 1990 in fertility in the US which shows the inverted U in fertility from 1945 to present.

Fertility rises from c. 1940 (it doesn’t peak in 1945 as the left has tried to make us think) to c. 1960. It apparently peaks in the late 1950’s and falls substantially after the time of the 1965 Immigration Act. It was 3 to 3.5 in the late 1950’s, and is now somewhere in the 2 range.

Both the U in income inequality and the inverted U in fertility are consequences of the more basic math of the immigration substitution effect. The fact that population is bounded above means that immigration at some point has to substitute for births, otherwise population wouldn’t be bounded above. Thus there has to be a substitution from births to immigrants that eventually becomes 1 for 1 when population no longer increases. This substitution effect is a requirement of basic arithmetic.

The substitution effect shows up in wages by cutting them off and lowering them as immigrants take wages that American’s don’t want to earn, and are not enough to provide job security for family formation when Americans are young. This income insecurity and job insecurity prevents marriage when Americans are young. They can’t just get married and have kids when biology tells them to. This creates a mismatch in biology and income that is not an accident, but implied by population being bounded above together with a sustained flow of immigration.

It is the knowledge of future immigration that shapes expectations of job insecurity in the young and their parents. They see their own fathers lose good jobs and get no good job to replace it. That sends the signal of permanent job insecurity as their generation’s fate. That fate is not from the gods, its from the Senate and the MSM. Its from universities that teach it. Its from shows like All in the Family that celebrate both Archie and his son-in-law being one child men.

==Omnia Cleansing Immigration Substitution Effect

Mathematically, immigration causes omnia cleansing. To review the math:

Suppose US population is stable at 300 million. If people live 75 years, 4 million die per year. If 2 million enter, and pop is stable, then there are 2 million births. 2 million births over 4 million deaths is a genetic survival ratio of 1/2. 25 years birth to parent, so in 75 years, 3 cycles leaves 1/8 genes. Even if pop goes to 450mm and 1 million enter, we get a fraction of 5/6 per cycle, which results in genetic extinction.

This happens by lowering wages and is happening already. There is a substitution effect from births to immigrants.

quote

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

end quote

Archie Bunker had one child and his son-in-law had one child. The Left cheered that. Archie represents the Wasp Scotch Irish German etc. founders. The son-in-law is Polish and represents the descendants of 19th century immigrants. The show is post the 1950’s baby boom. It shows both men as being one-child men. It shows this happens to the son-in-law because he can’t get a steady job out of school the way Archie’s generation could.

from WaPo

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II.

==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_in_the_Family

All in the Family is an acclaimed American situation comedy that was originally broadcast on the CBS television network from January 12, 1971 to April 8, 1979.

==

Men’s median wages reached their peak in 1973 and are flat since then. See graph page 18 at census. By 1971, fertility had dropped like a rock from its peak, wherever one locates that in 1957 or a little later in the Karen Stevenson graph.

One of the Germán Rodríguez Princeton fertility graphs shows that fertility fell all through the 1970’s and reached rock bottom by the late 1970’s, below replacement. This is the time period of the show All in the Family. That show was advocating and even gloating in the decline in fertility of median men through their low wages and their inability to rise economically, in exact contrast to the writers and producers who had.

The show is really a celebration by the successful of the misfortunes of the middle class. It celebrates their low birth rate, below replacement as shown in the show. This exactly mirrored what the same elites were doing in policy terms to the middle class in Washington by their immigration policies.

The median wage of men is the Archie Bunker wage. The graph from census is the Archie Bunker wage graph, its flat since 1973. Just as on the show, Archie doesn’t enjoy in the rising prosperity. Who does? The writers and producers of the show. They get the money from the rising productivity of workers like Archie, but Archie gets nothing out of his own increased productivity.

Archie’s son-in-law, Michael Stivic, makes less than the median wage of men, the Archie Bunker wage. The fertility graph is the fertility graph of both Archie Bunker and his son-in-law. We can call it the Archie Bunker Fertility Graph. The grand child graph that Archie has is at 1/4 per grandparent in effect.

Archie Bunker is Median Man, which is even below Average Man, because the Median in wages or fertility is below the average. The show All in the Family is a celebration by those in the top 1 percent, the MSM Nation, of the misfortunes of Median Man. Median Man’s wages don’t go up. Median Man’s son-in-law doesn’t have a job to support Median Man’s daughter, so they have to live with Median Man.

==MSM Nation

The MSM Nation are the beautiful people on TV, in the Senate, professors at Harvard, CEO’s, etc. They live on MSM or they go on MSM to plug their books or other services. They have rejected assimilation to the Middle America Nation. They are not assimilationists to Middle America but rejectionists.

They require to join and remain that members reject Middle America. This means no loyalty to Middle America on wages, fertility, immigration, physical security, job security, ER availability, etc. Members of the MSM Nation call Middle Americans bigots. This justifies all the harm that the MSM Nation does to the Middle America Nation.

Archie Bunker is the man who embodies to the MSM Nation, the Middle America Nation (Man). Archie is the median man, the middle man. His wage is flat since 1973. His fertility is below replacement. He deserves his fate because he is a bigot.

==MSM Nation celebrated deaths of Archie Bunkers

The reaction on and to 9-11 and the WTC 1993 attacks by Peter Jennings, George Stephanopoulos, Paul Begala, Bill Clinton and others in the MSM Nation shows exactly this same response. The Red Crescent Memorial was the MSM Nation celebrating the deaths of Archie Bunkers in the Middle America Nation.

==MSM Nation is all it accuses others of, xenophobic.

The MSM Nation is totally xenophobic, fearing strangers. To them the stranger or other is the Median Man, Middle America, or Median America. They despise and loathe Median America and call it Bigoted America.

They vent their hatred of Median America all the time and openly. The MSM Nation is the most outwardly xenophobic, intolerant, and bigoted nation in history. It never stops. It requires its victims to join in their own vilification.

The MSM Nation is also the most omnia cleansing nation in history. No other group in history cleanses its victim to extinction as efficiently or as totally as the MSM Nation. Immigration is omnia cleansing. The math is discussed above, and we see it in the wage and fertility data. The MSM Nation is all the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse. It says that Median America deserves it, because it rejects Median America as bigoted.

==

“Fertility in the US 1917 to 1980”

Germán Rodríguez, Office of Population Research, Princeton University http://data.princeton.edu/eco572/heuser.html

==1800 to 1990 Fertility Graph by

Black and white fertility in the US went from around 8 in 1800 to around 2 in 2000.

Look at the graph of fertility from 1800 to 1990 below:

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

Fertility spikes up starting in 1945 and peaks c. 1965 on this graph. Note the graph here and the one above are not agreeing exactly on the peak date. For this type of data, which has a random component, the timing of a turning point has to be confirmed by the years that follow it. Its the dropping of fertility as the 1960’s go on and its continued low or falling value after that which makes c. 1960 a meaningful peak in fertility.

What happened c. 1965 to confirm fertility’s peak being c. 1960 and reverse fertility’s rise to a sudden fall? The Kennedy 1965 Immigration Act. There are 2 facts to explain for the baby boom, why it started and why it ended. Its ending is forgotten or considered as a return to normality. What normality?

Below replacement fertility can’t be normal because it results in human extinction. Since humans still exist, they must have had at least replacement fertility as their normal condition.

The long term graph shows that fertility in the 1960’s and 1970’s dropped to unprecedentedly low levels. These are the lowest since 1800. People are taught by the MSM that the baby boom was abnormal and that current levels of fertility are normal. This is a fallacy. Current levels of fertility are the lowest in human history. The lowest in human history is not normal, its abnormal.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haines.demography

Although blamed on World War II, the baby boom may simply reflect low immigration after WWII combined with prosperity. WWII only lasted from 1941 to 1945 in the US, and so can’t explain a baby boom lasting many years after 1945 and involving people not old enough to go to war in 1945.

Those 17 in 1945 were having children in 1946 as 18 year olds. It can’t be because they went to war, because they didn’t.

Fertility didn’t peak in 1945, but c. 1960. How did pent up demand in World War II cause fertility to peak c. 1960? The war for the US lasted from 1941 to 1945, 4 years. But fertility peaked in the 1950’s and dropped rapidly in the 1960’s. So how could WWII have caused births to peak not in 1945 but in the 1950’s? WWII doesn’t explain the baby boom post war.

Fertility did not go from a low in 1944 to a peak in 1946. There was a jump in births in 1945 and 1946, but that is just a blip on the graph. The real change on the graph is the 1945 to 1950’s/60’s change, which despite the blip in 1945 is dominated by the trend upwards from 1945 to the late 1950’s and not by the change in any one year.

==Why does Archie Bunker deserve one kid and one grandkid?

Because he is a bigot. This is the message of the MSM Nation. They said that in the show All in the Family from 1971 to 1979, precisely the years they were pushing the fertility of Archie Bunker men to below replacement. The producers and writers were part of the MSM Nation and they were writing hate material to justify the omnia cleansing of the Middle America Nation, which omnia cleansing they were carrying out by immigration.

==Final comment on peak location in 1950’s v. 1960’s

in two graphs.

If the 1960’s had stayed the same as the 1950’s we wouldn’t think of 1957 or c.1960 as a peak. So don’t get hung up on 1957 or c. 1960 as the peak as if this was a physical process. Its the behavior in the 1960’s that makes the peak be in the 1950’s, not God saying 1957 is the peak.

==What caused the fall off in the 1960’s?

If one imagines the baby boom was caused by WWII pent up demand, then the fall off should have started in 1950 at the latest. The fall off started in the 1960’s. The question is what caused the fall off?

The fall off is what is abnormal. Fertility in the 1950’s was 3 to 3.5, normal. So its the fall off in the 1960’s and its staying low after the 1960’s that has to be explained.

==Operation Wetback 1954 removed1.2 million illegals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

By removing illegals in 1954, Operation Wetback helped make the period of immigration restriction in law be a period of immigration restriction in fact. Operation Wetback together with restriction of legal immigration made America safe for the baby boom. That was safe in job security and physical security. The baby boom was the time of unique job and physical security in America. It was the best time to have babies, and fertility returned to normal levels.

Fertility above replacement is the human norm. Its the period of immigration from 1820 to 1990, excluding the safe time of restriction of immigration, that has resulted in the abnormal drop in female fertility.

Nor was this drop caused by women working in the 1960’s for the first time in human history. America was an agricultural country in which women worked, just as women have always worked since the origin of the human species, and before.

==

Income inequality was low and going lower in 1945:

Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

Kennedy rescued his stock portfolio by the 1965 Immigration Act which restored income inequality to the rich and the Senate today thanks him for his generosity. Kennedy is a Senator’s Senator.

==Income Inequality measures Income Insecurity

Income inequality measures income insecurity for the middle class. When income inequality is high, income insecurity is high for the middle class. Its income insecurity that stops babies. As soon as the 1965 Immigration Act was passed, the forward looking income insecurity of the middle class jumped.

What was Benjamin told in “The Graduate”? He was told the future was in plastics. Benjamin in “The Graduate” doesn’t know what job he will have or what he will do. The day of job insecurity for college graduates had already arrived.

The Graduate was released in April 1968. So it was written after the 1965 Immigration Act. There was a new wind blowing, and it wasn’t about job security.

==U shaped pattern income inequality

As Edward Rubenstein points out

“In debunking SBTC the authors make a broader historical point regarding immigration:”

“To be convincing, a theory must fit the facts, and the basic facts to be explained about income equality are not one but two, that is, not only why inequality rose after the mid-1970s but why it declined from 1929 to the mid-1970s. Three events fit neatly into this U-shaped pattern, all of which influence the effective labor supply curve and the bargaining power of labor: (1) the rise and fall of unionization, (2) the decline and recovery of immigration, and (3) the decline and recovery in the importance of international trade and the share of imports…”

==Fertility Post War is Upside Down U, or Inverted U

Fertility has to explain the Upside Down U, not just why it rose starting in 1945 but why it peaked c. 1960 and then went down. What we notice is that the Upside Down U of fertility and the U of Income Inequality happen to approximately mirror each other.

== Income Fertility U See-Saw

We get the U see-saw. When income of the middle class goes up, fertility goes up, which was happening in 1945. When the income of the middle class stagnates as started after the 1965 Immigration Act, fertility drops like a rock.

==Fertility and Job Inecurity See Saw

Income inequality measures job insecurity. When income inequality is high, job insecurity is high. As income inequality fell post 1945, fertility went up.

==”Devaluing Labor”

By Harold Meyerson

The young may be understandably incredulous, but the Great Compression, as economists call it, was the single most important social fact in our country in the decades after World War II. From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent. More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security.

As a remarkable story by Steven Greenhouse and David Leonhardt in Monday’s New York Times makes abundantly clear, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of gross domestic product since 1947, when the government began measuring such things. Corporate profits, by contrast, have risen to their highest share of the GDP since the mid-’60s — a gain that has come chiefly at the expense of American workers.

Problem is, the declining power of the American workforce antedates the integration of China and India into the global labor pool by several decades. Since 1973 productivity gains have outpaced median family income by 3 to 1.

==Devaluing Labor <-> Devaluing Archie Bunker

The show All in the Family is all about devaluing labor. Archie Bunker is a bigot. He is the Median Man. He deserves a wage flat at 1973 levels and fertility at 1970’s levels, below replacement. Both the flat 1973 wages and the falling during the 1970’s to below replacement fertility are the fate of Median Man. Archie has this fate because he is a bigot. He must go extinct. Those are MSM Nation values.

But this doesn’t happen because the gods willed it, it happens because the MSM Nation wills it. Its their 1965 Immigration Act, their 1986 amnesty, and their legal immigration policies from 1965 onwards that are causing the flat median wages and below replacement fertility that Median Man experiences.

They are doing it to Archie Bunker, not the gods. Its the same people who produced the All in the Family show. That show is propaganda against Archie Bunker.

They also use divide and rule tactics. They show Archie Bunker in conflict with 19th century immigrants, in the person of his son-in-law, and blacks. But in reality, all these groups are part of Median Man. All these groups are having their wages put on hold at 1973 levels. All these groups are experiencing falling fertility to below replacement levels.

Its the MSM Nation that gets all the higher labor productivity of the workers. Since 1973, productivity went up, but the median worker gets no rise in wages. That is from immigration. The MSM nation gets that rise in productivity, not the workers, immigrant or not.

==Devaluing The Median Man

The MSM Nation is using propaganda like All in the Family and the equivalents in K-99 to justify the immigration that it is engaged in. The omnia cleansing of Median Man by immigration is the obsession of the MSM Nation.

==Thus the Income Inequality Fertility U inverted-U See-Saw

From 1945 to the 1965 Immigration Act, income and income security went up for the middle class, and their job security, even more important, so they could get married young, have kids young, stay married, and have more kids. Young people have no job security today.

== Men’s Median Wages in 1973 are a ceiling to all groups

Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973.

Income, Poverty, and
Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2005

US Census Report on wages By
Carmen DeNavas-Walt
Cheryl Hill Lee

Graph page 18 shows men’s median wages peaked in 1973, they are lower now. Women’s median wages are lower than men’s, which means they are lower than men earned in 1973. Black median wages are lower than all men, which means black wages are lower than what all men made in 1973.

== Male Labor Force Participation Rates have fallen since 1965

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2006/B40.xls

White and black men’s labor force participation rates fell from about 80 percent, equal to each other, in 1965 to 74 percent for whites and 66 percent for blacks.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emplab05.htm

Black, white, Asian and Hispanic male labor force participation rates are projected by BLS to fall from 2004 to 2014, even before the effect of the proposed 2006 and 2007 Bush McCain Kennedy Kyl Senate Amnesty plans are factored in.

==Summary Fertility Income Inequality U inverted U Mirror

There are not just 2 facts to be explained, as Ed Rubinstein quoting the profs points out, there are more than 2. We have the U in income inequality and the upside down U of fertility. These mirror each other. Whether one calls this 4 facts or 5 or some larger number, the Mirror U inverted U pattern of income inequality and fertility has to be explained. What explains them is the substitution effect of immigration pointed out at the start.

Immigration creates as a mathematical theorem a substitution effect of immigrants for births. This is a consequence of the population being bounded above. That bound can be absolute or a relative local bound determined by current technology, available and safe land, ambient threats, culture and other factors. Whatever those are, the impact of immigration is to depress the fertility rate.

We see this illustrated in our own time. Below replacement fertility can’t be normal, because humans still exist. Below replacement fertility is a sign of huge stress. That stress is immigration. It impacts not just whites but blacks, showing its broad based.

==Fairus Report

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_risinginequality

Full report by Jack Martin

==

Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.

Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) \$219,098,029 to \$234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) \$165,741,511 to \$235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) \$78,150,023 to \$101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) \$43,343,464 to \$98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) \$41,153,105 to \$64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) \$38,198,170 to \$90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) \$25,071,142 to \$38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) \$19,189,049 to \$93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

More data here

Hutchison Pence amnesty and expanded guest worker info here.

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills: http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet

==

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.

==Senate BillsS. 1348 will perpetuate the U inverted U Mirror that has smited America’s middle class. Call your Senators and let them know what you think about that.

==

Ted Kennedy, George Bush, John McCain, Jon Kyl and other senators timed the U’s, both in income inequality and fertility to maximum advantage. To do that they had to minimize the fortunes in income and fertility of the middle class.

They are leaders of the MSM Nation. The MSM Nation is now engaged in the cleansing of Median America by immigration. As the fertility charts and wage charts show, this cleansing process is an implementation of the math of omnia cleansing, the math of halving.

The MSM nation blames Median Man, Bigot Man, for all the sins of history. Every Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, pogrom, war, air raid, disease spreading immigration from Europe, or other event in history that is bad they blame on bigotry. They blame all bigotry on Median Man, Archie Bunker, Bigot Man. So they are using immigration to engage in the mathematical omnia cleansing of Bigot Man. As the wage and fertility graphs show, this is working. They are cleansing Bigot Man. Just as All in the Family showed from 1971 to 1979, the fertility of Bigot Man, of Median Man, is below replacement. So the MSM Nation is winning. This is why their reaction to 9-11 and the WTC 93 attacks was more immigration. They want Archie Bunker cleansed. They are using fertility as their main weapon, but the reason they don’t stop immigration or hold Pakistan or Saudi Arabia to account is because they are doing the job that the MSM Nation has already decided on, the final solution to the Bigot Problem, the final solution to the Archie Bunker problem, the final solution to Median Man problem.

This is why Lindsey Graham and George Bush start calling people bigots when the people oppose immigration. Graham and Bush are saying, don’t you understand, you’re bigots, you are supposed to be cleansed out of existence. Graham and Bush are saying that’s the whole point, to cleanse out you bigots and eliminate you from the face of the earth.

search

Lindsay Graham bigot

Lindsay Graham bigot immigration

Bush bigot immigration

Martin Luther King’s Dream: Wages frozen at 1973 Levels

May 12, 2007

Martin Luther King gave an important speech in the 1960’s where he said that he had a dream. In his dream, the median wages of all groups would forever be restricted to the median wages of all men in 1973, i.e. no group all men, blacks, women, etc. would have median wages higher than men did in 1973.

MLK’s dream would be achieved by the 1965 Immigration Act which was passed after he declared his bold vision that men’s median wages in 1973 would be a ceiling for all time for the median wages of all groups.

Despite this limit on wages, productivity has gone up substantially, and all the extra money goes into stock prices. Wealthy Senators are voting for more guest workers and legalizations to fulfill the dream of stock prices that go up forever, while median wages are stuck at or below men’s median wages in 1973

See p60-231.pdf, (You can find it easily at another time, just search p60-231 or p60-231.pdf and it finds this document, its at census.gov a US government entity), and look at graph on page 18. Its true, men’s median wages are lower than in 1973 and women’s are lower than men’s now. Other data show that black median wages are lower than whites are today, so they are lower than all men’s wages in 1973. Data links at link below:

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/a-nation-of-lou-dobbs-democrats/

Black median wages data:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p53b.html

black white median wage graphs

Most of the gap between black and white median wages that was closed, was closed before the 1965 Immigration Act. This happened while all wages compressed together. This is called the Great Compression of wages. It happened during immigration restriction from the 1920 to the 1965 Immigration Act. When all wages compressed together, blacks participated in that and their wages compressed towards that of whites.

The top 1 percent only got 10 percent of national income instead of the 20 percent they got before 1920’s immigration restriction or the 20 percent they get now. Senators are wealthy. They stopped this compression cold by restarting immigration in 1965. They traded off the chance of blacks to compress their wages to whites for higher stock prices in their stock portfolio. Teddy Kennedy is the 8th wealthiest Senator today. He got his wealth by stopping the rise of black wages to equality with white wages.

McCain Kennedy is the Stop Martin Luther King’s Dream Act. It stops King’s dream of equality of black median wages to white median wages. McCain is the 7th wealthiest Senator and Kennedy the 8th. They are stopping blacks from reaching equality with whites in median wages by keeping immigration going. This is what has held blacks from making progress in wages for over 30 years.

See NBER paper:

Claudia Goldin, Robert A. Margo

NBER Working Paper No. 3817*
Issued in August 1991
NBER Program(s): LS “Great Compression” site:Vdare.com

December 22, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Increasing Inequality: NY Times’ Krugman Misses The Immigration Dimension

April 06, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
The Smoking Bottom Line: Immigration Boosting Profits, Cutting Wages

January 29, 2007
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Yes, Tyler, Income Inequality Is Real. And Immigration Is A Cause.

Even WaPo is discovering this

Devaluing Labor
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19 Washington Post
black wages site:Vdare.com

Meyerson says that the Great Compression caused the civil rights movement in 1964. This is half-right. In wage space, the civil rights movement happened before 1964. It was caused by immigration restriction and it already happened when black wages compressed to white wages. The 1965 Immigration Act had brought that to an end by the early 1970’s.

Moreover, by freezing all men’s median wages at the 1973 level, black’s median wages stopped going up as well, since what they were pegged to, all men’s median wages, had stopped going up in 1973. So in wage terms, the civil rights movement started with the 1920’s immigration restriction and ended with the 1965 Immigration Act. Civil rights in wages terms died around the same time as MLK was assassinated. But the assassin’s bullet for black wage progress was Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act.

