Discussion:
“If we don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,” ...
(too old to reply)
d***@agent.com
2017-04-18 20:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
After Economic Crisis, Low Birthrates Challenge Southern Europe
By LIZ ALDERMAN, APRIL 16, 2017, NY Times

ATHENS — As a longtime fertility doctor, Minas Mastrominas has
helped couples in Greece give birth to 1000s of bouncing babies.
But recently, disturbing trends have escalated at his clinic.

Couples insisting on only one child. Women tearfully renouncing
plans to conceive. And a surge in single-child parents asking
him to destroy all of their remaining embryos.

“People are saying they can’t afford more than one child, or
any at all,” Dr. Mastrominas, a director at Embryogenesis, a
large in vitro fertilization center, said as videos of gurgling
toddlers played in the waiting room. “After eight years of
economic stagnation, they’re giving up on their dreams.”

Like women in the U.S. & other mature economies, women across
Europe have been having fewer children for decades. But
demographers are warning of a new hot spot for childlessness
on the Mediterranean rim, where Europe’s economic crisis hit
hardest. As couples grapple with a longer-than-expected stretch
of low growth, high unemployment, precarious jobs and financial
strain, they are increasingly deciding to have just one child —
or none.

Approximately a fifth of women born in the 1970s are likely to
remain childless in Greece, Spain and Italy, a level not seen
since WWI, according to the Wittgenstein Center for Demography &
Global Human Capital, based in Vienna. And hundreds of thousands
of fertile young people have left for Germany, Britain and the
prosperous north, with little intent of returning unless the
economy improves.

Birthrates in the region have slid back almost to where they
were before the crisis emerged in 2008. Women in Spain had been
averaging 1.47 children per household, up from 1.24 in 2000.
But those gains have all but evaporated. In Italy, Portugal and
Greece, birthrates have reverted to about 1.3.

It adds to the growing concern about a demographic disaster in
the region. The current birthrates are well under the 2.1 rate
needed to keep a population steady, according to Eurostat.

Maria Karaklioumi, 43, a political pollster in Athens, decided
to forgo children after concluding she would not be able to offer
them the stable future her parents had afforded. Her sister has
a child, and Ms. Karaklioumi is painfully aware that her grand-
mother already had five grandchildren at her age.

Although she has a good job & master’s degrees in politics and
economics, “there’s too much insecurity,” Ms. Karaklioumi said.
Unemployment among women stands at 27%, compared with 20% for men.
“I don’t know if I’ll have this job in two months or a year,”
Ms. Karaklioumi added. “If you don’t see a light at the end of
the tunnel, how can you plan for the future?”

Whether the demographic decline slows ultimately depends on the
financial fortunes in the south, where most countries suffered
double-dip recessions. Without significant improvement, the
region is trending toward some of the lowest birthrates in the
world, which will accelerate stress on pension and welfare
systems and crimp growth as a shrinking work force competes with
the rest of Europe and the world.

While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe, “the really
serious problem is that some of the weakest countries are the
ones with the least favorable demographics,” said Simon Tilford,
the deputy director of the Center for European Reform in London.
“Lower birthrates in the south will mean weaker growth and
productivity, holding the birthrate down and producing more
fiscal problems.” Over time, he added, “it suggests that the
already divergent economic performance between Northern and
Southern Europe may become structural rather than cyclical.”

The lower birthrates have been aggravated by fiscal pressures
that constrained countries from offering robust family support
programs. Whereas France offers a monthly family benefit of
130 euros (about $138) per child after the second child, Greece
provides just 40 euros.

Countries have recognized the problem & recently snapped into
action. Spain appointed a so-called sex czar in February to
forge a national fertility action plan and address population
declines in rural areas. Italy increased bonuses for having
babies & backed labor laws granting more flexible parental leave.
Greece, as the weakest economic link, does not have the same
options. Struggling to manage a recovery after nearly 8 years
of recession, the government cannot make the fertility drop a
top priority. Child tax breaks and subsidies for large families
were weakened under Greece’s austerity-linked international
financial bailouts. State-financed child care became means-tested
and is hard to get for women seeking work. Greece now has the
lowest budget in the European Union for family & child benefits.

Grandparents have traditionally been the primary source of child
care in the south, but Greek austerity policies have reduced
pensions so much that the family safety net is unraveling, said
Dimitrios Karellas, the general secretary of the Labor & Social
Welfare Ministry in Greece. “We need to allocate more money to
create the services needed for families & children,” Mr. Karellas
said. “But it’s hard to do amid the crisis.”

Demographic challenges are not confined to Southern Europe.
Germany has battled a population drop since the 70s, when higher
education & new career opportunities for women lowered fertility
rates. After Communism, birthrates in Central and Eastern Europe
also fell. In the new millennium, an economic expansion helped
reverse those dynamics. But the financial crisis “hit Europe
when birthrates in many countries had just started to rise
again,” said Michaela Kreyenfeld of the Max Planck Institute for
Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany.

The impact is evident in communities across the European south,
where smaller towns are increasingly hollowed out and schools
emptied. In Tempi, a verdant region in central Greece, many
primary schools and kindergartens have closed since 2012 as
parents had fewer children and young Greeks left the country,
said Xanthi Zisaki, a municipal councilor. Kindergarten enroll-
ment has also slumped elsewhere in Greece & around Spain & Italy.
While migration from small towns is nothing new, “the financial
crisis is clearly the problem,” Mrs. Zisaki said. “There are
simply fewer children every year.”

The economic issues also amplified existing trends. Working women
were already postponing childbirth. As the recession dragged on,
they delayed even more for fear of jeopardizing work opportunities,
a situation that has exacerbated fertility problems.

Progress on gender equality eroded in Greece during the crisis,
according to the European Parliament. Women reported being
regularly rejected for jobs if they were of childbearing age, or
having contracts that were involuntarily converted to part time
if they became pregnant.

As the crisis persisted, Anastasia Economopoulou, 42, pushed back
her dream of having several children. She was fearful of losing
her job as a saleswoman at a retail branding company after
managers said they did not want women who would get pregnant.
Eventually, she turned to in vitro fertilization treatments at
Dr. Mastrominas’s clinic. But her salary slumped by 30% as
company sales fell, & her husband’s by more, cutting the number
of treatments she can afford. “I asked them not to put in many
embryos because we can only manage one,” she said.

For a country like Greece, some see the shifting demographic
trends as a blessing in disguise. “As long as Greece has high
unemployment, it may be good luck that there’s not a baby boom,”
said Byron Kotzamanis, a demography professor at the University
of Thessaly. “If there was,” he added, “we might have more
problems right now.”

But such optimism will not make up for the frightening conse-
quences for countries struggling to replenish people. “If we
don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,”
said Mr. Karellas, the welfare official. “The fact is, it’s a
disaster.”
Jonathan
2017-04-18 22:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe,
So now the population growth rate is too low for ya eh?
d***@agent.com
2017-04-21 06:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jonathan
Post by d***@agent.com
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe,
So now the population growth rate is too low for ya eh?
But such optimism will not make up for the frightening conse-
quences for countries struggling to replenish people. “If we
don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,”
said Mr. Karellas, the welfare official. “The fact is, it’s a
disaster.”
Andrew Swallow
2017-04-21 13:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by Jonathan
Post by d***@agent.com
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe,
So now the population growth rate is too low for ya eh?
But such optimism will not make up for the frightening conse-
quences for countries struggling to replenish people. “If we
don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,”
said Mr. Karellas, the welfare official. “The fact is, it’s a
disaster.”
They said the same thing in the 1970s. People dying of old age would
have automatically corrected this by now.

The looking after the old problem we have got now are the immigrants
imported last century. Immigration did not solve this but predictably
made it worse.

Note: Caring for old people is done by nurses and care workers. These
are women so importing men is guaranteed to not work.
Fred J. McCall
2017-04-21 23:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by Jonathan
Post by d***@agent.com
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe,
So now the population growth rate is too low for ya eh?
But such optimism will not make up for the frightening conse-
quences for countries struggling to replenish people. “If we
don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,”
said Mr. Karellas, the welfare official. “The fact is, it’s a
disaster.”
They said the same thing in the 1970s. People dying of old age would
have automatically corrected this by now.
Not so much, no, except as a prediction. Said prediction is pretty
much here, which is why social insurance systems are going broke.
Post by Andrew Swallow
The looking after the old problem we have got now are the immigrants
imported last century. Immigration did not solve this but predictably
made it worse.
Counterfactual tripe. Immigrants tend to have more children, not
fewer, so they tend to lead to more workers per old person than you
would otherwise get.
Post by Andrew Swallow
Note: Caring for old people is done by nurses and care workers. These
are women so importing men is guaranteed to not work.
Caring for them isn't the problem. PAYING for them is the problem.
Someone has to be working and paying taxes to fund old age social
insurance and health care.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Andrew Swallow
2017-04-23 21:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by Jonathan
Post by d***@agent.com
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe,
So now the population growth rate is too low for ya eh?
But such optimism will not make up for the frightening conse-
quences for countries struggling to replenish people. “If we
don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,”
said Mr. Karellas, the welfare official. “The fact is, it’s a
disaster.”
They said the same thing in the 1970s. People dying of old age would
have automatically corrected this by now.
Not so much, no, except as a prediction. Said prediction is pretty
much here, which is why social insurance systems are going broke.
Post by Andrew Swallow
The looking after the old problem we have got now are the immigrants
imported last century. Immigration did not solve this but predictably
made it worse.
Counterfactual tripe. Immigrants tend to have more children, not
fewer, so they tend to lead to more workers per old person than you
would otherwise get.
Not for 20+ years.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Note: Caring for old people is done by nurses and care workers. These
are women so importing men is guaranteed to not work.
Caring for them isn't the problem. PAYING for them is the problem.
Someone has to be working and paying taxes to fund old age social
insurance and health care.
The situation in the US and UK are a little different.
In 1971 the UK's population was 55,928,000 according to the census. By
2015 it had reached 65.1 million. An increase of about 10 million.
During that time most factories were closed and unemployment reached 3
million people - so more unskilled workers who cannot speak English were
definitely not needed.

