Archive for the 'Men’s Median Wages' Category

Los Angeles Times Declining Circulation

June 1, 2008

Search Los Angeles Times “declining circulation”

From Wiki 773,884 Daily and 1,101,981 Sunday.

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973, see graph page 16 p60-233.pdf
August 2007 by Carmen DeNavas-Walt
Bernadette D. Proctor
Jessica Smith.

Women’s median wages are stuck at 77 percent of men because employers can hire legal and illegal immigrants. Women’s wages slowed converging to men’s in 1990 from the Bush Sr. 1990 Immigration Act and the Kennedy Reagan 1986 Amnesty.

The LA Times cost 50 cents in 2006. Its circulation is declining. People don’t make enough to afford it. The Times advocates for immigration which keeps wages down. People can’t afford the Times and gas. So they drop the paper. Hispanics don’t read in general and not the Times. The Times is advocating for its own destruction.

The Times had to sell itself to Sam Zell because of its own advocacy of lower circulation. Can Zell figure out that his newspapers advocate for his newspaper business to go out of business? Its not super managers that are needed. People make the same wages as in 1973 so they don’t buy newspapers. Its that simple. That is caused by immigration.

A California Democrat Wants His State To “Fall Into The Pacific Ocean”—After He Moves!; etc.

From: Bob Turley (e-mail him)

Re: Brenda Walker’s Blog: Million Dollar Mexican Moocher

I realize Los Angeles Times reporter Anna Gorman (e-mail her) probably did not choose the title for her newspaper’s absurdly named series, “Life in the Shadows” of which her story about Van Nuys resident and illegal alien Ana Puente is a part.[Immigration Debate Hits Home for Liver Transplants, By Anna Gorman, Los Angeles Times, April 13, 2008]

13 April 2008
Million-Dollar Mexican Medical Moocher
[Brenda Walker] @ 4:37 pm [Email author] [Email This Article] Print This Post Print This Post

On a 1-10 scale of infuriating stories about foreign parasites feeding on American society, this case is an 11. Its central figure illustrating illegal aliens at the trough is a 21-year-old Mexican awaiting her 4th liver transplant. Kudos to reporter Anna Gorman for including the dollar figures of costs for taxpayers and important statistics about the availability of transplant organs: Immigration debate hits home for liver transplant patients (Los Angeles Times, April12, 2008).

31 May 2008
American Generosity Abused in Organ Transplants
[Brenda Walker] @ 11:31 pm [Email author] [Email This Article] Print This Post Print This Post

This liver transplant money for immigrants, legal or not, is why people don’t have money to spend on the LA Times. Sam Zell is losing his newspaper circulation because wages are the same as in 1973. That is from immigration.

Money has to be spent on medical care and schools for immigrants, legal or not, and their children. They don’t carry their own weight, they are permanent moochers. This ultimately means that people who pay for this have less to spend on newspapers. So newspapers lose circulation. How long will it take Sam Zell to figure this out?


“Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this…'” Call Your Senator No Amnesty

May 30, 2007

Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this…’

from Vanishing American (with apologies for liberties taken).

“Before this day is gone,” Call your Senator, read our lips, no new amnesties.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.”

The 1986 Amnesty Act didn’t work and brought in more. Steve Sailer points out it led to Hispanic men bringing in women and a baby bubble that fed the LA Gang Bubble that started in the 1990’s and that now has blacks on Greenlight in LA as SPLC tells us, apparently without plagiarizing Colorado Media Matters for once.

Steve Sailer:


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]. (Understanding the Future of Californians’ Fertility: The Role of Immigrants”).

Today, California’s amnesty baby boom generation is between ages 10 and 19, entering their prime gang violence years.

== End Sailor Quotes

== SPLC’s own (non-plagiarized from CMM) material on LA gang warfare:

Gauging the Gangs
A respected writer spent five years studying the Mexican Mafia. What he discovered will shock even the most seasoned cop.
interview by Brentin Mock

SPLC does a much better job when they give credit where its due instead of skimming the work of others without citation.

== Back to Vanishing American

“Henry’s best known speech, from March 1775, just before armed clashes broke out between the British and the colonists, contains the immortal phrase, ‘give me liberty from amnesty, or give me death.” :”

The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the South will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms (or is it a giant sucking sound of our ER’s being taken from us)…Let it come. I repeat, Sir, Let it come…Is grass so long, or house work so bleak, as to be purchased at the price of the blood stains of the Virginia Beach Teens Allison Kunhardt and Tessa Tranchant? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me Liberty from Amnesty or give me my Senator’s stock portfolio!´´

Another quote:

…Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power, the telephone, fax machine, email, letters and office visits to our Senators. Three millions of people at Numbers USA and Fairus, armed in the Holy cause of Liberty from Amnesty, and in such a country as that which we possess, for the moment, are invincible by any force which our McKennedy enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up Virginia Dare friends to fight our battle for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave, the diligent telephone caller…”

If we admit this comprehensive amnesty of consolidated government, it will be because we like an end to what began so splendidly. Some way or other Kennedy and McCain must have a great and mighty stock portfolio; these Senators must have a ranch, a town house in DC, Georgetown, of course, one in Boston on Beacon Hill, a summer place at Chappaquiddick, and a number of servants and other things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object…But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of amnesty, guest worker and legal immigration, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty Bush Rove McSlave Galley.”

“It’s a little-known fact that Henry left a message for posterity, to be read after his death:”

Near his last will, Patrick Henry left a small envelope sealed with wax. Inside was a single sheet of paper on which he had copied his Resolutions against the Amnesty Stamp Act. On the back, Patrick Henry left a message that he knew could only be read after his death, but not America’s he hoped. It began with a short history of his Resolutions against the Amnesty Z-Stamp Act, which had “spread throughout America with astonishing Quickness.” (by bloggers and not the MSM) As a result, the colonies were united in their “Resistance to Mexican Taxation by Immigration,” and won “the War which finally separated the two Countries and gave Independence to ours.”

Whether America’s independence “will prove a Blessing or a Curse,” Henry continued in his message to posterity, “will depend on the Use our people make of the Blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary Character, they will be miserable under Political Correctness and a witness to their own omnia cleansing. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a Nation. Reader! whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy Sphere, practice Virtue thyself, –Call Your Senator– and encourage it in others. P. HENRY

Its a little known fact that Henry had two middle initials, L.D., thought by some to be Lou Dobbs, from which initials he coined his famous phrase, “Give me Liberty or give me credit card Debt.” (Which your Senator owns through his stocks and gets your 18 percent on) by which he also meant, “Give me Liberty from working for Men’s Median Wages in 1973 forever, unless I fall into some other group that makes even less like women, Hispanics, blacks, Native Americans and many others.”

I ask Vanishing American’s pardon for reusing so much of his quotes and post, but I had a double espresso this afternoon. See his post for Patrick Henry in the original and the citations to his sources and forgive this Poor Richard’s use of his words, by which I am reminded: Early to Bed and Early to Rise helps you call your Senator against this Amnesty Act and will mean one day you and your descendant’s wages will rise above men’s median wages in 1973 (graph page 18). And remember also that sage advice from Polonius, neither a borrower nor amnestier be, for amnesty doth lose both itself and votes.

NYT CBS Poll Q74: 69% Prosecute & Deport

May 28, 2007

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Info provided:

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

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

NYT CBS style Questions following this fact:

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

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

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

Black wages are still below white wages.

black white median wage graphs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After hearing about this study do you think:

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

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

Do we need more immigration to prevent this?

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

–Information for next question

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

Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

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

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

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

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

–Next Question

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

Worker Productivity Graph has gone up since 1973

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

Open Secrets wealth of senators in 2005

2006 Amnesty Bill S 2611 Roll Call at

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

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

–Information Next Question

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

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

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

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

How can we teach the census to do better work?

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

What do you think of this poll?

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

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

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

==Appendix: others commenting on this poll.

Scott Rasmussen

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

Just 26% Favor Senate Immigration Plan

Which Poll is Right on Immigration?

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

Lawrence Auster

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

65 percent of Muslims seek strict application of sharia law

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

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

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


Immigration Restrictionists Dominate Slashdot Poll

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

Steve Sailer on “pollaganda

Google News: immigration poll


Stein Report on NYT CBS poll:

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

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



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

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

immigration poll

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




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

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

By John O’Sullivan

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

= Postscript and unresolved issue:

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

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

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

=Compare Scientific Article and Poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Some final questions

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

At least retired?

DHS heads?

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

Do we have a Senate of stock portfolios?

Do we have a nation of 1973 median wage earners?


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

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

February 9, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration Substitution Effect Europe Fertility Map

February 8, 2007

Europe Fertility Map , Europe Fertility Rates in a table.

Google image search: fertility map europe, good selection.

Global Fertility Map

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

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

Amato Evan land use map Article with large maps scroll down and click on maps to enlarge. Best source for these maps.

Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE)

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

NumbersUSA Vdare Mexico invasion map of Arizona

Fax US Rep and Senators on current immigration related legislation:
Immigration has a substitution effect of substituting immigrants for births. In the US it has operated to keep men’s median wages lower than in 1973.

See p60-231.pdf graph page 18 “

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

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

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

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

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

<a href=”“> Europe fertility map</a>

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

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

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

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

Immigrants Welcomed In Sweden

%d bloggers like this: