Archive for the 'Census' Category

NYT CBS Poll Q74: 69% Prosecute & Deport

May 28, 2007

In Question 74 of the New York Times CBS Poll, 69 percent of what were judged usable respondents said that illegals should be prosecuted and deported. This is reported in their lengthy pdf file available here.

74. Should illegal immigrants be prosecuted and deported for being in the U.S. illegally, or shouldn’t they?

  • Should be prosecuted 69
  • Should not 24
  • DK/NA 6

5/18-23/07

Immigration Bill Provisions Gain Wide Support in Poll
By JULIA PRESTON and MARJORIE CONNELLY
Published: May 25, 2007
A careful analysis of the pdf and its inconsistencies is reported on at Times Watch:

The Poll’s Goals
“The New York Times reports its own poll on immigration, complete with slanted questions and a slanted cherry-picking of the answers.” Posted by: Tim Graham 5/25/2007 3:33:00 PM. Graham points out the inconsistency of the answers for Q74, not mentioned in NYT article, and other questions highlighted in the NYT article.

The NYT and its pdf give no information on how many people were contacted initially to come up with the final list of usable responses. Many of the questions are not reported even in the pdf.

Q74 is almost at the end of the NYT survey. This is after all the positive information on the bill has been given as part of or before other questions. At this point, the pollster can’t drop the person without losing all the time spent on the previous, apparently, 73 questions. A cynic might infer that the NYT poll couldn’t disqualify people for answering yes to Q74 without losing the answers they wanted for the other questions?
In some cases, the NYT CBS poll gave people information and then asked them questions in light of that information. This information was only positive for the bill? So it appeared to this reader.

What about giving information about jobs. Consider the following potential questions based on information provided.

Info provided:

The census, an office of the US government, reports that the median wages of men have been the same since 1973, see graph page 18. The increase in legal and illegal immigration started in 1965.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports (in an Excel spreadsheet) that since1965 the labor force participation rates of white men fell from 80 percent to 75 percent and black men from 80 percent, about the same as whites to 66 percent.

NYT CBS style Questions following this fact:

Do you think immigration is why 75 percent of white men and 66 percent of black men still have jobs?

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

Do we need more immigration so that white and black men can keep the jobs they still have?

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

Do you believe that median wages for men would be substantially lower except for the positive benefits of immigration on wages?

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

Do you think that the only thing that can keep wages of men from going down is more immigration?

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

Why do you think that 80 percent of black men had jobs in 1965, but only 66 percent do now?

  1. Bigotry
  2. Republican bigotry
  3. Racism
  4. Secret plan by Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond
  5. Don’t know

Black wages are still below white wages.

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

black white median wage graphs

How many immigrants will it take to get black wages to converge to white wages?

  1. 1 million per year
  2. 2 million per year
  3. 3 million per year
  4. 4 million per year.
  5. All of the above.

Why have the wages of women stayed below those of men?

  1. Men are pigs
  2. Employers are pigs
  3. Secret plan by jocks who resent male teams being cut to comply with federal regs
  4. Not enough immigrants.

Why did Black wages converge towards white wages before the 1965 Immigration Act but stop afterwards?

  1. Klan was strong before 1965.
  2. Public interest law firms can use 1964 Civil Rights Act to control principals and teachers.
  3. Lack of multicultural education curriculum materials before 1965.
  4. Blacks got poor education before 1964 in schools to keep their wages down.
  5. Not enough immigrants.

The census graph shows that women’s wages still don’t match men’s, see graph page 18.

What will it take for women’s wages to converge to men’s?

  1. 1 million immigrants per year.
  2. 2 million immigrants per year.
  3. We need employers to determine the answer and tell us.
  4. Matching every willing immigrant to a willing employer.

A Canadian Harvard study shows that wages in Canada and the US are depressed by immigration. (See Patrick Cleburne at Vdare on this study.)

After hearing about this study do you think:

  1. Canada needs more immigration to undepress these wages.
  2. America needs more immigration to undepress wages.
  3. America and Canada are the problem: Mexico is the solution.
  4. Don’t know, Don’t care, bigot or otherwise unusable response.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that black men, white men, Hispanic men and Asian men will all have lower labor force participation rates in 2014 compared to 2004. This was before the 2006 and 2007 Bush McCain Kennedy Kyl amnesty plans.

Do we need more immigration to prevent this?

  1. Yes.
  2. No, but count it as yes anyhow.

–Information for next question

The top 1 percent got 20 percent of income before income restriction in the 1920’s, 10 percent and heading lower before the 1965 Immigration Act (legal immigration), and are now back up to 20 percent and headed higher.

Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

Would income inequality have been even lower in the 1950’s if there had been immigration at the bottom of the U?

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

Is the only thing that is keeping income inequality from being higher today the high influx of poor people whose great number averages out with that of the rich to keep income inequality down?

  1. Yes.
  2. No, I went to school before they fell apart, but I’m sure if I went to them today I would answer yes.

If there are enough poor people, who are all equally poor, it doesn’t matter if there are a few rich people. Its just envy of the rich to disagree with this outcome, and bigotry of the middle class towards the poor to try to keep them out?

  1. Yes.
  2. I think I heard a luncheon speaker say this, it must be true.

–Next Question

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.

Worker Productivity Graph has gone up since 1973

Even though men and women’s median wages are the same or lower than men’s were in 1973 (graph page 18).

Open Secrets wealth of senators in 2005

2006 Amnesty Bill S 2611 Roll Call at senate.gov

Is it possible for us to pay our Senators enough for what they do for us?

  1. No.
  2. Yes, but count it as no anyhow. (We will.)

–Information Next Question

“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.

The first census was in 1790. The census is reporting the unhelpful information that men’s median wages are the same since 1973, (graph page 18) and that women’s wages today, and blacks are lower than all men’s wages were in 1973.

How can we teach the census to do better work?

  1. Get them to drop respondents who have the wrong answers.
  2. Tell people with the wrong answers they are bigots.
  3. Exclude blacks, whites, men, women, Hispanics, and Asians, unless they get speaking fees of $50,000 per lunch.
  4. Find one lesbian Hispanic immigrant female who makes more than the median wage of men in 1973 and put her picture on census.gov in place of all these pdf’s full of wrong graphs (page 18).
  5. If we had called Pat Buchanan a bigot one more time, we wouldn’t have these problems.
  6. Restrict census data to the S & P 500.

What do you think of this poll?

  1. More immigrants are the answer.
  2. Invalid response.
  3. Don’t know.
  4. Survey respondent disqualified.
  5. Spoiled survey ballot.
  6. My chad is hanging.
  7. Do pollsters get speaking fees?

Media pundits are paid $50,000 or more to speak at corporate lunches and ride corporate jets to and from them.

  1. More immigrants are the answer.
  2. Is this a question?
  3. A prayer?
  4. More immigrants are the answer.
  5. Final Jeapardy, What is the reason the pundits support immigration?

==Appendix: others commenting on this poll.

Scott Rasmussen

NY Times/CBS Poll Finds that 69% Believe Illegal Immigrants Should Be Prosecuted

Just 26% Favor Senate Immigration Plan

Which Poll is Right on Immigration?

Posted by: Michael Medved at 10:29 PMMedved slams Rasmussen for not push polling for immigration. Instead Rasmussen just asks if they support the bill without giving them any information.

Lawrence Auster

Do two-thirds of the American people really support legalization?

65 percent of Muslims seek strict application of sharia law

Here are two data that blow out of the water the idea that most Muslims are “moderates,” i.e., that most Muslims believe in Islam only as an individual religion, not as a political religion. Andrew Bostom writes:

Polling data just released (April 24, 2007) in a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of 4384 Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007–1000 Moroccans, 1000 Egyptians, 1243 Pakistanis, and 1141 Indonesians–reveal that 65.2% of those interviewed–almost 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”–desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”), including 49% of “moderate” Indonesian Muslims. The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.”

Amren: “NY Times/CBS Poll Finds That 69% Believe Illegal Immigrants Should Be Prosecuted

Vdare:

Immigration Restrictionists Dominate Slashdot Poll

[Randall Burns] @ 9:46 pm [Email author] [Email This Article] [Print This Article]

Steve Sailer on “pollaganda

http://www.cnn.com/2006/images/06/21/lou.dobbs.tonight.poll.results.pdf

Google News: immigration poll

poll site:numbersusa.com

http://www.numbersusa.com/search/?action=showresults&start=0&All=poll&searchType=www.numbersusa.com&Phrase=&Any=&None=&Submit=Search

Stein Report on NYT CBS poll:

http://www.steinreport.com/archives/010394.html

CIS executive director Mark Krikorian critiques poll at NRO. This is particularly informative and short.

Poll: Public Wants Illegals to Go Home
Public Prefers Enforcement, Not Senate Legalization Approach

http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2007/05-22-07.html

poll site:fairus.org

poll site:vdare.com

The poll that counts: Call your Senators. Scroll down for lists of numbers to call, stop immigration free fax services, etc from Frosty Wooldridge:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty260.htm

Insightful comments on current and past polls related to immigration at Vanishing American.

immigration poll site:VanishingAmerican.blogspot.com

Worse, the more information the pollsters give those questioned — about current levels of immigration, alternative policies, fiscal costs — the more strongly they oppose the legislation. So you need to get hurry this bill through the entire legislative process before Americans learn what’s in it.

From:



–>

–>

E-mail Author
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version

Double Agent Karl
Machiavelli takes a look at the immigration bill.

By John O’Sullivan

National Review seems to be tacking back towards being a conservative magazine from being an arm of BOG (Bush occupied government). If National Review had still been on the American side before the 2000 and 2004 elections, it might have mattered. But better to have them late than never. This is the Return of the Apostate Son.

= Postscript and unresolved issue:

Because Q74 (prosecute and deport 69% yes) comes at the end, its late for the pollster to discover that the respondent is not responsive and should be considered an unusable response without losing their work? If the person answers against immigration early in the poll, the pollster can try to get them to drop out, e.g. by suggesting the person responding is a bigot. Or the pollster can resort to using more subtle means, like marking the response invalid or unusable.

How many people did they contact for the NYT CBS poll? How many dropped out? At what stages? At what questions? Why were the results of Q74 at variance with other answers as pointed out by Tim Graham? Aren’t pollsters supposed to be steeped in statistics and scientific method? Why didn’t the New York Times have an article by the pollster scientists who did the poll and designed it discussing this issue?

If this poll was submitted to a peer reviewed scientific journal, wouldn’t they make the authors discuss the internal inconsistencies that Tim Graham and others have pointed out? Doesn’t the NYT claim to be scientifically rigorous? Now that critics have pointed these issues out, why doesn’t the NYT have the pollsters discuss these in an article published in the print edition and on the web page? Isn’t that what real scientists would do in a controversy over results?

=Compare Scientific Article and Poll

A scientific article might have a readership of 1000 people or even less. If there are inconsistencies or problems, at least 100 of those 1000 and likely even more will learn of it.

For an NYT poll at least 10 million hear of it. However, only 10,000 or less hear of the controversies and maybe only 1000 or even the same 100 the scientific details of polling.

So if the NYT poll was published in the Journal of Polling Science it would end up with the same 100 people knowing the methodological problems as when published in the NYT.

In addition, a science article with these flaws, especially if concealed and then exposed, would be remembered by the 100 for decades. So it would be permanently linked to the authors as dubious and sloppy work at best. NYT polls don’t survive that long in memory.

This is why they published it in the NYT even though they knew the scientific problems before publication. If the same poll was submitted to the Journal of Polling Science, they would not have published it without all these issues being resolved. That would have taken months at least, and the poll would not be fresh.

The NYT knows or believes that after a couple news cycles, the only people still concerned are a few people, and the NYT thinks they don’t matter. They went through this calculation in advance of publication, knowing the polls inconsistencies. They chose to hide the poll inconsistencies by not discussing them in the article and even withholding some questions and answers from the pdf. They said these were for future use. But no one is interested in poll data that is very old, except the 10,000 down to 100 poll wonks.

The NYT and CBS have adopted as a business practice to present poll findings when the poll results are inconsistent and don’t support the statements in their main news articles or stories. This is intentional scientific fraud. This is a business policy of engaging in fraud for profit.

== Some final questions

What percentage think that Senators who support immigration should be prosecuted?

At least retired?

DHS heads?

What about Senators who vote their stock portfolio instead of the median wages of their constituents?

Do we have a Senate of stock portfolios?

Do we have a nation of 1973 median wage earners?

==

This article represents speculation, hypotheses or opinion. All statements should be restated as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

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?

==Comments at WaPo: “Old atlantic, what a blowhard you are!!!”

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.

==”Try sticking to one comment. Nobody cares to read your ranting.”
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.

read more | digg story

Census Income Inequality Graph

February 23, 2007

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

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

old link, may not work:

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

Above is the Income Inequality Graph.

The Census page on income inequality is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
%d bloggers like this: