Skip to comments.DEMOGRAPHICS SHIFT(musings&calcs&prognostications by 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.
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)
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
(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
(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.
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.
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.
A WOW bump for later!
>>>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.
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”.
I agree with your comment about prosperity.
Thanks for your input.
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.
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.
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?).
yes, asian-americans are fiercely conservative. This is why I went to the trouble of showing how rapidly the chinese are going extinct.
Good point about homosexuality.
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.
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.
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.
"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 nations 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 nations population is expected to rise from 5.1 percent to 9.2 percent.
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.
Well reproduction rates are sad enough, but you combine them with NO BORDER CONTROL, it triples the already bad news.
Level the Playing Field. And put more cheerleaders on it while you're at it.
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. ;)
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.
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.
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.
Not stand by as their population implodes? Even if they acted with great panic tomorrow, they are way too late.
You are insane. Why don’t you go back to Europe and leave us Americans alone.
“We are living in our “last HOORAH” as free americans. Enjoy it. Make the most of it. It will be over very soon.”
Assuming your numbers are vaguely representative of what might be the racial makeup of your demographics 100 years from now (which we have reason to doubt), I ask ‘so what?’.
Let’s assume you’re white, why do you have to be in a racial majority to be free? I’m a member of a racial minority but I’m as free as anyone in any modern society, as is anyone who chooses to be a functional productive member of society.
It always comes down to what is in a person’s heart, not the color of their skin or shape of their eyes. What we need to guard jealously as a free society is not the racial makeup of our population but the principles by which we as a free people live by. Unfortunately, you failed to factor that into your calculations.
Yes, they have.
Their population will not implode.
My guess is they are aiming to stablize at 750m.
If you want to call that implosion so be it.
But 1.5B is unmanable long term.
China’s population is aproximatley 1B?
Please it is at least 1.3B and probably closer to 1.5B.
Like all Chinese statistics, they are based on lies.
Local leaders do not want to admit they missed their population goals and consistently skewer lower to meat their goal of low birth rates.
It happens at every level of bureacracy.
This is the CIA estimate.
“1,338,612,968 (July 2009 est.)”
And that is probably low.
I never said the Chinese population was 1 billion, or any other number. Yes, China lies. They said they never had a one child policy. Now they are saying they have suspended the policy they never had. I am telling you, the allowance they are making for some couples to have 2 children are at a meaningless level.
Don’t be stupid. I’m trying to simplify the calcs as much as possible. Why else would I invent an imaginary ethnicity called “non-euro-americans”?
Heck, for that matter, there’s no such ethnicity as “euro-americans” either. european is not an ethnicity.
Bravo. Excellent post.
Your Post #1:
>>> My argument to that is that there is no racism in mathematics. <<<
Your Post #7:
>>> 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. <<<
So, Euro-Americans=White Americans?
I agree with you that there is no racism in mathematics, but I’m beginning to wonder if there may not be racism in some mathematicians.
I agree with Alberta’s Child: ethnicity and race do not “determine” political philosophy or culture.
Like redpoll, “It wouldnt surprise me to see President Chen and Vice-President Gonzalez in the 22nd century waxing poetic about liberty and freedom.”
Idealistic but not realistic. The US is in danger of becoming Balkanized along cultural, linguistic, and racial lines. In Congress we have the Black and Hispanic caucuses. Living patterns in the US are along racial and ethnic lines. We cannot assimilate the kinds of numbers now entering the US. Instead, we are tearing apart the very fabric of this nation.
You consider yourself a Euro American? Maybe thats your problem. I dont, and Im offended you would call people that. Maybe you should go back to Europe.
Why does the Census bureau have a category called "non-Hispanic whites?" Why do Hispanic whites (54% of Hispanics self-describe themselves as white) receive affirmative action and minority business set asides, i.e., preferences based on race and ethnicity? The same holds true for Asians, which includes people from such diverse countries as India, Pakistan, Japan, China, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Bangladesh, etc., but not from Australia.
Our government and laws promote discrimination and classification of people by skin color, ethnicity, etc. That is the real problem, especially since by 2023 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities as classified by the USG and by 2042 half of the country will comprised of "minorities."
Why is a blonde Argentinean considered a "person of color": while Arabs, Persians, and Yemenite Jews are considered "white?"
You make the common American mistake of throwing southern Italians in the same category as Swedes, and both in the same category of Heinz 57 variety white Americans. White American culture is largely Anglo-Celtic-Germanic and Protestant (in terms of culture, if not religious faith).
“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.
For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic.
The foreign-born population of this country must be an Americanized population - no other kind can fight the battles of America either in war or peace. It must talk the language of its native-born fellow-citizens, it must possess American citizenship and American ideals. It must stand firm by its oath of allegiance in word and deed and must show that in very fact it has renounced allegiance to every prince, potentate, or foreign government. It must be maintained on an American standard of living so as to prevent labor disturbances in important plants and at critical times. None of these objects can be secured as long as we have immigrant colonies, ghettos, and immigrant sections, and above all they cannot be assured so long as we consider the immigrant only as an industrial asset. The immigrant must not be allowed to drift or to be put at the mercy of the exploiter. Our object is to not to imitate one of the older racial types, but to maintain a new American type and then to secure loyalty to this type. We cannot secure such loyalty unless we make this a country where men shall feel that they have justice and also where they shall feel that they are required to perform the duties imposed upon them. The policy of “Let alone” which we have hitherto pursued is thoroughly vicious from two stand-points. By this policy we have permitted the immigrants, and too often the native-born laborers as well, to suffer injustice. Moreover, by this policy we have failed to impress upon the immigrant and upon the native-born as well that they are expected to do justice as well as to receive justice, that they are expected to be heartily and actively and single-mindedly loyal to the flag no less than to benefit by living under it.
