Friday, January 19, 2018

Modest brown slowdown

The following table and graph show the change in Hispanic births from 2015 to 2016, by state (for whites see here and for blacks see here):

1) West Virginia+14.5
2) South Dakota+13.4
3) New Hampshire+9.1
4) Alabama+6.7
5) Ohio+6.4
6) Kentucky+4.5
7) Connecticut+4.2
8) South Carolina+3.9
9) Mississippi+3.3
10) Washington+2.9
11) Florida+2.8
12) Massachusetts+2.7
13) Tennessee+2.7
14) Rhode Island+2.6
15) Missouri+2.3
16) Colorado+2.1
17) Pennsylvania+2.1
18) Oklahoma+2.0
19) Iowa+1.5
20) District of Columbia+1.5
21) North Carolina+1.5
22) Arkansas+1.4
23) Nevada+1.3
24) Utah+1.1
25) Maryland+1.1
26) Wyoming+1.0
27) North Dakota+0.9
28) Virginia+0.8
29) Georgia+0.7
30) Nebraska+0.7
31) Michigan+0.5
32) Minnesota+0.4
33) Alaska+0.1
34) Kansas+0.0
35) Hawaii(0.3)
36) Oregon(0.6)
United States(0.7)
37) Idaho(0.8)
38) Arizona(0.9)
39) Wisconsin(1.5)
40) Texas(1.8)
41) New York(2.0)
42) California(2.3)
43) Indiana(2.5)
44) Louisiana(2.7)
45) New Jersey(2.8)
46) Vermont(2.9)
47) Illinois(3.7)
48) Montana(4.4)
49) Maine(5.2)
50) New Mexico(6.1)
51) Delaware(6.6)


Most states saw a year-over-year increase, but nationally the number of Hispanic births in 2016 declined modestly from 2015 on account of both California and Texas, together containing nearly half the country's total Hispanic population, experiencing larger birth declines than the rest of the US.

A couple of noticeable trends are visible--fewer births in the highly Hispanic Southwest and more births in the South. While white and black births in Alaska and Hawaii are in free fall, Hispanic births are steady in the country's non-contiguous states.

This miniseries of posts will wrap up with a visual comparison of states where white births are declining faster and where they are declining slower than non-white births are.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

The dark decline

The following table and graph show the change in non-Hispanic black births from 2015 to 2016, by state (for whites, see here):

1) South Dakota+10.7
2) North Dakota+6.8
3) Massachusetts+0.6
4) Connecticut+0.3
5) District of Columbia+0.1
6) Florida(1.3)
7) Iowa(1.6)
8) Georgia(2.3)
9) Texas(2.6)
10) Minnesota(3.1)
11) Alabama(3.2)
12) Mississippi(3.3)
13) Maryland(3.5)
14) Louisiana(3.8)
15) Tennessee(4.9)
16) North Carolina(5.0)
17) Delaware(5.2)
United States(5.3)
18) Nevada(5.3)
19) Indiana(5.5)
20) Virginia(5.6)
21) Illinois(5.7)
22) Ohio(5.9)
23) Michigan(6.0)
24) New York(6.4)
25) Arkansas(6.8)
26) Kentucky(7.1)
27) South Carolina(7.1)
28) Wisconsin(7.5)
29) Missouri(7.6)
30) New Jersey(9.4)
31) Idaho(9.6)
32) Pennsylvania(9.8)
33) Nebraska(10.1)
34) Arizona(10.9)
35) Maine(11.2)
36) California(11.3)
37) Oklahoma(12.0)
38) New Hampshire(12.2)
39) Kansas(12.6)
40) Colorado(12.9)
41) West Virginia(15.9)
42) Washington(16.3)
43) Rhode Island(17.8)
44) Utah(19.1)
45) Hawaii(19.9)
46) Alaska(24.4)
47) New Mexico(25.6)
48) Wyoming(27.6)
49) Oregon(29.2)
50) Montana(36.0)
51) Vermont(46.6)


Eighteen states show double-digit percentage decreases in births in 2016 compared to 2015. None of those states are heavily black, nor are they on their way to becoming so. Nationwide, the black fertility rate per capita is still about 20% higher than the white fertility rate is, but the gap has been narrowing for decades. At the current rate, white and black fertility will have reached parity in a couple of decades, and the total fertility rate before that. Can't wait to see the major media celebrate the elimination of that gap!

The east-west divide in changes in fecundity is even starker with black births than it is with white births. As Feryl will undoubtedly notice, the hot, swampy tropical South suits blacks.

The energy boom in the Dakotas have attracted a lot of younger people from all of the country. Americans will do jobs Americans won't do if the wages are right, and while they've receded some from their peaks a few years ago, it's a laborer's market in both those states. Black births are up considerably there.

Sunday, January 14, 2018

The unbirth of a nation

The following table and graph show the change in non-Hispanic white births from 2015 to 2016, by state:

1) District of Columbia+3.1
2) Maine(0.6)
3) Mississippi(1.2)
4) New Jersey(1.5)
5) Utah(1.8)
6) Michigan(1.9)
7) North Carolina(2.0)
8) Wisconsin(2.1)
9) Iowa(2.1)
10) Delaware(2.3)
11) Indiana(2.3)
12) Minnesota(2.3)
13) Nebraska(2.4)
14) New Hampshire(2.5)
15) South Dakota(2.5)
16) Alabama(2.5)
17) Kentucky(2.6)
18) Louisiana(2.9)
19) Massachusetts(2.9)
20) Tennessee(2.9)
21) South Carolina(2.9)
22) New York(2.9)
23) Missouri(2.9)
24) Idaho(3.0)
25) Colorado(3.0)
26) Vermont(3.0)
27) Arkansas(3.1)
28) Florida(3.2)
29) Ohio(3.2)
30) Oregon(3.3)
31) New Mexico(3.4)
32) North Dakota(3.5)
United States(3.5)
33) Maryland(3.5)
34) Washington(3.6)
35) Illinois(3.7)
36) Georgia(3.9)
37) Virginia(3.9)
38) Pennsylvania(4.0)
39) Connecticut(4.2)
40) Kansas(4.6)
41) Texas(4.7)
42) Arizona(4.7)
43) Montana(5.0)
44) Rhode Island(5.2)
45) West Virginia(5.4)
46) California(6.3)
47) Nevada(6.8)
48) Wyoming(7.0)
49) Oklahoma(8.3)
50) Alaska(11.5)
51) Hawaii(23.9)

Only the Imperial Capital saw more white babies in 2016 than in 2015. The South and Upper Midwest are doing relatively well holding their own. The Mountain and Pacific time zones are in rough shape, with Mormon Utah managing only to be a modest exception. The writing is on the wall for Arizona and then for Texas, states Trump won by 3 points and 9 points, respectively. The country's two non-contiguous states are in free fall.

As the Derb is fond of saying, numbers are of the essence. We can't rebuild our civilization with someone else's babies. If the trend swings positive in 2017--the data will be released in late Spring or early Summer--Trump will be the greatest president since at least Dwight Eisenhower.

Next we'll look at non-whites. Decline is everywhere.

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Three cheers for saying shithole

Nothing causes more outrage than a statement that is both obviously true and fervently wished by everyone to be untrue.

Trump's alleged comments were heaven sent. At minimum they stave off DACAmnesty for another couple of months. More likely, they are its swan song. By the time DACA is set to expire in March, primaries will be looming large in the minds of congress critters across the country. Any (R) who votes for a bill that includes amnesty is in trouble. Any (D) who votes for a bill that allows Trump to claim an immigration enforcement victory is in trouble. Ergo, no bill.

What is now most likely is that DACA expires in a couple months to a spate of open borders histrionics that are largely ignored and quickly forgotten by most people. The invaders don't get to chain their villages in and they're subject to deportation just like other invaders are. I get to say, with great relief, "told you so" to Agnostic.

Additionally, Trump's comments expand the Overton Window yet again, something he's been doing consistently for 30 months now. On just about any metric save for fertility, sub-Saharan Africa and its Caribbean diaspora countries fill out the bottom of the list.

Where do the new church ladies go after they're done scolding "that is NOT okay"? Get past the moral indignation and we're left with an acknowledgment that the 45th President of the United States of America is correct in his grim assessment of Africa. We've come a long way since the Watsoning.

Now let's pass immigration legislation that takes this reality into account. Democrats don't have to get on board. The tax cuts were passed without the support of a single Democrat. Make Democrats win in 2018 on supporting amnesty and immigration from Somalia and Sudan. Make waffling GOPe cucks contemplate fending off primary challenges on supporting amnesty and immigration from Somalia and Sudan.

This is worth going to the mat for. Demographics are destiny. Everything is downstream of immigration. There is nothing laudable about sacrificing our posterity to Moloch, god of Diversity!, because it makes us feel good about ourselves in the moment to pretend it is not the case. That's not moral courage, it's cowardice.

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Physical attractiveness by age and by sex

I've remarked before how pleasantly surprising it was to find that the 2016 iteration of the GSS asked interviewers to assess the physical attractiveness of survey respondents they interviewed. Here is to hoping it is being repeated in the Current Year as we speak (the 2018 data is now being gathered).

The following graph shows the percentages of respondents who were rated "attractive" or "very attractive" by age and by sex (N = 2,651):

Part of the wisdom of age is being able to understand the beauty of youth. In my antediluvian phase, I'd claim this graph discredited the god of biomechanics. Men and women both bloom after puberty and then slowly but steadily deteriorate over time, you see!

For one, though, interviewers are being asked about attractiveness, not "hotness" or "f***ability". There is probably some subconscious age-adjustments being made in the minds of those grading, for example. I'd rate Lori Loughlin, at 53, as "very attractive" but in a consequence-free-night-before-the-apocalypse scenario, I'd rather bang someone on the varsity cheerleading squad. Any of them.

More importantly, that male attractiveness parallels male T-levels does not mean male sexual value follows the same trajectory as female sexual value does.

Physical attractiveness is only one of many inputs that determines male sexual value. It maxes out in the late teens and early twenties and then declines from there. But other inputs like status, wealth, confidence, and independence are as--if not more--important than physical attractiveness in determining male sexual value, and they all tend to increase with age well into adulthood before, like everything else, beginning to decline.

Female sexual value, in contrast, is predominately based on physical attractiveness. Women come roaring out of the gate but their time on top is brief. If they don't snag a quality man in the first decade--and really in the first half of the first decade--their window of opportunity slams shut.

The biggest drop offs in physical attractiveness occur from 18-24 to 25-34 for women (obvious) and from 35-44 to 45-54 for men. This corresponds to the "mid-life crisis" period for men. It's the point when the barely perceptible mellowing out of early middle age starts to give way to a decline in energy, muscle mass, skin tautness, etc that a look in the mirror each morning makes salient.

GSS variables used: SEX, RLOOKS(4-5), AGE