Archive for the 'Edwin S. Rubenstein' Category

Ed Rubenstein Vdare at National Press Club Tuesday April 8 1 PM

April 7, 2008

Ed Rubenstein of Vdare and the Manhattan Insitute will present a report at 1 PM Tuesday April 8, 2008 at the National Press Club Zenger Room located at 529 14th Street NW Washington, DC 20045. There is a light lunch for journalists at 12:15 PM.

Map and Directions

http://www.press.org/directions.cfm

Calendar scroll down to 1:00 PM

http://www.press.org/calendar/calendarday.cfm?whatday=8&&whatyear=2008&&whatmonth=4

Time: 1:00 PM
Event Type: News Conference
Event Location: Zenger Room
Details:
Release of New Study on the Costs to 15 government agencies of immigration
News Conference (preceded by light lunch)
Time: 1 p.m.
Location: Zenger RoomDetails: Manhattan Institute Fellow, Edwin S. Rubenstein, will release his new 70-page report detailing the cost of immigration to 15 federal departments and agencies. This first of its kind assessment of the fiscal impact of mass immigration looks at the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Interior, Justice, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, transportation, Treasury, and State, in addition to Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration.

Copies of the new study will be available.

A light lunch will be available for journalists at 12:15.

Contact: Fran Griffin, PR@griffnews.com, 703-255-2211

Contact: Fran Griffin
703/255-2211
pr@griffnews.com

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/04/07/ed-rubenstein-announces-cost-of-immigration-report-at-the-national-press-club-tomorrow/

This will be on the cost of immigration.

A quick estimate. If we have a 3rd world population of 100 million people and they cost 10,000 per year each then the total is 1 trillion per year. Most of this is not counted in one way or another. Just as dark matter is most of the mass of the universe, so we have dark cost, uncounted costs of immigration. Its not just the arrivals but their descendants. We have a permanent 3rd world nation inside America that is an annual burden of 1 trillion or more per year. Its growing.

Because immigrants substitute for births and fertility of whites is below replacement, the number of whites to support the 3rd worlders is falling. This means the burden per white of the 3rd world nation inside America goes up each year.

The top down cost of immigration is discussed more here with some links to data sources.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/top-down-cost-of-immigration/

Most studies of immigration cost work as follows. The amount on checks with the immigrants name on them given to the immigrant are counted as the total cost of the immigrant. Even the cost of the paper and ink and the salaries and buildings that hand out the checks are not counted against the immigrants tax contribution. The immigrants total payments to government of any kind are allocated totally only against the checks with the immigrants name on them. The difference is called the cost of the immigrant.

This is one source of the dark cost of immigration. What should be done is to apply the pro-rata share of all government spending to that immigrant plus the checks with the immigrants name on them plus the buildings and other costs they are benefiting from as a beneficiary on a pro rata basis. Who pays interest on the debt, national defense, roads, schools, etc? In most “studies” the entire cost of these is paid by non-immigrants. Who pays the interest on the national debt of money borrowed to write a check to an immigrant? The non-immigrants.

Immigrant children may be counted as citizens. We have a 3rd world nation inside America. This 3rd world nation is the real burden of immigration. Its a massive burden. The 3rd world nation is a huge cost. The first world nation inside America is shrinking and has to support the ever growing 3rd world nation. The result is the destruction of America.

Congress is disloyal. Bill Gates on H-1B is disloyal. Contact NumbersUSA, Fairus, etc. to send free faxes from your computer. Write, email and call your Congressman and Senator. This does affect you. It will get worse. Vote 3rd party for president and give them a small contribution. Give contributions to NumbersUSA and Fairus not to John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama who all support H-1B and the increase of the 3rd world nation inside America that is dragging us down.

==

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

According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter accounts for the vast majority of mass in the observable universe. The observed phenomena consistent with dark matter observations include the rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

Just as with physical dark matter, the dark cost of immigration is something we can observe in bullet clusters, the rotational speed of illegal drivers, failing schools, budget deficits, taxes, and roads. If you are going in DC think of the cost of your commute. That is because of immigrants. If we had no immigration since 1965, Washington DC would still be a livable city.

They once said DC had northern charm and southern efficiency. Now it has 3rd world charm and 3rd world disloyalty in its government and law firms and lobbying firms.

==Non-government cost is never counted almost.

The dark cost of immigration includes lower fertility, loss of job
security, crime, longer commutes, affirmative action ethnic cleansing
of government, industry and academia and schools, and corruption
of every institution of society.

John Savage quotes Sartre that “Hell is other people”. Immigration is thus the increase in the intensity of Hell.

http://bnww.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/can-we-have-a-stop-the-growth-candidate-please/

Immigration substitutes for births and white fertility is below replacement, as is that of educated women. This is part of the hidden cost of immigration.

==

Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

The Island Model with Stochastic Migration

Thomas Nagylaki

Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1213928

The island model with stochastically variable migration rate and immigrant gene frequency is investigated. It is supposed that the migration rate and the immigrant gene frequency are independent of each other in each generation, and each of them is independently and identically distributed in every generation. The treatment is confined to a single diallelic locus without mutation. If the diploid population is infinite, selection is absent and the immigrant gene frequency is fixed, then the gene frequency on the island converges to the immigrant frequency, and the logarithm of the absolute value of its deviation from it is asymptotically normally distributed.

The above implies that if you have two genes in some frequency in the immigrant population, that under one way migration that frequency becomes the frequency on the island.

From PDF, conclusion:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/population-genetics-island-model-one-way-migration/

=

Since we are eventually extincted by immigrants, immigrants eventually get all the wealth and substitute for us. So ultimately the cost of immigration is everything we own down to the genes in our cells. Thus the cost of immigration is all of wealth, physical and human.

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

“The total value of all U.S. household wealth in 2000 was approximately $44 trillion.”

Thus the cost of immigration is the expropriation of this 44 trillion plus the human genetic capital which is worth at least the difference between US GDP minus the equivalent 3rd world GDP, almost zero.

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

its gross domestic product (GDP) was estimated as $13.8 trillion in 2007.[2

The product of 3rd worlders is low. So essentially the substitution effect will eliminate this 13.8 trillion and reduce it to close to zero. Growth rates are lower. Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973, women’s median wages the same as men’s were in 1960. (See graph page 16 p60-233.pdf)

We are eliminating this for nothing. In fact, its a negative and a negative can’t be changed into a positive by wishful thinking. We are eliminating the genes and thus the GDP. We are not just transferring the 44 trillion but most of it will disappear as the 3rd world percentage goes higher. We are seeing that already with the sub-prime mortgage situation.

The math of America is driven by genetic substitution. A society that tries to go against evolution by 3rd world immigration, welfare, affirmative action, ER mandates, and lies about it all will disappear. That is the lesson of history. That is what the theorem above says.

For the allele substitution to happen, and it must by the theorem, life must be made bad and insecure. The result is the loss of wages and wealth, and ultimately the most important capital, genetic capital. To update Sartre, “Hell is the convergence of your alleles to those of the immigrants.”  This is especially if its by 3rd world immigration, affirmative action, and the lies of the liberals, Bill Gates, McCain, Clinton and Obama (McClob) who promote it.”

270000 Britons lose jobs to foreign workers

November 4, 2007

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23419207-details/Number+of+Britons+in+work+falls+by+270,000+-+because+migrants+get+most+new+jobs/article.do

“Number of Britons in work falls by 270,000 – because migrants get most new jobs 02.11.07”

The number of Britons in work has fallen sharply in the past two years, Whitehall figures have shown.

Despite an economic boom that has created tens of thousands of jobs, the new posts are largely going to migrants.

An estimated 540,000 foreigners have found work in Britain over the past 18 months. But at the same time the native workforce has shrunk by 270,000.

The latest numbers – given to MPs by Employment Minister Caroline Flint – show that since spring last year, 330,000 workers from Europe and 210,000 from elsewhere have found employment in the UK.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1819 

James Fulford at Vdare on some related numbers:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/10/31/worker-displacement-in-the-uk-foreigners-fill-half-of-all-new-jobs/ 

Edwin S. Rubenstein at Vdare: (Its worth reading the whole thing, it was tempting not to excerpt almost all of it.  The tables are worth looking at as well.)

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/071025_nd.htm 

Jon Snow is anchorman on Dispatches—a program broadcast on the U.K.’s Channel 4.

Snow’s TV documentary, entitled “Immigrants: The Inconvenient Truth,” reveals which immigrant communities are a “debit” and a “credit” on “Britain’s Balance sheet.” [MPs fear C4 documentary on the cost of immigrants will fuel race hatred By Jonathan Oliver, Daily Mail, (UK) September 30th 2007]

Only 19 percent of working age Somalis are employed. Ten percent of this group are unemployed (i.e., looking for work) while a whopping 71 percent are out of the labor force entirely (i.e., not even looking.) [Table 1.] By contrast, 78% of UK natives are employed;4% unemployed; 18% not in the labor force.

 http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/071025_nd_tables.htm#t2

43.4% of Mexicans received means tested income assistance in the U.S.

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/041116_nd.htm

By Steven A. Camarota:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1405.html

Keep America .x White is Racist for all x?

November 1, 2007

Is there any x such that Keep America .x white is not racist in the view of the critics? What value will satisfy their demands? Is it always a little less than the current value?

When x was approximately 9, so .x was .9, Kennedy said it had to go down. That was in 1965. For Kennedy, immigration quotas intended not just to preserve .x as .9 for whites but also preserve white ethnic group percentages was unacceptable. Well that issue is now gone.

Although .x is not yet below .5, Bill Clinton has already said he wants it below .5. When it is .45 will Clinton want it below .4? When its .35 will he want it below .35? Will Clinton say when its .45 that we have to stop non-white immigration to keep it from going below .4? Will SPLC say that? Will Charles Johnson say that at LGF? Bush? Hillary Clinton?

Will the RINO 4 say that? The RINO 4 are Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudi Giuliani. Giuliani has already called Tancredo a know-nothing for opposing any restrictions on legal immigration below what they are now.

Isn’t that the formula? Whatever it is now, restricting it from that is racist, nativist and Nazi? Which means when it was less in the past, it was racist, nativist and Nazi?

Where you draw the line is Racist Hypothesis.

Any thing bad for whites or any harm to whites that you say is the limit will be called racist, Nazi, bigoted and unacceptable to the liberals. This applies to white birth percentages, immigration quotas, white percentage in society, etc. There is no point you can make a stand that they won’t call white nationalist.

White Zeroist Corollary

If we aren’t called white nationalist, the white percentage will decline to zero.

Proof.

It takes an effort to stop the excess immigration, affirmative action, ER and welfare mandates that are substituting non-white births or immigration for white births. (See other articles on this.)

At any level the positive effort is made to halt the decline, those doing it and supporting it will be called white nationalist, Nazi, white supremacist, and bigot. (Especially if its a measure that works instead of a band aid for votes that doesn’t work.)

What works hypothesis, name calling as bad as what doesn’t.

If we pursue policies that actually retain the white ratio above 0, then we will be called racist, Nazi, white nationalist, white supremacist etc. as much as if we pursue policies that in fact simply slow the approach to zero, but don’t alter the convergence to zero.

==Vanishing Survival Example

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. Note that we can substitute an onshore source group for immigration if its fertility is pushed above replacement by affirmative action in education and employment, welfare, ER mandates, permitted verbal and physical violence against whites, etc.

==

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/070524_nd.htm

Edwin S. Rubenstein

The number of non-white Americans exceeded 100 million for the first time in 2006, according to a just released Census Bureau report.

According to the latest figures, non-Hispanic whites accounted for 66.4 percent of U.S. population on July 1, 2006. Minorities were 33.6 percent of the total. As recently as 1990, 76 percent of Americans called themselves non-Hispanic white. In 1965, the American population was 88 percent white.

In 2006 white, non-Hispanics accounted for:

bullet 56 percent of persons 9 and younger


bullet 60 percent of persons 10 to 19


bullet 67 percent of persons 20 to 64


bullet 81 percent of persons 65 and older

Based on 2004 fertility rates (the latest available), non-Hispanic white women will have 1.847 children; non-Hispanic Black women, 2.02 children; and Hispanic women, 2.82 children.[PDF]

In 2006 45.9 percent of live births were to minority mothers. That was up from 45.0 percent in 2005.

By 2021 more than 60 percent of births will be to minorities (Table 2.)

Of course, if immigration were completely cut off now, the date at which minorities would become the U.S. majority would be greatly postponed—probably into the 22nd century.

==The Wright Island Model Theorem

In population genetics, the case of one way migration is often treated in what is called the “Island Model”.

Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

The Island Model with Stochastic Migration

Thomas Nagylaki

Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1213928

The island model with stochastically variable migration rate and immigrant gene frequency is investigated. It is supposed that the migration rate and the immigrant gene frequency are independent of each other in each generation, and each of them is independently and identically distributed in every generation. The treatment is confined to a single diallelic locus without mutation. If the diploid population is infinite, selection is absent and the immigrant gene frequency is fixed, then the gene frequency on the island converges to the immigrant frequency, and the logarithm of the absolute value of its deviation from it is asymptotically normally distributed.

The above implies that if you have two genes in some frequency in the immigrant population, that under one way migration that frequency becomes the frequency on the island.

From PDF, conclusion:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

==Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem

Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem

This adds to and is actually easier to understand than the Wright Island Model papers.

This is draft and preliminary. Although whites used, the same applies to all genes in the country at any point in time. Comments welcome. This is offered as science and math related to reform in US legislation on immigration, affirmative action and welfare transfers. This is subject to revision. All other disclaimers apply.

Amnesty and legal immigration expansions are going on all the time at Congress. Stopping it once doesn’t stop it. Please keep up to date.

http://www.numbersusa.com/faxcenter

==Added

“Keeping America White” at SPLC. Comments on Peter Brimelow and Vdare whom SPLC doesn’t want to Keep America White or Keep America .x white for any x greater than zero?

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=152

==Asymptotic Zero

Immigration bounded above zero does not produce a mixture of genes present or arriving at any time and later genes. The result is not a mixture, its asymptotic extinction of every gene at any point in time, and any gene arriving in any year. There is no mixture of genes now and genes to come. Immigration is a genetic graveyard, all genes that are here or come here go extinct.

The extinction isn’t pleasant for the people here or coming here. Every one is subject to wage and economic pressure and uncertainty to eventually substitute immigrants for births. This is why men’s median wages are what they were in 1973 and headed down for the last several years. This is why women’s wages are lower than men’s in 1960 and headed down for the last several years. See page 16 for the graph of men’s and women’s median wages since about 1960:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

Going extinct in America isn’t pleasant for all but the rich. But even the rich are frogs in the water, slowly being cooked without knowing it. Millions without health care, oppressive bosses, repetitive motion injuries at work, lack of workplace dignity and security, lack of bargaining power, out of work relatives, loss of dignity for men, loss of meaning for men, crime and drugs, failing schools, know-how transfer to competing or enemy states, etc. are all the means by which the theorems are achieved.

This happens for more and more people, not just whites. All but a thin wedge at the top suffer this. More and more families find that Thanksgiving and Christmas are meeting places for the unemployed, discouraged, underemployed, and fearful. Men lack dignity and women lack men with dignity. This is what its like to live in a genetic graveyard, for all but the very rich and those with tenure at Harvard or think tanks or wealthy public interest law firms. In the SPLC version, Martin Luther King’s dream is we all go extinct together in a genetic graveyard, miserable and fearful and afraid to speak out.

This is speculation, hypotheses, opinion or tentative debate or analysis points. This is subject to revision. All comments welcome. All statements should be restated as questions. All criticism is rhetorical and to be restated as hypotheses or questions. All other disclaimers apply.

==Added 4:31 PM 1 Nov 2007

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/10/caucasophobia-accepted-racism.html

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2613

Noel Ignatiev, former professor at Harvard University, now teaching at the Massachusetts College of Art: “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.”

Some of the inventors of Whiteness Studies have stated their goals quite openly: “Abolitionism is also a strategy: its aim is not racial harmony but class war. By attacking whiteness, the abolitionists seek to undermine the main pillar of capitalist rule in this country.” And: “The task is to gather together a minority determined to make it impossible for anyone to be white.”

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

Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19

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
Bernadette D. Proctor
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

==

Search immigration income inequality

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

==

From an earlier Old Atlantic article:

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

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

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

Patrick Cleburne

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

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

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

==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.

Search black median wages “Great Compression”

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

==See Reference to this article at Vdare:

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.

Follow up WaPo Article

Bush Pushes Immigration Plan, Guest Worker Program

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 9, 2007; 3:36 PM
Comments at Follow Up article
==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

==
June 05, 2006
Time To Rethink Immigration (II): Freeing America From The Immigration Gulag

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

==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=181

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-harbor4mar04,0,5714315.story?coll=la-home-headlines

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

From: An “Irate Reader”

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_040807.htm
==

“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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=201

==

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
Deadbeat Dads Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande

“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
Deadbeat Dads Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande

“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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=281

==

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?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=321

=

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=341

==

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.

==
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=341

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040900105&start=41

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
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082901042.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

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.

read more | digg story

Kennedy McCain rode income inequality wave

February 13, 2007

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

Census Income home page:

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

Census Income Inequality Home Page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Reference Material

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

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

                      Variance        Mean

                        of the logarithmic                Atkinson

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

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

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

 2001           0.466    1.007       0.515   0.413   0.098   0.189   0.282

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

 1969           0.391    0.774       0.357   0.268   0.067   0.135   0.209

 1968           0.388    0.779       0.356   0.273   0.067   0.135   0.208

 1967 12/       0.399    0.813       0.380   0.287   0.071   0.143   0.220

=–

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

==

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

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

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

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

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

         Selected Percentiles         95th/20th                        8.38     8.10     8.11     8.26

         95th/50th                        3.57     3.46     3.46     3.48

         80th/50th                        1.98     1.95     1.95     1.94

         80th/20th                        4.65     4.56     4.56     4.62

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

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

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

       Household Income at

         Selected Percentiles       In Current Dollars:

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

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

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

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

In 2001 Dollars:

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

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

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

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

Household Income Ratios of

         Selected Percentiles

95th/20th                        6.29     6.10     5.97     6.33

         95th/50th                        2.65     2.60     2.56     2.66

         80th/50th                        1.68     1.66     1.64     1.66

         80th/20th                        3.98     3.89     3.82     3.95

         20th/50th                        0.42     0.43     0.43     0.42

Mean Household Income

         of Quintiles

In Current Dollars

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

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

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

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

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

In 2001 Dollars:

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

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

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

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

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

Shares of Household Income

         of Quintiles

Lowest quintile                   4.1      4.1      4.2      4.0

         Second quintile                  10.8     10.9     11.1     10.8

         Third quintile                   17.4     17.5     17.5     17.3

         Fourth quintile                  24.5     24.5     24.4     24.2

         Highest quintile                 43.3     43.0     42.8     43.8

Gini coefficient of

         income inequality               0.394    0.391    0.388    0.399

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

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

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

“income inequality” site:census.gov

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

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

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

Mr. Brimelow is Editor at VDARE.com.

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

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

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

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

==Comment that was rewritten into above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Comments at Vdare on this post

The Senate: In an Income Time Warp?”

Patrick Cleburne

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

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

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

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

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

These are discussed further in this article.

%d bloggers like this: