Fertility by Race, Sex, and Educational Attainment
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
The inverse relationship between fertility and educational attainment is more pronounced among people of color than among whites and more pronounced among women than among men:
When it comes to educational attainment the inverse correlation with fertility is barely detectable among white men, while it is quite pronounced among non-white women.
If hypergamy is real, we would expect educational attainment to be more ‘detrimental’ to female than to male fecundity. High status men will pair off with women of more modest status than themselves more readily than high status women will pair off with lower status men.
GSS variables used: CHILDS, YEAR(2000-2018), RACEHISP, SEX, DEGREE, AGE(35-89)
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Do the Hispanic and Asian numbers include both US born and foreign born?
Every time you make these GSS posts the data is contradicted by up-to-date data released by respectable institutions. YEAR(2000-2018), AGE(35-89), wow, useless.
As often, folk wisdom noted this back-when.
Peasants have the most babies; they are a nation’s genetic baseline survival class. Persian elites, in the ancient world, were tasked to keep croplands untouched and the peasants safe. They knew.
When an industrial nation outsources its facilities, the dysgenic effects show up in about a generation, more or less depending on how well off they were. The USA was feeling the effects of automation when Kennedy was in, but the real stopper was the oil shock of 1973. Wages and life expectancy started to collapse, and when the big cutbacks in steel and automobile industries were added in from 1977 on, the days of America as a “middle class nation” began to fall.
By the late 80s-early 90a the white working class joined their black brethren and the pathological behavior slowly became identical. Even more interesting, the binge drinking noted by a few bloggers in England shows whites behaving in ways only blacks behaved fifty years ago. No post-industrial nation escapes unscathed.
Along with drugs, crime and the rest, it demonstrates there is a lot to genetics, but people still behave (a) how they are treated and (b) commensurate to the opportunities they have to act on.
White hit-and-run baby making is a side effect of hopelessness, like drunkenness and drug ODs. If you’re at the bottom and see no way up, what difference does it make to you?
England was a conspicuous exception to this notion, and for multiple centuries. This is a really big clue. Greg Cochran or perhaps James Thompson might have something very useful to say on this.
One can always hope.Replies: @Franz
If hypergamy were real, we would expect women to be less likely to marry the more educated they are, as the pool of suitable mates narrows with each level of educational attainment. The truth is the opposite.
Moreover, the excess fertility among less educated women is likely almost entirely the result of out-of-wedlock births. That is to say, they’re not having more children because they have an easier time finding a husband and/or are willing to settle for less. They’re having more children because they’re not making it a point to have a husband first.
https://www.deseret.com/2014/6/21/20543566/study-shows-education-influences-whether-women-have-children-outside-of-marriage
I'm not disputing the statistic, but if it is indeed the case that it's that prevalent even among college educated women, along with the extremely high divorce rate and prevalence of co-habitation and remarriage, and establishment of gay marriage, it seems to me that marriage today is basically a dead institution.
O/T:
Sorry to be a thread-jumper. I don’t often do this sort of thing, but I thought this was significant. As one of his vey first legislative proposals, Joe Biden wants to immediately offer a path to citizenship to all of America’s illegal aliens.
The full process would take a minimum of eight years to complete. This is pretty savvy on Joe Biden’s part; it obviates the objection that he is doing it merely to help his own electoral prospects. Of course, our soi-disant immigration hawk and intellectual leader, Steve Sailer, true his long-established form, is spending this critical juncture writing about movies.
Personally, I don’t really care about the proposal. While I would prefer a zero immigration policy for many reasons, I can live without it. And as far as the alt-right White Identitarian stuff goes, I can only say in the words of Samuel Goldwyn, “Gentlemen, include me out.”
The point here is simply to illustrate the fact that the White Identitarians have just lost the whole kit and caboodle on their signature issue. They lost it because Trump, being the unreliable, self-absorbed jackass that he is, didn’t do anything to either keep himself in power nor to protect the white working class. Any continued support for that idiotic hootenanny at the Capitol on Jan. 6th only confirms White Identitarians in their situation of ghostdancing loserdom.
The Alt-Right is over. It’s done. It’s time to adjust to a new reality now. Let’s close the book on the past and get started.
The Trump presidency was quite possibly the last opportunity to confront this problem.Sad but true.Replies: @Curle
I perhaps should not collaborate with a thread-highjacker, but this is an important highjacking being made by a highly respected commenter.
“Get started” leaves me hanging as to particulars. Please elaborate. Thank you.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
The Alt-Right was really just the anti-Bush project Right. The Bushes have won. Now what? Organize anti-woke unions? Take over unions?
Sorry to be a thread-jumper. I don't often do this sort of thing, but I thought this was significant. As one of his vey first legislative proposals, Joe Biden wants to immediately offer a path to citizenship to all of America's illegal aliens.
The full process would take a minimum of eight years to complete. This is pretty savvy on Joe Biden's part; it obviates the objection that he is doing it merely to help his own electoral prospects. Of course, our soi-disant immigration hawk and intellectual leader, Steve Sailer, true his long-established form, is spending this critical juncture writing about movies.
Personally, I don't really care about the proposal. While I would prefer a zero immigration policy for many reasons, I can live without it. And as far as the alt-right White Identitarian stuff goes, I can only say in the words of Samuel Goldwyn, "Gentlemen, include me out."
The point here is simply to illustrate the fact that the White Identitarians have just lost the whole kit and caboodle on their signature issue. They lost it because Trump, being the unreliable, self-absorbed jackass that he is, didn't do anything to either keep himself in power nor to protect the white working class. Any continued support for that idiotic hootenanny at the Capitol on Jan. 6th only confirms White Identitarians in their situation of ghostdancing loserdom.
The Alt-Right is over. It's done. It's time to adjust to a new reality now. Let's close the book on the past and get started.Replies: @Rosie, @neutral, @dfordoom, @Anon, @Curle
All I wanna know is this: If we’re going to go ahead and acquiesce in the destruction of White America, can we stop obsessing about birth rates? After all, we can renew our civilization with someone else’s babies.
Moreover, as I've mentioned several times, immigrants to Western countries quickly start breeding like Westerners, and their own total fertility falls below replacement. So there really is no way to increase the population. It's a no-win situation.
Now, I know Almost Missouri has made the point that, even if birthrates are collapsing everywhere, there are still enough non-white immigration-able people in the world to move to the West and radically alter Western demographics forever. This is true, but it isn't really my concern. My concern is trying to inform people that, no matter what we do, a long-term demographic and economic collapse is now inevitable and there isn't anything we can do about it. Policy should be informed accordingly.
What an absurd thing to say. Jeez!Replies: @Rosie, @Rosie
So what are your “respectable” institutions saying?
Unsurprising given Audacious Epigone's GSS samples are restricted to people age 35-to-fucking 89, and span the last two decades. Meaning some of the participants were potentially conceived before the Titanic sank.
Sorry to be a thread-jumper. I don't often do this sort of thing, but I thought this was significant. As one of his vey first legislative proposals, Joe Biden wants to immediately offer a path to citizenship to all of America's illegal aliens.
The full process would take a minimum of eight years to complete. This is pretty savvy on Joe Biden's part; it obviates the objection that he is doing it merely to help his own electoral prospects. Of course, our soi-disant immigration hawk and intellectual leader, Steve Sailer, true his long-established form, is spending this critical juncture writing about movies.
Personally, I don't really care about the proposal. While I would prefer a zero immigration policy for many reasons, I can live without it. And as far as the alt-right White Identitarian stuff goes, I can only say in the words of Samuel Goldwyn, "Gentlemen, include me out."
The point here is simply to illustrate the fact that the White Identitarians have just lost the whole kit and caboodle on their signature issue. They lost it because Trump, being the unreliable, self-absorbed jackass that he is, didn't do anything to either keep himself in power nor to protect the white working class. Any continued support for that idiotic hootenanny at the Capitol on Jan. 6th only confirms White Identitarians in their situation of ghostdancing loserdom.
The Alt-Right is over. It's done. It's time to adjust to a new reality now. Let's close the book on the past and get started.Replies: @Rosie, @neutral, @dfordoom, @Anon, @Curle
The doom of America was baked in a long time ago already (at the very least 1965, but one can go even further back than that). The destruction of that vile land (and the vile people that populate it) is something to celebrate, not lament.
Well, we can’t, actually. Birthrates are declining all over the world and are already below replacement in most places. Immigrants are disproportionately comprised of the young and excess people in the sending countries, but the younger generations in every country keep getting smaller and smaller. That means that the total “immigration-able stock” is declining, and the younger generations are much more needed at home. We are close to a point where traditional sending countries like Mexico are going to have to take measures to control their own emigration or court population inversion and economic collapse.
Moreover, as I’ve mentioned several times, immigrants to Western countries quickly start breeding like Westerners, and their own total fertility falls below replacement. So there really is no way to increase the population. It’s a no-win situation.
Now, I know Almost Missouri has made the point that, even if birthrates are collapsing everywhere, there are still enough non-white immigration-able people in the world to move to the West and radically alter Western demographics forever. This is true, but it isn’t really my concern. My concern is trying to inform people that, no matter what we do, a long-term demographic and economic collapse is now inevitable and there isn’t anything we can do about it. Policy should be informed accordingly.
The fertility rates for black, Asian, Hispanic and white Americans are completely different in legitimate sources.
Unsurprising given Audacious Epigone’s GSS samples are restricted to people age 35-to-fucking 89, and span the last two decades. Meaning some of the participants were potentially conceived before the Titanic sank.
These results surprise me. I was expecting black TFR to stand out as a low value for high educational attainment, but rather they seem to be broadly ahead on that end.
It’s only the differential – the high TFR at the low end, which creates the greater black dysgenics.
I see no mention of white female dog-moms in your analysis. Is this oversight of a significant sociological trend due to a possible addiction to doggy-wuv-wuv on your part?
Never believe a low IQ, uneducated, or poor man when he tells you how many kids he has. He likely has more.
This is the prime mistake you have made, Audacious.
Low IQ and uneducated men have just as many kids as their female counterparts. They just don’t know about the existence of these kids.
Low IQ and uneducated women know exactly how many kids they have, but they are often wrong when they try to guess the identities of the fathers.
If paternity testing was mandatory in America, you would soon see that male fertility is just as dysgenic as female fertility.
• (((Troll))): Mario Partisan
Then please provide more respectable data for this so that all of us can actually see it and judge it for ourselves.
Sorry to be a thread-jumper. I don't often do this sort of thing, but I thought this was significant. As one of his vey first legislative proposals, Joe Biden wants to immediately offer a path to citizenship to all of America's illegal aliens.
The full process would take a minimum of eight years to complete. This is pretty savvy on Joe Biden's part; it obviates the objection that he is doing it merely to help his own electoral prospects. Of course, our soi-disant immigration hawk and intellectual leader, Steve Sailer, true his long-established form, is spending this critical juncture writing about movies.
Personally, I don't really care about the proposal. While I would prefer a zero immigration policy for many reasons, I can live without it. And as far as the alt-right White Identitarian stuff goes, I can only say in the words of Samuel Goldwyn, "Gentlemen, include me out."
The point here is simply to illustrate the fact that the White Identitarians have just lost the whole kit and caboodle on their signature issue. They lost it because Trump, being the unreliable, self-absorbed jackass that he is, didn't do anything to either keep himself in power nor to protect the white working class. Any continued support for that idiotic hootenanny at the Capitol on Jan. 6th only confirms White Identitarians in their situation of ghostdancing loserdom.
The Alt-Right is over. It's done. It's time to adjust to a new reality now. Let's close the book on the past and get started.Replies: @Rosie, @neutral, @dfordoom, @Anon, @Curle
Agreed. But that’s not even the worst of Trump’s failures. A bigger failure was not taking any steps to curb the power of Big Tech. And now Big Tech is so powerful they’ve been able to cancel a sitting president.
The Trump presidency was quite possibly the last opportunity to confront this problem.
Sad but true.
Paul Ryan wot dun it.
“
There are a lot of financial incentives for lower class women to have babies. They get a big safety net and will not become destitute. The overwhelming majority of homeless people I see are middle aged white men. They are childless or have adult children and don’t qualify for any programs.
I don't know of any serious study of the homeless by race. Perhaps Epigone has some insight on that. However, anecdotally, guys on the street that I see tend to be mostly white. But that's just in my area of flyover, somewhere else it's probably different.
They are childless or have adult children and don’t qualify for any programs.
How do you know this? Why do you believe it?
A lot of guys on the corner / behind the dumpster / under the freeway are majorly into self-medication of some sort or another, because a significant percentage have some kind of mental problem. So they tweak, or they drink, or whatever, because it calms down their brain[1]. They don't let life get in the way of their chemicals. Other guys out there are dodging warrants, which is easier to do when you got no ID and no address. The self-medicators can't get it together enough to sign up for a program, the guys with no ID by choice ain't gonna talk to anyone in government, for obvious reasons.
Returning to your comment, maybe they have adult children and they don't want to be a burden; maybe their adult children don't want them around; maybe they have no children. There are a number of scenarios. I'm aware of some sad stories.
[1] The west coast tent cities from Seattle to San Diego are largely white guys. That's probably why no politicians care. But there's a disturbing arrow of causation in the tent cities - it's boring and tedious to hang out there, especially with crazies and criminals mixed in, so after a while getting high is not that big a deal. So maybe some of the homeless guys were just normal until they got laid off, and now it's the homeless experience that pushes them into self medication.Replies: @Curle, @Jay Fink, @Wency
The pathological behavior you refer to is more common by orders of magnitude among the black ‘working’ class than among its White counterpart. The White working class has been demonised and maginalised in every Western country. This goes a long way to explaining the descent towards black behaviour patterns.
As far back as the 70s in the US Americans in the upper middle class felt auto and steelworkers deserved to lose their jobs for joining commie unions. It's why foreign unionist knocked the AFL/CIO for being so anti-communist. For all the good driving out the commies did American unions, they might just have well joined the party. They got blamed for it anyway.
Only in America could a jerk like William Kristol say the white working class should die already and get it over with. But who's left to stop him?
‘we can renew our civilization with someone else’s babies.’
What an absurd thing to say. Jeez!
The overwhelming majority of homeless people I see are middle aged white men.
I don’t know of any serious study of the homeless by race. Perhaps Epigone has some insight on that. However, anecdotally, guys on the street that I see tend to be mostly white. But that’s just in my area of flyover, somewhere else it’s probably different.
They are childless or have adult children and don’t qualify for any programs.
How do you know this? Why do you believe it?
A lot of guys on the corner / behind the dumpster / under the freeway are majorly into self-medication of some sort or another, because a significant percentage have some kind of mental problem. So they tweak, or they drink, or whatever, because it calms down their brain[1]. They don’t let life get in the way of their chemicals. Other guys out there are dodging warrants, which is easier to do when you got no ID and no address. The self-medicators can’t get it together enough to sign up for a program, the guys with no ID by choice ain’t gonna talk to anyone in government, for obvious reasons.
Returning to your comment, maybe they have adult children and they don’t want to be a burden; maybe their adult children don’t want them around; maybe they have no children. There are a number of scenarios. I’m aware of some sad stories.
[1] The west coast tent cities from Seattle to San Diego are largely white guys. That’s probably why no politicians care. But there’s a disturbing arrow of causation in the tent cities – it’s boring and tedious to hang out there, especially with crazies and criminals mixed in, so after a while getting high is not that big a deal. So maybe some of the homeless guys were just normal until they got laid off, and now it’s the homeless experience that pushes them into self medication.
Cops tell me that homeless camps all have heroin addicts. All of them.
If it is true that by blowing up the Taliban we allowed the return of large scale poppy cultivation, we might need to rethink our foreign policy objectives.Replies: @anon, @Jay Fink
One-third of college educated women having children out of wedlock seems extremely high.
I’m not disputing the statistic, but if it is indeed the case that it’s that prevalent even among college educated women, along with the extremely high divorce rate and prevalence of co-habitation and remarriage, and establishment of gay marriage, it seems to me that marriage today is basically a dead institution.
Sorry to be a thread-jumper. I don't often do this sort of thing, but I thought this was significant. As one of his vey first legislative proposals, Joe Biden wants to immediately offer a path to citizenship to all of America's illegal aliens.
The full process would take a minimum of eight years to complete. This is pretty savvy on Joe Biden's part; it obviates the objection that he is doing it merely to help his own electoral prospects. Of course, our soi-disant immigration hawk and intellectual leader, Steve Sailer, true his long-established form, is spending this critical juncture writing about movies.
Personally, I don't really care about the proposal. While I would prefer a zero immigration policy for many reasons, I can live without it. And as far as the alt-right White Identitarian stuff goes, I can only say in the words of Samuel Goldwyn, "Gentlemen, include me out."
The point here is simply to illustrate the fact that the White Identitarians have just lost the whole kit and caboodle on their signature issue. They lost it because Trump, being the unreliable, self-absorbed jackass that he is, didn't do anything to either keep himself in power nor to protect the white working class. Any continued support for that idiotic hootenanny at the Capitol on Jan. 6th only confirms White Identitarians in their situation of ghostdancing loserdom.
The Alt-Right is over. It's done. It's time to adjust to a new reality now. Let's close the book on the past and get started.Replies: @Rosie, @neutral, @dfordoom, @Anon, @Curle
“Let’s close the book on the past and get started.”
I perhaps should not collaborate with a thread-highjacker, but this is an important highjacking being made by a highly respected commenter.
“Get started” leaves me hanging as to particulars. Please elaborate. Thank you.
-In economics, redesigning future economic practices for an age of continuing scarcity, de-financialization and de-branding, learning to view the study and practice of economics as a subset of physics.
-In science, realizing that the end of Western scientism is nigh and outlining a program for salvaging the material gains of Western practical science through poeticization and re-traditionalizing.
-In philosophy, embracing the essential correctness of hylomorphism and bringing it to a renewed understanding in a modern idiom.
-In religion, learning how to identify, practice, and promulgate true Apostolic Christianity after the collapse of Western "Christendom".
These are the kind of things I am the most passionate about, so I tend to talk about them no matter what the ostensible topic is. I recognize that this is not my blog or my website, so I have to defer to our hosts, but I do wish there were more of this sort of thing.Replies: @Peter Johnson, @Occasional lurker
Peasants have the most babies; they are a nation’s genetic baseline survival class.
England was a conspicuous exception to this notion, and for multiple centuries. This is a really big clue. Greg Cochran or perhaps James Thompson might have something very useful to say on this.
One can always hope.
Tales of Yorkshire Folk -- Simon Sheppard relates some astonishing events and contemplates the future
http://www.heretical.com/sgs-2014/tales.htmlAfter seeing that, the whole argument about "enrichers" gurgles right down the pipe.
Can’t say I’m sorry about that. Us working stiffs have to leave something for the scholars. 🙂
I perhaps should not collaborate with a thread-highjacker, but this is an important highjacking being made by a highly respected commenter.
“Get started” leaves me hanging as to particulars. Please elaborate. Thank you.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
Well, to be brief, I don’t think that “HBD” has much of a future as a concept, and I don’t think that “saving Western civilization” is doable or even desirable, since Western civilization is itself the problem. But there are several rootstock topics that we could discuss which would bear fruit in the years and decades to come. For example:
-In economics, redesigning future economic practices for an age of continuing scarcity, de-financialization and de-branding, learning to view the study and practice of economics as a subset of physics.
-In science, realizing that the end of Western scientism is nigh and outlining a program for salvaging the material gains of Western practical science through poeticization and re-traditionalizing.
-In philosophy, embracing the essential correctness of hylomorphism and bringing it to a renewed understanding in a modern idiom.
-In religion, learning how to identify, practice, and promulgate true Apostolic Christianity after the collapse of Western “Christendom”.
These are the kind of things I am the most passionate about, so I tend to talk about them no matter what the ostensible topic is. I recognize that this is not my blog or my website, so I have to defer to our hosts, but I do wish there were more of this sort of thing.
I doubt whether 'poeticization and re-traditionalizing' would work In any case, it's not necessary. Practical science is alive and well, and will survive in Asia even it it falls in the west.
What an absurd thing to say. Jeez!Replies: @Rosie, @Rosie
I was being ironic, Savant. I’m a fan of yours.
What an absurd thing to say. Jeez!Replies: @Rosie, @Rosie
BTW, Savant, I’ve heard Richard Spencer has turned coat. Is this true AFAYK?
True, that.
As far back as the 70s in the US Americans in the upper middle class felt auto and steelworkers deserved to lose their jobs for joining commie unions. It’s why foreign unionist knocked the AFL/CIO for being so anti-communist. For all the good driving out the commies did American unions, they might just have well joined the party. They got blamed for it anyway.
Only in America could a jerk like William Kristol say the white working class should die already and get it over with. But who’s left to stop him?
England was a conspicuous exception to this notion, and for multiple centuries. This is a really big clue. Greg Cochran or perhaps James Thompson might have something very useful to say on this.
One can always hope.Replies: @Franz
I hope they do. Simon Sheppard (a heretic, I know) made a startling point about population not so long ago that caught my eye and has made me curious. What happens when populations grow so large they stifle everything, not just sex roles and politics:
Tales of Yorkshire Folk — Simon Sheppard relates some astonishing events and contemplates the future
http://www.heretical.com/sgs-2014/tales.html
After seeing that, the whole argument about “enrichers” gurgles right down the pipe.
The Trump presidency was quite possibly the last opportunity to confront this problem.Sad but true.Replies: @Curle
“They lost it because Trump, being the unreliable, self-absorbed jackass that he is, didn’t do anything to either keep himself in power nor to protect the white working class.”
Paul Ryan wot dun it.
“
Sorry to be a thread-jumper. I don't often do this sort of thing, but I thought this was significant. As one of his vey first legislative proposals, Joe Biden wants to immediately offer a path to citizenship to all of America's illegal aliens.
The full process would take a minimum of eight years to complete. This is pretty savvy on Joe Biden's part; it obviates the objection that he is doing it merely to help his own electoral prospects. Of course, our soi-disant immigration hawk and intellectual leader, Steve Sailer, true his long-established form, is spending this critical juncture writing about movies.
Personally, I don't really care about the proposal. While I would prefer a zero immigration policy for many reasons, I can live without it. And as far as the alt-right White Identitarian stuff goes, I can only say in the words of Samuel Goldwyn, "Gentlemen, include me out."
The point here is simply to illustrate the fact that the White Identitarians have just lost the whole kit and caboodle on their signature issue. They lost it because Trump, being the unreliable, self-absorbed jackass that he is, didn't do anything to either keep himself in power nor to protect the white working class. Any continued support for that idiotic hootenanny at the Capitol on Jan. 6th only confirms White Identitarians in their situation of ghostdancing loserdom.
The Alt-Right is over. It's done. It's time to adjust to a new reality now. Let's close the book on the past and get started.Replies: @Rosie, @neutral, @dfordoom, @Anon, @Curle
“ The Alt-Right is over. It’s done. It’s time to adjust to a new reality now. Let’s close the book on the past and get started.”
The Alt-Right was really just the anti-Bush project Right. The Bushes have won. Now what? Organize anti-woke unions? Take over unions?
I don't know of any serious study of the homeless by race. Perhaps Epigone has some insight on that. However, anecdotally, guys on the street that I see tend to be mostly white. But that's just in my area of flyover, somewhere else it's probably different.
They are childless or have adult children and don’t qualify for any programs.
How do you know this? Why do you believe it?
A lot of guys on the corner / behind the dumpster / under the freeway are majorly into self-medication of some sort or another, because a significant percentage have some kind of mental problem. So they tweak, or they drink, or whatever, because it calms down their brain[1]. They don't let life get in the way of their chemicals. Other guys out there are dodging warrants, which is easier to do when you got no ID and no address. The self-medicators can't get it together enough to sign up for a program, the guys with no ID by choice ain't gonna talk to anyone in government, for obvious reasons.
Returning to your comment, maybe they have adult children and they don't want to be a burden; maybe their adult children don't want them around; maybe they have no children. There are a number of scenarios. I'm aware of some sad stories.
[1] The west coast tent cities from Seattle to San Diego are largely white guys. That's probably why no politicians care. But there's a disturbing arrow of causation in the tent cities - it's boring and tedious to hang out there, especially with crazies and criminals mixed in, so after a while getting high is not that big a deal. So maybe some of the homeless guys were just normal until they got laid off, and now it's the homeless experience that pushes them into self medication.Replies: @Curle, @Jay Fink, @Wency
The race of the homeless I see tends to reflect the immediate population. I’ve seen plenty of black sidewalk campers in areas with a significant black population. None in white areas.
Cops tell me that homeless camps all have heroin addicts. All of them.
If it is true that by blowing up the Taliban we allowed the return of large scale poppy cultivation, we might need to rethink our foreign policy objectives.
Cops tell me that homeless camps all have heroin addicts. All of them.
If it is true that by blowing up the Taliban we allowed the return of large scale poppy cultivation, we might need to rethink our foreign policy objectives.Replies: @anon, @Jay Fink
The race of the homeless I see tends to reflect the immediate population. I’ve seen plenty of black sidewalk campers in areas with a significant black population. None in white areas.
This is reasonable, however there are locations that tend to draw them, such as the west coast. From Seattle to San Diego, there are tent camps. Nobody seems to be really interested in doing much about them, as long as they are out of sight – or at least out of sight of Malibu.
Cops tell me that homeless camps all have heroin addicts. All of them.
All the camps have guys shooting up, but not all the guys are on smack. There are also tweakers. The pot heads tend to be more mellow. The point is some of them were already not interested in letting life get in the way of their chemicals, but others were clean until they spent one day too long in a homeless tent zone.
If it is true that by blowing up the Taliban we allowed the return of large scale poppy cultivation, we might need to rethink our foreign policy objectives.
Dude, Mexico is a whole lot closer than any ‘Stan and poppies grow there just fine.
I would love to see the implied time series dynamics of the average IQ for each racial group based on these dysgenic patterns. Estimate the average IQ in each category, calibrate a “generation interval” of maybe 25 years for Black Americans, maybe 30 for white Americans, something reasonable for Hispanics, and then do some dynamic calculations assuming IQ is 100% heritable. It would be interesting to see.
What sort of resources would you need to do that? Could you draw up a list of needed things?Replies: @Peter Johnson
Don’t like graphs? Watch the first five minutes of “Idiocracy”.
Well at least we get plenty of “aspiring rappers” out of the deal
Cops tell me that homeless camps all have heroin addicts. All of them.
If it is true that by blowing up the Taliban we allowed the return of large scale poppy cultivation, we might need to rethink our foreign policy objectives.Replies: @anon, @Jay Fink
Not here in Yakima. It is 50% Hispanic but the homeless, at least the visible homeless, are at least 90% white.
I don't know of any serious study of the homeless by race. Perhaps Epigone has some insight on that. However, anecdotally, guys on the street that I see tend to be mostly white. But that's just in my area of flyover, somewhere else it's probably different.
They are childless or have adult children and don’t qualify for any programs.
How do you know this? Why do you believe it?
A lot of guys on the corner / behind the dumpster / under the freeway are majorly into self-medication of some sort or another, because a significant percentage have some kind of mental problem. So they tweak, or they drink, or whatever, because it calms down their brain[1]. They don't let life get in the way of their chemicals. Other guys out there are dodging warrants, which is easier to do when you got no ID and no address. The self-medicators can't get it together enough to sign up for a program, the guys with no ID by choice ain't gonna talk to anyone in government, for obvious reasons.
Returning to your comment, maybe they have adult children and they don't want to be a burden; maybe their adult children don't want them around; maybe they have no children. There are a number of scenarios. I'm aware of some sad stories.
[1] The west coast tent cities from Seattle to San Diego are largely white guys. That's probably why no politicians care. But there's a disturbing arrow of causation in the tent cities - it's boring and tedious to hang out there, especially with crazies and criminals mixed in, so after a while getting high is not that big a deal. So maybe some of the homeless guys were just normal until they got laid off, and now it's the homeless experience that pushes them into self medication.Replies: @Curle, @Jay Fink, @Wency
If someone has custody of children they do not have to be homeless. The government will provide for their basic needs. An addict with children could stay home collecting various benefits while using drugs unless child protective services removes the children from the house. There are no drug tests for welfare and liberals are very insistent on keeping it that way.
It would be interesting to see if there are still homeless if we had Universal Basic Income. If so it would be a lifestyle choice not related to economics.
That's pretty much a non sequitur.
It would be interesting to see if there are still homeless if we had Universal Basic Income.
There would be.
If so it would be a lifestyle choice not related to economics.
That's also pretty much a non sequitur.
Addicted -- 30%
Tramps (ie people who prefer the vagrant lifestyle) -- 20%
Out-of-luck -- 10%UBI would definitely put the O back indoors. Probably some of the As as well. Not sure it would do much for the Cs and Ts though.Replies: @dfordoom
I would love to see the implied time series dynamics of the average IQ for each racial group based on these dysgenic patterns.
What sort of resources would you need to do that? Could you draw up a list of needed things?
If someone has custody of children they do not have to be homeless.
That’s pretty much a non sequitur.
It would be interesting to see if there are still homeless if we had Universal Basic Income.
There would be.
If so it would be a lifestyle choice not related to economics.
That’s also pretty much a non sequitur.
Also lots of expiring rappers.
This is the prime mistake you have made, Audacious.
Low IQ and uneducated men have just as many kids as their female counterparts. They just don't know about the existence of these kids.
Low IQ and uneducated women know exactly how many kids they have, but they are often wrong when they try to guess the identities of the fathers.
If paternity testing was mandatory in America, you would soon see that male fertility is just as dysgenic as female fertility.Replies: @Peter Johnson, @Wency
That is an interesting point, which I missed, so thanks.
-In economics, redesigning future economic practices for an age of continuing scarcity, de-financialization and de-branding, learning to view the study and practice of economics as a subset of physics.
-In science, realizing that the end of Western scientism is nigh and outlining a program for salvaging the material gains of Western practical science through poeticization and re-traditionalizing.
-In philosophy, embracing the essential correctness of hylomorphism and bringing it to a renewed understanding in a modern idiom.
-In religion, learning how to identify, practice, and promulgate true Apostolic Christianity after the collapse of Western "Christendom".
These are the kind of things I am the most passionate about, so I tend to talk about them no matter what the ostensible topic is. I recognize that this is not my blog or my website, so I have to defer to our hosts, but I do wish there were more of this sort of thing.Replies: @Peter Johnson, @Occasional lurker
Economists already attempted “learning to view the study and practice of economics as a subset of physics” and it was an utter failure. The economic analysis produced by “econo-physics” was and is absolutely worthless cr*p. Bad idea, which already failed. No need to try it again.
What I mean is that the proper units of economic analysis are energy inputs and the low entropy stored in foodstuffs and finished goods. This ought to be common sense.
What sort of resources would you need to do that? Could you draw up a list of needed things?Replies: @Peter Johnson
I do not have the technical expertise to answer that question. I can see that the task requires data on the proportions of the population in each category, a good description of the random inter-category mating matrix, assumptions about ages of both parents at child’s birth date. Much of the detail of the model could be stylized without loss of fidelity. There are plenty of demographers who could do this easily, but few or none of them would dare to do it publicly. Once the Markov chain is set up, forecasting with it is computationally trivial. Setting it up properly is beyond me.
This is the prime mistake you have made, Audacious.
Low IQ and uneducated men have just as many kids as their female counterparts. They just don't know about the existence of these kids.
Low IQ and uneducated women know exactly how many kids they have, but they are often wrong when they try to guess the identities of the fathers.
If paternity testing was mandatory in America, you would soon see that male fertility is just as dysgenic as female fertility.Replies: @Peter Johnson, @Wency
This is true. In fact, it has to be just glancing at the numbers — there aren’t enough post-grads to explain women having more kids than men in every other group.
I don’t believe this is entirely true though. In the large families (3+ children) I know, IQ/education-related hypergamy is often a very strong force. The man — successful enough that money is no issue in building a large family, wife can stay at home without worries. The wife — few career aspirations, mainly wants to be a wife and mother. Usually the man is the higher IQ in such a setup.
I don't know of any serious study of the homeless by race. Perhaps Epigone has some insight on that. However, anecdotally, guys on the street that I see tend to be mostly white. But that's just in my area of flyover, somewhere else it's probably different.
They are childless or have adult children and don’t qualify for any programs.
How do you know this? Why do you believe it?
A lot of guys on the corner / behind the dumpster / under the freeway are majorly into self-medication of some sort or another, because a significant percentage have some kind of mental problem. So they tweak, or they drink, or whatever, because it calms down their brain[1]. They don't let life get in the way of their chemicals. Other guys out there are dodging warrants, which is easier to do when you got no ID and no address. The self-medicators can't get it together enough to sign up for a program, the guys with no ID by choice ain't gonna talk to anyone in government, for obvious reasons.
Returning to your comment, maybe they have adult children and they don't want to be a burden; maybe their adult children don't want them around; maybe they have no children. There are a number of scenarios. I'm aware of some sad stories.
[1] The west coast tent cities from Seattle to San Diego are largely white guys. That's probably why no politicians care. But there's a disturbing arrow of causation in the tent cities - it's boring and tedious to hang out there, especially with crazies and criminals mixed in, so after a while getting high is not that big a deal. So maybe some of the homeless guys were just normal until they got laid off, and now it's the homeless experience that pushes them into self medication.Replies: @Curle, @Jay Fink, @Wency
Every place I’ve lived here in the South, the homeless population definitely skews very black. Though also the cities in which the homeless dwell are much blacker than the surrounding suburbs/countryside, and within those cities you often have a very sharp racial economic divide between gentrifying white yuppies and a legacy black population that’s divided between a middle class and a ghetto class.
Maybe it’s my own biases, but I feel like living in a big city as a white person is mostly a conscious choice in the US, aside from legacy white populations in a few regions. You don’t “fail down” to living in the city. You dream of living in the big city as a young person, you fulfill that dream, and as soon as you get sick of it or you can’t afford it, you live someplace cheaper and easier. But things can be different for other groups that have larger poor/working-class presences in the cities.
Makes perfect sense, unfortunately.
Every place I’ve lived here in the South, the homeless population definitely skews very black.
Makes perfect sense, unfortunately.
-In economics, redesigning future economic practices for an age of continuing scarcity, de-financialization and de-branding, learning to view the study and practice of economics as a subset of physics.
-In science, realizing that the end of Western scientism is nigh and outlining a program for salvaging the material gains of Western practical science through poeticization and re-traditionalizing.
-In philosophy, embracing the essential correctness of hylomorphism and bringing it to a renewed understanding in a modern idiom.
-In religion, learning how to identify, practice, and promulgate true Apostolic Christianity after the collapse of Western "Christendom".
These are the kind of things I am the most passionate about, so I tend to talk about them no matter what the ostensible topic is. I recognize that this is not my blog or my website, so I have to defer to our hosts, but I do wish there were more of this sort of thing.Replies: @Peter Johnson, @Occasional lurker
I doubt whether ‘poeticization and re-traditionalizing’ would work In any case, it’s not necessary. Practical science is alive and well, and will survive in Asia even it it falls in the west.
Econophysics is absolutely not at all what I am referring to. I said economics should be seen as a subset of physics, not an analogue of physics.
What I mean is that the proper units of economic analysis are energy inputs and the low entropy stored in foodstuffs and finished goods. This ought to be common sense.
Audacious,
Something that might be a good idea would be to figure out where the fertility gaps are actually reversed, something that I think you have the data-parsing skills to find.
One thing I would note is that I would hope that in a free market society, the upper half of the distribution would tend to have more economic incentive to have more children than the lower half, given that income inequality can give much more returns to parents of smarter kids versus parents of duller kids. One might wonder if Social Security and other related policies, which guarantees that elderly get the basic income they need, has counteracted this otherwise powerful economic incentive.
OTOH, if someone is low income and is likely to stay there, there really is no downside to being a parent. It is not like they are going to do really good in the future anyways, so might as well have a child and hope those kids can do better than the parent. For a rich person, this may be the opposite, since you can maximize your life returns by simply having less children and working. Anyways, regression to the mean makes this equation more dangerous, since you now have to worry about your child potentially being downwardly mobile, which makes parenting even harder than for a low income person. I think this dynamic is the real reason why fertility is skewed against the educated/wealthy and toward the poor.
Anyways, Medicaid pays over 500 billion a year, all exclusively geared toward low income families. Honestly shocking that these trends aren’t even more exacerbated.
Yes.
Audacious,
I wonder what you think is the main factor for why educated people tend to have less children than the educated?
One thing that I have always been confused about is that usually in a free-market, equilibrium system, ineffective outcomes like this would be strongly discouraged. After all, in our economic system, businesses/strategies/products that tend to have inferior quality tend to fall in number, while things that promote an increasing quality tend to rise in number. Yet, the opposite seems to be happening with labor not just in America, but in the rest of the developed world.
A potential explanation is that this is due to government subsidizes, but may not be a sufficient explanation. One thing that you could do/have the skill for is look at fertility by race/education before the introduction of big time gov programs in the 1930s, and see if then the rates were different. It may be difficult to check by education since detailed statistics weren’t common then, but race could serve as a useful parameter, with Whites typically having higher education rates than minorities.
I think it's pretty obvious that the educated have a lot more choices in life. For them having children is just one of many available options. Wealthy people also have more choices in life. And wealth and education correlate fairly strongly.
It doesn't really apply to the super-rich since they can afford to pay other people to raise their children for them.
Back in the 19th century wealthy educated people could have lots of children because you didn't need to be super-rich in order to be able to pay other people to raise your children.
Given multiple life choices most people who aren't quite rich enough to be able to pay other people to raise their children will naturally have either one child or none, because child-rearing is not a very attractive lifestyle choice. Which would people prefer, changing dirty diapers on the one hand or swanning around in a sports car and having holidays in luxury resorts on the other hand?
Another factor is obviously that educated women only fall pregnant when they actually want a child.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
I wonder what you think is the main factor for why educated people tend to have less children than the educated?
One thing that I have always been confused about is that usually in a free-market, equilibrium system, ineffective outcomes like this would be strongly discouraged. After all, in our economic system, businesses/strategies/products that tend to have inferior quality tend to fall in number, while things that promote an increasing quality tend to rise in number. Yet, the opposite seems to be happening with labor not just in America, but in the rest of the developed world.
A potential explanation is that this is due to government subsidizes, but may not be a sufficient explanation. One thing that you could do/have the skill for is look at fertility by race/education before the introduction of big time gov programs in the 1930s, and see if then the rates were different. It may be difficult to check by education since detailed statistics weren't common then, but race could serve as a useful parameter, with Whites typically having higher education rates than minorities.Replies: @dfordoom
That’s the theory.
I presume you mean the final word to be “uneducated”?
I think it’s pretty obvious that the educated have a lot more choices in life. For them having children is just one of many available options. Wealthy people also have more choices in life. And wealth and education correlate fairly strongly.
It doesn’t really apply to the super-rich since they can afford to pay other people to raise their children for them.
Back in the 19th century wealthy educated people could have lots of children because you didn’t need to be super-rich in order to be able to pay other people to raise your children.
Given multiple life choices most people who aren’t quite rich enough to be able to pay other people to raise their children will naturally have either one child or none, because child-rearing is not a very attractive lifestyle choice. Which would people prefer, changing dirty diapers on the one hand or swanning around in a sports car and having holidays in luxury resorts on the other hand?
Another factor is obviously that educated women only fall pregnant when they actually want a child.
The former! But I know that's a minority opinion and your point is well taken.
Good points
Thanks for correcting my typo there.
My point that I have hoping to make was that there should be tremendous incentive for educated women to have children, especially since the payoffs have never been more unequal in human history. That would push educated women to otherwise have more children, since the payoffs would be bigger.
My favorite crackpot theory is that the mandatory 12 years in school depresses fertility of the educated, since it essentially forces their children to slow walk through a fixed school lifespan, with the added cost of having to pay large sums of money to get into a good high school district.
An example would be paying taxes. Most people are not very keen on paying taxes. If you try to use incentives to persuade people to pay their taxes it won't work. If you want people to pay their taxes you threaten them with all sorts of unpleasantness if they fail to comply.
Devoting their lives to child-rearing seems to be something that educated women are not all that keen on doing. Incentives will only work for those educated women who already like the idea of child-rearing and would probably have had kids anyway. They won't work for those educated women who aren't interested.
On the other hand if you tell educated women that if they have children someone else will pay all the expenses and do all the work that might have some effect on the ones who are kind of neutral on the idea of kids. It's a bit like persuading people that paying taxes is not so bad by telling them that someone else will pay their taxes for them.
Is it the actual child-bearing that puts educated women off? Is it the dirty diapers? Do they think that having a child will mean the end of their sex lives? Are they worried that motherhood will make them less sexually attractive? Is it the expense? Is it the responsibility? Do they think they're saving the world by not having kids? Is it a class marker thing - do they think large families are a lower-class thing? Are they really influenced by media propaganda?
There's a widespread belief that it's all about money so if you offer financial incentives these women will suddenly start having lots of kids. Maybe there's something to that but I'm very sceptical.
A popular theory among right-wingers is that it's evil Jewish communist propaganda in the media but there is zero evidence for that theory.
Another popular far right theory is that the presence of large numbers of immigrants makes white people want fewer children. Again there's zero evidence for the theory.
Maybe we should just ask educated women why they prefer to have just one child or no children? Is there any survey data on this question?Replies: @Audacious Epigone
This gives me an idea, thanks.
Thanks for correcting my typo there.
My point that I have hoping to make was that there should be tremendous incentive for educated women to have children, especially since the payoffs have never been more unequal in human history. That would push educated women to otherwise have more children, since the payoffs would be bigger.
My favorite crackpot theory is that the mandatory 12 years in school depresses fertility of the educated, since it essentially forces their children to slow walk through a fixed school lifespan, with the added cost of having to pay large sums of money to get into a good high school district.Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom
Incentives work best if they’re incentives to do things that you’d like to do anyway, or that you’re OK with doing even if you’re not wildly enthusiastic. They don’t work very well when they’re incentives to do things you have no interest in doing or that you really don’t want to do.
An example would be paying taxes. Most people are not very keen on paying taxes. If you try to use incentives to persuade people to pay their taxes it won’t work. If you want people to pay their taxes you threaten them with all sorts of unpleasantness if they fail to comply.
Devoting their lives to child-rearing seems to be something that educated women are not all that keen on doing. Incentives will only work for those educated women who already like the idea of child-rearing and would probably have had kids anyway. They won’t work for those educated women who aren’t interested.
On the other hand if you tell educated women that if they have children someone else will pay all the expenses and do all the work that might have some effect on the ones who are kind of neutral on the idea of kids. It’s a bit like persuading people that paying taxes is not so bad by telling them that someone else will pay their taxes for them.
Thanks for correcting my typo there.
My point that I have hoping to make was that there should be tremendous incentive for educated women to have children, especially since the payoffs have never been more unequal in human history. That would push educated women to otherwise have more children, since the payoffs would be bigger.
My favorite crackpot theory is that the mandatory 12 years in school depresses fertility of the educated, since it essentially forces their children to slow walk through a fixed school lifespan, with the added cost of having to pay large sums of money to get into a good high school district.Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom
The truth is that we don’t really know why educated women are unenthusiastic about having children. Everybody has a theory and most the theories are a mixture of prejudice, paranoia and guesswork. It would be helpful to have a better understanding of the actual nature of the problem.
Is it the actual child-bearing that puts educated women off? Is it the dirty diapers? Do they think that having a child will mean the end of their sex lives? Are they worried that motherhood will make them less sexually attractive? Is it the expense? Is it the responsibility? Do they think they’re saving the world by not having kids? Is it a class marker thing – do they think large families are a lower-class thing? Are they really influenced by media propaganda?
There’s a widespread belief that it’s all about money so if you offer financial incentives these women will suddenly start having lots of kids. Maybe there’s something to that but I’m very sceptical.
A popular theory among right-wingers is that it’s evil Jewish communist propaganda in the media but there is zero evidence for that theory.
Another popular far right theory is that the presence of large numbers of immigrants makes white people want fewer children. Again there’s zero evidence for the theory.
Maybe we should just ask educated women why they prefer to have just one child or no children? Is there any survey data on this question?
The Derb has talked about “CATO” as a mnemonic for the homeless distribution:
Crazy — 40%
Addicted — 30%
Tramps (ie people who prefer the vagrant lifestyle) — 20%
Out-of-luck — 10%
UBI would definitely put the O back indoors. Probably some of the As as well. Not sure it would do much for the Cs and Ts though.
Addicted -- 30%
Tramps (ie people who prefer the vagrant lifestyle) -- 20%
Out-of-luck -- 10%UBI would definitely put the O back indoors. Probably some of the As as well. Not sure it would do much for the Cs and Ts though.Replies: @dfordoom
This should apply to all western countries. Certainly all western countries should their share of the Crazy and the Addicted and Tramps. Do other western countries have a homeless problem on the same scale as the US?
I think it's pretty obvious that the educated have a lot more choices in life. For them having children is just one of many available options. Wealthy people also have more choices in life. And wealth and education correlate fairly strongly.
It doesn't really apply to the super-rich since they can afford to pay other people to raise their children for them.
Back in the 19th century wealthy educated people could have lots of children because you didn't need to be super-rich in order to be able to pay other people to raise your children.
Given multiple life choices most people who aren't quite rich enough to be able to pay other people to raise their children will naturally have either one child or none, because child-rearing is not a very attractive lifestyle choice. Which would people prefer, changing dirty diapers on the one hand or swanning around in a sports car and having holidays in luxury resorts on the other hand?
Another factor is obviously that educated women only fall pregnant when they actually want a child.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Which would people prefer, changing dirty diapers on the one hand or swanning around in a sports car and having holidays in luxury resorts on the other hand?
The former! But I know that’s a minority opinion and your point is well taken.
Is it the actual child-bearing that puts educated women off? Is it the dirty diapers? Do they think that having a child will mean the end of their sex lives? Are they worried that motherhood will make them less sexually attractive? Is it the expense? Is it the responsibility? Do they think they're saving the world by not having kids? Is it a class marker thing - do they think large families are a lower-class thing? Are they really influenced by media propaganda?
There's a widespread belief that it's all about money so if you offer financial incentives these women will suddenly start having lots of kids. Maybe there's something to that but I'm very sceptical.
A popular theory among right-wingers is that it's evil Jewish communist propaganda in the media but there is zero evidence for that theory.
Another popular far right theory is that the presence of large numbers of immigrants makes white people want fewer children. Again there's zero evidence for the theory.
Maybe we should just ask educated women why they prefer to have just one child or no children? Is there any survey data on this question?Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Not that I’m aware of, but it’s an interesting question. Maybe too interesting a question for it allowed to be asked.