The "Great Replacement" is not a nefarious, externally directed effort to replace "traditional" Americans.
In the words of Pogo, "We looked in the mirror and the enemy was us"
The women with the very lowest birthrate in America are women who started college but did not graduate with a degree. The number of (births in a lifetime)/2 (gotta replace those sperm donors, too) is 0.52
Quite basically, the population would halve every generation if we only had this cohort.
And this is not a small cohort. It is about 22% of the female population between ages 18-and-45.
This cohort is the anomaly in the data. It is lower than both lower and higher educational attainment. The most rational explanation is that this cohort took on a great deal of debt but did not get the credentials needed to command higher wages to pay-down that debt. Consequently, they delay having children.
The next lowest birthrate belongs to women who attained their four-year degree (and graduate degrees). Their BiaL/2 is 0.86 or a halving of population every 4 generations. Incidentally, peak fertility for this cohort is in the 30-to-34 years of age time span.
This cohort makes up approximately 20% of the female population in the 18-to-45 year age group.
The largest single cohort at 35% are the women who graduated from high school and have NO college. Their BiaL/2 is a robust 1.14 or a population doubling every five-and-a-half generations.
The cohort of women who entered high school but did not graduate represents 16% of the population of women between ages 18-to-45 and their fertility rates are almost identical to those of high school graduates (but no college).
The final cohort are women with less than 9 years of education and they represent 6.3% of the population of women between the ages of 18-and-45. They have a BiaL/2 of 1.73 which translates to a doubling every 1.3 generations.
Who is the villain?
Every person who does not confront "marginal" students with the consequences of entering college but not graduating is responsible for "The Great Replacement"
Nobody wants to make a girl cry.
Nobody wants to be accused of being a "dream killer".
Very few people are telling kids the hard facts-of-life.
It is only getting worse. It used to be you had ACT or SAT scores and could (hopefully) direct aspiring students to a Community College. Sadly, standardized test scores are now considered "racist" and are being phased out.
The other way we are complicit is with our tacit acceptance of out-of-wedlock births. The data shows that MARRIED women have a BiaL rate that is 80% higher than that of unmarried women. I assume it is due to the financial security of having a man who committed to staying with you in good times and bad, richer and poorer...
The rolling-over-and-accepting that times are different and marriage is optional has a negative impact on the fertility of "traditional" Americans.
Sorry Mr. Tucker Carlson. You are a GREAT reporter and commentator but you are wrong about this. This is where we end up when EVERYBODY wants to "feelz good" and candy-coats hard truths.
Another reason why we are being replaced by imports is the Fed Gov spending spree that's been going on since the end of WW 2. This spree has driven inflation into overdrive requiring traditional families to have two working adults just to pay the bills. In the 50's and 60's a husband with a HS diploma could earn enouhto support a family. As we entered the 70's it be and almost impossible for that to happen. Now it takes BOTH husband and wife to work AND often have a college degree just to have the same standard of living that was common 50-60 years ago. So people now choose between life style or having kids. It's really tough to do both for many people. And many people prefer a decent life over having kids.ReplyDelete
I would agree with you BUT...Delete
The single biggest cost in raising a kid (currently estimated at about $300k PER KID) is housing. In the 1950s Americans had approximately 300 square feet per person. In the year 2000 that had ballooned to 840 square feet per person or almost three times as much.
In the 1960s most people did not vacation out-of-their-home -state. That is no longer the norm.
In the 60s and 70s many homes did not have AC or dishwashers or riding mowers or more than one TV.
It is tough to buck the trend. When our oldest daughter was in 6th grade she tearfully informed us that her friend told her that our house was "trash".
Our "new" vehicle has 152k miles on it. Our "old" vehicle is closing in on 300k.
You are right. We must choose between lifestyle and kids. We chose kids.
If you want all the toys, gadgets, latest whatever's, and live in an expensive city or suburb, then yes, you both have to have jobs.
If you are willing to have older cars, a less expensive house, and fewer toys, then you can live on one income.
I'm doing it now, and it is going quite well. But I've been careful with my money and my housing choices and made a good marriage with a (relatively) low maintenance woman.
It is not easy, but it is possible.
"Would it not in that case be simpler for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?" -Bertold Brecht.ReplyDelete
In the United Kingdom the Labor Party deliberately changed the makeup of the population to develop more support for their party, and it worked.
Here, we have the fun of having Democrats (following the Labor party's lead) looking to import voters who will be beholden to them for letting them in and ideologically in line with them and who will vote for them. We also have the Chamber of Commerce and country club Republicans wanting them in as cheap labor regardless of what that entails to society overall. Combine the two and it's a right proper mess.
Your conclusions are invalid because you cherry picked and aggregated the data from the article. The Great Replacement is about RACE. You lumped everyone together and tried to draw inference through educational achievement. This is mostly irrelevant to the discussion. As the data in the article shows, it is the White people who are being replaced because of the far greater (6x for Hispanics) reproduction rates of minorities.ReplyDelete
I did cherry pick the data. A graver issue is the fact that the data is stale, but I could not find anything more recent in the amount of time I budgeted for this post.Delete
We can disagree about the validity of the conclusion. If white women are choosing to not have babies, it is probably for non-trivial reasons.
If the concern is the loss of "traditional" Americans as a percentage of the population, then any solution that does not address the non-trivial reasons why white women ages 15-to-45 choose to not have babies is doomed to fail.
Joe, I suppose the point I was trying to make was that the mass uncontrolled immigration the U.S. and Europe are suffering from will, in time, spell the death of Western civilization.Delete
Western civilization is the product of Caucasian peoples. Their internal replacement rate would be largely irrelevant if their civilization were to remain homogeneous.
The big lie is "Diversity is our strength". Diversity has been a causal factor in the fall of every civilization in history. Diverse societies do not survive.
So, the smarter women, by and large, aren't reproducing. Not good.ReplyDelete
It's a global phenomenon usually tied to income - the wealthier the women, the fewer kids they have.
Most countries are now below replacement.
My comment went away!ReplyDelete
I am sorry. Sometimes I thin out double-comments but I take pains to leave one copy.Delete
I don't know what happened.
Oh well. It was very profound and full of wisdom. Everyone will miss it. I often don't know what happened. Best wishes!Delete