In 45 years, there will be more than 200 million U.S. Hispanics

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

I do not advocate illegal immigration, but rather a revision of existing structures regarding legal immigration, such as a guest worker program. Please go back and note in my post that I was pointing out the need to expand the tax base in order to pay for ballooning entitlement programs. Clearly illegal immigration does no such thing, since illegal workers are paid under the table. Since our current tax structure taxes income and investment instead of consumption, illegal workers do not contribute to tax revenues, while their use of services such as emergency health care may mean they cost a net loss to public finances (this is an educated guess on my part; I openly admit I do not know of any in-depth analysis either proving or rebutting this hypothesis). I would like to see our country structure immigration laws to allow more skilled and college-educated people come here legally, as well as allowing unskilled labor to reside here at least temporarily in areas where there are labor shortages.

Good points here again, riggo-toni. For what it's worth, the City Journal article also addressed legal immigration in California. This is a typical passage:

Along with the cheap labor that the tax-conscious Right wanted, it got thousands of unassimilated others, who eventually flooded into the state’s near-bankrupt entitlement industry and filled its newly built prisons: California is $12 billion in the red this year and nearly one-quarter of its inmates are aliens from Mexico (while nearly a third of all drug-trafficking arrests involve illegal aliens). The pro-labor Left found that the industrious new arrivals whom it championed eroded the wages of its own domestic low-wage constituencies—the Labor Department attributes 50 percent of real wage declines to the influx of cheap immigrant labor. And while the Democrats think the illegals will eventually turn into liberal voters, the actual Hispanic vote so far remains just a small fraction of the eligible Mexican-American pool: of the 14,173 residents of the central California town of Hanford who identified themselves as Latino (34 percent of the town’s population), for example, only 770 are registered to vote.

I agree with your points about the need to promote the immigration of skilled and college-educated labor. There is a lot of anecdotal absurdity going on, where skilled labor is being prevented from immigrating (or being forced to leave upon expiration of visas), while U.S. companies export skilled labor processes to other countries (sending capital out of the country), while a large share of actual immigration is of unskilled, non-English-speaking people who refuse to assimilate after arrival.

Regarding the export of skilled labor processes, everyone is familiar with the usual Nike sweatshop stories, but the phenomenon is also happening in white-collar areas. Programming is being exported to India and Israel; data entry to Ireland; skilled product design as well as manufacturing to east Asia. The reason is because U.S. companies can't find enough affordable skilled labor. Meanwhile, for example, skilled Irish and Indians are being forced to return home when their visas expire. (I'm not championing the Irish or Indians per se, just noting the phenomenon of skilled labor being turned away. It is apparent that there is little discrimination in the positive sense being applied in decisions about who is allowed to immigrate. As a practical matter, the growth of illegal immigration means that we are, in practice, promoting the immigration of outlaws, while the growth of bilingual education is creating a permanent underclass of labor unsuited to high-skill jobs.)

Skilled labor is far more important now, in an information-driven economy, than it was at the turn of the century. The Federation for American Immigration Reform reports:

Today We Need Skilled Workers

In the economy of the Gilded Age (rapid industrial expansion), low-skilled workers were highly employable. New mechanical devices and processes were being introduced that did away with the need for workers with special industrial skills and know-how. As the U.S. Industrial Commission pointed out: “The fact that machinery and the division of labor opens a place for the unskilled immigrants makes it possible not only to get the advantages of machinery, but also to get the advantages of cheap labor.” However, modern technology requires skilled workers, not unskilled ones. Yet, in 2001, only 16 percent of legal immigrants were admitted as skilled workers.

Today’s Immigrants are Permanent and Create Net Costs

Today, the estimated annual net cost of each immigrant, on average, is $2700. [before 1900], immigrants’ stay in the U.S. was often temporary; today’s immigrants are here to stay. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that the rate of return from 1900 to 1904 was over 37 percent; in the 1990s, the rate of immigrants’ return to their homelands was a much lower 15 percent.

[Darth Tater]

The immigrants from Ireland were poor, liked to fight, were lazy and worse...they were catholic! Oh, they spoke a corrupted form of English.

The immigrants from eastern Europe were disproportionatly poor and had bad langage skills. They aren't disproportinatly poor and have at least average language skills now.

ASF,

This type of statistical evidence would support a STRONGER America in the future as long as the current America doesn't patronize them with things like multi-lingual education. Most immigrants are willing to do the jobs we won't, accept conditions we won't and believe that hard work brings achievment of the American Dream. For this, and their cultural differences, we hate them?

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

I previously declined to contradict this statement, believing the Cuban/Miami experience to be less relevant than the overall Hispanic experience. But I happened to see a footnote citing the 1990 census:

http://www.fairus.org/html/04163810.htm

So it looks like you're wrong even in the small sample you're using as an argument.

You're quoting me a statistic that was compiled 13 years ago? I'd be flabbergasted except for the fact that this is par for a racist.

I'm a bigot, bigoted against racists. You know what the problem with racists are? Most don't even recognize they're racist, making them simply ignorant.

According to a more recent population census (2000), there are 2,253,362 people living in Miami, of which 57.4% are Hispanic. So applying your outdated statistics you would have us believe that only 7.4% of the Hispanic popluation speaks English fluently?

Frankly, you appear to be nothing more than an idiot. If you'd done your research you'd find that in Miami, of those people who speak a primary language other than English, 59% speak at least some English while almost 30% of the total speak English "very well". A far cry from your 1990 statistic that states that half the people in Miami don't speak English very well or not at all.

Statistics aside, because they merely appear to be a way for you to justify your racism, it's your assertion that as a country we are doomed that speaks volumes about you as a person.

Let's not assume for one minute that because people are in a lower income bracket it is reflective of their ambition or their work ethic. I'd dare say that there are quite a few minorities who are near or at the poverty level that work far harder than you do. Hispanic immigrants coming into this country are generally not afforded the same educational opportunities in their homelands that we enjoy in the U.S. Thus they are relegated, at least initially, and sometimes permanently, to menial employment. That is, jobs which are typically low-paying and jobs that directly contribute to maintaining your lifestyle ASF. Think about it, if people refused to work the jobs that are typically low-paying, then the costs of filling those jobs would rise, and your standard of living would fall.

Rather than bemoan the "fall of U.S. supremecy" and losing our "national identity" because of the increasing Hispanic population, you should be thankful for their hard work and willingness to perform jobs that you yourself would not do because it would mean lowering your standard of living.

For the most part I've ignored you ASF, or simply thought your diatribes to be mildly amusing. After reading your Archie Bunker rhetoric I'm not sure I can view anything you write from this point forward with an ounce of respect.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by OPM

This type of statistical evidence would support a STRONGER America in the future as long as the current America doesn't patronize them with things like multi-lingual education. Most immigrants are willing to do the jobs we won't, accept conditions we won't and believe that hard work brings achievment of the American Dream. For this, and their cultural differences, we hate them?

Apparently my point of view here isn't clear. I don't hate Hispanics, and I've never raised "cultural differences" as an issue.

As for taking jobs we won't accept, I agree readily that this is an explanation for the existing immigration and bilingual education policies. It's just not very smart for the longterm national future. Agricultural giants may benefit from cheap unskilled labor, and dual-income parents may benefit from cheap nannies, but that doesn't make the mass promotion of an unskilled, non-English-speaking populace an intelligent national policy.

The issues are color-blind and ethnicity-blind, in terms of national objectives. In short, we should promote English literacy and educational success as the primary gateways to a skilled workforce, low crime and entitlements, and national economic power.

Indians and Chinese, for example, are more "foreign" than Mexican immigrants. Mexican immigrants have partial European ancestry and are typically Catholic, making them more "like" the majority-U.S. population of Christians of European ancestry. Indians and Chinese are of Asian descent and tend not to be Christian. However, Indians and Chinese assimilate more readily here (as a population), arriving with better skills, knowing English or learning English quickly, achieving educational success within the existing English-based educational system, and taking higher-skilled jobs that drive the American economy and keep capital for skilled labor within the country.

What I would like to see is an immigration policy that promotes the immigration of people with the highest skills first, and an educational system that promotes early assimilation skills -- i.e., learning English immediately, and teaching all subjects in the language of our economy (English).

This shouldn't be controversial.

Immigration and educational policies do have long-term consequences. While we enjoy China today for our Nikes and cheap Happy Meal toys, the growth of the Asian and EU economies and educational systems will eventually come at the expense of our own national prosperity. We are sliding toward a population profile of a tiny cognitive elite, a mass of semi-skilled service workers (from salespeople to McDonalds), to an increasing mass of unskilled underclass. Meanwhile, our economy demands more skilled jobs than our labor pool can supply affordably, resulting in the mass exportation of skilled white-collar and manufacturing jobs abroad. But eventually all these "farm teams" will be stronger than their patron.

History says that few nations are dominant for long. I've often wondered how the U.S. would screw up its incredibly dominant world position. I'm starting to believe that mismanagement of the labor pool -- from immigration policy to educational policy to exportation of skilled jobs -- is our exit strategy from supremacy.

[Darth Tater]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

Apparently my point of view here isn't clear. I don't hate Hispanics, and I've never raised "cultural differences" as an issue.

You seemed to have missed my point.

Don't know why you quoted me here, since I never accused you of hating anyone nor can you logically infer that I made any claim that you raised directly or indirectly the issue of cultural differences (although you did).

The point is quite simple. If you are going to use historical data to support your position, you also must give reason as to why you discount other historical data.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by TheKurp

I'm a bigot, bigoted against racists. You know what the problem with racists are? Most don't even recognize they're racist, making them simply ignorant.

Kurp,

Your slurs are off-base. Read my previous post above. I don't care about how much immigrants resemble the ethnicity and cultural heritage of the majority-U.S. population. Again, Hispanics are *more* like the majority Christian population of European descent than, say, immigrants from China, Japan, India and Pakistan. But all of the latter, as population groups, assimilate more readily and help drive our economy. I've also suggested that Hispanics could assimilate more readily if our immigration and educational policies encouraged them to do so.

I've been on record here defending Muslim points of view against the U.S./Christian/Israeli points of view. I've criticized oil-driven U.S. intervention in the Middle East and oil-consuming SUVs. I've criticized Bush tax policies as favoring the entrenched (mostly white) wealthy, even though the tax breaks happen to favor me.

One minute I'm a Muslim lover; next a far-out liberal; now arch-conservative Archie Bunker. You can't make all these shoes fit.

All I'm doing with all these issues is noting the current trends and their long-term implications. People don't like to hear the long-term implications, so they attack the messenger.

Here's a long-term trend: Asian education and achievement rates *in the U.S.* are markedly superior to that of whites. So now, to follow your logic of "the messenger must be a bigot", you are forced to conclude: ASF hates whites and loves Asians.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by TheKurp

According to a more recent population census (2000), there are 2,253,362 people living in Miami, of which 57.4% are Hispanic. So applying your outdated statistics you would have us believe that only 7.4% of the Hispanic popluation speaks English fluently?

If you'd done your research you'd find that in Miami, of those people who speak a primary language other than English, 59% speak at least some English while almost 30% of the total speak English "very well". A far cry from your 1990 statistic that states that half the people in Miami don't speak English very well or not at all.

I cited the 1990 Miami census because I happened to see it footnoted. If you want to argue based on 2000 data, that's fine: the conclusions are similar.

The Miami-Dade 2000 census says that 59.2% of residents speak Spanish at home, and more than half of these Hispanic residents "speak English less than very well".

50.9% of residents are foreign-born. Of these, 92.7% are from Latin America. Overall, Hispanics are 57.3% of the Miami-Dade population. Doing the math, this means that 47.2% of the population are Hispanic immigrants and 10.1% of the population are American-born Hispanics.

If 59.2% of the population speaks Spanish at home, and only 57.3% of the population are Hispanics, it would seem that your ongoing assertion that Hispanics in Miami are assimilating and speaking English fluently is, to say the least, improbable. The census data says almost all are speaking Spanish at home, and more than half speak English "less than very well."

[TheKurp]

This raises a number of national issues. Setting aside the issue of national identity (country founded by non-Hispanic whites becomes a majority-Hispanic country), there are some serious language and economic issues. Hispanics as a group are disproportionately poor and have poor English skills. At the same time that this group is approaching majority status, the baby boom generation will be well into retirement, with medical technology likely extending average lifespans well into the 80s. So you have a situation where a large, aging population is increasingly dependent on an uneducated, poor workforce for support. At some point this likely becomes unfeasible, causing an economic slide as taxation fails to meet demand for entitlements. Entitlements go unmet, and an overtaxed, undereducated U.S. workforce becomes increasingly uncompetitive against other strong world economies such as China, Japan and possibly the EU.

If you want a vision of the U.S. at the end of this century, it's going to look more like Mexico than the current U.S. Enjoy the long sunset of U.S. supremacy.

ASF,

Your backtracking aside, the above words, written by you, speak volumes about your mindset. You extrapolate from point-in-time statistics, conveniently ignoring just about every variable that will render those statistics obsolete and useless for projection purposes, and based on the growing Hispanic population, make a sweeping damning prediction for the future of the U.S.

That my friend, is nothing more than thinly veiled racism under the guise of flawed logic.

[codeorama]

On a serious note.... do white people really make up 70% of the population?

I'm am asking a serious question... I have been to Montana which has a very very small black population, but everywhere else that I have been to in my life has been 50-50. I live in SE Virginia black people make up half of the population... I don't live in an inner city by any means...

Where are all the white people if this 70% figure is true?

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by TheKurp

You extrapolate from point-in-time statistics, conveniently ignoring just about every variable that will render those statistics obsolete and useless for projection purposes, and based on the growing Hispanic population, make a sweeping damning prediction for the future of the U.S.

The "point in time" you are referring to is the 31-year period between 1970 and 2001, regarding population growth. While a 31-year trend does not always predict the next 45-year period, you would need evidence to suggest it does not. So far, I've seen none. In fact, the most recent 11-year period indicates Hispanic population growth is increasing in rate compared to the prior 20-year history.

As far as Hispanic English fluency, the data on language spoken at home does suggest that assimilation of recent Hispanic immigrants as well as their children will be protracted at best. Almost all high-skilled jobs in the U.S. require English fluency as a baseline requirement, before even considering specific job skills. Here in Georgia, a large Hispanic population is used in chicken processing plants. If the children of these immigrants are not learning English, they are far more likely to be restricted as their parents are to low-skilled jobs.

It is a fact that Hispanics are among the lowest-paid, lowest-skilled U.S. workers -- lower than non-Hispanic whites, blacks and Asians, for example. 1999 census data says:

• Hispanic women had a median income of $11,314, compared to $14,771 for black women and $30,594 for non-Hispanic white women. Income of full-time Hispanic working women actually declined (to $20,052), while the income of full-time black and white women increased (to $25,142 and $29,369).
  
• Full-time Hispanic working men did increase their income (to $23,342), but were greatly outpaced by black and white men ($30,297 and $41,406). The rate of annual income increase was 1.5% for Hispanic and white men, and 7.9% for black men -- meaning that Hispanic men are falling behind both whites and blacks in terms of dollar increases, while blacks are closing the gap with whites.
  

I still haven't seen a shred of evidence to contradict these trends. However, the trends *can* change -- but *only* if Hispanic assimilation increases through greatly increased English literacy and higher educational achievements. Until that happens, my projection is correct by default. If you don't like the projection, don't attack the messenger, but attack the primary cause of the projection, which is high Hispanic immigration and birthrates combined with poor Hispanic English literacy.

Somehow this economic argument is being perverted into an attack on Hispanics as people. I don't know why. I'm not saying Hispanics are unintelligent or don't work hard or aren't good people. I'm saying that they don't speak English, which is causing them achieve lower education and job success.