We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than fifty years ago we could afford to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being. We cannot afford to build a big industrial plant and herd men and women about it without care for their welfare. We cannot afford to permit squalid overcrowding or the kind of living system which makes impossible the decencies and necessities of life. We cannot afford the low wage rates and the merely seasonal industries which mean the sacrifice of both individual and family life and morals to the industrial machinery. We cannot afford to leave American mines, munitions plants, and general resources in the hands of alien workmen, alien to America and even likely to be made hostile to America by machinations such as have recently been provided in the case of the two foreign embassies in Washington. We cannot afford to run the risk of having in time of war men working on our railways or working in our munition plants who would in the name of duty to their own foreign countries bring destruction to us. Recent events have shown us that incitements to sabotage and strikes are in the view of at least two of the great foreign powers of Europe within their definition of neutral practices. What would be done to us in the name of war if these things are done to us in the name of neutrality?
All of us, no matter from what land our parents came, no matter in what way we may severally worship our Creator, must stand shoulder to shoulder in a united America for the elimination of race and religious prejudice. We must stand for a reign of equal justice to both big and small. We must insist on the maintenance of the American standard of living. We must stand for an adequate national control which shall secure a better training of our young men in time of peace, both for the work of peace and for the work of war. We must direct every national resource, material and spiritual, to the task not of shirking difficulties, but of training our people to overcome difficulties. Our aim must be, not to make life easy and soft, not to soften soul and body, but to fit us in virile fashion to do a great work for all mankind. This great work can only be done by a mighty democracy, with these qualities of soul, guided by those qualities of mind, which will both make it refuse to do injustice to any other nation, and also enable it to hold its own against aggression by any other nation. In our relations with the outside world, we must abhor wrongdoing, and disdain to commit it, and we must no less disdain the baseness of spirit which lamely submits to wrongdoing. Finally and most important of all, we must strive for the establishment within our own borders of that stern and lofty standard of personal and public neutrality which shall guarantee to each man his rights, and which shall insist in return upon the full performance by each man of his duties both to his neighbor and to the great nation whose flag must symbolize in the future as it has symbolized in the past the highest hopes of all mankind.”
I really did not mean to start a debate about race. I was attempting to do a few VERY simple demographic calcs to attempt to show that conservatives are declining while liberals are increasing and that this is bad news for us freepers(regardless of freeper race). I can’t be expected to do a year of research to break down the population into every known minute demographic and do a calc for each. So I divided into only TWO groups. And I used the same TWO groups for two different continents...and the same numbers and birth rates.
I thought I was clever for the simplification. Apparently not very many did think so. I’m still trying to decide if I was mistaken or if some of you are just too sensitive. I’m leaning toward “too sensitive”.
What I hoped for in this thread was for people to show me different numbers(or at least sound logic) that would indicate an opposite trend, or at least a trend that is not quite so worrisome...that conservatives are not a dying breed. And I don’t really care what you “feel” or think. Back it up with something. I used numbers with sound logic(at least I think it was sound) and I thought I might get some numbers and/or sound logic as a rebuttal.
Not so much. A little, but not a lot.
A whole lot more anger and contempt...and this place is a gathering of conservative minded people?
“European-American” is an insulting, B.S. term. If you consider yourself that, go home to Europe, but don’t trash others.
One thing you don’t take into consideration is the birth rates for immigrants fall dramatically in the second generation. So Hispanics do not go on reproducing at the high levels of the first generation. Also, white birth rates can rise and, in fact, some states whites have high birth rates, mostly in the South and demographically, the immigrants are not gaining much ground. It’s in the Northeast, especially New England, where whites are committing suicide. After that California, although the birth rate has risen in recent years, and the Midwest.
How can I go home to where I’ve never been? Nor have my parents ever been, nor have any of my 4 dead grandparents ever been. If I wanted to go back to where I came from, I would have to travel not more than 40 miles due west of where I am now sitting. My parents would have to travel maybe 20 miles due east of where they presently reside. And all 4 of my dead grandparents are buried not more than 50 miles from where I am currently sitting, each of them buried not more than 120 miles from their birthplaces. I would have to go back 2 more generations beyond my grandparents to find anyone that traveled a fair distance, and those folks came from ohio, wisconson, and pennsylvania!
Your extreme sensitivity to “european” has me wondering why the anger? Do you have a superiority complex, or an inferiority complex?
Thank you. That is in fact the vid.
No problem, see my other post as well. Personally I don;’t believe BBC Radio 4 is without heavy liberal bias - there are a lot of comments to that effect and mention of how Sharia law is being demanded in the European nations by the mooselimb population.
I got accused of being a racist, or at least insinuated it, for posting this about demographics shift. that was a big shock for me.
Pointing out facts is never racist. However, not stating biases in methodology or statistics/sampling, etc, can be construed as such even though there was no nefarious intent. I think I know what comment you’re referring to and that may say more about the poster choosing to be offended than the intent of anything you stated.
When I read through your posting I didn’t really see anything pernicious in it, but to be honest I had just watched the video the day prior to seeing your post (hence I knew the name of it and was able to provide a link so readily). That may have set me up to be more open to the point you were trying to make. What I saw was a statement by you that claimed you knew there were flaws in your logic, that you were making several leaps of faith, but the thrust of your argument was that we are being taken over by a decline in birthrate among Caucasians (”euro whites”) and a steady increase in birth rates among immigrants - especially those of the Arabic/middle eastern persuasion.
I’d not let the accusation get to you (easier said than done I know). The racist label has no meaning anymore because it is so overused; as it is in this case AFAIC.