Free Republic Browse · Search General/Chat Topics · Post Article

DEMOGRAPHICS SHIFT(musings&calcs&prognostications by me)
today | me

Posted on 09/20/2009 9:06:32 PM PDT by mamelukesabre

A video sent to me by a friend got me looking for a little spreadsheet calculation I did a year or so ago. I found it on my computer finally. Thought I'd share it with you all.

There are approximately 700 million people in europe and approximately half that number live in USA. USA is being swarmed by illegal immigrants from the south and so is Europe, although europe's immigrants are turks and pakistanis and to some degree from north africa(egyptians, mostly). Native europeans have essentially stopped reproducing. A similar phenomenon is happening in USA with european-americans. Euro-americans are being replaced by immigrants...and ethnic europeans in europe are being replaced by non-european immigrants from outside europe.

Since europe and america are so similar in this regard, I did only one calc for both of them. Just double the numbers to get european population figures.

European(we'll call them euros from here on) birthrate is approximately 1.5 babies per woman.

I will use 3 babies per woman for non europeans. It's an oversimplification since there is no such ethnicity as “non-european”. But I am lazy that way. Many ethnicities have much higher than 3 babies per woman. Others, such as east asians(orientals), are much lower than that.

Euros tend to start families very late in life. Between age 30 and age 40. I will use 3 generations per century, or 33.3 year span from a woman's birth, to the birth of her middle child.

Non-euros start families earlier. I will use 20 years of age for non-euro women. This gives us 5 generations per century. Or 20 years from the woman's birth to the age at which she gives birth to her middle child.

Assume an equal ratio between males and females.(this will not work with china. More on that later)

To simplify the math, we will assume current demographics as being twice as many euros than non euros. First generation in the following tables represents the most recent crop of babies. Out of 200million total euros in america, I will arbitrarily label 1/10th of them as the current crop of babies. Because non euro populations tend to be more heavily weighted to the youngsters, I will arbitrarily assign 25% of the non-euro population as “current crop”. To get from one generation to the next, divide the population total by half(for females), then multiply by the average birth rate.

Euros

year zero 1st generation: 20 million

year 33.3 2nd generation: 15 million

year 66.6 3rdgeneration: 11.25 million

year 100 4th generation: 8.44 million

total: 15+11.25+8.44=34.7 million (I assume the original generation is all dead by year 100)

Non-Euros

year zero 1st generation: 25 million

year 20 2nd generation: 37.5million

year 40 3rd generation: 56.25 million

year 60 4th generation: 84.4 million

year 80 5th generation: 253.125million

year 100 6th generation: 379.69million

total: 379.69+253.125+84.4+56.25=773.5million

(since non-euros don't live as long as euros, I assume the first TWO generations are dead by year 100)

Let me make it extra extra clear. I am saying 100 years from now, the population of the USA will be approximately 35 million european-americans and roughly 3/4billion non-european-americans. Simply double the numbers for the continent of europe. 70Million ethnic europeans vs 1.5billion non-ethnic-euros living in europe. Obviously, this is assuming current birth trends continue unchanged for 100 years...probably not realistic, but I have nothing else to go on. It also assumes immigration stops today. I think we all know that is a fairy tale and that continued immigration will only shrink the percentage of euros in the population total.

China is even worse off since they have a law that every woman is only allowed one child in her lifetime. Because of this law and the forced abortions that occur when the law is broken, families are pressured to make certain their one and only child allowed by law is a boy. Female children are sometimes aborted. This has skewed the male female ratio to 100girls per 120boys. In other words, each crop of babies is only 41.5% female, instead of the usual 50%.

current population in china is approximately 1 billion. It's a little more than that, but I'm simplifying the math. Assume the current crop of babies is 10% of that number...or 100million.

Year zero 1st generation: 100million

year 33.3, 2nd generation: 41.5 million

year66.6 3rd generation: 17.22 million

year 100 4th generation: 7.147 million

total: 100+41.5+17.22+7.147=165million

(since chinese live a really long time, I assume no one dies by year 100)

There ya have it folks. According to my calcs, east asians(orientals) and euros will be nearly extinct in not much more than a century from today. In america, euros tend to be more conservative minded than the non-euros. I think we can all easily deduce from that fact what this means for america as far as future politics is concerned. Personally, I think we will see some major changes in our lifetime when the baby boomers begin to die off. They are mostly euros and mostly conservative and they are age 50 to age 70 today. They represent a "bulge" in population demographics. So their die-off will make a significant impact on american demographics, and thus the voting demographic, and thus the politics of america will change...DRASTICALLY!

We are living in our "last HOORAH" as free americans. Enjoy it. Make the most of it. It will be over very soon.

TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: birthrate; cwii; demographics; mhmmdnsm09202009; population
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

I welcome any and all critiques/criticisms of my math and logic. But please try to use math to express disagreement. I realize I've grossly oversimplified. But I still think my numbers are reasonable. I also realize this thread can be construed as racism. My argument to that is that there is no racism in mathematics.

1 posted on 09/20/2009 9:06:32 PM PDT by mamelukesabre

To: mamelukesabre

Theres plenty of intermarriage going on and you can’t segregate European whites from non European whites. High birth rates among immigrants dissipates over time. And so on. You can not extrapolate current immigration rates; ie during the 1930’s there was net emmigration from here. Muslims don’t assimilate well and Blacks do so poorly, but most others do better. Your nos. are based on too many parameters which are not static. And mostly, the problem /issue is class. Prosperity will take care of most problems, but socialsim/ stagnation will probably cause societal breakup over time, IMO.

2 posted on 09/20/2009 9:23:59 PM PDT by Nonstatist

To: mamelukesabre

A WOW bump for later!

3 posted on 09/20/2009 9:25:55 PM PDT by aShepard

To: mamelukesabre

>>>We are living in our “last HOORAH” as free americans. Enjoy it. Make the most of it. It will be over very soon.<<<

I appreciate the effort - Mark Steyn has done similar calculations in his books and articles - but you’re making some basic errors of a non-mathematical nature, too.

You’re assuming that all trends continue into the future unchanged. Human behavior, however, isn’t chemistry or geology. In fact, once societies reach a certain level of prosperity, the birth rate declines, no matter what the cultural outlook might be. Victorian England was experiencing a declining birthrate without contraception; many developed countries are experiencing a sharp decline in the birth rate; the West and East Asia are just in the front of the trend. The exception is Islam, which makes the case, as those places tend to be some of the least prosperous places on Earth.

You’re also making the assumption that there is a connection between the European heritage of Americans and the civic beliefs of liberty and freedom. We’re not Greeks or Romans, but we’ve managed to adapt many of their beliefs to our own political processes. Ethnicity isn’t connected to belief. As I look at the history of concepts like individual liberty and rule of law, it looks like those ideas are passed on from culture to culture, often with the originating culture dying off or no longer expressing those virtues. It wouldn’t surprise me to see President Chen and Vice-President Gonzalez in the 22nd century waxing poetic about liberty and freedom.

Lastly, your premise seems to be based on a zero-sum game - that is, ethnicity and race are static. Not true. People have been interbreeding since the dawn of man, producing new and interesting shades and hues of humanity. I’m living here in the Alaska Interior, among Native American people, and you’d be amazed at the number of people who consider themselves Native with German, Irish, and Scandinavian surnames, and kids who pop out with red, blonde, and brown hair along with all sorts of skin shades. An influx of people from elsewhere means lots and lots of people sharing genes and cultures, and that means that the strength of the ideas we have is what is important, not whether the person has European heritage.

My wife is African. For real. Born and raised there. Our son is pure American - he knows why we have guns (to fight tyranny), he loves this country and American values, and he has already told me in his beautiful sixth-grade manner that he’d fight for his country. My wife now likes to listen to Rush, expresses conservative views, and has become a keen proponent of American exceptionalism. All is not lost. Free men and women are everywhere. Never give up hope.

4 posted on 09/20/2009 9:26:21 PM PDT by redpoll

To: Nonstatist

Non-european whites are included in the imaginary group “non-euros”. I think since they are such a small minority that this simplification shouldn’t be a problem.

I fail to see how intermarriage will significantly shift the demographic one way or the other. If anything, the effect of intermarriage will *SLIGHTLY* favor the imaginary group “non-euros”.

5 posted on 09/20/2009 9:31:48 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))

To: redpoll
Very good post.

Reminds me of a great story I remember from the 1992 Wintr Olympics. Japan's Midori Ito was the heavy favorite to win the gold medal in women's figure skating, and before the finals one of the announcers on the television network covering the event wondered aloud if America's domination of this event was coming to an end.

The other announcer -- only half-joking -- said he didn't think so, because he said "OUR Japanese will always beat THEIR Japanese."

Japanese-American skater Kristi Yamaguchi (born in California) won the gold medal over Ito that year.

She's now married to Bret Hedican, a retired (Caucasian) professional hockey player. They've got two daughters who are as American as anyone here in this great country. Ethnicity has nothing to do with political philosophy.

6 posted on 09/20/2009 9:39:03 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (God is great, beer is good . . . and people are crazy.)

To: Alberta's Child

Ethnicity has nothing to do with political philosophy.
~~~~~~~~~~~

The numbers say otherwise. It is a fact in america that a higher percentage of euro-americans are conservative. One might be able to make an argument that this is due to reasons other than race...such as age for instance. That there are more old white people therefore the white people have a stronger showing on the conservative side. But you cannot tell me there is no ethnic trend. You would be lying to yourself if you did.

7 posted on 09/20/2009 9:44:53 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))

To: mamelukesabre
Those are valid points. But on specific issues I bet you'll find that there's a lot of variation in the links between ethnicity and political philosophy.

I have found that Asians, for example, are among the most rabid conservatives on economic matters. And you won't find people more adamantly opposed to the ongoing homosexualization of America than blacks and Hispanics (come to think of it -- why is it that every homosexual activist in the U.S. these days is a euro-American?).

8 posted on 09/20/2009 9:49:42 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (God is great, beer is good . . . and people are crazy.)

To: Alberta's Child

yes, asian-americans are fiercely conservative. This is why I went to the trouble of showing how rapidly the chinese are going extinct.

But this is a moot point, imo. I say that because such a small minority of homos exist in america. And, as you pointed out, since most of them are euros anyway, and euros are going extinct, and homos reproduce even slower than heteros, homos aren’t even worth discussing in this calculation.

Right?

9 posted on 09/20/2009 9:54:22 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))

To: mamelukesabre
I am reminded of a very illuminating story from the 2000 presidential election campaign. A friend of mine -- the child of immigrants from South America -- was working at a warehouse where Al Gore was scheduled to make a campaign appearance. His union was endorsing Gore, and all of the workers were given an hour off to listen to the Tennessee dingbat speak.

I remember they showed a clip of this campaign appearance on the news. If you can find a copy of it, you might notice something odd about it.

All of the euro-Americans in the longshoremen's union took the hour off to hear Al Gore speak.

The mechanical humming sound and occasional "beep-beep-beep" sound you hear in the background is my Latino friend driving his forklift around the warehouse as he worked through the entire appearance. He's more conservative than most of the "euro-Americans" I know.

10 posted on 09/20/2009 10:01:22 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (God is great, beer is good . . . and people are crazy.)

To: Alberta's Child

No offense, but I fail to see how personal anecdotes on the micro scale have any bearing at all on demographics on the macro scale. I don’t see how or why or by what method such anecdotes should/could have any consideration in calcs such as I presented.

11 posted on 09/20/2009 10:13:35 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))

To: mamelukesabre
Bureau of the Census: An Older and More Diverse Nation by Midcentury

"The nation will be more racially and ethnically diverse, as well as much older, by midcentury, according to projections released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Minorities, now roughly one-third of the U.S. population, are expected to become the majority in 2042, with the nation projected to be 54 percent minority in 2050. By 2023, minorities will comprise more than half of all children.

By 2050, the minority population — everyone except for non-Hispanic, single-race whites — is projected to be 235.7 million out of a total U.S. population of 439 million. The nation is projected to reach the 400 million population milestone in 2039.

The non-Hispanic, single-race white population is projected to be only slightly larger in 2050 (203.3 million) than in 2008 (199.8 million). In fact, this group is projected to lose population in the 2030s and 2040s and comprise 46 percent of the total population in 2050, down from 66 percent in 2008.

Meanwhile, the Hispanic population is projected to nearly triple, from 46.7 million to 132.8 million during the 2008-2050 period. Its share of the nation’s total population is projected to double, from 15 percent to 30 percent. Thus, nearly one in three U.S. residents would be Hispanic.

The black population is projected to increase from 41.1 million, or 14 percent of the population in 2008, to 65.7 million, or 15 percent in 2050.

The Asian population is projected to climb from 15.5 million to 40.6 million. Its share of the nation’s population is expected to rise from 5.1 percent to 9.2 percent.

12 posted on 09/20/2009 10:47:35 PM PDT by kabar

To: redpoll
The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born. Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in a net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 306 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by 133 million to 439 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any developed country in the world, i.e., 0.975 percent (2009 estimate), principally due to immigration.

87 percent of the 1.2 million legal immigrants entering annually are minorities as defined by the U.S. Government and almost all of the illegal aliens are minorities. By 2023 half of the children 18 and under in the U.S. will be classified as minorities and by 2042, half of the residents of this country will be minorities. Generally, immigrants and minorities vote predominantly for the Democrat Party. Hence, Democrats view immigration as a never-ending source of voters that will make them the permanent majority party.

13 posted on 09/20/2009 10:50:37 PM PDT by kabar

To: mamelukesabre

Well reproduction rates are sad enough, but you combine them with NO BORDER CONTROL, it triples the already bad news.

14 posted on 09/20/2009 10:52:20 PM PDT by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)

To: mamelukesabre
What happens if you lower the drinking age and age of consent among euro-americans? Do we win the 'race'?

Level the Playing Field. And put more cheerleaders on it while you're at it.

15 posted on 09/20/2009 10:58:07 PM PDT by budwiesest (All Sarah has to do is go out and be Sarah. The people will do the rest.)

To: mamelukesabre

With the few videos I’ve seen on Demographics, you’re probably not too far off.

If our LEADERS HAD ANY BALLS, they would treat this as a national security issue. Close the borders, deport illegals, ban abortion and the pill, and give tax incentives for more babies. ;)

16 posted on 09/20/2009 11:07:04 PM PDT by Electric Graffiti (Yonder stands your orphan with his gun)

To: mamelukesabre

The Chinese have just recently loosened the one child policy.

They allowed two children for certain non-Han Chinese and some very poor farmers.

The Chinese leadership is not uber-retarded.

They will continue to loosen the 1 child policy as time goes on.

They are not going to stand by as their population implodes.

17 posted on 09/20/2009 11:11:37 PM PDT by Reaganez

To: mamelukesabre

Another thing a normal population is about 52-53% female.

The sex selection problem should be its own solution.

As the percentage of females dwindle women will become more valuable.

18 posted on 09/20/2009 11:14:50 PM PDT by Reaganez

To: mamelukesabre

You consider yourself a “Euro American?” Maybe that’s your problem. I don’t, and I’m offended you would call people that. Maybe you should go back to Europe.

19 posted on 09/20/2009 11:23:00 PM PDT by nickcarraway

To: Reaganez
No, they haven't. There are certain exceptions to the rule, but they amount to a level that isn't statistically significant. Plus, they have only really been able enforce it strictly on Han Chinese.

Not stand by as their population implodes? Even if they acted with great panic tomorrow, they are way too late.

20 posted on 09/20/2009 11:26:52 PM PDT by nickcarraway