But Ted Kennedy is the 8th wealthiest Senator in the Senate today. Stock prices went up. This is because productivity kept going up but wages stagnated at 1973 levels. So the money went into profits so that pushed up stock prices. Kennedy has a huge stock portfolio. “8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) \$19,189,049 to \$93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611” See table below.

```Explaining Black-White Wage Convergence, 1940-1950: The Role of the Great
Compression

Robert A. Margo
Department of Economics
Vanderbilt University```

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004″ By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.

Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.

Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) \$219,098,029 to \$234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) \$165,741,511 to \$235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) \$78,150,023 to \$101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) \$43,343,464 to \$98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) \$41,153,105 to \$64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) \$38,198,170 to \$90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) \$25,071,142 to \$38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) \$19,189,049 to \$93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

More data here

Hutchison Pence amnesty and expanded guest worker info here.

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills: http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet

12 May 2007
Imported nonsense at the National Journal
[Patrick Cleburne] @ 10:45 pm

Re: President George Bush Renewing Efforts on Immigration

April 9, 2007

“President Renewing Efforts on Immigration Plan for Overhaul Faces Battle in Divided Congress”

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 9, 2007; Page A01

See comments by Patrick Cleburne at

Problem for Amnesty: Troops unwilling.

Bush Pushes Immigration Plan, Guest Worker Program

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 9, 2007; 3:36 PM
==Comments original WaPo article posted at WaPo below

What follows is a mess. Its notes while posting comments at WaPo on the Bush immigration speech. In some cases, the links that were used to source quotes are included. But these are not formatted as live links at this point.
==

Men’s median wages peaked in 1973. See p60-231.pdf a publication of the census at census.gov. Search on p60-231.pdf is enough. Income inequality is U shaped in the 20th century. Search on “u shaped” income inequality Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez. Saez is a Berkeley prof. He has data to download from his website. They have an NBER paper. They find that the top 1 percent got 20 percent of national income before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, they got 10 percent after and then after the 1965 Immigration Act, legal immigration, it has gone back up to 20 percent. Search NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004
By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro to see a graph of the percentage share of national income of the top 1 percent. The Bush family is in the top 1 percent. So are Kennedy and McCain. So is Sheikh Pelosi.

==

quote Mr. Luntz is 80 percent right. The richest 20 percent of American households—and only the richest 20 percent—have enjoyed higher real incomes during the Bush expansion. Everyone else has lost ground; the lowest 20 percent has actually lost a full 1.8 percent. (For details, click here: Table 1.) end quote September 26, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality
at Vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==Edwin S. Rubenstein quotation:

Until recently, economists rarely mentioned the I-word when explaining the income distribution. The consensus among most academics was that the primary cause of increased inequality was “skill-biased technical change” (SBTC)—i.e., increased economic rewards to educated, technically savvy workers.

In a word, SBTC compensation was based on merit. How quaint!

Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon broke from the group naiveté in a paper published last year:

“If SBTC had been a major source of the rise in inequality, then we should have observed an increase in relative wages of those most directly skilled in the development and use of computers. Yet in the 1989-97 period….total real compensation of CEOs increased by 100 percent, while those in occupations related to math and computer science increased only 4.8 percent and engineers decreased by 1.4 percent.” [Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, (PDF) Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon, Northwestern University]

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==quotation Edwin S. Rubenstein:

quote In debunking SBTC the authors make a broader historical point regarding immigration:

“To be convincing, a theory must fit the facts, and the basic facts to be explained about income equality are not one but two, that is, not only why inequality rose after the mid-1970s but why it declined from 1929 to the mid-1970s. Three events fit neatly into this U-shaped pattern, all of which influence the effective labor supply curve and the bargaining power of labor: (1) the rise and fall of unionization, (2) the decline and recovery of immigration, and (3) the decline and recovery in the importance of international trade and the share of imports…”

“Partly as a result of restrictive legislation in the 1920s, and also the Great Depression and World War II, the share of immigration per year in the total population declined from 1.3 percent in 1914 to 0.02 percent in 1933, remained very low until a gradual recovery began in the late 1960s, reaching 0.48 percent (legal and illegal) in 2002. Competition for unskilled labor not only arrives in the form of immigration but also in the form of imports, and the decline of the import share from the 1920s to the 1950s and its subsequent recovery is a basic fact of the national accounts.” end quote. September 26, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality Vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==quotation Edwin S. Rubenstein:

quote But the foreign-born share of the labor force—15 percent in 2005—is also unprecedented. Since 2001 illegals have accounted for most of immigrant labor force growth.

Cheap immigrant labor induces only a nugatory increase in total native income. Its biggest impact, according to Harvard economist George Borjas, is to redistribute income from native workers to employers.

Recent data seem to confirm this. The construction industry is booming, home builders are racking up record profits, yet average construction wages have fallen between 15 percent and 35 percent across the country—the result of cheap immigrant labor.

Similarly, the service industries—restaurants, hotels, motels, cleaning companies, etc. – are major employers of immigrant labor. These industries are booming, creating wealth for executives and shareholders. But average real wages of service industry workers have declined since 2001. end quote April 06, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
The Smoking Bottom Line: Immigration Boosting Profits, Cutting Wages Vdare.com

==

http://www.vdare.com/walker/dui.htm

quote Traditionally, drinking to excess is valued in Mexican and Latin culture, where it is seen an expression of machismo. Moreover, MADD reports that Hispanics believe it takes 6-8 drinks to affect driving, while Americans think it takes 2-4 drinks.

In 2001, according to MADD, 44.1 percent of California’s drunk driving arrests in 2001 were of Hispanics, although Hispanics made up only 31.3 percent of the state’s population.

The general incidence of drunk driving has worsened in California—parallel with the skyrocketing Latino population. Accidents involving drunk drivers increased overall nearly 5 percent in the state in 2000, with an uptick in Los Angeles County of 7.6 percent in that year. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Hispanics ages 1-44. end quote Brenda Walker Vdare.com

==

quote THE MIDDLE CLASS IS NOT BEING WIPED OUT, THIS ASSERTION IS NONSENSE, the unemployment rate is 5 percent and wages are rising. We are not going to deport 12 million people, without creating a police state that people woud never support.

By RealChoices | Apr 9, 2007 6:56:50 AM | end quote. Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973. See p60-231.pdf graph page 18 at census.gov. Just search on p60-231 in google.

==

L.A. Blackout
Acting on orders from the Mexican Mafia, Latino gang members in Southern California are terrorizing and killing blacks.
by Brentin Mock Southern Poverty Love Center.

quote “The way I hear these knuckleheads tell it, they don’t want their neighborhoods infested with blacks, as if it’s an infestation,” says respected Los Angeles gang expert Tony Rafael, who interviewed several Latino street gang leaders for an upcoming book on the Mexican Mafia, the dominant Latino gang in Southern California. “It’s pure racial animosity that manifests itself in a policy of a major criminal organization.”

“There’s absolutely no motive absent the color of their skin,” adds former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Michael Camacho. Before he became a judge, in 2003, Camacho successfully prosecuted a Latino gang member for the random shootings of three black men in Pomona, Calif. end quote

By Peter Brimelow
quote Moratorium on legal immigration. Not no gross immigration but no net immigration—which would permit an inflow of 200,000 a year or so, enough to take care of hardship cases, needed skills etc. Abandon the principle of “family reunification,” which in practice has meant uncontrollable chain migration. Immigrants should be admitted on own merits.

bullet Abolish “refugee” category. In practice, this is simply an expedited, subsidized immigration program for politically-favored groups. Anyway, humanitarian aid is best given in situ—for example, the “Somali Bantu” could have been resettled in Mozambique, not Maine. America is not the world’s Kleenex. end quote June 05, 2006
Time To Rethink Immigration (II): Freeing America From The Immigration Gulag

By Peter Brimelow Vdare.com

==

Immigration, legal, amnesty, refugee, means the end of social security, medicare, medicaid, functional schools, ERs, and health insurance at work. Men’s median wages were higher in 1973, see p60-231.pdf at census.gov, graph page 18. The reason they cut health benefits is the same reason, to cut our wages. Government can’t afford what we don’t make. We can’t have national health insurance for the 3rd world. We are losing our health coverage by legal immigration. We must have zero immigration to save our way of life.

==

Bush is disloyal to the American people.

..

Bush: America is an idea not people. The American
people can be discarded in the dustbin of history.

==

Bush what matters is the idea of freedom, not the people
who want to be free, they can be discarded as refuse.

Iraq was for freedom as an idea, Abu Ghraib was for the actual people. Bushism is Stalinism. Believe in Bush and you will be free in Stalin.

==

Bush’s Iraq promise was for freedom as an idea. Bush’s Abu Ghraib was for the actual people.

==

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722

Brentin Mock continued
quote A comprehensive study of hate crimes in Los Angeles County released by the University of Hawaii in 2000 concluded that while the vast majority of hate crimes nationwide are not committed by members of organized groups, Los Angeles County is a different story. Researchers found that in areas with high concentrations, or “clusters,” of hate crimes, the perpetrators were typically members of Latino street gangs who were purposely targeting blacks.

Furthermore, the study found, “There is strong evidence of race-bias hate crimes among gangs in which the major motive is not the defense of territorial boundaries against other gangs, but hatred toward a group defined by racial identification, regardless of any gang-related territorial threat.”
Six years later, the racist terror campaign continues. end quote

SPLC L.A. Blackout
Acting on orders from the Mexican Mafia, Latino gang members in Southern California are terrorizing and killing blacks.
by Brentin Mock

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722

==

Don’t protect politicians who commit crimes. They are disloyal to us on immigration. Let Bush go to jail for torture. Let Kennedy go to jail for Chappaquiddick. These politicians have a long list of suspect transactions. If you have even a little information send it to groups that forward information on crime or Judicial Watch or blog it anonymously. You don’t have to be a hero and go into the FBI. Turn your information over to organizations that go after politicians. You don’t have to tell your boss. There are tipster organizations you can contact.

==

quote The question is asked, who will pick the fruits and vegetables, who will do the construction jobs, who will do the jobs in the service industry? Which in turn begs the question, who owns the farms, who is having the house built, who owns the hotel and the restraunt? And the answer is the rich, the upper 10 who exploit these illegals,who are just trying to have a better way of life. If these people were made to pay better wages then maybe a lot more people could have a better way of life

By johnleebowes | Apr 9, 2007 10:41:40 AM | end quote. Put employers of illegals in prison and they can pick the fruit on a chain gang. What about politicians who vote the way they get contributions. They will want to have a jury decide if they did right, won’t they? To clear their name?

==

Jack Abramoff can probably fill the farms with chain gang pols from his contribution rolodex. And he isn’t the only one. The K street gang documented by the Post can fill our farms with their labor.

==

quote Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, were sentenced to 12 years and 11 years, respectively, in October by U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone end quote WND. Members of Congress and Senators and lobbyists will want juries to determine if the contributions they gave for earmarks were bribery, won’t they? They will want to clear their name before their constituents? If border guards go to jail for dangerous work, shouldn’t Senators who take money from special interests face the people on a jury?

“u shaped” income inequality Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez
http://www.vdare.com/walker/dui.htm

May 04, 2004
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Drunk Driving

By Brenda Walker

==

How a community imploded
L.A. long ignored Harbor Gateway. Now a Latino gang calls the shots.
By Sam Quinones, Times Staff Writer
March 4, 2007

==

Thomas Piketty

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/mccain-fighting-to-recapture-maverick-spirit-of-2000-bid/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030300841.html

==

April 08, 2007

NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON’T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.

04/07/07 – A Jewish Immigration Dissident Advises David Orland Not To Hold His Breath
Today’s Letter: A Reader Experiences Censorship

Re: LAPD: “We Don’t Get Into” Immigration Status Of Christmas Story Director’s Killer By Nicholas Stix

“u shaped” site:vdare.com

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/

http://www.nber.org/papers/W8467

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060406_nd.htm

http://www.vdare.com/pb/060605_gulag.htm

http://www.vdare.com/bulletins/031907_bulletin.htm

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/03/04/mexican-gangs-ethnic-cleansing-of-black-amercans-in-los-angeles/

Duane Chapman bounty hunter mexico

http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/dog-bounty-hunter-star-duane-chapman-arrested-for-capture-1009823.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Chapman

==

m.jagger | Apr 9, 2007 11:38:04 AM is right. Also, as others pointed out, illegals here and those who would come here can make their own countries better rather than keeping us from having children by taking away job security for young adults. Think of all the children not born to Americans since Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act because men’s median wages stopped going up in 1973. quote ==

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

“The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II. end quote

The 1965 Immigration Act caused this. Men’s median wages are down from 1973. Search p60-229.pdf and go to page 14 on census.gov. 51 percent of women live alone. This is because men don’t make enough.Female fertility is then below replacement.

==

quote *Mens median wages peaked in 1973. See p60-231.pdf a publication of the census at census.gov. Search on p60-231.pdf is enough.* What OldAtlantic never mentions is wages of women have rising considerably and more than made up for the drop in the wages of men. These trends have very little to illegal immigration. end quote quote Until recently, economists rarely mentioned the I-word when explaining the income distribution. The consensus among most academics was that the primary cause of increased inequality was “skill-biased technical change” (SBTC)—i.e., increased economic rewards to educated, technically savvy workers.

In a word, SBTC compensation was based on merit. How quaint!

Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon broke from the group naiveté in a paper published last year:

“If SBTC had been a major source of the rise in inequality, then we should have observed an increase in relative wages of those most directly skilled in the development and use of computers. Yet in the 1989-97 period….total real compensation of CEOs increased by 100 percent, while those in occupations related to math and computer science increased only 4.8 percent and engineers decreased by 1.4 percent.” [Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, (PDF) Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon, Northwestern University] end quote September 26, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality

==

Second post has a different quotation from Vdare on U shaped timing show that share of top 1 percent, the Bush Pelosi McCain Kennedy group, went from 20 percent before 1920’s restriction to 10 percent during restriction back to 20 percent with legal immigration. This shows its legal and illegal immigration that is the cause of men’s median wages being below 1973. Sorry if 2nd post above looks like the same post over again, but the reply is different. Also thanks to Pacthed | Apr 9, 2007 12:14:00 PM | for his research and insights in replying to this, that the rise in women’s wages is simply creating men and women living apart with no kids or a single parent with kids. In fact, the Post has reported on that several times. 51 percent of women live without a spouse. Married with kids is the privilege of the affluent according to Post reporting. quote “Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

“The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II. end quote

The 1965 Immigration Act caused this. Men’s median wages are down from 1973. Search p60-229.pdf and go to page 14 on census.gov. 51 percent of women live alone. This is because men don’t make enough.Female fertility is then below replacement.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/03/04/mexican-gangs-ethnic-cleansing-of-black-amercans-in-los-angeles/

Hispanic ethnic cleansing blacks site:Vdare.com

ethnic cleansing blacks site:Vdare.com

u shaped site:vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070318_diversity.htm

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/01/25/

http://wordpress.com/tag/income-inequality-graph/

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/mccain-fighting-to-recapture-maverick-spirit-of-2000-bid/

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==

quote Economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon have compared wage and salary growth within the richest ten percent of American earners with that of the median wage earner. [Ian Dew-Becker, Robert J. Gordon, Where Did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2:2005. PDF]

Here are their results, adjusted for inflation, for the years 1966 to 2001:
bullet Median wage and salary: +11 percent
bullet 90th percentile: +58 percent
bullet 99th percentile: +121 percent
bullet 99.9th percentile: +236 percent end quote
January 29, 2007
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Yes, Tyler, Income Inequality Is Real. And Immigration Is A Cause. Vdare.com

==

quote July 28, 2003
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Hispanic Family Values?
Illegitimacy rates: unmarried Hispanic women aged 15-44 are about one-third again as likely to have a child as unmarried black women in that age bracket – 93.4 per 1,000 vs. 71.5 – and more than three times as an unmarried white women (27.9 per 1,000). [Source: Centers For Disease Control, pdf file]

bullet Abortion: Hispanic women are two and a half times more likely to have abortions than white women (33 per 1,000 annually vs. 13) and nearly-two thirds as likely as black women (49). [Source: Guttmacher Institute]

bullet Teenage pregnancy: Hispanics are high (about 94 per 1,000 vs. 32 for whites) and relatively worsening – they’ve now surpassed blacks (83 per 1,000). [Source: Centers For Disease Control, pdf file]

bullet Dependency: Nearly one-third (30.6%) of Hispanics receive means-tested benefits, compared to less than a tenth (9.2%) of non-Hispanic whites and just over a third (35.0%) of blacks. [Source: U.S. Census, pdf file]

bullet Criminality: just over one in every hundred adult male Hispanics (1.2%) was imprisoned in 2001 – almost a third of the non-Hispanic black rate (3.5%) and well over twice the non-Hispanic white rate (0.5%). [Source: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2001, pdf file]

bullet Risky behavior: The Hispanic death rate from HIV disease is 2.5-times that of whites (7 per 100,000 vs. 2.8), and about one-third of the black rate (24). [National Center For Health Statistics, pdf file]

end quote
==

quote Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall

“Family Values Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande.”

That’s a slogan George W. Bush uses to justify illegal immigration.
Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall

“Family Values Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande.”
The problem of emigrants abandoning their families is so bad that some of these poor Mexican women have actually written to VDARE.COM for help! One of them told us (my translation) that

“…my husband is an illegal alien, and has been for approximately a year and a half. I haven’t seen him for 3 years and I would like him sent back to Mexico, where he was born… I am a desperate woman with 4 children and I can’t provide for them, we live in poverty…Help me…”

This desperate lady wants the U.S. to deport her husband, and she actually included the guy’s address in California.

That’s a slogan George W. Bush uses to justify illegal immigration.
One of the towns in Susuapan is Tremecino:

“In Tremecino 25% of the mothers are left alone with their children, expecting a husband who may return this year, in 2 years or more, if at all.”

By the way, in Tremecino, the average age of marriage or cohabitation is 14!

One of the inhabitants of Tremecino is Rosa:

“…She had 4 children when her husband emigrated to Tucson. She was expecting him to send her money but it never arrived, because the man became an alcoholic and found another woman.”

==

quote It’s not widely understood, but the 1986 federal amnesty for illegal immigrants set off a baby boom among unskilled Hispanics in California that began in 1988 and lasted into the late 1990s, with consequences for gang activity that have just recently become palpable.

Demographers Laura E. Hill and Hans P. Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California wrote in 2002:

“Between 1987 and 1991, total fertility rates for foreign-born Hispanics [in California] increased from 3.2 to 4.4 [expected babies per woman over her lifetime]. … Why did total fertility rates increase so dramatically for Hispanic immigrants? First, the composition of the Hispanic immigrant population in California changed as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. In California alone, 1.6 million unauthorized immigrants applied for amnesty (legal immigrant status) under this act. The vast majority were young men, and many were agricultural workers who settled permanently in the United States. Previous research indicates that many of those granted amnesty were joined later by spouses and relatives in the United States… As a result, many young adult Hispanic women came to California during the late 1980s. (“Understanding the Future of Californians’ Fertility: The Role of Immigrants”).

This ex-illegal immigrant baby boom created an indigestible population pig-in-a-python that overwhelmed California’s public schools in the 1990s, with many having to shift to disruptive year round schedules. The LA Unified School District alone has budgeted \$19 billion for construction to accommodate the immigration-driven growth in student numbers. end quote March 18, 2007
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Gang Warfare

By Steve Sailer Vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070318_diversity.htm

==

Search construction industry wages site:vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060406_nd.htm

quote The last few years should have been good ones for labor. Since February 2004 more than 4 million jobs have been created. Output per worker increased by 3.5 percent in 2004 and 2.7 percent last year. Yet the balance of power continued shifting from labor to capital. Not only did profits spike as a share of GDP, but real median income actually declined in 2003 and 2004 (the latest available year.) end quote quote Recent data seem to confirm this. The construction industry is booming, home builders are racking up record profits, yet average construction wages have fallen between 15 percent and 35 percent across the country—the result of cheap immigrant labor. end quote April 06, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
The Smoking Bottom Line: Immigration Boosting Profits, Cutting Wages Vdare.com

==

quote Americans also know that there are resulting consequences for such massive uncontrolled illegal immigration. One result will be a population explosion! Do the math– it’s breathtaking! If all 20 to 23 million illegal aliens here today are given guest worker amnesty along with “family reunification,” it will add roughly 60 million people to the current legal population of 293 million.(12) In 2050, just forty-four years from now, demographers say there will be half a billion people residing in America!(13) Just imagine what kind of impact that will have on our natural resources and quality of life! end quote Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.
March 16, 2006 Anarchy Reigns ~ Enforce the Laws ~ Stop The Invasion

==

quote Today, California’s amnesty baby boom generation is between ages 10 and 19, entering their prime gang violence years. … California is now exporting its illegal immigration problem—gang wars, overcrowded schools, declining standards of living, and the like—to the other 49 states. end quote March 18, 2007
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Gang Warfare

By Steve Sailer

==

quote L.A. Blackout
Acting on orders from the Mexican Mafia, Latino gang members in Southern California are terrorizing and killing blacks.

According to gang experts and law enforcement agents, a longstanding race war between the Mexican Mafia and the Black Guerilla family, a rival African-American prison gang, has generated such intense racial hatred among Mexican Mafia leaders, or shot callers, that they have issued a “green light” on all blacks. A sort of gang-life fatwah, this amounts to a standing authorization for Latino gang members to prove their mettle by terrorizing or even murdering any blacks sighted in a neighborhood claimed by a gang loyal to the Mexican Mafia.

“This attitude is pretty pervasive throughout all the [Latino] gangs,” says Tim Brown, a Los Angeles County probation supervisor. “As long as [street] gangs are heavily influenced by the prison gangs, particularly the Mexican Mafia, racism is just part and parcel of why they come into being and why they continue to exist.” But with the Mexican Mafia’s shadow looming over Los Angeles, it may be a long time before the rapidly growing number of streets claimed by Latino gangs are safe for blacks, if ever.
“It’s not just Highland Park. It’s almost anywhere in L.A. that you could find yourself in a difficult position [as a black person],” says Lewis, the LAPD probation officer. “All blacks are on green light no matter where.”
by Brentin Mock end quote SPLC

==

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp?type=W&cycle=2005&filter=S

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) \$219,098,029 to \$234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) \$165,741,511 to \$235,262,100

Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) \$78,150,023 to \$101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) \$43,343,464 to \$98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) \$41,153,105 to \$64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) \$38,198,170 to \$90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) \$25,071,142 to \$38,043,014

Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) \$19,189,049 to \$93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

S 2611 Roll Call Senators understand: immigration goes up, wages go down. Wages go down Senators’ stocks go up. Men’s median wages are lower than
in 1973, Senators’ stocks go up. Top 1 percent get 20 percent of national income today and 10 percent in 1965, Senators’ stocks go up. Bush family and Pelosi family are also in the top 1 percent.

==

quote Poll: Most Americans Don’t Want Continuing
Large U.S. Population Growth

As Nation Hits 300 Million Milestone, Voters Prefer
Reduced Immigration Over Adding Another 100 Million

Commentary by Roy Beck * endquote NumbersUSA Posted on another thread by
blowe1 | Apr 9, 2007 2:43:58 PM

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/04/sweet_blog_special_bush_return.html

8th amnesty?

==

quote What OldAtlantic never mentions is wages of women have rising considerably and more than made up for the drop in the wages of men. These trends have very little to illegal immigration. by RealChoices from Pacthed | Apr 9, 2007 4:39:28 PM above. In addition to Pacthed’s arguments above and earlier in response to this point by RealChoices it should be pointed out that women’s wages are still below men’s. But men’s are below what they were in 1973. So women’s wages now are still less than men’s wages in 1973. That is the argument of Bush, McCain and Kennedy for immigration, that its kept wages for women below what men’s wages were in 1973. How many women have thought that was society’s goal? I haven’t heard many women saying they wanted women’s wages to stay below men’s wages in 1973 for their entire working life from 1973 to now. Search p60-231.pdf in google and go to page 18 for the graph. It has men’s and women’s wages. Is the future for women that Kennedy promises them is that their wages will stay below the wages of men in 1973?

==

quote What OldAtlantic never mentions is wages of women have rising considerably and more than made up for the drop in the wages of men. These trends have very little to illegal immigration. by RealChoices from Pacthed | Apr 9, 2007 4:39:28 PM above. In addition to Pacthed’s arguments above and earlier in response to this point by RealChoices it should be pointed out that women’s wages are still below men’s. But men’s are below what they were in 1973. So women’s wages now are still less than men’s wages in 1973. That is the argument of Bush, McCain and Kennedy for immigration, that its kept wages for women below what men’s wages were in 1973. How many women have thought that was society’s goal? I haven’t heard many women saying they wanted women’s wages to stay below men’s wages in 1973 for their entire working life from 1973 to now. Search p60-231.pdf in google and go to page 18 for the graph. It has men’s and women’s wages. Is the future for women that Kennedy promises them is that their wages will stay below the wages of men in 1973? The ratio of women’s wages to men’s went from 60 percent in 1959 to about 77 percent in 2005. This is what women were hoping for? That 77 percent is 77 percent of men’s wages in 2005, but men’s wages in 2005 were lower than men’s wages in 1973. So women are getting less than 77 percent of what men’s wages were in 1973. Is that what women have been working for? Is that the future they want? A women who started working in 1965, the year of Kennedy’s immigration act and who worked to this year would have worked 42 years, all of them at less than 77 percent of what men made in 1973. Was that the goal? Do they thank Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act and its legal immigration for that lifetime of underpay?

=

Another way to think of this. Suppose men made 100 in 1973 and women made 60 percent, or 60. Women go to 77 percent or 77, an improvement of 17. But if men’s wages had gone to 150 say and women’s percent stayed at 60, they would make 90 instead of 77. Moreover, if they had gone to 90 percent they would make 135 instead of 77, almost twice as much. Immigration did 2 things to women. It kept men’s wages down, and thus since women get a percentage less than 100 of men’s that means it kept theirs down. Second, the percentage of women’s pay to men’s pay was kept down by immigration. So women lost out twice from immigration, a lower percentage of men’s pay than they would have got, and their base in effect, men’s pay, didn’t move up. Even at 100 percent, women would only make what men did in 1973, since men only make that much.

==

Women are often treated harshly by employers. Look at Mary Jo Kopechne who was left by Kennedy to die in an air pocket while he went back to his hotel and had a drink while she suffocated. See ytedk.com. Women are treated too harshly by employers for them to have a ceiling of men’s pay which doesn’t move since 1973. Women work too hard and are treated too harshly for their percentage of men’s pay to be kept at 77 percent by immigration instead of being close to 100 percent where it would have been after 40 years of women’s lib without the legal and illegal immigration influx. Women got the short end from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration act 2 ways, men’s pay was frozen at the 1973 level and women’s percentage didn’t go to 100 percent, which it would have done without a market influx of low cost labor. Because health insurance benefits are cut back, women lose out a third time from immigration which has not just cut pay but also benefits including health insurance. Even if you get health insurance its not as good as it used to be.

Women also lose in that 51 percent live without a spouse and on pay that is 77 percent of what a man made in 1973. That’s a pretty hard life. If they are a single mom on 77 percent of what a man made in 1973 that is harsher still.

Immigration is leaving many women unmarried, perhaps childless, or perhaps single moms. With men earning what they did in 1973, they aren’t able to pay much child support, and many just skip out because they earn so little.

Mary Jo Kopechne was a secretary when she was left to die in an air pocket by Kennedy at Chappaquiddick. The scenario experienced by women , pay at under 77 percent of men’s and men’s pay frozen at the 1973 level, and a 51 percent chance to live without a spouse would have been her life had Kennedy let her live, albeit under his 1965 Immigration Act. This is what Kennedy calls upside.

==Mary Jo Kopechne Scenario

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jo_Kopechne

Mary Jo Kopechne (July 26, 1940July 18, 1969) was an American teacher, secretary and administrator, notable for her death in a car accident on Chappaquiddick Island in a car driven by Senator Ted Kennedy.”

Ytedk archive site

also

July 20, 2004, 9:44 a.m.
Remembering Mary Jo
35 years later: Ted Kennedy’s under-investigated scandal.
Myrna Blyth National Review Online
If she had worked to 2007, she would have retired at age 67. That would have been as a teacher, secretary and administrator. She would have made typically less than 77 percent of what a man made her entire career. Because men’s wages topped out in 1973, she would have made no more than 77 percent of what a man made in 1973. That is what would have happened to her under Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, if she hadn’t suffered under Kennedy’s 1969 Chappaquiddick Act.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

Immigration kept men’s median wages to the 1973 level, and women’s wages to under 77 percent of men. That was legal immigration from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. With zero immigration, women’s wages would have reached parity with men long ago. In addition, men’s median wages would be higher than in 1973.

Search p60-231.pdf and go to census.gov to see a graph on page 18 that shows men’s median wages are less than in 1973 and that women’s ratio to men’s wages went from 60 percent in 1960 to 77 percent in 2005. They were kept from going higher by immigration which has targeted women’s jobs, e.g. cleaning and nursing.

==

amonster | Apr 9, 2007 8:26:05 PM great find.

quote

Labor Day is almost upon us, and like some of my fellow graybeards, I can, if I concentrate, actually remember what it was that this holiday once celebrated. Something about America being the land of broadly shared prosperity. Something about America being the first nation in human history that had a middle-class majority, where parents had every reason to think their children would fare even better than they had.
The young may be understandably incredulous, but the Great Compression, as economists call it, was the single most important social fact in our country in the decades after World War II. From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent. More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security.

That America is as dead as the dodo. Ours is the age of the Great Upward Redistribution.
end quote.

from Devaluing Labor By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19

Since 1973, men’s median wages are unchanged, see p60-231.pdf page 18 graph. Women’s wages were 60 percent of men’s in 1960 and are 77 percent in 2005.So women’s wages are less than 77 percent of what men’s wages were in 1973. This shows that before immigration, from 1947 to 1973, productivity and median wages went up 1 for 1. Since then, its all been to the shareholders, many of them rich senators like McCain and Kennedy.

==
Further comment on Meyerson quote that amonster | Apr 9, 2007 8:26:05 PM found above. quote

More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security. end quote

Those words are so true. America was once so much more of a family than it is today. Today it is a Bush Hobbesian land. America was so much better 25 years ago. It was so much safer to walk at night. There was so much less fear.

Children could play on their own and roam and get into trouble. They were safe. Probably, no one on earth will ever know a land that great and good for centuries and possibly millenia to come.

You can see what America was in the movies from decades ago. That was once real and it was America. It was so safe and so more unified.

re Kennedy “What a Difference an Election Makes”

March 11, 2007

Comments on What a Difference an Election Makes By Edward M. Kennedy Sunday, March 11, 2007; Page B07 Every indicator, men’s median wages, marriage, and income inequality all got better before the 1965 Immigration Act and got worse after it. We review and link to these statistics below.

“In my 45 years in Congress, I have never seen the Senate turn so rapidly from stalemate toward real progress.” Teddy Kennedy.

==Real Progress for income inequality?

Income inequality went up from the Kennedy 1965 Immigration Act, legal immigration. The top 1/5 of households got 43.8 percent of all income in 1967 and got 50.1 percent in 2001. Men’s median wages have stayed the same since 1973. Search census income inequality graph.

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

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

The Census page on income inequality is:

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

http://www.census.gov/acsd/www/sub_i.htm

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

See page 18 of above for graph of men’s median wages which shows it peaked in 1973 adjusted for inflation. It rose before then, while immigration was restricted and then the 1965 Immigration Act brought that to an end.

Income inequality fell from the 1940’s when the census first measured it to bottom out in the 1965 to 1968 period and then rise. What changes was legal immigration from the 1965 Immigration Act. That benefits the Kennedy family which is in the top 1 percent of households. That hurts the rest. Kennedy’s entire career has been a thrill kill of the middle class and lower class.

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

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/ie1.html
==Real Progress for share of income of top 1 percent?

The top 1 percent of households got 15 to 25 percent of all income before immigration was restricted in the 1920’s. That then fell to about 10 percent from the 50’s to 70’s and then climbed back up to the 20 percent range now. Immigration restriction lowered the share that Kennedy got and raised the share the Mary Jo Kopechnes got. Kennedy reversed that in 1965 just like he took Mary Jo Kopchene’s life in 1969.

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004” By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm

=

quote 51 percent of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse – New York Times
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. end quote. By SAM ROBERTS. Because men’s earnings are low, 51 percent of women live without a spouse. This is caused by Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act.

==

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

“The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II.

The 1965 Immigration Act caused this. Men’s median wages are down from 1973. Search p60-229.pdf and go to page 14 on census.gov. 51 percent of women live alone. This is because men don’t make enough.Female fertility is then below replacement.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204/fig1.html
This shows income inequality fell from the 1940’s to 1968 and then rose since. This is because of the 1965 Immigration Act.

Legal immigration takes away job security from men and so young adults don’t get married and have kids and stay married. Legal immigration must end completely and no amnesty.

=

“Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II.” From WaPo above. This was caused by the 1965 Immigration Act. All the statistics, marriage, men’s median income, the share of the top 1 percent of gross income, all show that the timing of the change came from the 1965 Immigration Act, legal immigration. This was Ted Kennedy’s doing. The Kennedy share of national income went up, the rest can’t even get married anymore.
==Real Progress for Mary Jo Kopechne?

Leopold and Loeb did a thrill kill murder. Teddy Kennedy left Mary Jo Kopechne to die in an air pocket at Chappaquiddick while he went back to his hotel and didn’t call for help. This was a thrill kill for him. He let her slowly die while he enjoyed a drink in his hotel room and called friends.

This was rich boy Kennedy doing the same as rich boys Leopold and Loeb, killing someone below them for the fun of it. Kennedy got away with it.

His immigration plan is the same thing, killing our present and future for the thrill of it. The purpose of a thrill kill is to show the person is powerful and above morality that applies to others. See Ytedk Kennedy promised to call for help and stopped others from doing so. The diver the next morning said that he could have saved her if they had called her the previous night. Kennedy never called the police as he promised.

http://www.ytedk.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb

Kennedy showed he was smarter than Leopold and Loeb. He enjoyed his drink at his hotel while his victim died, and Kennedy went on to victimize us. In fact, the 1965 Immigration Act was preparatory in a sense to Kennedy leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to die.

=Teens see no future, Teddy took it from them in 1965.
Teens see that men of every age are losing good jobs and not getting them back. They see job and economic insecurity ahead of them. So instead of steadying down, they turn to drugs, crime, or drop out of school. Teens see they have no secure place.

In the 1950’s, teens realized they were about to become adults with families, lifetime employment, and houses. So they picked out mates instead of engaging in loose sex and crime. Teens see that men with good jobs lose them and don’t get them back. This tells them the old American bargain is gone. There is nothing to take its place.

Kennedy is the one who took away the American dream, just like he took Mary Jo Kopechne’s life. Kennedy sat in his hotel room having a drink while Mary Jo was breathing the last air in her air pocket. We are all Mary Jo Kopechnes to Teddy Kennedy, a rich boy who got away with a Leopold Loeb murder. He flunked out of Harvard but he showed he was the smart one.

Kennedy sits in his Senate office taking away the American dream by immigration just like he sat in his hotel room and took away Mary Jo Kopechne’s last moments of oxygen.

==

What a difference a trial would make. Kennedy should be tried for what he did at Chappaquiddick. Civil rights cases with less evidence from the 1960’s have been tried. So why not Kennedy?

quote Old atlantic, what a blowhard you are!!! your ramblings are ridiculous and are arrived at with full blinders on! and your attack of kennedy and focus on the one point about the immigration act shows how meager your arguement really is. end quote
spookay66 | Mar 11, 2007 12:28:08 PM.

On immigration I have given search terms and information to go to census and CBO data which show that men’s median wages peaked in 1973, see p60-231.pdf page 18. Income inequality is a bowl that fell to its lowest from 1965 to 1968 and then has risen. Search on Census income inequality graph, go to my webpage and then follow link to census webpage.

The top 1 percent of households got 15 to 25 percent of all income before immigration was restricted in the 1920s. That then fell to about 10 percent from the 50s to 70s and then climbed back up to the 20 percent range now.
51 percent of women live without a spouse, the highest in history in the US. In 1960, 1/2 the people lived in a household of a married couple now its 1/4.

The Post reports: quote Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II. end quote.

Sailer quoting Borjas quote the employment rate of black high school dropouts fell by 33 percentage points, from 88.6 to 55.7 percent, as compared to an 18 percentage point drop for white high school dropouts, from 94.1 to 76.0 percent. end quote. Both falls are bad.

quote As recently as 1980, only 0.8 percent of black men … were incarcerated. By 2000, 9.6 percent of black men … were incarcerated. For black male high school dropouts, the historic surge in imprisonment staggers the imagination: Among [black male] high school dropouts with 1 to 30 years of experience, for example, the incarceration rate was 1.4 percent in 1960, 1.3 percent in 1980, 14.3 percent in 1990, and an astounding 25.1 percent in 2000. end quote.

These statistics show that the 1965 Immigration Act destroyed our society and stole the promise of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Martin Luther King’s dream and what used to be called the American Dream.

Kennedy stole all the dreams by his 1965 Immigration Act. And he is better off because the top 1 percent of households now have 20 percent of national income as opposed to 10 percent in 1965. He restored it to the 20 percent or so before immigration restriction, i.e. before 1924. What in these statistics and data do you dispute? Why do you call this blowhard?

seanaids | Mar 11, 2007 6:04:12 PM is exactly right. Every sentence is right on. Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act has produced enormous harm to the people in the country, which is what counts, not the Economy. The Economy is to serve the people, and immigration serves to eradicate them.

1 out of 2 people lived in a married household in 1960, now its 1 out of 4. These are the statistics of ethnic cleansing. That is the result of Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, a crime against humanity.

quote Old Atlantic. Try sticking to one comment. Nobody cares to read your ranting. Staying on the topic would be good, too. By r_rothgeb | Mar 11, 2007 8:01:16 PM end quote.

Is Mary Jo Kopechne here to point out the truth about Teddy Kennedy? What about those killed by immigrants in crime? Where do they get their one comment? What about those never born because the birth rate is lower because of job insecurity from immigration and men’s median wages are lower than in 1973? 51 percent of women live without spouses.

1 in 2 were in households that were married in 1960, now its 1 in 4. This is because immigration took away men’s wages and without men as earners with stable good jobs with benefits, marriages don’t form or stay together.

So all those not born and who were replaced by Kennedy immigrants are not here to speak up. Each of them gets 1 comment. How about the black men in prison? They are there because they can’t get jobs from Kennedy’s immigration. Each of them should get a comment, but they don’t because they are in prison. You don’t want to hear from them too do you?

You don’t want to hear from any of them? Not even Mary Jo Kopechne. Nor her children who were never born because Kennedy took that opportunity from her. Kennedy took away the chance of many Americans to have children. You don’t want to hear from them, nor any of the living Americans Kennedy has harmed. According to you, none of them is on topic?

==”Can you imagine claiming Kennedy is responsible for the income inequality. You are nuts.”

quote OldAtlantic is very funny. Must be a deluded neo-con. Can you imagine claiming Kennedy is responsible for the income inequality. You are nuts. We need more truthful editorials like Senator Kennedys. Thank you for your service Mr. Kennedy. Keep up the good work. Please give us back our democracy. By jryan758 | Mar 11, 2007 11:28:19 PM end quote.

Did you look at the graphs on income inequality? They are bowl shaped. The top 1 percent got 20 percent of national income before 1920’s immigration restriction, got 10 percent during restriction and get 20 percent now after the 1965 Immigration Act.

In 1960 1 in 2 lived in a married household, now 1 in 4. Men’s median wages peaked in 1973. That’s at p60-231.pdf page 18. Search census income inequality graph for links to my webpage Old Atlantic Lighthouse for more links to census and other official data.

The numbers show that before 1965, things were good and getting better, men’s wages going up, and after got worse and are still getting even more worse.

==Is Immigration Causal to the U shape in income inequality?

Old Atlantic, you need to look up a logical fallacy called Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is assuming that if one thing happens after another, the first caused the second. You cite a lot of statistics and then blame it on a 1965 law without considering any of the other changes in the last 40 years. Thats like saying, Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons.

By presto668 | Mar 12, 2007 9:14:18 PM” reply to presto668 | Mar 12, 2007 9:14:18 PM

It isn’t one event.  We have the 1920’s restriction and then the 1965 increase.  Before the 1920’s restriction the top 1 percent got 20 percent of national income. After restriction that fell to 10 percent.  Then after the 1965 Act it rose to 20 percent.  We thus have a U shaped pattern.

For the U in the data to be Unrelated to Unequal income is Unlikely.
We also know from causality in markets that more supply lowers price, thus more labor lowers price.  This is observed in specific cases, e.g. Microsoft pays H-1B
programmers less than others.

Wages in industries like meat packing and construction taken over by immigrants have fallen sharply, even those these are local industries.  When theory and data agree you say, so much the worse for the theory and the facts.  That is PC brain washing and denial.

Risk says you don’t do something that will kill you if it has a 1 percent chance of happening.  You don’t continue immigration if it has a 1 percent chance to be the cause of men’s median wages being less than in 1973 when they rose under restriction, and of the income inequality stats.  Much other data supports this.

Unless you were 99.9 percent sure that immigration had no role, you would stop all immigration.

Math also shows that immigration when you have below replacement fertility results in genetic extinction.  That is a theorem, search on Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic.
==Mary Jo Kopechne

Mary Jo Kopechne at wiki

Mary Jo Kopechne (July 26, 1940July 18, 1969) was an American teacher, secretary and administrator, notable for her death in a car accident on Chappaquiddick Island in a car driven by Senator Ted Kennedy.

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/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

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.

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.

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