When it comes to government spending old people and children are net
costs. Neither have tax paying jobs and children need schools providing.
With a growing population children need *new* schools and new homes
building - high capital and operating costs. Consequently immigrants do
not produce any surplus money to pay for the old.
Fred J. McCall
2017-04-24 01:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by Jonathan
Post by d***@agent.com
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe,
So now the population growth rate is too low for ya eh?
But such optimism will not make up for the frightening conse-
quences for countries struggling to replenish people. “If we
don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,”
said Mr. Karellas, the welfare official. “The fact is, it’s a
disaster.”
They said the same thing in the 1970s. People dying of old age would
have automatically corrected this by now.
Not so much, no, except as a prediction. Said prediction is pretty
much here, which is why social insurance systems are going broke.
Post by Andrew Swallow
The looking after the old problem we have got now are the immigrants
imported last century. Immigration did not solve this but predictably
made it worse.
Counterfactual tripe. Immigrants tend to have more children, not
fewer, so they tend to lead to more workers per old person than you
would otherwise get.
Not for 20+ years.
Before that the immigrants themselves are workers. It's not like they
come here at age 65 and start having children, after all.
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Note: Caring for old people is done by nurses and care workers. These
are women so importing men is guaranteed to not work.
Caring for them isn't the problem. PAYING for them is the problem.
Someone has to be working and paying taxes to fund old age social
insurance and health care.
The situation in the US and UK are a little different.
In 1971 the UK's population was 55,928,000 according to the census. By
2015 it had reached 65.1 million. An increase of about 10 million.
During that time most factories were closed and unemployment reached 3
million people - so more unskilled workers who cannot speak English were
definitely not needed.
That's a very small increase over 45 years. Based on that,
immigration doesn't appear to be your problem. Aren't a lot of your
immigrants in the medical fields?
Post by Andrew Swallow
When it comes to government spending old people and children are net
costs. Neither have tax paying jobs and children need schools providing.
With a growing population children need *new* schools and new homes
building - high capital and operating costs. Consequently immigrants do
not produce any surplus money to pay for the old.
Immigrants typically aren't either old people or children. With the
tiny growth in your population over the last 45 years, you ought to
have schools coming out of your ears.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Swallow
2017-04-24 05:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by Jonathan
Post by d***@agent.com
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe,
So now the population growth rate is too low for ya eh?
But such optimism will not make up for the frightening conse-
quences for countries struggling to replenish people. “If we
don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,”
said Mr. Karellas, the welfare official. “The fact is, it’s a
disaster.”
They said the same thing in the 1970s. People dying of old age would
have automatically corrected this by now.
Not so much, no, except as a prediction. Said prediction is pretty
much here, which is why social insurance systems are going broke.
Post by Andrew Swallow
The looking after the old problem we have got now are the immigrants
imported last century. Immigration did not solve this but predictably
made it worse.
Counterfactual tripe. Immigrants tend to have more children, not
fewer, so they tend to lead to more workers per old person than you
would otherwise get.
Not for 20+ years.
Before that the immigrants themselves are workers. It's not like they
come here at age 65 and start having children, after all.
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Note: Caring for old people is done by nurses and care workers. These
are women so importing men is guaranteed to not work.
Caring for them isn't the problem. PAYING for them is the problem.
Someone has to be working and paying taxes to fund old age social
insurance and health care.
The situation in the US and UK are a little different.
In 1971 the UK's population was 55,928,000 according to the census. By
2015 it had reached 65.1 million. An increase of about 10 million.
During that time most factories were closed and unemployment reached 3
million people - so more unskilled workers who cannot speak English were
definitely not needed.
That's a very small increase over 45 years. Based on that,
immigration doesn't appear to be your problem. Aren't a lot of your
immigrants in the medical fields?
Some are but most were manual workers and shop keepers.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
When it comes to government spending old people and children are net
costs. Neither have tax paying jobs and children need schools providing.
With a growing population children need *new* schools and new homes
building - high capital and operating costs. Consequently immigrants do
not produce any surplus money to pay for the old.
Immigrants typically aren't either old people or children. With the
tiny growth in your population over the last 45 years, you ought to
have schools coming out of your ears.
The children are born about 2-3 years after the wives arrive.
Fred J. McCall
2017-04-24 06:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by Jonathan
Post by d***@agent.com
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe,
So now the population growth rate is too low for ya eh?
But such optimism will not make up for the frightening conse-
quences for countries struggling to replenish people. “If we
don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,”
said Mr. Karellas, the welfare official. “The fact is, it’s a
disaster.”
They said the same thing in the 1970s. People dying of old age would
have automatically corrected this by now.
Not so much, no, except as a prediction. Said prediction is pretty
much here, which is why social insurance systems are going broke.
Post by Andrew Swallow
The looking after the old problem we have got now are the immigrants
imported last century. Immigration did not solve this but predictably
made it worse.
Counterfactual tripe. Immigrants tend to have more children, not
fewer, so they tend to lead to more workers per old person than you
would otherwise get.
Not for 20+ years.
Before that the immigrants themselves are workers. It's not like they
come here at age 65 and start having children, after all.
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Note: Caring for old people is done by nurses and care workers. These
are women so importing men is guaranteed to not work.
Caring for them isn't the problem. PAYING for them is the problem.
Someone has to be working and paying taxes to fund old age social
insurance and health care.
The situation in the US and UK are a little different.
In 1971 the UK's population was 55,928,000 according to the census. By
2015 it had reached 65.1 million. An increase of about 10 million.
During that time most factories were closed and unemployment reached 3
million people - so more unskilled workers who cannot speak English were
definitely not needed.
That's a very small increase over 45 years. Based on that,
immigration doesn't appear to be your problem. Aren't a lot of your
immigrants in the medical fields?
Some are but most were manual workers and shop keepers.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
When it comes to government spending old people and children are net
costs. Neither have tax paying jobs and children need schools providing.
With a growing population children need *new* schools and new homes
building - high capital and operating costs. Consequently immigrants do
not produce any surplus money to pay for the old.
Immigrants typically aren't either old people or children. With the
tiny growth in your population over the last 45 years, you ought to
have schools coming out of your ears.
The children are born about 2-3 years after the wives arrive.
And so the kids are 30 or so years younger than the parents and when
the parents are going on social security the kids are working and
paying into it.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Andrew Swallow
2017-04-24 10:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by Jonathan
Post by d***@agent.com
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe,
So now the population growth rate is too low for ya eh?
But such optimism will not make up for the frightening conse-
quences for countries struggling to replenish people. “If we
don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,”
said Mr. Karellas, the welfare official. “The fact is, it’s a
disaster.”
They said the same thing in the 1970s. People dying of old age would
have automatically corrected this by now.
Not so much, no, except as a prediction. Said prediction is pretty
much here, which is why social insurance systems are going broke.
Post by Andrew Swallow
The looking after the old problem we have got now are the immigrants
imported last century. Immigration did not solve this but predictably
made it worse.
Counterfactual tripe. Immigrants tend to have more children, not
fewer, so they tend to lead to more workers per old person than you
would otherwise get.
Not for 20+ years.
Before that the immigrants themselves are workers. It's not like they
come here at age 65 and start having children, after all.
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Note: Caring for old people is done by nurses and care workers. These
are women so importing men is guaranteed to not work.
Caring for them isn't the problem. PAYING for them is the problem.
Someone has to be working and paying taxes to fund old age social
insurance and health care.
The situation in the US and UK are a little different.
In 1971 the UK's population was 55,928,000 according to the census. By
2015 it had reached 65.1 million. An increase of about 10 million.
During that time most factories were closed and unemployment reached 3
million people - so more unskilled workers who cannot speak English were
definitely not needed.
That's a very small increase over 45 years. Based on that,
immigration doesn't appear to be your problem. Aren't a lot of your
immigrants in the medical fields?
Some are but most were manual workers and shop keepers.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
When it comes to government spending old people and children are net
costs. Neither have tax paying jobs and children need schools providing.
With a growing population children need *new* schools and new homes
building - high capital and operating costs. Consequently immigrants do
not produce any surplus money to pay for the old.
Immigrants typically aren't either old people or children. With the
tiny growth in your population over the last 45 years, you ought to
have schools coming out of your ears.
The children are born about 2-3 years after the wives arrive.
And so the kids are 30 or so years younger than the parents and when
the parents are going on social security the kids are working and
paying into it.
Or going to jail.
Fred J. McCall
2017-04-24 13:38:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by Jonathan
Post by d***@agent.com
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe,
So now the population growth rate is too low for ya eh?
But such optimism will not make up for the frightening conse-
quences for countries struggling to replenish people. “If we
don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,”
said Mr. Karellas, the welfare official. “The fact is, it’s a
disaster.”
They said the same thing in the 1970s. People dying of old age would
have automatically corrected this by now.
Not so much, no, except as a prediction. Said prediction is pretty
much here, which is why social insurance systems are going broke.
Post by Andrew Swallow
The looking after the old problem we have got now are the immigrants
imported last century. Immigration did not solve this but predictably
made it worse.
Counterfactual tripe. Immigrants tend to have more children, not
fewer, so they tend to lead to more workers per old person than you
would otherwise get.
Not for 20+ years.
Before that the immigrants themselves are workers. It's not like they
come here at age 65 and start having children, after all.
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Note: Caring for old people is done by nurses and care workers. These
are women so importing men is guaranteed to not work.
Caring for them isn't the problem. PAYING for them is the problem.
Someone has to be working and paying taxes to fund old age social
insurance and health care.
The situation in the US and UK are a little different.
In 1971 the UK's population was 55,928,000 according to the census. By
2015 it had reached 65.1 million. An increase of about 10 million.
During that time most factories were closed and unemployment reached 3
million people - so more unskilled workers who cannot speak English were
definitely not needed.
That's a very small increase over 45 years. Based on that,
immigration doesn't appear to be your problem. Aren't a lot of your
immigrants in the medical fields?
Some are but most were manual workers and shop keepers.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
When it comes to government spending old people and children are net
costs. Neither have tax paying jobs and children need schools providing.
With a growing population children need *new* schools and new homes
building - high capital and operating costs. Consequently immigrants do
not produce any surplus money to pay for the old.
Immigrants typically aren't either old people or children. With the
tiny growth in your population over the last 45 years, you ought to
have schools coming out of your ears.
The children are born about 2-3 years after the wives arrive.
And so the kids are 30 or so years younger than the parents and when
the parents are going on social security the kids are working and
paying into it.
Or going to jail.
Bigot much?
--
You are
What you do
When it counts.
Andrew Swallow
2017-04-25 03:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by Jonathan
Post by d***@agent.com
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe,
So now the population growth rate is too low for ya eh?
But such optimism will not make up for the frightening conse-
quences for countries struggling to replenish people. “If we
don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,”
said Mr. Karellas, the welfare official. “The fact is, it’s a
disaster.”
They said the same thing in the 1970s. People dying of old age would
have automatically corrected this by now.
Not so much, no, except as a prediction. Said prediction is pretty
much here, which is why social insurance systems are going broke.
Post by Andrew Swallow
The looking after the old problem we have got now are the immigrants
imported last century. Immigration did not solve this but predictably
made it worse.
Counterfactual tripe. Immigrants tend to have more children, not
fewer, so they tend to lead to more workers per old person than you
would otherwise get.
Not for 20+ years.
Before that the immigrants themselves are workers. It's not like they
come here at age 65 and start having children, after all.
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Note: Caring for old people is done by nurses and care workers. These
are women so importing men is guaranteed to not work.
Caring for them isn't the problem. PAYING for them is the problem.
Someone has to be working and paying taxes to fund old age social
insurance and health care.
The situation in the US and UK are a little different.
In 1971 the UK's population was 55,928,000 according to the census. By
2015 it had reached 65.1 million. An increase of about 10 million.
During that time most factories were closed and unemployment reached 3
million people - so more unskilled workers who cannot speak English were
definitely not needed.
That's a very small increase over 45 years. Based on that,
immigration doesn't appear to be your problem. Aren't a lot of your
immigrants in the medical fields?
Some are but most were manual workers and shop keepers.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
When it comes to government spending old people and children are net
costs. Neither have tax paying jobs and children need schools providing.
With a growing population children need *new* schools and new homes
building - high capital and operating costs. Consequently immigrants do
not produce any surplus money to pay for the old.
Immigrants typically aren't either old people or children. With the
tiny growth in your population over the last 45 years, you ought to
have schools coming out of your ears.
The children are born about 2-3 years after the wives arrive.
And so the kids are 30 or so years younger than the parents and when
the parents are going on social security the kids are working and
paying into it.
Or going to jail.
Bigot much?
Hate tax rises to pay for new jails
Fred J. McCall
2017-04-25 17:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by d***@agent.com
Post by Jonathan
Post by d***@agent.com
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe,
So now the population growth rate is too low for ya eh?
But such optimism will not make up for the frightening conse-
quences for countries struggling to replenish people. “If we
don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,”
said Mr. Karellas, the welfare official. “The fact is, it’s a
disaster.”
They said the same thing in the 1970s. People dying of old age would
have automatically corrected this by now.
Not so much, no, except as a prediction. Said prediction is pretty
much here, which is why social insurance systems are going broke.
Post by Andrew Swallow
The looking after the old problem we have got now are the immigrants
imported last century. Immigration did not solve this but predictably
made it worse.
Counterfactual tripe. Immigrants tend to have more children, not
fewer, so they tend to lead to more workers per old person than you
would otherwise get.
Not for 20+ years.
Before that the immigrants themselves are workers. It's not like they
come here at age 65 and start having children, after all.
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Note: Caring for old people is done by nurses and care workers. These
are women so importing men is guaranteed to not work.
Caring for them isn't the problem. PAYING for them is the problem.
Someone has to be working and paying taxes to fund old age social
insurance and health care.
The situation in the US and UK are a little different.
In 1971 the UK's population was 55,928,000 according to the census. By
2015 it had reached 65.1 million. An increase of about 10 million.
During that time most factories were closed and unemployment reached 3
million people - so more unskilled workers who cannot speak English were
definitely not needed.
That's a very small increase over 45 years. Based on that,
immigration doesn't appear to be your problem. Aren't a lot of your
immigrants in the medical fields?
Some are but most were manual workers and shop keepers.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
When it comes to government spending old people and children are net
costs. Neither have tax paying jobs and children need schools providing.
With a growing population children need *new* schools and new homes
building - high capital and operating costs. Consequently immigrants do
not produce any surplus money to pay for the old.
Immigrants typically aren't either old people or children. With the
tiny growth in your population over the last 45 years, you ought to
have schools coming out of your ears.
The children are born about 2-3 years after the wives arrive.
And so the kids are 30 or so years younger than the parents and when
the parents are going on social security the kids are working and
paying into it.
Or going to jail.
Bigot much?
Hate tax rises to pay for new jails
So tell your people to stop committing so many crimes in their old
age.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
a425couple
2017-04-18 22:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
After Economic Crisis, Low Birthrates Challenge Southern Europe
By LIZ ALDERMAN, APRIL 16, 2017, NY Times
ATHENS - As a longtime fertility doctor, Minas Mastrominas has
helped couples in Greece give birth to 1000s of bouncing babies.
But recently, disturbing trends have escalated at his clinic.
Couples insisting on only one child. Women tearfully renouncing
plans to conceive. And a surge in single-child parents asking
him to destroy all of their remaining embryos.
"People are saying they can't afford more than one child, or
any at all," Dr. Mastrominas, a director at Embryogenesis, a
large in vitro fertilization center, said as videos of gurgling
toddlers played in the waiting room. "After eight years of
economic stagnation, they're giving up on their dreams."
Like women in the U.S. & other mature economies, women across
Europe have been having fewer children for decades. But
demographers are warning of a new hot spot for childlessness
on the Mediterranean rim, where Europe's economic crisis hit
hardest. ----
Although she has a good job & master's degrees in politics and
economics, "there's too much insecurity," Ms. Karaklioumi said.
Unemployment among women stands at 27%, compared with 20% for men.
"I don't know if I'll have this job in two months or a year,"
Ms. Karaklioumi added. "If you don't see a light at the end of
the tunnel, how can you plan for the future?"
The above, having faith in the future, is a critical point.
Post by d***@agent.com
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe, "the really
serious problem is that some of the weakest countries are the
ones with the least favorable demographics," said Simon Tilford,
the deputy director of the Center for European Reform in London.
"Lower birthrates in the south will mean weaker growth and
productivity, holding the birthrate down and producing more
fiscal problems." Over time, he added, "it suggests that the
already divergent economic performance between Northern and
Southern Europe may become structural rather than cyclical."
Well, here are some related quotes about a group that does
have faith:

"There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe
without swords, without guns, without conquest. we don't need
terrorists, we don't need homicide bombers. The 50+ million
Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within
a few decades."
- Muammar Gaddafi, Supreme Leader of Libya

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to
go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends.
Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it
with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
– Houari (Mohamed) Boumedienne, President of Algeria, 1965 –
1978, in a 1974 speech at the UN

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become
dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America,
and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
- Ohmar Ahmad, co-founder of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations)
http://4freedoms.com/group/maps/forum/topics/list-of-supremacist-statements

And, earlier in 2016:
"Turkey's Erdogan warns Muslims against birth control Turkish President
Recep Tayyip Erdogan has called on Muslims to reject contraception and
have more children.
In a speech broadcast live on TV, he said "no Muslim family" should
consider birth control or family planning.
"We will multiply our descendants," said Mr Erdogan, who became
president in August 2014 after serving as prime minister for 12 years.
His AK Party has its roots in Islamism and many of its supporters are
conservative Muslims.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36413097

Then, for scary stuff, you might view,

Muslim Demographics - YouTube
Video for Islamic demographics
▶ 7:31

Mar 30, 2009 - Uploaded by friendofmuslim
Islam will overwhelm Christendom unless Christians recognize the demographic
realities, begin reproducing ...

But then, snopes says, much of the above alarms are wrong.
Muslim Demographics - Snopes.com
www.snopes.com/politics/religion/demographics.asp
Claim: Statistics demonstrate that "Islam will overwhelm Christendom unless
Christians recognize the demographic realities and begin reproducing again."
Claimed by: Internet
Fact check by Snopes.com: Mostly False
Jonathan
2017-04-18 23:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by d***@agent.com
After Economic Crisis, Low Birthrates Challenge Southern Europe
By LIZ ALDERMAN, APRIL 16, 2017, NY Times
ATHENS - As a longtime fertility doctor, Minas Mastrominas has
helped couples in Greece give birth to 1000s of bouncing babies.
But recently, disturbing trends have escalated at his clinic.
Couples insisting on only one child. Women tearfully renouncing
plans to conceive. And a surge in single-child parents asking
him to destroy all of their remaining embryos.
"People are saying they can't afford more than one child, or
any at all," Dr. Mastrominas, a director at Embryogenesis, a
large in vitro fertilization center, said as videos of gurgling
toddlers played in the waiting room. "After eight years of
economic stagnation, they're giving up on their dreams."
Like women in the U.S. & other mature economies, women across
Europe have been having fewer children for decades. But
demographers are warning of a new hot spot for childlessness
on the Mediterranean rim, where Europe's economic crisis hit
hardest. ----
Although she has a good job & master's degrees in politics and
economics, "there's too much insecurity," Ms. Karaklioumi said.
Unemployment among women stands at 27%, compared with 20% for men.
"I don't know if I'll have this job in two months or a year,"
Ms. Karaklioumi added. "If you don't see a light at the end of
the tunnel, how can you plan for the future?"
The above, having faith in the future, is a critical point.
Post by d***@agent.com
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe, "the really
serious problem is that some of the weakest countries are the
ones with the least favorable demographics," said Simon Tilford,
the deputy director of the Center for European Reform in London.
"Lower birthrates in the south will mean weaker growth and
productivity, holding the birthrate down and producing more
fiscal problems." Over time, he added, "it suggests that the
already divergent economic performance between Northern and
Southern Europe may become structural rather than cyclical."
Well, here are some related quotes about a group that does
"There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe
without swords, without guns, without conquest. we don't need
terrorists, we don't need homicide bombers. The 50+ million
Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within
a few decades."
- Muammar Gaddafi, Supreme Leader of Libya
“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to
go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends.
Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it
with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
– Houari (Mohamed) Boumedienne, President of Algeria, 1965 –
1978, in a 1974 speech at the UN
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become
dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America,
and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
- Ohmar Ahmad, co-founder of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations)
http://4freedoms.com/group/maps/forum/topics/list-of-supremacist-statements
"Turkey's Erdogan warns Muslims against birth control Turkish President
Recep Tayyip Erdogan has called on Muslims to reject contraception and
have more children.
In a speech broadcast live on TV, he said "no Muslim family" should
consider birth control or family planning.
"We will multiply our descendants," said Mr Erdogan, who became
president in August 2014 after serving as prime minister for 12 years.
His AK Party has its roots in Islamism and many of its supporters are
conservative Muslims.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36413097
Then, for scary stuff, you might view,
Muslim Demographics - YouTube
Video for Islamic demographics
▶ 7:31
http://youtu.be/6-3X5hIFXYU
Mar 30, 2009 - Uploaded by friendofmuslim
Islam will overwhelm Christendom unless Christians recognize the
demographic realities, begin reproducing ...
But then, snopes says, much of the above alarms are wrong.
Muslim Demographics - Snopes.com
Ya but will Europe become Islamic or will Muslims become
Europeans?
Post by a425couple
www.snopes.com/politics/religion/demographics.asp
Claim: Statistics demonstrate that "Islam will overwhelm Christendom
unless Christians recognize the demographic realities and begin
reproducing again."
Claimed by: Internet
Fact check by Snopes.com: Mostly False
me
2017-04-19 07:47:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Birth rate is not the only variable. Another is death rate.
w***@msn.com
2017-04-19 15:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Variables aside, females have to produce an average of 2.3 offspring to sustain a population's numbers. White are way short of that number, worldwide. Some countries are down to 1.2. The race is whittling down.
me
2017-04-19 18:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
El Castor
2017-04-19 19:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.

For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
me
2017-04-19 20:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I have a cousin in Germany who will visit me here in Trieste next week. He has 3 children. He's the exception. More of my relatives have no children than do.
Emily
2017-04-19 23:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?

There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
islander
2017-04-20 00:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
w***@msn.com
2017-04-20 06:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It was the brains and industrialness of European whites who came here and built a country which nonWhites are so drawn to. Any whites who think that other races can supplant Caucasians are only dreaming liberal dreams and have no realistic comprehension of facts and actuality.
me
2017-04-20 08:44:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ask the American Indians if they care.

The Culture War is a clash of ideas about what one believes to be true, and others with different view points. Your experiences, family, friends, education, and the media help to form your belief system, or World View.
http://www.culture-war.info

Ask yourself. What if the dreaded Republicans controlled Congress? Do you care?
El Castor
2017-04-20 08:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...

Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77

Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89

USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.

So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
islander
2017-04-20 14:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
El Castor
2017-04-20 20:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
islander
2017-04-21 15:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
El Castor
2017-04-21 20:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.

Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??

Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122

Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
islander
2017-04-22 13:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
El Castor
2017-04-22 21:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
The only California neighborhood on the list is Ladera Heights. 500
miles from here and I have never heard of it, but it sounds like a
nice place. The Black people who live there are not there by accident.
They would no more live in predominantly Black parts of the Bay Area
than you or I would.

And no, high crime neighborhoods are not the result of poverty.
Poverty and crime are symptoms of the same thing, low IQ -- regardless
of race, I might add.
islander
2017-04-23 01:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
The only California neighborhood on the list is Ladera Heights. 500
miles from here and I have never heard of it, but it sounds like a
nice place. The Black people who live there are not there by accident.
They would no more live in predominantly Black parts of the Bay Area
than you or I would.
And no, high crime neighborhoods are not the result of poverty.
Poverty and crime are symptoms of the same thing, low IQ -- regardless
of race, I might add.
The poverty rate is 5% higher in conservative states and the crime rate
is also higher in every category except auto theft. But, there is only
about 1% difference in IQ.
El Castor
2017-04-23 08:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
The only California neighborhood on the list is Ladera Heights. 500
miles from here and I have never heard of it, but it sounds like a
nice place. The Black people who live there are not there by accident.
They would no more live in predominantly Black parts of the Bay Area
than you or I would.
And no, high crime neighborhoods are not the result of poverty.
Poverty and crime are symptoms of the same thing, low IQ -- regardless
of race, I might add.
The poverty rate is 5% higher in conservative states and the crime rate
is also higher in every category except auto theft. But, there is only
about 1% difference in IQ.
Meaningless. Look at a specific population and the IQs of those in
poverty, as well as the criminals, and compare those IQs with those
not in poverty and not in prison.

"The majority of studies have found IQ differences between offenders
and nonoffenders (e.g., Ellis &Walsh, 2003). On average, the IQ for
chronic juvenile offenders is 92, about half a standard deviation
below the population mean. For chronic adult offenders, however, the
average IQ is 85, 1 standard deviation below the population mean."
http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/intelligence-and-crime/3/

As for the connection between intelligence and poverty/crime, there is
no doubt that poverty, crime, and lower than average IQ go hand in
hand, however you will find numerous arguments that criminal behavior,
as well as poverty depresses IQ to a level lower than what might be
anticipated genetically. Perhaps there is some connection, but it
sounds like a typical liberal attempt at rationalization.
islander
2017-04-23 15:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
The only California neighborhood on the list is Ladera Heights. 500
miles from here and I have never heard of it, but it sounds like a
nice place. The Black people who live there are not there by accident.
They would no more live in predominantly Black parts of the Bay Area
than you or I would.
And no, high crime neighborhoods are not the result of poverty.
Poverty and crime are symptoms of the same thing, low IQ -- regardless
of race, I might add.
The poverty rate is 5% higher in conservative states and the crime rate
is also higher in every category except auto theft. But, there is only
about 1% difference in IQ.
Meaningless. Look at a specific population and the IQs of those in
poverty, as well as the criminals, and compare those IQs with those
not in poverty and not in prison.
"The majority of studies have found IQ differences between offenders
and nonoffenders (e.g., Ellis &Walsh, 2003). On average, the IQ for
chronic juvenile offenders is 92, about half a standard deviation
below the population mean. For chronic adult offenders, however, the
average IQ is 85, 1 standard deviation below the population mean."
http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/intelligence-and-crime/3/
As for the connection between intelligence and poverty/crime, there is
no doubt that poverty, crime, and lower than average IQ go hand in
hand, however you will find numerous arguments that criminal behavior,
as well as poverty depresses IQ to a level lower than what might be
anticipated genetically. Perhaps there is some connection, but it
sounds like a typical liberal attempt at rationalization.
Fundamentally, correlation does not prove causality. This is the basic
flaw in the Hernstein and Murray research. Better, I think, to look for
the cause(s) and find ways to correct them. That is not
rationalization, but how science advances.
El Castor
2017-04-23 19:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
The only California neighborhood on the list is Ladera Heights. 500
miles from here and I have never heard of it, but it sounds like a
nice place. The Black people who live there are not there by accident.
They would no more live in predominantly Black parts of the Bay Area
than you or I would.
And no, high crime neighborhoods are not the result of poverty.
Poverty and crime are symptoms of the same thing, low IQ -- regardless
of race, I might add.
The poverty rate is 5% higher in conservative states and the crime rate
is also higher in every category except auto theft. But, there is only
about 1% difference in IQ.
Meaningless. Look at a specific population and the IQs of those in
poverty, as well as the criminals, and compare those IQs with those
not in poverty and not in prison.
"The majority of studies have found IQ differences between offenders
and nonoffenders (e.g., Ellis &Walsh, 2003). On average, the IQ for
chronic juvenile offenders is 92, about half a standard deviation
below the population mean. For chronic adult offenders, however, the
average IQ is 85, 1 standard deviation below the population mean."
http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/intelligence-and-crime/3/
As for the connection between intelligence and poverty/crime, there is
no doubt that poverty, crime, and lower than average IQ go hand in
hand, however you will find numerous arguments that criminal behavior,
as well as poverty depresses IQ to a level lower than what might be
anticipated genetically. Perhaps there is some connection, but it
sounds like a typical liberal attempt at rationalization.
Fundamentally, correlation does not prove causality. This is the basic
flaw in the Hernstein and Murray research. Better, I think, to look for
the cause(s) and find ways to correct them. That is not
rationalization, but how science advances.
One of the studies Herrnstein and Murray cited in their book concluded
that men, as a group, with IQ's below 100 were 10 times more likely to
be incarcerated at some time in their life than those above 100. I
don't know about the number 10, but the concept seems reasonable. Here
are some of the reasons commonly offered.

1. Low IQ children have poor verbal skills and do not socialize well
with their peers.
2. Low IQ children do not do as well in school as their more
intelligent peers, therefore they score poorly and drop out more
frequently. How many 85 IQ students did you have in Stanford?
3. The poorly educated find themselves in low paying jobs, and are
more frequently unemployed.
4. Low IQ individuals are less likely to connect today's actions with
future consequences, and are therefore more likely to engage in
illegal activity to achieve financial rewards that are otherwise
unobtainable, or to satisfy momentary urges of anger or lust.
islander
2017-04-23 22:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
The only California neighborhood on the list is Ladera Heights. 500
miles from here and I have never heard of it, but it sounds like a
nice place. The Black people who live there are not there by accident.
They would no more live in predominantly Black parts of the Bay Area
than you or I would.
And no, high crime neighborhoods are not the result of poverty.
Poverty and crime are symptoms of the same thing, low IQ -- regardless
of race, I might add.
The poverty rate is 5% higher in conservative states and the crime rate
is also higher in every category except auto theft. But, there is only
about 1% difference in IQ.
Meaningless. Look at a specific population and the IQs of those in
poverty, as well as the criminals, and compare those IQs with those
not in poverty and not in prison.
"The majority of studies have found IQ differences between offenders
and nonoffenders (e.g., Ellis &Walsh, 2003). On average, the IQ for
chronic juvenile offenders is 92, about half a standard deviation
below the population mean. For chronic adult offenders, however, the
average IQ is 85, 1 standard deviation below the population mean."
http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/intelligence-and-crime/3/
As for the connection between intelligence and poverty/crime, there is
no doubt that poverty, crime, and lower than average IQ go hand in
hand, however you will find numerous arguments that criminal behavior,
as well as poverty depresses IQ to a level lower than what might be
anticipated genetically. Perhaps there is some connection, but it
sounds like a typical liberal attempt at rationalization.
Fundamentally, correlation does not prove causality. This is the basic
flaw in the Hernstein and Murray research. Better, I think, to look for
the cause(s) and find ways to correct them. That is not
rationalization, but how science advances.
One of the studies Herrnstein and Murray cited in their book concluded
that men, as a group, with IQ's below 100 were 10 times more likely to
be incarcerated at some time in their life than those above 100. I
don't know about the number 10, but the concept seems reasonable. Here
are some of the reasons commonly offered.
1. Low IQ children have poor verbal skills and do not socialize well
with their peers.
2. Low IQ children do not do as well in school as their more
intelligent peers, therefore they score poorly and drop out more
frequently. How many 85 IQ students did you have in Stanford?
3. The poorly educated find themselves in low paying jobs, and are
more frequently unemployed.
4. Low IQ individuals are less likely to connect today's actions with
future consequences, and are therefore more likely to engage in
illegal activity to achieve financial rewards that are otherwise
unobtainable, or to satisfy momentary urges of anger or lust.
I have no argument with the hypothesis that children who are
handicapped, no matter the reason will have difficulty in succeeding in
life. Where we part company is that you assume that low IQ is
genetically inherited and is characterized by race. That is a faulty
conclusion IMV and one that is convenient to a racist argument. I offer
as evidence the several citations that I have provided that argue that
early fetus development in the womb is subject to environmental
influence, specifically that anything that denies the fetus the
nourishment that it needs during the first trimester will reduce the
essential development that is needed for brain development, especially
in the essential networking that is needed for intelligence.
El Castor
2017-04-24 09:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
The only California neighborhood on the list is Ladera Heights. 500
miles from here and I have never heard of it, but it sounds like a
nice place. The Black people who live there are not there by accident.
They would no more live in predominantly Black parts of the Bay Area
than you or I would.
And no, high crime neighborhoods are not the result of poverty.
Poverty and crime are symptoms of the same thing, low IQ -- regardless
of race, I might add.
The poverty rate is 5% higher in conservative states and the crime rate
is also higher in every category except auto theft. But, there is only
about 1% difference in IQ.
Meaningless. Look at a specific population and the IQs of those in
poverty, as well as the criminals, and compare those IQs with those
not in poverty and not in prison.
"The majority of studies have found IQ differences between offenders
and nonoffenders (e.g., Ellis &Walsh, 2003). On average, the IQ for
chronic juvenile offenders is 92, about half a standard deviation
below the population mean. For chronic adult offenders, however, the
average IQ is 85, 1 standard deviation below the population mean."
http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/intelligence-and-crime/3/
As for the connection between intelligence and poverty/crime, there is
no doubt that poverty, crime, and lower than average IQ go hand in
hand, however you will find numerous arguments that criminal behavior,
as well as poverty depresses IQ to a level lower than what might be
anticipated genetically. Perhaps there is some connection, but it
sounds like a typical liberal attempt at rationalization.
Fundamentally, correlation does not prove causality. This is the basic
flaw in the Hernstein and Murray research. Better, I think, to look for
the cause(s) and find ways to correct them. That is not
rationalization, but how science advances.
One of the studies Herrnstein and Murray cited in their book concluded
that men, as a group, with IQ's below 100 were 10 times more likely to
be incarcerated at some time in their life than those above 100. I
don't know about the number 10, but the concept seems reasonable. Here
are some of the reasons commonly offered.
1. Low IQ children have poor verbal skills and do not socialize well
with their peers.
2. Low IQ children do not do as well in school as their more
intelligent peers, therefore they score poorly and drop out more
frequently. How many 85 IQ students did you have in Stanford?
3. The poorly educated find themselves in low paying jobs, and are
more frequently unemployed.
4. Low IQ individuals are less likely to connect today's actions with
future consequences, and are therefore more likely to engage in
illegal activity to achieve financial rewards that are otherwise
unobtainable, or to satisfy momentary urges of anger or lust.
I have no argument with the hypothesis that children who are
handicapped, no matter the reason will have difficulty in succeeding in
life. Where we part company is that you assume that low IQ is
genetically inherited and is characterized by race. That is a faulty
conclusion IMV and one that is convenient to a racist argument. I offer
as evidence the several citations that I have provided that argue that
early fetus development in the womb is subject to environmental
influence, specifically that anything that denies the fetus the
nourishment that it needs during the first trimester will reduce the
essential development that is needed for brain development, especially
in the essential networking that is needed for intelligence.
And I offer in evidence the numerous studies which I have cited which
show the great (but not sole) importance that genetics plays in
intelligence. For instance ...

"Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings."
"Intelligence is a core construct in differential psychology and
behavioural genetics, and should be so in cognitive neuroscience. It
is one of the best predictors of important life outcomes such as
education, occupation, mental and physical health and illness, and
mortality. Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural
traits. Here, we highlight five genetic findings that are special to
intelligence differences and that have important implications for its
genetic architecture and for gene-hunting expeditions. (i) The
heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to
perhaps 80% in later adulthood. (ii) Intelligence captures genetic
effects on diverse cognitive and learning abilities, which correlate
phenotypically about 0.30 on average but correlate genetically about
0.60 or higher. (iii) Assortative mating is greater for intelligence
(spouse correlations ~0.40) than for other behavioural traits such as
personality and psychopathology (~0.10) or physical traits such as
height and weight (~0.20)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25224258

BTW -- I wish you would get off this racist kick. If I believe that
intelligence is largely (but not entirely) genetic, and that many
Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are gifted with greater intelligence than my
own Caucasian ancestry, it is not because I am promoting Asian or
Jewish superiority, it is simply because I am trying to better
understand the human condition. It is too bad we can't seem to discuss
these issues without using ugly pejoratives.
islander
2017-04-24 14:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
The only California neighborhood on the list is Ladera Heights. 500
miles from here and I have never heard of it, but it sounds like a
nice place. The Black people who live there are not there by accident.
They would no more live in predominantly Black parts of the Bay Area
than you or I would.
And no, high crime neighborhoods are not the result of poverty.
Poverty and crime are symptoms of the same thing, low IQ -- regardless
of race, I might add.
The poverty rate is 5% higher in conservative states and the crime rate
is also higher in every category except auto theft. But, there is only
about 1% difference in IQ.
Meaningless. Look at a specific population and the IQs of those in
poverty, as well as the criminals, and compare those IQs with those
not in poverty and not in prison.
"The majority of studies have found IQ differences between offenders
and nonoffenders (e.g., Ellis &Walsh, 2003). On average, the IQ for
chronic juvenile offenders is 92, about half a standard deviation
below the population mean. For chronic adult offenders, however, the
average IQ is 85, 1 standard deviation below the population mean."
http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/intelligence-and-crime/3/
As for the connection between intelligence and poverty/crime, there is
no doubt that poverty, crime, and lower than average IQ go hand in
hand, however you will find numerous arguments that criminal behavior,
as well as poverty depresses IQ to a level lower than what might be
anticipated genetically. Perhaps there is some connection, but it
sounds like a typical liberal attempt at rationalization.
Fundamentally, correlation does not prove causality. This is the basic
flaw in the Hernstein and Murray research. Better, I think, to look for
the cause(s) and find ways to correct them. That is not
rationalization, but how science advances.
One of the studies Herrnstein and Murray cited in their book concluded
that men, as a group, with IQ's below 100 were 10 times more likely to
be incarcerated at some time in their life than those above 100. I
don't know about the number 10, but the concept seems reasonable. Here
are some of the reasons commonly offered.
1. Low IQ children have poor verbal skills and do not socialize well
with their peers.
2. Low IQ children do not do as well in school as their more
intelligent peers, therefore they score poorly and drop out more
frequently. How many 85 IQ students did you have in Stanford?
3. The poorly educated find themselves in low paying jobs, and are
more frequently unemployed.
4. Low IQ individuals are less likely to connect today's actions with
future consequences, and are therefore more likely to engage in
illegal activity to achieve financial rewards that are otherwise
unobtainable, or to satisfy momentary urges of anger or lust.
I have no argument with the hypothesis that children who are
handicapped, no matter the reason will have difficulty in succeeding in
life. Where we part company is that you assume that low IQ is
genetically inherited and is characterized by race. That is a faulty
conclusion IMV and one that is convenient to a racist argument. I offer
as evidence the several citations that I have provided that argue that
early fetus development in the womb is subject to environmental
influence, specifically that anything that denies the fetus the
nourishment that it needs during the first trimester will reduce the
essential development that is needed for brain development, especially
in the essential networking that is needed for intelligence.
And I offer in evidence the numerous studies which I have cited which
show the great (but not sole) importance that genetics plays in
intelligence. For instance ...
"Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings."
"Intelligence is a core construct in differential psychology and
behavioural genetics, and should be so in cognitive neuroscience. It
is one of the best predictors of important life outcomes such as
education, occupation, mental and physical health and illness, and
mortality. Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural
traits. Here, we highlight five genetic findings that are special to
intelligence differences and that have important implications for its
genetic architecture and for gene-hunting expeditions. (i) The
heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to
perhaps 80% in later adulthood. (ii) Intelligence captures genetic
effects on diverse cognitive and learning abilities, which correlate
phenotypically about 0.30 on average but correlate genetically about
0.60 or higher. (iii) Assortative mating is greater for intelligence
(spouse correlations ~0.40) than for other behavioural traits such as
personality and psychopathology (~0.10) or physical traits such as
height and weight (~0.20)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25224258
BTW -- I wish you would get off this racist kick. If I believe that
intelligence is largely (but not entirely) genetic, and that many
Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are gifted with greater intelligence than my
own Caucasian ancestry, it is not because I am promoting Asian or
Jewish superiority, it is simply because I am trying to better
understand the human condition. It is too bad we can't seem to discuss
these issues without using ugly pejoratives.
When you assign low intelligence to people of the Negro race, that is
racist. When you attribute that low intelligence to genetics
disregarding other causes, you are expressing an opinion that is
convenient to a bigoted view.
El Castor
2017-04-24 17:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
The only California neighborhood on the list is Ladera Heights. 500
miles from here and I have never heard of it, but it sounds like a
nice place. The Black people who live there are not there by accident.
They would no more live in predominantly Black parts of the Bay Area
than you or I would.
And no, high crime neighborhoods are not the result of poverty.
Poverty and crime are symptoms of the same thing, low IQ -- regardless
of race, I might add.
The poverty rate is 5% higher in conservative states and the crime rate
is also higher in every category except auto theft. But, there is only
about 1% difference in IQ.
Meaningless. Look at a specific population and the IQs of those in
poverty, as well as the criminals, and compare those IQs with those
not in poverty and not in prison.
"The majority of studies have found IQ differences between offenders
and nonoffenders (e.g., Ellis &Walsh, 2003). On average, the IQ for
chronic juvenile offenders is 92, about half a standard deviation
below the population mean. For chronic adult offenders, however, the
average IQ is 85, 1 standard deviation below the population mean."
http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/intelligence-and-crime/3/
As for the connection between intelligence and poverty/crime, there is
no doubt that poverty, crime, and lower than average IQ go hand in
hand, however you will find numerous arguments that criminal behavior,
as well as poverty depresses IQ to a level lower than what might be
anticipated genetically. Perhaps there is some connection, but it
sounds like a typical liberal attempt at rationalization.
Fundamentally, correlation does not prove causality. This is the basic
flaw in the Hernstein and Murray research. Better, I think, to look for
the cause(s) and find ways to correct them. That is not
rationalization, but how science advances.
One of the studies Herrnstein and Murray cited in their book concluded
that men, as a group, with IQ's below 100 were 10 times more likely to
be incarcerated at some time in their life than those above 100. I
don't know about the number 10, but the concept seems reasonable. Here
are some of the reasons commonly offered.
1. Low IQ children have poor verbal skills and do not socialize well
with their peers.
2. Low IQ children do not do as well in school as their more
intelligent peers, therefore they score poorly and drop out more
frequently. How many 85 IQ students did you have in Stanford?
3. The poorly educated find themselves in low paying jobs, and are
more frequently unemployed.
4. Low IQ individuals are less likely to connect today's actions with
future consequences, and are therefore more likely to engage in
illegal activity to achieve financial rewards that are otherwise
unobtainable, or to satisfy momentary urges of anger or lust.
I have no argument with the hypothesis that children who are
handicapped, no matter the reason will have difficulty in succeeding in
life. Where we part company is that you assume that low IQ is
genetically inherited and is characterized by race. That is a faulty
conclusion IMV and one that is convenient to a racist argument. I offer
as evidence the several citations that I have provided that argue that
early fetus development in the womb is subject to environmental
influence, specifically that anything that denies the fetus the
nourishment that it needs during the first trimester will reduce the
essential development that is needed for brain development, especially
in the essential networking that is needed for intelligence.
And I offer in evidence the numerous studies which I have cited which
show the great (but not sole) importance that genetics plays in
intelligence. For instance ...
"Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings."
"Intelligence is a core construct in differential psychology and
behavioural genetics, and should be so in cognitive neuroscience. It
is one of the best predictors of important life outcomes such as
education, occupation, mental and physical health and illness, and
mortality. Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural
traits. Here, we highlight five genetic findings that are special to
intelligence differences and that have important implications for its
genetic architecture and for gene-hunting expeditions. (i) The
heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to
perhaps 80% in later adulthood. (ii) Intelligence captures genetic
effects on diverse cognitive and learning abilities, which correlate
phenotypically about 0.30 on average but correlate genetically about
0.60 or higher. (iii) Assortative mating is greater for intelligence
(spouse correlations ~0.40) than for other behavioural traits such as
personality and psychopathology (~0.10) or physical traits such as
height and weight (~0.20)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25224258
BTW -- I wish you would get off this racist kick. If I believe that
intelligence is largely (but not entirely) genetic, and that many
Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are gifted with greater intelligence than my
own Caucasian ancestry, it is not because I am promoting Asian or
Jewish superiority, it is simply because I am trying to better
understand the human condition. It is too bad we can't seem to discuss
these issues without using ugly pejoratives.
When you assign low intelligence to people of the Negro race, that is
racist. When you attribute that low intelligence to genetics
disregarding other causes, you are expressing an opinion that is
convenient to a bigoted view.
Exactly what I expected. Your predictable response to speech that is
contrary to your politics is not reasoned discourse, it is
accusations, insults, and name calling in an attempt to silence that
with which you disagree.

We have a local politician, a former San Francisco mayor, by the name
of Willie Brown. Willie once spoke at the dedication of a building
that I worked in. I'd never heard him speak in person, and it was a
revelation. That man has an unbelievable almost hypnotic charisma that
can only be appreciated in person. As I am sure you know, Willie is a
Black man and a Democrat. He is semi-retired now, but frequently
writes a column for the San Francisco Chronicle. I subscribe, and here
is what he had to say a couple of days ago about the riots in Berkeley
whenever a conservative is invited to speak. His remarks are not just
about Berkeley students, they are about you.

"The battle over free speech in Berkeley has flipped the two sides in
the old generation gap. When the Free Speech Movement got rolling at
UC Berkeley in the 1960s, the whole point was winning the right to
speak out about civil rights, sex, the Vietnam War or anything else on
your mind. It was youth versus “the man.” Now it’s youth demanding the
shutdown, and the man expressing outrage at the death of free speech.
And the cops being sent in to protect it. How’s that for a reversal?
And what are these kids upset about? Ann Coulter? Milo Yiannopoulos?
David Horowitz? All second-string cable commentators at best. The
descendants of those who fought for free speech now say there
shouldn’t be speech unless it fits their own political agenda. If it
doesn’t, then it’s not free speech, it’s hate speech — and it must be
stopped, even if it means violence and damage. How the hell do you get
away with that? The Free Speech Movement was born in Berkeley, and
now, it seems, it’s being buried in Berkeley."
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Berkeley-betrays-its-free-speech-legacy-11091114.php
islander
2017-04-25 15:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
The only California neighborhood on the list is Ladera Heights. 500
miles from here and I have never heard of it, but it sounds like a
nice place. The Black people who live there are not there by accident.
They would no more live in predominantly Black parts of the Bay Area
than you or I would.
And no, high crime neighborhoods are not the result of poverty.
Poverty and crime are symptoms of the same thing, low IQ -- regardless
of race, I might add.
The poverty rate is 5% higher in conservative states and the crime rate
is also higher in every category except auto theft. But, there is only
about 1% difference in IQ.
Meaningless. Look at a specific population and the IQs of those in
poverty, as well as the criminals, and compare those IQs with those
not in poverty and not in prison.
"The majority of studies have found IQ differences between offenders
and nonoffenders (e.g., Ellis &Walsh, 2003). On average, the IQ for
chronic juvenile offenders is 92, about half a standard deviation
below the population mean. For chronic adult offenders, however, the
average IQ is 85, 1 standard deviation below the population mean."
http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/intelligence-and-crime/3/
As for the connection between intelligence and poverty/crime, there is
no doubt that poverty, crime, and lower than average IQ go hand in
hand, however you will find numerous arguments that criminal behavior,
as well as poverty depresses IQ to a level lower than what might be
anticipated genetically. Perhaps there is some connection, but it
sounds like a typical liberal attempt at rationalization.
Fundamentally, correlation does not prove causality. This is the basic
flaw in the Hernstein and Murray research. Better, I think, to look for
the cause(s) and find ways to correct them. That is not
rationalization, but how science advances.
One of the studies Herrnstein and Murray cited in their book concluded
that men, as a group, with IQ's below 100 were 10 times more likely to
be incarcerated at some time in their life than those above 100. I
don't know about the number 10, but the concept seems reasonable. Here
are some of the reasons commonly offered.
1. Low IQ children have poor verbal skills and do not socialize well
with their peers.
2. Low IQ children do not do as well in school as their more
intelligent peers, therefore they score poorly and drop out more
frequently. How many 85 IQ students did you have in Stanford?
3. The poorly educated find themselves in low paying jobs, and are
more frequently unemployed.
4. Low IQ individuals are less likely to connect today's actions with
future consequences, and are therefore more likely to engage in
illegal activity to achieve financial rewards that are otherwise
unobtainable, or to satisfy momentary urges of anger or lust.
I have no argument with the hypothesis that children who are
handicapped, no matter the reason will have difficulty in succeeding in
life. Where we part company is that you assume that low IQ is
genetically inherited and is characterized by race. That is a faulty
conclusion IMV and one that is convenient to a racist argument. I offer
as evidence the several citations that I have provided that argue that
early fetus development in the womb is subject to environmental
influence, specifically that anything that denies the fetus the
nourishment that it needs during the first trimester will reduce the
essential development that is needed for brain development, especially
in the essential networking that is needed for intelligence.
And I offer in evidence the numerous studies which I have cited which
show the great (but not sole) importance that genetics plays in
intelligence. For instance ...
"Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings."
"Intelligence is a core construct in differential psychology and
behavioural genetics, and should be so in cognitive neuroscience. It
is one of the best predictors of important life outcomes such as
education, occupation, mental and physical health and illness, and
mortality. Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural
traits. Here, we highlight five genetic findings that are special to
intelligence differences and that have important implications for its
genetic architecture and for gene-hunting expeditions. (i) The
heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to
perhaps 80% in later adulthood. (ii) Intelligence captures genetic
effects on diverse cognitive and learning abilities, which correlate
phenotypically about 0.30 on average but correlate genetically about
0.60 or higher. (iii) Assortative mating is greater for intelligence
(spouse correlations ~0.40) than for other behavioural traits such as
personality and psychopathology (~0.10) or physical traits such as
height and weight (~0.20)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25224258
BTW -- I wish you would get off this racist kick. If I believe that
intelligence is largely (but not entirely) genetic, and that many
Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are gifted with greater intelligence than my
own Caucasian ancestry, it is not because I am promoting Asian or
Jewish superiority, it is simply because I am trying to better
understand the human condition. It is too bad we can't seem to discuss
these issues without using ugly pejoratives.
When you assign low intelligence to people of the Negro race, that is
racist. When you attribute that low intelligence to genetics
disregarding other causes, you are expressing an opinion that is
convenient to a bigoted view.
Exactly what I expected. Your predictable response to speech that is
contrary to your politics is not reasoned discourse, it is
accusations, insults, and name calling in an attempt to silence that
with which you disagree.
You don't like to be called a racist or a bigot. I get that. As to
silencing you, only you can silence you. I don't know what you think
reasoned discourse is, but I'm pretty certain that it includes
consideration of alternatives, especially if there is science to support
the possibility of alternative causality. Your rejection of science is
not reasoned discourse, but a reflection of your politics which includes
prejudice against other races, ethnicity, religion and sexual
orientation. That is the very definition of racism. Your often stated
intolerance of those groups that are not like you makes you a bigot.
Post by El Castor
We have a local politician, a former San Francisco mayor, by the name
of Willie Brown. Willie once spoke at the dedication of a building
that I worked in. I'd never heard him speak in person, and it was a
revelation. That man has an unbelievable almost hypnotic charisma that
can only be appreciated in person. As I am sure you know, Willie is a
Black man and a Democrat. He is semi-retired now, but frequently
writes a column for the San Francisco Chronicle. I subscribe, and here
is what he had to say a couple of days ago about the riots in Berkeley
whenever a conservative is invited to speak. His remarks are not just
about Berkeley students, they are about you.
"The battle over free speech in Berkeley has flipped the two sides in
the old generation gap. When the Free Speech Movement got rolling at
UC Berkeley in the 1960s, the whole point was winning the right to
speak out about civil rights, sex, the Vietnam War or anything else on
your mind. It was youth versus “the man.” Now it’s youth demanding the
shutdown, and the man expressing outrage at the death of free speech.
And the cops being sent in to protect it. How’s that for a reversal?
And what are these kids upset about? Ann Coulter? Milo Yiannopoulos?
David Horowitz? All second-string cable commentators at best. The
descendants of those who fought for free speech now say there
shouldn’t be speech unless it fits their own political agenda. If it
doesn’t, then it’s not free speech, it’s hate speech — and it must be
stopped, even if it means violence and damage. How the hell do you get
away with that? The Free Speech Movement was born in Berkeley, and
now, it seems, it’s being buried in Berkeley."
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Berkeley-betrays-its-free-speech-legacy-11091114.php
mg
2017-04-25 21:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:13:18 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
The only California neighborhood on the list is Ladera Heights. 500
miles from here and I have never heard of it, but it sounds like a
nice place. The Black people who live there are not there by accident.
They would no more live in predominantly Black parts of the Bay Area
than you or I would.
And no, high crime neighborhoods are not the result of poverty.
Poverty and crime are symptoms of the same thing, low IQ -- regardless
of race, I might add.
The poverty rate is 5% higher in conservative states and the crime rate
is also higher in every category except auto theft. But, there is only
about 1% difference in IQ.
Meaningless. Look at a specific population and the IQs of those in
poverty, as well as the criminals, and compare those IQs with those
not in poverty and not in prison.
"The majority of studies have found IQ differences between offenders
and nonoffenders (e.g., Ellis &Walsh, 2003). On average, the IQ for
chronic juvenile offenders is 92, about half a standard deviation
below the population mean. For chronic adult offenders, however, the
average IQ is 85, 1 standard deviation below the population mean."
http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/intelligence-and-crime/3/
As for the connection between intelligence and poverty/crime, there is
no doubt that poverty, crime, and lower than average IQ go hand in
hand, however you will find numerous arguments that criminal behavior,
as well as poverty depresses IQ to a level lower than what might be
anticipated genetically. Perhaps there is some connection, but it
sounds like a typical liberal attempt at rationalization.
Fundamentally, correlation does not prove causality. This is the basic
flaw in the Hernstein and Murray research. Better, I think, to look for
the cause(s) and find ways to correct them. That is not
rationalization, but how science advances.
One of the studies Herrnstein and Murray cited in their book concluded
that men, as a group, with IQ's below 100 were 10 times more likely to
be incarcerated at some time in their life than those above 100. I
don't know about the number 10, but the concept seems reasonable. Here
are some of the reasons commonly offered.
1. Low IQ children have poor verbal skills and do not socialize well
with their peers.
2. Low IQ children do not do as well in school as their more
intelligent peers, therefore they score poorly and drop out more
frequently. How many 85 IQ students did you have in Stanford?
3. The poorly educated find themselves in low paying jobs, and are
more frequently unemployed.
4. Low IQ individuals are less likely to connect today's actions with
future consequences, and are therefore more likely to engage in
illegal activity to achieve financial rewards that are otherwise
unobtainable, or to satisfy momentary urges of anger or lust.
I have no argument with the hypothesis that children who are
handicapped, no matter the reason will have difficulty in succeeding in
life. Where we part company is that you assume that low IQ is
genetically inherited and is characterized by race. That is a faulty
conclusion IMV and one that is convenient to a racist argument. I offer
as evidence the several citations that I have provided that argue that
early fetus development in the womb is subject to environmental
influence, specifically that anything that denies the fetus the
nourishment that it needs during the first trimester will reduce the
essential development that is needed for brain development, especially
in the essential networking that is needed for intelligence.
And I offer in evidence the numerous studies which I have cited which
show the great (but not sole) importance that genetics plays in
intelligence. For instance ...
"Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings."
"Intelligence is a core construct in differential psychology and
behavioural genetics, and should be so in cognitive neuroscience. It
is one of the best predictors of important life outcomes such as
education, occupation, mental and physical health and illness, and
mortality. Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural
traits. Here, we highlight five genetic findings that are special to
intelligence differences and that have important implications for its
genetic architecture and for gene-hunting expeditions. (i) The
heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to
perhaps 80% in later adulthood. (ii) Intelligence captures genetic
effects on diverse cognitive and learning abilities, which correlate
phenotypically about 0.30 on average but correlate genetically about
0.60 or higher. (iii) Assortative mating is greater for intelligence
(spouse correlations ~0.40) than for other behavioural traits such as
personality and psychopathology (~0.10) or physical traits such as
height and weight (~0.20)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25224258
BTW -- I wish you would get off this racist kick. If I believe that
intelligence is largely (but not entirely) genetic, and that many
Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are gifted with greater intelligence than my
own Caucasian ancestry, it is not because I am promoting Asian or
Jewish superiority, it is simply because I am trying to better
understand the human condition. It is too bad we can't seem to discuss
these issues without using ugly pejoratives.
When you assign low intelligence to people of the Negro race, that is
racist. When you attribute that low intelligence to genetics
disregarding other causes, you are expressing an opinion that is
convenient to a bigoted view.
Exactly what I expected. Your predictable response to speech that is
contrary to your politics is not reasoned discourse, it is
accusations, insults, and name calling in an attempt to silence that
with which you disagree.
We have a local politician, a former San Francisco mayor, by the name
of Willie Brown. Willie once spoke at the dedication of a building
that I worked in. I'd never heard him speak in person, and it was a
revelation. That man has an unbelievable almost hypnotic charisma that
can only be appreciated in person. As I am sure you know, Willie is a
Black man and a Democrat. He is semi-retired now, but frequently
writes a column for the San Francisco Chronicle. I subscribe, and here
is what he had to say a couple of days ago about the riots in Berkeley
whenever a conservative is invited to speak. His remarks are not just
about Berkeley students, they are about you.
"The battle over free speech in Berkeley has flipped the two sides in
the old generation gap. When the Free Speech Movement got rolling at
UC Berkeley in the 1960s, the whole point was winning the right to
speak out about civil rights, sex, the Vietnam War or anything else on
your mind. It was youth versus “the man.” Now it’s youth demanding the
shutdown, and the man expressing outrage at the death of free speech.
And the cops being sent in to protect it. How’s that for a reversal?
And what are these kids upset about? Ann Coulter? Milo Yiannopoulos?
David Horowitz? All second-string cable commentators at best. The
descendants of those who fought for free speech now say there
shouldn’t be speech unless it fits their own political agenda. If it
doesn’t, then it’s not free speech, it’s hate speech — and it must be
stopped, even if it means violence and damage. How the hell do you get
away with that? The Free Speech Movement was born in Berkeley, and
now, it seems, it’s being buried in Berkeley."
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Berkeley-betrays-its-free-speech-legacy-11091114.php
You're a bigot - bigot, bigot, bigot, and you're a racist,
too. Even if you are telling the truth and quote scientific
studies, you're a bigot, and so is the author of the study
and it doesn't matter what the dictionary says, you're a
bigot, anyway. :-)
mg
2017-04-24 21:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:26:40 -0700, islander
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
The only California neighborhood on the list is Ladera Heights. 500
miles from here and I have never heard of it, but it sounds like a
nice place. The Black people who live there are not there by accident.
They would no more live in predominantly Black parts of the Bay Area
than you or I would.
And no, high crime neighborhoods are not the result of poverty.
Poverty and crime are symptoms of the same thing, low IQ -- regardless
of race, I might add.
The poverty rate is 5% higher in conservative states and the crime rate
is also higher in every category except auto theft. But, there is only
about 1% difference in IQ.
Poverty in Appalachia is about as bad as it gets in the
United States, yet the violent crime rate is low:

"The 10 U.S. counties with the lowest annual median
household incomes are:
1. Owsley County, Ky. - $21,177
2. Zavala County, Texas - $21,843
3. Clay County, Ky. - $22,255
4. Knox County, Ky. -$22,493
5. Wilcox County, Ala. - $22,611
6. Quitman County, Miss. - $22,625
7. Sumter County, Ala. - $22,857
8. McCreary County, Ky. - $23,163

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/america-s-10-poorest-counties-are-gulf-coast-states-kentucky-and-indian-reservations

'Yet, The violent crime rate for Appalachia in 2010 was
lower than the national violent crime rate average by 56.76%
. . . ."

http://www.dailystormer.com/poverty-causes-crime-meet-white-appalachia/
Tzatz Ziki
2017-04-24 22:26:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
http://www.dailystormer.com/poverty-causes-crime-meet-white-appalachia/
You're citing this notoriously pro-Nazi site?

Seriously?
El Castor
2017-04-25 08:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:26:40 -0700, islander
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
The only California neighborhood on the list is Ladera Heights. 500
miles from here and I have never heard of it, but it sounds like a
nice place. The Black people who live there are not there by accident.
They would no more live in predominantly Black parts of the Bay Area
than you or I would.
And no, high crime neighborhoods are not the result of poverty.
Poverty and crime are symptoms of the same thing, low IQ -- regardless
of race, I might add.
The poverty rate is 5% higher in conservative states and the crime rate
is also higher in every category except auto theft. But, there is only
about 1% difference in IQ.
Poverty in Appalachia is about as bad as it gets in the
"The 10 U.S. counties with the lowest annual median
1. Owsley County, Ky. - $21,177
2. Zavala County, Texas - $21,843
3. Clay County, Ky. - $22,255
4. Knox County, Ky. -$22,493
5. Wilcox County, Ala. - $22,611
6. Quitman County, Miss. - $22,625
7. Sumter County, Ala. - $22,857
8. McCreary County, Ky. - $23,163
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/america-s-10-poorest-counties-are-gulf-coast-states-kentucky-and-indian-reservations
'Yet, The violent crime rate for Appalachia in 2010 was
lower than the national violent crime rate average by 56.76%
. . . ."
http://www.dailystormer.com/poverty-causes-crime-meet-white-appalachia/
Dailystormer???????!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!!!!! Aieeee!!!
mg
2017-04-26 15:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:49:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:26:40 -0700, islander
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
The only California neighborhood on the list is Ladera Heights. 500
miles from here and I have never heard of it, but it sounds like a
nice place. The Black people who live there are not there by accident.
They would no more live in predominantly Black parts of the Bay Area
than you or I would.
And no, high crime neighborhoods are not the result of poverty.
Poverty and crime are symptoms of the same thing, low IQ -- regardless
of race, I might add.
The poverty rate is 5% higher in conservative states and the crime rate
is also higher in every category except auto theft. But, there is only
about 1% difference in IQ.
Poverty in Appalachia is about as bad as it gets in the
"The 10 U.S. counties with the lowest annual median
1. Owsley County, Ky. - $21,177
2. Zavala County, Texas - $21,843
3. Clay County, Ky. - $22,255
4. Knox County, Ky. -$22,493
5. Wilcox County, Ala. - $22,611
6. Quitman County, Miss. - $22,625
7. Sumter County, Ala. - $22,857
8. McCreary County, Ky. - $23,163
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/america-s-10-poorest-counties-are-gulf-coast-states-kentucky-and-indian-reservations
'Yet, The violent crime rate for Appalachia in 2010 was
lower than the national violent crime rate average by 56.76%
. . . ."
http://www.dailystormer.com/poverty-causes-crime-meet-white-appalachia/
Dailystormer???????!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!!!!! Aieeee!!!
Whoops . . . :-)

There are a lot of references available and I just grabbed
one at random. Here's one with a dot gov on the end of it.

-----------

"A majority of Appalachia’s population continues to reside
in counties characterized by economic distress and poverty.
In spite of growing diversity in the region, a majority of
the population resides in counties designated as having a
distress ranking characterized by one or more of the
following: at least 150 percent of the U.S. unemployment
rate, at least 150 percent of the U.S. unemployment rate, or
less than 67 percent of the U.S. per capita market income.
Regional crime rates in Appalachia are lower than those for
the nation as a whole. While the social and economic
distress experienced by much of Appalachia would seem to
make the region particularly vulnerable to increasing rates
of crime and violence, crime rates in Appalachia are only
about 50 percent (for violent crime) to 65 percent (for
property crime) of the national levels."
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/189560.pdf




----------------------------------------------
I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm
for justice, no matter who it's for or against.
--Malcolm X
El Castor
2017-04-26 19:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:49:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:26:40 -0700, islander
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
If you look at the demographics for the USA, it is nearly flat across
the working years - about 40M per decade of age. This is despite the
drop in birth rate in families where the woman has exercised her
preference over how her body is used (or misused). Who cares if the
difference is made up by absorbing people from countries where the birth
rate is higher? Only those who are threatened by loss of white power.
The replacement rate in developed countries is about 2.2. Fertility
rates in the Middle East are much higher than Western Europe and North
America -- for example ...
Iraq 4.06
Afghanistan 5.22
Gaza 4.30
Egypt 3.53
Yemen 3.77
Italy 1.43
Germany 1.44
Denmark 1.73
Austria 1.47
UK 1.89
USA 1.87
Canada 1.60
Worse yet ...
South Korea 1.25
Japan 1.41
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The very highest, reaching into the 5 - 6 range are in Africa, but not
one country in Europe or North America is even at the replacement
rate.
So, who cares if Africa and the Middle East flood into Europe and
North America?? I hope they start with Orcas. There would be a certain
irony in that since you have elected to retire to one of the Whitest
islands in the world -- significantly Whiter than where I have chosen
to live.
As I suspected, for you it is all about racial discrimination. You
don't want to be labeled as one of those old white men who are afraid of
losing power.
Another example of your warped sterotyping, and inability to
understand those with whom you disagree. I have no interest in racial
discrimination. I want to live in a pleasant, safe environment. I have
neighbors who are of various extractions -- Mexican, Korean, Japanese,
Kazakhstan, Indian, and a Hungarian. They all share my desire for a
pleasant and safe neighborhood. I don't live across the Bay in
Richmond or Oakland out of some irrational hatred, but because of
statistics. I don't want to live with bars on the windows and a gun
under the bed.
Yet, in the list of neighbors that you gave in describing living in a
pleasant, safe environment, you did not include blacks. That makes your
interest in racial discrimination pretty obvious.
If Black and crime go together it is not my fault. As I said, I want
to live in a secure neighborhood without bars and burglar alarms. I
could care less what color my neighbors are, but the reality is that
predominantly Black neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area are
universally associated with high crime rates. If you can point to a
neighborhood where that is not true, I would be perfectly OK with
living there. Around here we had a burglary about 30 years ago, but
that's it. If Morgan Freeman or Condoleeza Rice were to move in next
door, I would be honored, but I think they can do better. As for you
and your Tanya of the Jungle remark -- what a crass asinine thing to
say. I also note that you have chosen to live in a far less diverse
place than I do. That makes your interest in racial discrimination
pretty obvious.
Here are the stats -- which is more diverse??
Mill Valley Demographics ...
White/Caucasian background- 11,934 (85.8%)
Asian background - 740 (5.3%)
Hispanic background - 622 (4.5%)
Black background - 109 (0.8%)
American Indian only- 15 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander only - 14 (0.1%)
Other race only - 41 (0.3%)
Two or more races - 428 (3.1%)
http://millvalley.com/channel/Demographics/6122
Orcas Island Demographics ...
White 4,304 93.7%
Two or more races 113 2.5%
Hispanic 86 1.9%
Asian 44 1%
American Indian 20 0.4%
Black 10 0.2%
Other race 10 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 6 0.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Orcas-Washington.html
Crime is a product of poverty. You have chosen to live in an affluent
community, as have I.
Here are 10 low crime, but predominantly black neighborhoods. They are
low crime because they are affluent.
http://www.theroot.com/living-it-up-10-affluent-black-neighborhoods-1790868480
The only California neighborhood on the list is Ladera Heights. 500
miles from here and I have never heard of it, but it sounds like a
nice place. The Black people who live there are not there by accident.
They would no more live in predominantly Black parts of the Bay Area
than you or I would.
And no, high crime neighborhoods are not the result of poverty.
Poverty and crime are symptoms of the same thing, low IQ -- regardless
of race, I might add.
The poverty rate is 5% higher in conservative states and the crime rate
is also higher in every category except auto theft. But, there is only
about 1% difference in IQ.
Poverty in Appalachia is about as bad as it gets in the
"The 10 U.S. counties with the lowest annual median
1. Owsley County, Ky. - $21,177
2. Zavala County, Texas - $21,843
3. Clay County, Ky. - $22,255
4. Knox County, Ky. -$22,493
5. Wilcox County, Ala. - $22,611
6. Quitman County, Miss. - $22,625
7. Sumter County, Ala. - $22,857
8. McCreary County, Ky. - $23,163
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/america-s-10-poorest-counties-are-gulf-coast-states-kentucky-and-indian-reservations
'Yet, The violent crime rate for Appalachia in 2010 was
lower than the national violent crime rate average by 56.76%
. . . ."
http://www.dailystormer.com/poverty-causes-crime-meet-white-appalachia/
Dailystormer???????!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!!!!! Aieeee!!!
Whoops . . . :-)
I had to give my PC a bath after visiting that place!! I'm sending you
a bill for the soap!
Post by mg
There are a lot of references available and I just grabbed
one at random. Here's one with a dot gov on the end of it.
-----------
"A majority of Appalachia’s population continues to reside
in counties characterized by economic distress and poverty.
In spite of growing diversity in the region, a majority of
the population resides in counties designated as having a
distress ranking characterized by one or more of the
following: at least 150 percent of the U.S. unemployment
rate, at least 150 percent of the U.S. unemployment rate, or
less than 67 percent of the U.S. per capita market income.
Regional crime rates in Appalachia are lower than those for
the nation as a whole. While the social and economic
distress experienced by much of Appalachia would seem to
make the region particularly vulnerable to increasing rates
of crime and violence, crime rates in Appalachia are only
about 50 percent (for violent crime) to 65 percent (for
property crime) of the national levels."
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/189560.pdf
A unique social, and probably religious, situation that doesn't apply
to the South side of Chicago.

El Castor
2017-04-20 09:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emily
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:53:44 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by me
In times of conflict/war/ethnic cleansing death rate climbs and can alter the demographic pattern. This has happened before.
Much different and simpler explanation. Mechanization, Pensions,
Social Security, Medicare, and birth control. In the past, in the
absence of various means of old age financial support and care, people
who were predominantly rural and lived on farms, had large numbers of
children to help on the farm as their parents aged, and to provide
support and assistance to those parents when they became too old or
sick to work. The modern world is very different. Children are
expensive and have been traded for a BMW, large screen TV and bigger
house.
In the old days, people usually married and settled down near, or even
with, their parents. Now people more often than not move away,
sometimes quite far. Taking care of grandpa is far more difficult
now, and is far more expensive.
Post by El Castor
For a modern first world country to sustain itself, each woman must
produce between two and three offspring -- the exact number depends on
death rates. In my extended family there are four young women who have
given birth to a total of two children -- one female. The numbers
don't add up. In your own extended family, how many younger women have
chosen to have more than two children?
What do you mean about the first world sustaining itself? Wouldn't
everything really be better if there were fewer people on this planet?
The world population is growing, but the growth is all in the third
world. Basically the worst Hell holes are supplying 100% of the
growth. Every country in Western Europe, North America, and
industrialized Asia (like Japan, China and South Korea), is below the
replacement rate of about 2.2 children per woman. What growth the US
and Europe are experiencing is from immigration. The Congo, Iraq,
Nigeria, and Afghanistan are booming. Islander apparently thinks that
is terrific. Me, not so much. (-8
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
Post by Emily
There is hardly anyone of childbearing age in my family.
You're not alone. One of my step-mother's nieces is from a family of
16. Those days are over.
GLOBALIST
2017-04-18 23:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
After Economic Crisis, Low Birthrates Challenge Southern Europe
By LIZ ALDERMAN, APRIL 16, 2017, NY Times
ATHENS — As a longtime fertility doctor, Minas Mastrominas has
helped couples in Greece give birth to 1000s of bouncing babies.
But recently, disturbing trends have escalated at his clinic.
Couples insisting on only one child. Women tearfully renouncing
plans to conceive. And a surge in single-child parents asking
him to destroy all of their remaining embryos.
“People are saying they can’t afford more than one child, or
any at all,” Dr. Mastrominas, a director at Embryogenesis, a
large in vitro fertilization center, said as videos of gurgling
toddlers played in the waiting room. “After eight years of
economic stagnation, they’re giving up on their dreams.”
Like women in the U.S. & other mature economies, women across
Europe have been having fewer children for decades. But
demographers are warning of a new hot spot for childlessness
on the Mediterranean rim, where Europe’s economic crisis hit
hardest. As couples grapple with a longer-than-expected stretch
of low growth, high unemployment, precarious jobs and financial
strain, they are increasingly deciding to have just one child —
or none.
Approximately a fifth of women born in the 1970s are likely to
remain childless in Greece, Spain and Italy, a level not seen
since WWI, according to the Wittgenstein Center for Demography &
Global Human Capital, based in Vienna. And hundreds of thousands
of fertile young people have left for Germany, Britain and the
prosperous north, with little intent of returning unless the
economy improves.
Birthrates in the region have slid back almost to where they
were before the crisis emerged in 2008. Women in Spain had been
averaging 1.47 children per household, up from 1.24 in 2000.
But those gains have all but evaporated. In Italy, Portugal and
Greece, birthrates have reverted to about 1.3.
It adds to the growing concern about a demographic disaster in
the region. The current birthrates are well under the 2.1 rate
needed to keep a population steady, according to Eurostat.
Maria Karaklioumi, 43, a political pollster in Athens, decided
to forgo children after concluding she would not be able to offer
them the stable future her parents had afforded. Her sister has
a child, and Ms. Karaklioumi is painfully aware that her grand-
mother already had five grandchildren at her age.
Although she has a good job & master’s degrees in politics and
economics, “there’s too much insecurity,” Ms. Karaklioumi said.
Unemployment among women stands at 27%, compared with 20% for men.
“I don’t know if I’ll have this job in two months or a year,”
Ms. Karaklioumi added. “If you don’t see a light at the end of
the tunnel, how can you plan for the future?”
Whether the demographic decline slows ultimately depends on the
financial fortunes in the south, where most countries suffered
double-dip recessions. Without significant improvement, the
region is trending toward some of the lowest birthrates in the
world, which will accelerate stress on pension and welfare
systems and crimp growth as a shrinking work force competes with
the rest of Europe and the world.
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe, “the really
serious problem is that some of the weakest countries are the
ones with the least favorable demographics,” said Simon Tilford,
the deputy director of the Center for European Reform in London.
“Lower birthrates in the south will mean weaker growth and
productivity, holding the birthrate down and producing more
fiscal problems.” Over time, he added, “it suggests that the
already divergent economic performance between Northern and
Southern Europe may become structural rather than cyclical.”
The lower birthrates have been aggravated by fiscal pressures
that constrained countries from offering robust family support
programs. Whereas France offers a monthly family benefit of
130 euros (about $138) per child after the second child, Greece
provides just 40 euros.
Countries have recognized the problem & recently snapped into
action. Spain appointed a so-called sex czar in February to
forge a national fertility action plan and address population
declines in rural areas. Italy increased bonuses for having
babies & backed labor laws granting more flexible parental leave.
Greece, as the weakest economic link, does not have the same
options. Struggling to manage a recovery after nearly 8 years
of recession, the government cannot make the fertility drop a
top priority. Child tax breaks and subsidies for large families
were weakened under Greece’s austerity-linked international
financial bailouts. State-financed child care became means-tested
and is hard to get for women seeking work. Greece now has the
lowest budget in the European Union for family & child benefits.
Grandparents have traditionally been the primary source of child
care in the south, but Greek austerity policies have reduced
pensions so much that the family safety net is unraveling, said
Dimitrios Karellas, the general secretary of the Labor & Social
Welfare Ministry in Greece. “We need to allocate more money to
create the services needed for families & children,” Mr. Karellas
said. “But it’s hard to do amid the crisis.”
Demographic challenges are not confined to Southern Europe.
Germany has battled a population drop since the 70s, when higher
education & new career opportunities for women lowered fertility
rates. After Communism, birthrates in Central and Eastern Europe
also fell. In the new millennium, an economic expansion helped
reverse those dynamics. But the financial crisis “hit Europe
when birthrates in many countries had just started to rise
again,” said Michaela Kreyenfeld of the Max Planck Institute for
Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany.
The impact is evident in communities across the European south,
where smaller towns are increasingly hollowed out and schools
emptied. In Tempi, a verdant region in central Greece, many
primary schools and kindergartens have closed since 2012 as
parents had fewer children and young Greeks left the country,
said Xanthi Zisaki, a municipal councilor. Kindergarten enroll-
ment has also slumped elsewhere in Greece & around Spain & Italy.
While migration from small towns is nothing new, “the financial
crisis is clearly the problem,” Mrs. Zisaki said. “There are
simply fewer children every year.”
The economic issues also amplified existing trends. Working women
were already postponing childbirth. As the recession dragged on,
they delayed even more for fear of jeopardizing work opportunities,
a situation that has exacerbated fertility problems.
Progress on gender equality eroded in Greece during the crisis,
according to the European Parliament. Women reported being
regularly rejected for jobs if they were of childbearing age, or
having contracts that were involuntarily converted to part time
if they became pregnant.
As the crisis persisted, Anastasia Economopoulou, 42, pushed back
her dream of having several children. She was fearful of losing
her job as a saleswoman at a retail branding company after
managers said they did not want women who would get pregnant.
Eventually, she turned to in vitro fertilization treatments at
Dr. Mastrominas’s clinic. But her salary slumped by 30% as
company sales fell, & her husband’s by more, cutting the number
of treatments she can afford. “I asked them not to put in many
embryos because we can only manage one,” she said.
For a country like Greece, some see the shifting demographic
trends as a blessing in disguise. “As long as Greece has high
unemployment, it may be good luck that there’s not a baby boom,”
said Byron Kotzamanis, a demography professor at the University
of Thessaly. “If there was,” he added, “we might have more
problems right now.”
But such optimism will not make up for the frightening conse-
quences for countries struggling to replenish people. “If we
don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,”
said Mr. Karellas, the welfare official. “The fact is, it’s a
disaster.”
Japan and Italy already has this problem. They reached zero
population growth. Now they don't know who is going to care
for their elderly. Italy at one time welcomed immigrants,but
what they got this time was not what they wanted.
Japan is ethnically one race and are not looking
for an invasion of criminals from Syria.
mg
2017-04-19 05:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:55:33 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by d***@agent.com
After Economic Crisis, Low Birthrates Challenge Southern Europe
By LIZ ALDERMAN, APRIL 16, 2017, NY Times
ATHENS — As a longtime fertility doctor, Minas Mastrominas has
helped couples in Greece give birth to 1000s of bouncing babies.
But recently, disturbing trends have escalated at his clinic.
Couples insisting on only one child. Women tearfully renouncing
plans to conceive. And a surge in single-child parents asking
him to destroy all of their remaining embryos.
“People are saying they can’t afford more than one child, or
any at all,” Dr. Mastrominas, a director at Embryogenesis, a
large in vitro fertilization center, said as videos of gurgling
toddlers played in the waiting room. “After eight years of
economic stagnation, they’re giving up on their dreams.”
Like women in the U.S. & other mature economies, women across
Europe have been having fewer children for decades. But
demographers are warning of a new hot spot for childlessness
on the Mediterranean rim, where Europe’s economic crisis hit
hardest. As couples grapple with a longer-than-expected stretch
of low growth, high unemployment, precarious jobs and financial
strain, they are increasingly deciding to have just one child —
or none.
Approximately a fifth of women born in the 1970s are likely to
remain childless in Greece, Spain and Italy, a level not seen
since WWI, according to the Wittgenstein Center for Demography &
Global Human Capital, based in Vienna. And hundreds of thousands
of fertile young people have left for Germany, Britain and the
prosperous north, with little intent of returning unless the
economy improves.
Birthrates in the region have slid back almost to where they
were before the crisis emerged in 2008. Women in Spain had been
averaging 1.47 children per household, up from 1.24 in 2000.
But those gains have all but evaporated. In Italy, Portugal and
Greece, birthrates have reverted to about 1.3.
It adds to the growing concern about a demographic disaster in
the region. The current birthrates are well under the 2.1 rate
needed to keep a population steady, according to Eurostat.
Maria Karaklioumi, 43, a political pollster in Athens, decided
to forgo children after concluding she would not be able to offer
them the stable future her parents had afforded. Her sister has
a child, and Ms. Karaklioumi is painfully aware that her grand-
mother already had five grandchildren at her age.
Although she has a good job & master’s degrees in politics and
economics, “there’s too much insecurity,” Ms. Karaklioumi said.
Unemployment among women stands at 27%, compared with 20% for men.
“I don’t know if I’ll have this job in two months or a year,”
Ms. Karaklioumi added. “If you don’t see a light at the end of
the tunnel, how can you plan for the future?”
Whether the demographic decline slows ultimately depends on the
financial fortunes in the south, where most countries suffered
double-dip recessions. Without significant improvement, the
region is trending toward some of the lowest birthrates in the
world, which will accelerate stress on pension and welfare
systems and crimp growth as a shrinking work force competes with
the rest of Europe and the world.
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe, “the really
serious problem is that some of the weakest countries are the
ones with the least favorable demographics,” said Simon Tilford,
the deputy director of the Center for European Reform in London.
“Lower birthrates in the south will mean weaker growth and
productivity, holding the birthrate down and producing more
fiscal problems.” Over time, he added, “it suggests that the
already divergent economic performance between Northern and
Southern Europe may become structural rather than cyclical.”
The lower birthrates have been aggravated by fiscal pressures
that constrained countries from offering robust family support
programs. Whereas France offers a monthly family benefit of
130 euros (about $138) per child after the second child, Greece
provides just 40 euros.
Countries have recognized the problem & recently snapped into
action. Spain appointed a so-called sex czar in February to
forge a national fertility action plan and address population
declines in rural areas. Italy increased bonuses for having
babies & backed labor laws granting more flexible parental leave.
Greece, as the weakest economic link, does not have the same
options. Struggling to manage a recovery after nearly 8 years
of recession, the government cannot make the fertility drop a
top priority. Child tax breaks and subsidies for large families
were weakened under Greece’s austerity-linked international
financial bailouts. State-financed child care became means-tested
and is hard to get for women seeking work. Greece now has the
lowest budget in the European Union for family & child benefits.
Grandparents have traditionally been the primary source of child
care in the south, but Greek austerity policies have reduced
pensions so much that the family safety net is unraveling, said
Dimitrios Karellas, the general secretary of the Labor & Social
Welfare Ministry in Greece. “We need to allocate more money to
create the services needed for families & children,” Mr. Karellas
said. “But it’s hard to do amid the crisis.”
Demographic challenges are not confined to Southern Europe.
Germany has battled a population drop since the 70s, when higher
education & new career opportunities for women lowered fertility
rates. After Communism, birthrates in Central and Eastern Europe
also fell. In the new millennium, an economic expansion helped
reverse those dynamics. But the financial crisis “hit Europe
when birthrates in many countries had just started to rise
again,” said Michaela Kreyenfeld of the Max Planck Institute for
Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany.
The impact is evident in communities across the European south,
where smaller towns are increasingly hollowed out and schools
emptied. In Tempi, a verdant region in central Greece, many
primary schools and kindergartens have closed since 2012 as
parents had fewer children and young Greeks left the country,
said Xanthi Zisaki, a municipal councilor. Kindergarten enroll-
ment has also slumped elsewhere in Greece & around Spain & Italy.
While migration from small towns is nothing new, “the financial
crisis is clearly the problem,” Mrs. Zisaki said. “There are
simply fewer children every year.”
The economic issues also amplified existing trends. Working women
were already postponing childbirth. As the recession dragged on,
they delayed even more for fear of jeopardizing work opportunities,
a situation that has exacerbated fertility problems.
Progress on gender equality eroded in Greece during the crisis,
according to the European Parliament. Women reported being
regularly rejected for jobs if they were of childbearing age, or
having contracts that were involuntarily converted to part time
if they became pregnant.
As the crisis persisted, Anastasia Economopoulou, 42, pushed back
her dream of having several children. She was fearful of losing
her job as a saleswoman at a retail branding company after
managers said they did not want women who would get pregnant.
Eventually, she turned to in vitro fertilization treatments at
Dr. Mastrominas’s clinic. But her salary slumped by 30% as
company sales fell, & her husband’s by more, cutting the number
of treatments she can afford. “I asked them not to put in many
embryos because we can only manage one,” she said.
For a country like Greece, some see the shifting demographic
trends as a blessing in disguise. “As long as Greece has high
unemployment, it may be good luck that there’s not a baby boom,”
said Byron Kotzamanis, a demography professor at the University
of Thessaly. “If there was,” he added, “we might have more
problems right now.”
But such optimism will not make up for the frightening conse-
quences for countries struggling to replenish people. “If we
don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,”
said Mr. Karellas, the welfare official. “The fact is, it’s a
disaster.”
Japan and Italy already has this problem. They reached zero
population growth. Now they don't know who is going to care
for their elderly. Italy at one time welcomed immigrants,but
what they got this time was not what they wanted.
Japan is ethnically one race and are not looking
for an invasion of criminals from Syria.
Reducing birth rates during difficult economic times is the
responsible, ethical, moral thing to do. It's Mother
Nature's way for humans to protect themselves and their
children during hard times. However, the 1%, and those who
are not responsible, are getting the last laugh.

The 1% is laughing all the way to the bank by importing
people from third-world countries into 1st-world countries.
And those who multiply like rabbits without regard for the
welfare of their children are laughing, too, as they gain
political power, but decrease the standard of living and the
quality of life for the whole group even further.
Lawrence Akutagawa
2017-04-19 08:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@agent.com
After Economic Crisis, Low Birthrates Challenge Southern Europe
By LIZ ALDERMAN, APRIL 16, 2017, NY Times
ATHENS — As a longtime fertility doctor, Minas Mastrominas has
helped couples in Greece give birth to 1000s of bouncing babies.
But recently, disturbing trends have escalated at his clinic.
/snip - follow the thread/

Japan and Italy already has this problem. They reached zero
population growth. Now they don't know who is going to care
for their elderly. Italy at one time welcomed immigrants,but
what they got this time was not what they wanted.
Japan is ethnically one race and are not looking
for an invasion of criminals from Syria.

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

Ha Ha Ha!!
Behold how the Village Idiot again entertain us all with his crappy crappy
English!

You, Village Idiot, are so very very *F*U*N*N*Y* with your crappy crappy
English!

Why, Village Idiot, are you with your crappy crappy English still in this
country?

wups...just look at the Village Idiot run away again from the issue of his
crappy crappy English by performing yet another Intellectual Coward ploy, of
course with his tail barely perceivable between his legs this time, back
into that deep dark diseased hole of his under his rock!
mg
2017-04-25 21:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:55:33 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by d***@agent.com
After Economic Crisis, Low Birthrates Challenge Southern Europe
By LIZ ALDERMAN, APRIL 16, 2017, NY Times
ATHENS — As a longtime fertility doctor, Minas Mastrominas has
helped couples in Greece give birth to 1000s of bouncing babies.
But recently, disturbing trends have escalated at his clinic.
Couples insisting on only one child. Women tearfully renouncing
plans to conceive. And a surge in single-child parents asking
him to destroy all of their remaining embryos.
“People are saying they can’t afford more than one child, or
any at all,” Dr. Mastrominas, a director at Embryogenesis, a
large in vitro fertilization center, said as videos of gurgling
toddlers played in the waiting room. “After eight years of
economic stagnation, they’re giving up on their dreams.”
Like women in the U.S. & other mature economies, women across
Europe have been having fewer children for decades. But
demographers are warning of a new hot spot for childlessness
on the Mediterranean rim, where Europe’s economic crisis hit
hardest. As couples grapple with a longer-than-expected stretch
of low growth, high unemployment, precarious jobs and financial
strain, they are increasingly deciding to have just one child —
or none.
Approximately a fifth of women born in the 1970s are likely to
remain childless in Greece, Spain and Italy, a level not seen
since WWI, according to the Wittgenstein Center for Demography &
Global Human Capital, based in Vienna. And hundreds of thousands
of fertile young people have left for Germany, Britain and the
prosperous north, with little intent of returning unless the
economy improves.
Birthrates in the region have slid back almost to where they
were before the crisis emerged in 2008. Women in Spain had been
averaging 1.47 children per household, up from 1.24 in 2000.
But those gains have all but evaporated. In Italy, Portugal and
Greece, birthrates have reverted to about 1.3.
It adds to the growing concern about a demographic disaster in
the region. The current birthrates are well under the 2.1 rate
needed to keep a population steady, according to Eurostat.
Maria Karaklioumi, 43, a political pollster in Athens, decided
to forgo children after concluding she would not be able to offer
them the stable future her parents had afforded. Her sister has
a child, and Ms. Karaklioumi is painfully aware that her grand-
mother already had five grandchildren at her age.
Although she has a good job & master’s degrees in politics and
economics, “there’s too much insecurity,” Ms. Karaklioumi said.
Unemployment among women stands at 27%, compared with 20% for men.
“I don’t know if I’ll have this job in two months or a year,”
Ms. Karaklioumi added. “If you don’t see a light at the end of
the tunnel, how can you plan for the future?”
Whether the demographic decline slows ultimately depends on the
financial fortunes in the south, where most countries suffered
double-dip recessions. Without significant improvement, the
region is trending toward some of the lowest birthrates in the
world, which will accelerate stress on pension and welfare
systems and crimp growth as a shrinking work force competes with
the rest of Europe and the world.
While dwindling populations threaten all of Europe, “the really
serious problem is that some of the weakest countries are the
ones with the least favorable demographics,” said Simon Tilford,
the deputy director of the Center for European Reform in London.
“Lower birthrates in the south will mean weaker growth and
productivity, holding the birthrate down and producing more
fiscal problems.” Over time, he added, “it suggests that the
already divergent economic performance between Northern and
Southern Europe may become structural rather than cyclical.”
The lower birthrates have been aggravated by fiscal pressures
that constrained countries from offering robust family support
programs. Whereas France offers a monthly family benefit of
130 euros (about $138) per child after the second child, Greece
provides just 40 euros.
Countries have recognized the problem & recently snapped into
action. Spain appointed a so-called sex czar in February to
forge a national fertility action plan and address population
declines in rural areas. Italy increased bonuses for having
babies & backed labor laws granting more flexible parental leave.
Greece, as the weakest economic link, does not have the same
options. Struggling to manage a recovery after nearly 8 years
of recession, the government cannot make the fertility drop a
top priority. Child tax breaks and subsidies for large families
were weakened under Greece’s austerity-linked international
financial bailouts. State-financed child care became means-tested
and is hard to get for women seeking work. Greece now has the
lowest budget in the European Union for family & child benefits.
Grandparents have traditionally been the primary source of child
care in the south, but Greek austerity policies have reduced
pensions so much that the family safety net is unraveling, said
Dimitrios Karellas, the general secretary of the Labor & Social
Welfare Ministry in Greece. “We need to allocate more money to
create the services needed for families & children,” Mr. Karellas
said. “But it’s hard to do amid the crisis.”
Demographic challenges are not confined to Southern Europe.
Germany has battled a population drop since the 70s, when higher
education & new career opportunities for women lowered fertility
rates. After Communism, birthrates in Central and Eastern Europe
also fell. In the new millennium, an economic expansion helped
reverse those dynamics. But the financial crisis “hit Europe
when birthrates in many countries had just started to rise
again,” said Michaela Kreyenfeld of the Max Planck Institute for
Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany.
The impact is evident in communities across the European south,
where smaller towns are increasingly hollowed out and schools
emptied. In Tempi, a verdant region in central Greece, many
primary schools and kindergartens have closed since 2012 as
parents had fewer children and young Greeks left the country,
said Xanthi Zisaki, a municipal councilor. Kindergarten enroll-
ment has also slumped elsewhere in Greece & around Spain & Italy.
While migration from small towns is nothing new, “the financial
crisis is clearly the problem,” Mrs. Zisaki said. “There are
simply fewer children every year.”
The economic issues also amplified existing trends. Working women
were already postponing childbirth. As the recession dragged on,
they delayed even more for fear of jeopardizing work opportunities,
a situation that has exacerbated fertility problems.
Progress on gender equality eroded in Greece during the crisis,
according to the European Parliament. Women reported being
regularly rejected for jobs if they were of childbearing age, or
having contracts that were involuntarily converted to part time
if they became pregnant.
As the crisis persisted, Anastasia Economopoulou, 42, pushed back
her dream of having several children. She was fearful of losing
her job as a saleswoman at a retail branding company after
managers said they did not want women who would get pregnant.
Eventually, she turned to in vitro fertilization treatments at
Dr. Mastrominas’s clinic. But her salary slumped by 30% as
company sales fell, & her husband’s by more, cutting the number
of treatments she can afford. “I asked them not to put in many
embryos because we can only manage one,” she said.
For a country like Greece, some see the shifting demographic
trends as a blessing in disguise. “As long as Greece has high
unemployment, it may be good luck that there’s not a baby boom,”
said Byron Kotzamanis, a demography professor at the University
of Thessaly. “If there was,” he added, “we might have more
problems right now.”
But such optimism will not make up for the frightening conse-
quences for countries struggling to replenish people. “If we
don’t fix this, in 20 years we’ll be a country of old people,”
said Mr. Karellas, the welfare official. “The fact is, it’s a
disaster.”
Japan and Italy already has this problem. They reached zero
population growth. Now they don't know who is going to care
for their elderly. Italy at one time welcomed immigrants,but
what they got this time was not what they wanted.
Japan is ethnically one race and are not looking
for an invasion of criminals from Syria.
I have an idea. Let's do nothing and eventually the problem
will even itself out.



---------------------------------
You never let a serious crisis go
to waste. And what I mean by that
it's an opportunity to do things
you think you could not do before.
-- Rahm Emanuel
Loading...