Archive for the 'Immigration Substitution Effect' Category

New York Times Nativists are Restless Vdare

February 1, 2009

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/02/01/peter-brimelow-at-the-national-press-club/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/02/01/theyre-just-not-making-white-supremacists-like-they-used-to/

NYT attacks Peter Brimelow, Marcus Epstein, Vdare, Bay Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan, Republicans, white people, Founding Stock Americans, Southernors, Virginia Dare, Benjamin Franklin implicitly and everyone linked to them in any way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01sun1.html?_r=1

Americans want immigration solved, and they realize that mass deportations will not do that. When you add the unprecedented engagement of growing numbers of Latino voters in 2008, it becomes clear that the nativist path is the path to permanent political irrelevance. Unless you can find a way to get rid of all the Latinos.

What a very interesting point of view.  NYT is saying you can never stop Latino immigration, since there will always be illegals to be legalized or anchor babies even if stopped legal immigration.  Either Latinos take over completely and genocide all here, or the rest have to eject all the Latinos.  Wisdom of the New York Times.

NYT is saying its all Latinos out or its:

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.

NYT is saying literally its all Latino genes replace all others or the others eject all Latinos.  This is because some sort of Latino immigration continues forever if any Latinos remain is the NYT position.  By the theorem that implies genetic extinction of all other genes.  Not mixing, but complete replacement.  Theorem doesn’t say there is final state of mixture, but a final state of complete replacement.

Note NYT is saying that Latinos insist on genocide of all other genes by future Latino immigration.  NYT says other genes can only survive by ejecting all Latinos because Latinos insist on genocide and have a program of genocide.  NYT is saying Latinos won’t let others coexist with them in equilibrium but insist on perpetual immigration to genocide all other genes completely.  Moreover, NYT says its either fight this and remove them all or give in and submit to genocide.  Those are the only two choices according to NYT.  (NYT is in effect saying Latinos hate all non-Latinos and are determined to genocide them and if any Latinos are left they will continue to try it.)

A semi-spoof with data to reject NYT and more math and theory is

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/new-york-times-orders-wright-island-model-concealed/

New York Times orders Wright Island Model concealed

February 1, 2009

(Spoof) The New York Times ordered that the Wright Island Model be removed from textbooks and webpages worldwide.  The NYT wrote:

The Wright Island Model makes the white nativists restless.  Its too much for the poor dears to comprehend that their extinction is decreed by us, and that makes it good.  Peter Brimelow, Vdare, and Marcus Epstein received warnings from the Times that they must apologize 5 times a day for being white.   When it was pointed out that Vdare was a website, the Times said so?  We say it is, so it is.

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

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.

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

(Nagylaki got started in physics and wrote papers on quantum electrodynamics.  WIM though is much older.)

New York Times claims that this is too complicated.  We are journalists, we are told what to say.   What do we care what some theorem says.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/01/19/carlos-slim-to-buy-more-of-new-york-times/

Besides we don’t like the assumptions.

Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem

June 4th, 2007 Assume that

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

Then

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

In fact the assumptions can be weakened so that if some group with unbounded influx has a survival probability which mutiplied by some constant bounds the other groups then it and all the groups have zero survival probability.  Same applies for ex-post survival factor.

NYT:  You didn’t use measure theory in that proof did you?   If you didn’t, we don’t accept it.  Its not theoretical enough.  If you did, we don’t accept it either, its not practical.

(OK, obviously the spoof is going too far.  The NYT editorialists don’t know measure theory and that probably includes Paul Krugman as well.)

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/02/01/peter-brimelow-at-the-national-press-club/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/02/01/theyre-just-not-making-white-supremacists-like-they-used-to/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01sun1.html?_r=1

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

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/01/theyre-just-not-making-white.html

BTW with the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem you can proof the second law of thermodynamics.   The proof is basically that the full Hamiltonian or time development operator causes the system to have an influx of probability of other states as seen relative to some simpler Hamiltonian.  Thus the entropy increases since the probability of every state relative to the simpler Hamiltonian goes to zero.

The WIM implies a substitution effect.  This carries over to all aspects of human society.  The WIM says whatever good you do, the bad rises even more to force extinction of every gene here and each year’s cohort of genes that come here.  Immigration forever means that this is a genetic graveyard.  Every gene that comes here goes extinct.

Another way of understanding it is as follows.  Suppose every gene now in the US gets a serial number that is distinct.  Each gene that crosses the border gets a new serial border.  When a gene is created from a single gene, it copies the same serial number plus the date.  When created from two genes it gets both serial numbers combined and the date.

The serial numbers as of any date eventually all disappear even embedded in other numbers.  All the serial numbers that arrive in a year disappear as well even embedded in other numbers.  This has to happen because otherwise there would be more serial numbers than the upper bound on population.

Thus all the good that happens has to be overmatched by bad to force humans to reproduce below replacement.   We are in the credit crisis and financial crisis that the WIM predicts will happen.  Uncertainty is a way to get humans to defer reproduction.  In some cases, that is permanent.  Young adults defer and then are old adults before they know it.  Marriages are unstable.   So they don’t have more kids they break up.

Then young adults think recursively.  The marriage won’t last, so don’t have kids.  So don’t get married.

With zero immigration, not zero net, but zero influx, young adults have job security.  All jobs have to go to them if there is zero influx, not zero net, but zero absolute.  This gives young adults the confidence and security to get married, have kids, stay married and have more kids.  This produces institutions that work and happy families.  Happy families make institutions work and when institutions work they make it possible to have happy families.  This is why influx must be zero, not just equal to outflux.

Graph of ferility 1800 to 1990:

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

Fertility fell except during immigration restriction from 1940 to 1957, when immigration reached 250,000 per year again.  That is why that amount is too high, it cuts off the security of young adults and interferes with marriage stability.

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973

See graph page 19

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

Productivity per hour doubled over the period.

==

Series Id: PRS84006093
Duration: index, 1992 = 100
Measure: Output Per Hour
Sector: Business

Series Id,Year,Period,Value,
PRS84006093,1947,Annual,32.232
PRS84006093,1948,Annual,33.722
PRS84006093,1949,Annual,34.493
PRS84006093,1950,Annual,37.325
PRS84006093,1951,Annual,38.510
PRS84006093,1952,Annual,39.602
PRS84006093,1953,Annual,41.013
PRS84006093,1954,Annual,41.883
PRS84006093,1955,Annual,43.619
PRS84006093,1956,Annual,43.647
PRS84006093,1957,Annual,45.026
PRS84006093,1958,Annual,46.268
PRS84006093,1959,Annual,48.027
PRS84006093,1960,Annual,48.865
PRS84006093,1961,Annual,50.568
PRS84006093,1962,Annual,52.882
PRS84006093,1963,Annual,54.950
PRS84006093,1964,Annual,56.808
PRS84006093,1965,Annual,58.817
PRS84006093,1966,Annual,61.205
PRS84006093,1967,Annual,62.543
PRS84006093,1968,Annual,64.678
PRS84006093,1969,Annual,64.994
PRS84006093,1970,Annual,66.285
PRS84006093,1971,Annual,69.015
PRS84006093,1972,Annual,71.243
PRS84006093,1973,Annual,73.410
PRS84006093,1974,Annual,72.257
PRS84006093,1975,Annual,74.793
PRS84006093,1976,Annual,77.145
PRS84006093,1977,Annual,78.455
PRS84006093,1978,Annual,79.320
PRS84006093,1979,Annual,79.305
PRS84006093,1980,Annual,79.151
PRS84006093,1981,Annual,80.779
PRS84006093,1982,Annual,80.149
PRS84006093,1983,Annual,83.002
PRS84006093,1984,Annual,85.215
PRS84006093,1985,Annual,87.131
PRS84006093,1986,Annual,89.673
PRS84006093,1987,Annual,90.133
PRS84006093,1988,Annual,91.507
PRS84006093,1989,Annual,92.409
PRS84006093,1990,Annual,94.381
PRS84006093,1991,Annual,95.902
PRS84006093,1992,Annual,100.000
PRS84006093,1993,Annual,100.390
PRS84006093,1994,Annual,101.360
PRS84006093,1995,Annual,101.495
PRS84006093,1996,Annual,104.494
PRS84006093,1997,Annual,106.478
PRS84006093,1998,Annual,109.477
PRS84006093,1999,Annual,112.841
PRS84006093,2000,Annual,116.107
PRS84006093,2001,Annual,119.067
PRS84006093,2002,Annual,123.934
PRS84006093,2003,Annual,128.693
PRS84006093,2004,Annual,132.403
PRS84006093,2005,Annual,135.001
PRS84006093,2006,Annual,136.416
PRS84006093,2007,Annual,138.957

==

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=pr

Select business, output per hour, and index. Then click on Add to Your Selection.

Then click on Get Data. You can get formatting options later. I selected only annual data and csv data. I copied that into a text file and then recopied it into this.

Other productivity choices and sources

Labor productivity

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/home.htm

http://www.bls.gov/bls/productivity.htm

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?pr

1948 to 2002

http://www.bls.gov/mfp/historicalsic.htm

http://www.bls.gov/mfp/

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod3.t01.htm

Table 1. Private business sector:Indexes of productivity & related measures, 1987-2006

“productivity index” bls

==

PRS84006093,1973,Annual,73.410

PRS84006093,2007,Annual,138.957

This is almost a doubling of this measure of output per labor. There are many at BLS.

==NYT.  Bottom line is bottom line.  And top line is top line.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/01/carlos-slim-to-bailout-ny-times.html

Obama wrong on black employment and immigration

February 1, 2008

Barack Obama was wrong in the debate with Hillary Clinton when he said immigrants were scapegoated for lower black labor force participation rates. Its not just black unemployment rates are high, but blacks and black men in particular don’t have jobs.

The labor force participation rate is the number of people employed or looking for work in a group divided by the number in that group. Employed population is those with a job over the population size. Unemployment rate misses discouraged workers and those who don’t try.

The labor force participation rates of white and black men were equal to each other and to 80 percent in 1965. For white men it is now 74 percent. For black men it is now 66 percent.

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973. So wages stayed the same but employment fell. This means there was a substitution in supply. For men that includes women working but it also includes immigration. Women don’t take the construction jobs that Hillary Clinton mentioned black men complaining are for Hispanics only.

Wages stayed the same for men from 1973 but their employment fell. That is from a substitution of supply for men. There is no other explanation. A society that doesn’t have work for men is a dead society walking. That is what people know. Its Obama who won’t listen or pay attention.

Median wage graph on page 16 for men and women separately:

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

Income, Poverty, and
Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2006

Issued August 2007

Current Population Reports
Consumer Income

By
Carmen DeNavas-Walt
Bernadette D. Proctor
Jessica Smith

Labor force participation rates for black and white men:

[XLS]

TABLE B–40.— Civilian labor force participation rate by

File Format: Microsoft Excel – View as HTML
Civilian labor force participation rate by demographic characteristic, 1965–2006 3, Year or month, All civilian workers, White 2, Black and other or
www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2007/B40.xlsSimilar pages

There is a substitution effect from black and white employment to immigrant employment. But labor force participation rates are projected to fall for Hispanic men and Asian men over the next 10 years as well as for white men.

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

Black men are projected to rise slightly from 2006 to 2016 but the 2004 to 2014 forecast was for their rate to fall. But the point is stagnant wages and stagnant job prospects.

Labor productivity has grown 1.5 percent to 3 percent per year since 1967.   See graph:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2005/11/long_productivi.html

If we take 1967 to now we have 40 years roughly.  So even at 2 percent growth per year, one gets 80, which compounds to more than doubling using the rule of 72.  (Actually the rule of 69, but who knows natural logarithms anymore?)

So productivity doubled while men’s wages stayed the same and their employment fell.  That means a massive new supply that did that.  That has to include immigration.  It also doesn’t make sense that women wanted to work while men didn’t.  Instead, as immigration took men’s jobs in construction and so on, women had to work.  Women are sometimes the sole worker in the family not the additional worker.  That is caused by immigration.

Population Genetics Island Model One Way Migration

June 30, 2007

One way immigration causes the complete genetic extinction of the target population. This is a theorem already established in population genetics. It can be traced back to a 1931 paper by S. Wright.

EVOLUTION IN MENDELIAN POPULATIONS
SEWALL WRIGHT
University of Chicago. Chicago. Illinois
Received January 20. 1930

More on this paper below.  But first let’s review the actual decline in fertility since 1800 during immigration periods, but the rise in fertility during immigration restriction from 1940 to 1957.

The graph of declining fertility in the US from 1800 to 1990 is”

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

Fertility falls except during immigration restriction. This is a combined economics population genetics interaction. Wages are part of this economics genetics combined situation. However, wages in an economic model have counterparts in seemingly non-economic ecologies.  In a pure animal or plant population other variables play the same role of an indicator of survival that wages do in a modern human economy.  So there is a wages dimension even in the wild. Food is the wage for work in the wild. Or survival from a fight or from the natural elements.

Men’s median wages are flat since 1973 in the US.  This is a marker that men can’t provide as well in the human ecology. The result is lower fertility since women can’t find a substitute for men.

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.

What this means is that the genes initially on the island, in effect, disappear. But the West is the Island, and we don’t survive in this model. We are being voted off the island by the genes of the immigrants. This never stops. Every cohort of immigrants is voted off the island in genetic terms by the following cohorts.

WRIGHT S,. , 1931 Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16: 97-159. -, 1948 On
the roles of directed and random changes in gene frequency in the genetics of populations.
Evolution 2 : 279-294.

References with links from above paper were posted by NIH. Some are below. To see the original article on-line in this case does NOT require a subscription. Go to the link and in the middle of the page is Full Text Genetics Free. Click on that. This will open another page, and in a few seconds that page will itself open a pdf. If that doesn’t happen try clicking.

You don’t need to understand the math or the biology terms to get something out of the articles. Read the abstract, the introduction, the conclusion and look at figures and tables and their captions. There may be conclusions or explanations between equations or technical discussion that gives the conclusions.

Don’t let yourself get stuck on not understanding a word. Just skip around or pretend the word isn’t in the sentence and give it the meaning it needs. You can look up technical words in Wikipedia or with Google. Wikipedia is very good in math and science. Textbooks often have more errors or misinformation on the history of their subject and who discovered what than is found in Wikipedia science and math articles.

“This list contains those references that cite another article in PMC or have a citation in PubMed. It may not include all the original references for this article.”

 

  • Hartl, Daniel L. Mutation-Selection Balance with Stochastic Selection. Genetics. 1977 Jul;86(3):687–696. [PubMed]
  • Jensen L. Random selective advantages of genes and their probabilities of fixation. Genet Res. 1973 Jun;21(3):215–219. [PubMed]
  • Karlin S, Lieberman U. Random temporal variation in selection intensities: case of large population size. Theor Popul Biol. 1974 Dec;6(3):355–382. [PubMed]
  • Kimura, Motoo. Process Leading to Quasi-Fixation of Genes in Natural Populations Due to Random Fluctuation of Selection Intensities. Genetics. 1954 May;39(3):280–295. [PubMed]
  • Latter BDH. The Island Model of Population Differentiation: A General Solution. Genetics. 1973 Jan;73(1):147–157. [PubMed]
  • Levikson B, Karlin S. Random temporal variation in selection intensities acting on infinite diploid populations: diffusion method analysis. Theor Popul Biol. 1975 Dec;8(3):292–300. [PubMed]
  • Maruyama T. Effective number of alleles in a subdivided population. Theor Popul Biol. 1970 Nov;1(3):273–306. [PubMed]
  • Wright, Sewall. Evolution in Mendelian Populations. Genetics. 1931 Mar;16(2):97–159. [PubMed]

http://www.sinauer.com/detail.php?id=3082

“island model” population genetics

“island model” migration

“theoretical biology”

Wright’s first paper is available online

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=17246615

1: Genetics. 1931 Mar;16(2):97-159.
Evolution in Mendelian Populations.

Wright S.

University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

PMID: 17246615 [PubMed]

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/16/2/97

Page 128 “Irreversible recurrent mutation ”

—Previous Post:

Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem

June 4th, 2007 Assume that

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

Then

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

==
Mathematical Population Genetics
By W. J. (Warren John) Ewens

http://books.google.com/books?id=twXIyXyod2MC&pg=PA279&lpg=PA279&dq=%22island+model%22+population+genetics&source=web&ots=DKOTb367VO&sig=he6GEQDiOzlD20h-asiwmRR8Kh4#PPR11,M1

==

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/1965-immigration-act-causes-u-inverted-u-in-income-inequality-and-fertility/
1965 Immigration Act Causes U inverted U in Income Inequality and Fertility
==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

== Some historical analysis is here:
Search Catholics Immigration Intense Feelings
=Key words

Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic, Omnia Cleansing.

==

Samuel Karlin

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

Sewall Green Wright ForMemRS (December 21, 1889March 3, 1988) was an American geneticist known for his influential work on evolutionary theory. Along with R. A. Fisher and J.B.S. Haldane, he was a founder of theoretical population genetics. Evolutionary biologists argue as to whether Fisher or Wright made the greater contribution. He is the discoverer of the inbreeding coefficient and of methods of computing it in pedigrees. He extended this work to populations, computing the amount of inbreeding of members of populations as a result of random genetic drift, and he and Fisher pioneered methods for computing the distribution of gene frequencies among populations as a result of the interaction of natural selection, mutation, migration and genetic drift. The work of Fisher, Wright, and Haldane on theoretical population genetics was a major step in the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis of genetics with evolution. Wright also made major contributions to mammalian genetics and biochemical genetics.

==gap decay math

The gap between the current value and a target value decays in these models. The gap this period is a fraction less than one of its value last period. Suppose the fraction is one-half. Then after 2 periods the gap is 1/4 its size, and in 3 periods it is one-eighth.

The decay of a set of atoms or molecules follows the same math. This type of arithmetic is common.

==Life becomes hard and then our genes die

These theorems don’t happen by themselves. They have mechanisms. For humans, wages fall and they lose job security so that they pay more for security things like prestige education. As this goes on, they lose their chances to have kids when they are young.

== Young adults lose feeling of security

Young adults lose the feeling of security. Its the confidence of young adulthood that lets young adults get married, have kids, stay married and have more kids. When that confidence goes, they pull back at the time their biology says to have kids. So they don’t. The result is below replacement fertility.

There are estimates that up to 1/3 of the women who go to college will never have children. Ths is job insecurity at the time biology tells them to have children. By the time they feel secure, its too late. The same is happening to men.

==London Telegraph Women losing feeling of security

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/22/ncareer22.xmlo
Third of graduate women will be childless

By Ben Leapman, Home Affairs Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 6:46am BST 24/04/2007

A third of women graduates will never have children, research has concluded.

The number of highly educated women who are starting families has plummeted in the past decade, according to findings that provide the most detailed insight yet into education and fertility.

While some women are making a conscious decision not to have children, others are simply leaving it too late after taking years to build their careers, buy a home and find the right partner.

..

Overall population decline is only being prevented by immigration and a higher birth rate among non-graduate women.

Actually wrong. Its immigration that creates the economic insecurity. Economic insecurity doesn’t grow spontaneously from nowhere.

The findings come from a ground-breaking study into more than 5,000 women born in 1970 and tracked throughout their lives by researchers at the Centre for Longitudinal Studies, based at the Institute of Education in London.

Of a panel of older graduate women born in 1958, only 32.7 per cent were childless at 35.