I don't speak Japanese. That would make me a big loser in Japan. Why would any Japanese company hire me to work in Japan? The same is true here. This is not some kind of bigoted attack on Hispanics. It's a statement of the obvious: if you want to succeed in America, learn English.

Next: why breathing is important to survival.

[codeorama]

I am not a racist, my wife is not white, her parents are from the Phillipines, but she has been American since birth, but I agree that English is the national language and should be the only national language... My wife's family speaks the language of the Phillipines (tagalog) and English... It's pretty funny, they make fun of others who do not speak English, often saying, youre in America, speak American...

[Henry]

ASF, perhaps you were just ignoring Art because he made a very valid point. Or maybe you just didn't see his post, but you are making some absolutely wild assumptions here.

Your obvious bigotry aside (I believe several others covered that quite well,) let's just look at your method.

Assuming the same growth rate that occurred from 1970 to 2001 (useful only for a very rough estimate), Hispanics would number 207 milllion in only 45 more years.

Constant growth rate is not a valid assumption. Immigration rates change drastically from one decade to the next, and you can never EXPECT them to increase exponentially from now into forever. Most likely a slight increase in immigration over the past two decades has greatly increased the once-tiny latino population, giving the impression that Mexican-Americans are spawning like bunnies. But that doesn't make it so. Once Mexican immigration levels off, and it will if it hasn't already, you will see the latino population increase at a more consistant rate.

I'm curious, have you seen or cited any official estimates that match your projections, or is this your own independent, unscientific, uncorroborated study conceived for the board's benefit?

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Codeorama (and Henry),

I hope to respond to your question about the 70% white issue shortly, but in the course of researching state profiles, I ran across something fairly interesting: the official U.S. census projections for the future are based on bad data. This means that lawmakers and opinion leaders aren't even working with good information when thinking about the future.

I had suspected this was the case when I saw wildly wrong projections about Hispanic population growth. By "wildly wrong" I mean *already* wildly wrong. For example, several articles written in the past few years projected that Hispanics would pass black populations by around 2020, based on U.S. census projections. Of course, that just happened -- in 2001.

The official U.S. census population projection page has reams of data projecting U.S. population to the nearest thousand through the year 2100. Of course, that's a laughable endeavor -- one would be lucky to strike within a few millions for any group over such a long period. So the site suffers from a lack of statistical credibility from the start.

But far more alarming, the basis for the projections, in the case of Hispanics, is wildly off. For example, the 2001 "projection" (written in 2000) is for 33.616 million Hispanics. Of course, the U.S. census department just told us that the Hispanic population in 2001 *was* 37 million, an error of 10 percent for the existing projection baseline.

Next, I checked the level of increase "projected" from 2001 to 2002. This turned out to be 3.43%. However, I have shown that the actual annual level of increase of Hispanics in the last 11 years was 4.69%, with the rate gradually increasing from prior periods.

To non-statisticians, these differences may seem neglible. They are not. For example, a 3.43% annual increase from the "projected" 2001 Hispanic population (33.616 million) would yield a 10-year population of 47.1 million and a 25-year population of 78.1 million. However, a 4.69% annual increase from the corrected baseline (37 million) would yield a 10-year population of 58.5 million and a 25-year population of 116.4 million.

In other words, the U.S. census projections may be underprojecting Hispanic population by *38 million* in only 25 years.

The growth rate may not stay at 4.69% (and here's where I agree with you, Henry), but that has been the growth rate for the past 11 years. One would hope that census projections would use a rate similar to the actual rate at least for the next few years.

It will be difficult to plan for the future when our own census agency is pumping out such bad projections.

[codeorama]

I wasn't criticizing.... I'm just curious where all the white people are located if they really are 70% of the population.. that's a huge number.

[Skeletor The Invincible]

haha Code

It's true.

I'm not being racist or anything, but in Northern VA (where I live) and in Newport News (where I go to school), the black/white ratio seems like it's about 50/50. I don't know where all the white people are, maybe in the midwest?

And Especially in Northern VA there are a hell of a lot of Hispanics and Orientals.

[codeorama]

Yeah Skeletor, I live in Hampton which is basically connected to Newport News... It is easily 50-50 maybe 55-45 black-white.

Neither Hampton or Newport News has anything remotely like an inner city. I just find 70% hard to believe.

[Darth Tater]

What are the conclusions based on the statistics talked about here?

1) Hispanic-derived population is growing.

2) Hispanic-derived population is getting wealthier.

3) Hispanic-derived population is improving in the English language. (The literacy rate among this population is doubling about every 5-6 years)

This is about the same for every immigrant group in our history. What's the issue unless your are a racist?

[gbear]

ASF,

Just a few points:

1) the yearly data is not based on a census. It's based on a sample survey. I wouldn't discredit the census. If I had to pick which one I thought was more likely to be acurate, I'd take the census number from 2 years ago.

2) Typically, the yearly surveys are then benchmarked against the census. In econ surveys, the previous numbers would then be adjusted back. For population surveys I don't believe that's usually the case. We just live with the yearly results as the best guess until the next census. I'm curious about the error in the yearly number that could account for the difference between your 4.69% and the projected 3.4%. My old stats teacher used to have a saying. "You know what the numbers after the decimal mean?" He'd follow it up by saying "IF you really 'know' then you are a genious." Often times the percent change as measured in percentages with numbers that have error associated with them are inaccurate.

3) You said Hispanics have passed Blacks. AS I pointed out before, that's simply not true unless you don't count Blacks who also marked another race.

4) How are you figuring out your estimates for future populations? Using the rule of 71, your population estimates seem a little off. The rule of 71 is a quick way to figure out rough effects of compound interests. Basically, take 71 and divide by the interest rates, or in this case the population growth rates and that gives one the number of years it takes to double. In your example comparing the percentage increases, the difference is 15 years to double in pop vs. 20 years to double in pop. Again though, I would caution you about the after the decimal percentage increases. It's quite possible the data could be statistically accurate and have a much smaller difference between your two percentages. For example if the actual increase were 4.2 instead of 4.6%, you're talking about 17 years to double vs. 20. That's why I caution against reading to much into the percentage change in numbers made by sampling. As a side note, I believe you are comparing the 200o census to a yearly census. Are they done at the same time of year? Having a few extra months for the pop to grow could also explain some of the differences. I'm not sure you are comparing apples to apples with your percentage increase.

In any event, I'm not sure the difference between taking 15 years to double vs taking 20 years to double would change many politicians decisions on what needs to be done. Either number seems to do a good job of showing the population is growing quickly.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by codeorama

On a serious note.... do white people really make up 70% of the population?

I'm am asking a serious question... I have been to Montana which has a very very small black population, but everywhere else that I have been to in my life has been 50-50. I live in SE Virginia black people make up half of the population... I don't live in an inner city by any means...

Where are all the white people if this 70% figure is true?

Here is data from the 1990 census. A little out of date, but still useful:

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by gbear

ASF,

Just a few points:

1) the yearly data is not based on a census. It's based on a sample survey. I wouldn't discredit the census. If I had to pick which one I thought was more likely to be acurate, I'd take the census number from 2 years ago.

OK, I understand your thinking here. But in this case, you should be aware that the U.S. census bureau has corrected its 2000 census (twice I believe) to account for a greater number of undocumented (i.e. illegal) aliens, primarily Hispanics. I have no idea how they estimate an officially invisible population, but apparently they believe they can do so, and they have updated their counts upward. In short, the later data may be more accurate in this case.

2) Typically, the yearly surveys are then benchmarked against the census. In econ surveys, the previous numbers would then be adjusted back. For population surveys I don't believe that's usually the case. We just live with the yearly results as the best guess until the next census. I'm curious about the error in the yearly number that could account for the difference between your 4.69% and the projected 3.4%. My old stats teacher used to have a saying. "You know what the numbers after the decimal mean?" He'd follow it up by saying "IF you really 'know' then you are a genious." Often times the percent change as measured in percentages with numbers that have error associated with them are inaccurate.

I understand your point, but I derived the 4.69% by spanning the years 1990 to 2001. 1990 and 2000 were official census years, and the 2001 data supposedly represents a correction of 2000 as well as a sampling of 2001 population. In short, this is a fairly accurate estimate as estimates go. I'm not saying that it's exactly 4.69% in actuality, but I am saying that the census bureau should be using its best data (4.69% annual compound rate over 11 years) in projecting at least the immediate future. Otherwise, why bother counting?

3) You said Hispanics have passed Blacks. AS I pointed out before, that's simply not true unless you don't count Blacks who also marked another race.

You make an interesting point, but I didn't make up this idea about Hispanics passing blacks. It was the AP headline about this, citing the U.S. census bureau announcement, that started this whole thread. I'm just passing on that news along with the data about Hispanic population growth. The exact technique for counting blacks shouldn't change the Hispanic count.

In any event, I'm not sure the difference between taking 15 years to double vs taking 20 years to double would change many politicians decisions on what needs to be done. Either number seems to do a good job of showing the population is growing quickly.

Very true. It's not necessary to be correct to the decimal point on growth projections to understand this is a big phenomenon.

As rich people know, doubling your money gets really interesting the larger the numbers are. Same with rabbits. Two rabbits, four rabbits, two dollars, four dollars, no big deal. But start doubling 37 million every 15 years: in 45 years you've got 296 million.

Very big deal. It doesn't matter what you're counting, and if you're off by a few decimal points, it's still a big deal. Hell, I shaved off almost 100 million from the current growth projection (based on the current compound rate) and still got 200 million Hispanics in my estimate for 45 years. Maybe even that's too high. But it's still huge. It's also difficult for people today to comprehend, as evidenced by this thread.

Thanks for arguing the actual points, gbear. It's refreshing around here.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

Very big deal. It doesn't matter what you're counting, and if you're off by a few decimal points, it's still a big deal. Hell, I shaved off almost 100 million from the current growth projection (based on the current compound rate) and still got 200 million Hispanics in my estimate for 45 years. Maybe even that's too high. But it's still huge. It's also difficult for people today to comprehend, as evidenced by this thread.

Thanks for arguing the actual points, gbear. It's refreshing around here.

You seem to miss the point all together ASF, and that's typical for a racist.

I don't care what the numbers show, or who's closer to being correct with the statistical projections.

What you seem to fail to grasp is that you've stigmatized Hispanics as a whole, as a group of people who will into the foreseeable future, remain uneducated, unskilled, and a burden to American society. You have also bemoaned the fact that Americans will lose their "white" national identity.

Despite Census figures that indicate that Hispanics are raising their income levels, speaking English at a increasing rate, and contribute more in taxes than they take in social services, you've steadfastly equated a greater Hispanic population with a decline in American society.

Wake up and smell the coffee ASF, that's the definition of a racist!

[Henry]

Despite Census figures that indicate that Hispanics are raising their income levels, speaking English at a increasing rate, and contribute more in taxes than they take in social services, you've steadfastly equated a greater Hispanic population with a decline in American society.

In order for ASF to feel refreshed, he ignored that point entirely. I'm still waiting for him to address OPMs post. THAT would be a refreshing change.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by TheKurp

You seem to miss the point all together ASF, and that's typical for a racist.

I don't care what the numbers show, or who's closer to being correct with the statistical projections.

What you seem to fail to grasp is that you've stigmatized Hispanics as a whole, as a group of people who will into the foreseeable future, remain uneducated, unskilled, and a burden to American society. You have also bemoaned the fact that Americans will lose their "white" national identity.

Despite Census figures that indicate that Hispanics are raising their income levels, speaking English at a increasing rate, and contribute more in taxes than they take in social services, you've steadfastly equated a greater Hispanic population with a decline in American society.

Wake up and smell the coffee ASF, that's the definition of a racist!

. . . as smeared so by a politically correct person who can't understand facts.

Look -- I hope this is the last time I need to say this -- I don't care if immigrants have two heads. And after a visit to the mind-numbing American midwest in the last week, I'm none too enamored by average white Americans. (I couldn't get the image of docile, mindless livestock out of my mind.)

If you want the truth, I'd give failing grades to a majority of Americans in terms of their ability to gain skills, think independently and contribute actual value to society and the economy. I'm sick to death with the great mass of *white* Americans. But I'm thrilled with the Pakistani immigrant woman who owns the neighborhood Blimpies, even though she's slightly crabby all the time and speaks with a thick accent. She's barely arrived in the country, the country hates her religion, and still she's working practically every waking hour running a real independent business, communicating in English with the customers of her new country.

I work with Indian and east Asian programmers who blow the doors off average white Americans in terms of their programming skill -- but I wouldn't and couldn't work with them if they didn't speak English.

My brother-in-law is a Japanese American; my sister is a professor of Japanese. They tell me that any American who can speak English and Japanese fluently can write their own ticket in Japan -- or here. If you want to do business with Japanese companies, just learn to speak Japanese.

You're a moron if you don't understand the importance of native language to succeeding in any country. And you're running around like a bunch of ninnies with this racist/bigot crap. You want to hurt Hispanics? Keep it up. Don't demand that they learn English.

Try it with your kids. As in the old Steve Martin joke, teach them to talk wrong. Then laugh and laugh when they get to school and make idiots of themselves.

That's what you're doing to Hispanics by pretending that not knowing English is no big deal. Nice friend to Hispanics you are. Enjoy the cheap labor.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Henry

"Despite Census figures that indicate that Hispanics are raising their income levels, speaking English at a increasing rate, and contribute more in taxes than they take in social services, you've steadfastly equated a greater Hispanic population with a decline in American society."

In order for ASF to feel refreshed, he ignored that point entirely. I'm still waiting for him to address OPMs post. THAT would be a refreshing change.

I thought I was being polite by letting repeated stupidity pass without comment, but apparently that's too subtle. All these points were previously addressed in this thread.

In order:

• Hispanic income levels are markedly lower than the rest of the population. They are either falling in real terms (Hispanic women), or rising less than other population groups (Hispanic men) -- which is a fancier way of saying falling. For details, scroll back.
  
• Obviously the English fluency of Hispanic immigrants is increasing: it started at zero. The relevant point is that a majority of Hispanics still speak Spanish at home and still can't communicate effectively in English. Other immigrant groups achieving English fluency more rapidly and as a result are achieving more rapid gains in education and job success. Part of the reason is the misguided U.S. bilingual education policiy that encourage Hispanics not to learn English. In other words, this is partly *our* fault, and it can change.
  
• Paying more in taxes than they get in services? You're joking, right? First of all, that's not true of anyone making less than $25K/year. Almost all taxes paid among those workers are social security taxes, not income taxes. And in the case of Hispanics, a huge percentage of their population is illegal and thus are not making any tax payments aside from sales tax. As previously documented in this thread, immigrants are estimated to cost the U.S. net $2,700 per year, which is probably a conservative estimate (counting direct, not indirect services and costs). They stop costing that $2,700 when they move into the middle class, which is not happening for a majority of Hispanics. Why? The short answer: they don't speak English.
  

[Henry]

First of all, you aren't being polite when you refer to one poster's points as a "refreshing change" as if anyone who doesn't immediately buy into your personal extrapolations is out of his mind. I haven't noticed politeness as one of your strong suits, so you might want to leave that excuse at home next time.

Hispanic-derived population is improving in the English language. (The literacy rate among this population is doubling about every 5-6 years)

This is about the same for every immigrant group in our history. What's the issue unless your are a racist?

Its only three sentences yet it completely debunks that entire rant above. Maybe you missed it.

This has nothing to do with whether or not Hispanics should learn English. I happen to agree with you that they should. The issue is whether or not they ARE learning it.

Honestly, do you sit up at night coming up with countless whacked out theories based on selective statistics and your own biased assumptions just to create extra long threads with your name at the top, or do you actually believe this stuff?