The 1958 group were less impacted by immigration and diversity. Diversity sends the message of insecurity and that stops reproductivity. Colleges also tend to be more diverse themselves, thus sending that wrong message at the wrong time.

== Immigration level is at extinction level in US.

Legal immigration itself is as high as between 3 to 4 million per year in the US according to Senator Sessions if one counts every form of guest worker, temporary arrival, etc. Immigration is displacing replacement fertility.

At 300 million for US population, with a life of 75 years, 4 million die per year. Thus with zero immigration and zero population growth, replacement fertility is 4 million births. But immigration is almost at that level. Thus immigration is at the full immediate extinction level.

This is why women are not having children. This is why men are not either. Legal immigration is a democaust, a demographic holocaust. This is omnia cleansing. Every gene that comes here goes through this as well. So every gene that comes here goes extinct, and every gene here at a point in time goes extinct.

We have to set legal immigration to zero. We have to eliminate all guest worker, asylum, refugee, family reunification, student visa, H-1B, and tourism or business travel from any country whose visitors overstay visas. Until visa overstay is reduced to zero, all visas must be canceled.

Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem

June 4, 2007

Assume that

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

Then

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

Proof

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

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

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

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

N(t,T) epsilon

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

Thus the expected number of genes,

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

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

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

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

QED.

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

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

Proof

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

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

QED

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

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

=

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

So does existing law.

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

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

This drives the fertility rate below replacement.

This can happen quite quickly.

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

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

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

It goes to zero rapidly in fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/

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

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

See also Lawrence Auster on it:

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

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

June 1, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Omnia Cleansing Immigration Substitution Effect

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

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

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

quote

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

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

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

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

end quote

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

from WaPo

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

==

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

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

==

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

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

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

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

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

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

==MSM Nation

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

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

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

==MSM Nation celebrated deaths of Archie Bunkers

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

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

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

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

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

==

“Fertility in the US 1917 to 1980”

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

==1800 to 1990 Fertility Graph by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in two graphs.

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

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

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

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

==Operation Wetback 1954 removed1.2 million illegals.

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

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

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

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

==

Income inequality was low and going lower in 1945:

Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

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

==Income Inequality measures Income Insecurity

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

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

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

==U shaped pattern income inequality

As Edward Rubenstein points out

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

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

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

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

== Income Fertility U See-Saw

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

==Fertility and Job Inecurity See Saw

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

==”Devaluing Labor”

By Harold Meyerson

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

Re: “Numbers Drop for the Married With Children”

March 4, 2007

Immigration substitutes immigrants for children. In 1960, one in two people were in a household of married people with children. Now its 1 out of 4. We live alone. Immigration took our job security, so we live alone without kids. When they say we have prosperity, they mean the MSM spokespeople for the CEO’s are doing well. They are paid to lie. That includes the editors of the Washington Post, William Kristol of AEI and George Will along with Fred Barnes and the rest.

Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, AffluentBy 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.

“We seem to be reverting to a much older pattern, when elites marry and a great many others live together and have kids,” said Peter Francese, demographic trends analyst for Ogilvy & Mather, an advertising firm.

Married couples living with their own children younger than 18 are also helping to drive a well-documented increase in income inequality. Compared with all households, they are twice as likely to be in the top 20 percent of income.

Comments at WaPo 

==From article on Senators
Most Senators today were born or became young adults in the 1940’s or 1950’s while income inequality was going down. The Senators who voted for S. 2611, amnesty, welfare, non-deportable crime, and more illegals now and later, are in the high income group mentioned in the article. These Senators live in a different America than the rest of the people, except for a priviliged few.

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.

Immigration Substitutes for Births

February 28, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Search on google 51 percent women live alone

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

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

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

==

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

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

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

This reinforces work by Putnam that diversity creates distrust.

Census Income Inequality Graph

February 23, 2007

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

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

old link, may not work:

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

Above is the Income Inequality Graph.

The Census page on income inequality is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 19, 2007

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

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

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

From an earlier Old Atlantic article:

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

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

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

Patrick Cleburne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

%d bloggers like this: