Whiskey/testing99/evil neocon had a post saying that women favor immigration more than men. I agree with him on attitudes toward welfare by gender (I might provide data for that later), but I thought I should investigate the claim about immigration in the GSS. The search feature wasn’t working there, but through the exhaustive work of scrolling down and clicking to expand variables, I found some relevant questions whose results I give below.
INCREASE OR DECREASE IMMIGRANTS TO US
| Frequency Distribution | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cells contain:
-Column percent -Weighted N |
SEX | |||
| 1
MALE |
2
FEMALE |
ROW
TOTAL |
||
| LETIN | 1: INCREASED A LOT | 3.3
42 |
3.1
45 |
3.2
87 |
| 2: INCREASED A LITTLE | 5.1
64 |
4.6
67 |
4.8
131 |
|
| 3: SAME AS NOW | 36.7
467 |
37.4
542 |
37.1
1,010 |
|
| 4: DECREASED A LITTLE | 25.3
322 |
26.2
380 |
25.8
702 |
|
| 5: DECREASED A LOT | 29.6
377 |
28.7
416 |
29.1
793 |
|
| COL TOTAL | 100.0
1,273 |
100.0
1,450 |
100.0
2,723 |
|
WILL IMMIGRANTS FUEL UNEMPLOYMENT
| Frequency Distribution | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cells contain:
-Column percent -Weighted N |
SEX | |||
| 1
MALE |
2
FEMALE |
ROW
TOTAL |
||
| IMMUNEMP | 1: VERY LIKELY | 55.9
379 |
58.1
426 |
57.1
805 |
| 2: SOMEWHAT LIKELY | 33.0
224 |
31.7
233 |
32.4
457 |
|
| 3: NOT TOO LIKELY | 8.6
58 |
7.8
57 |
8.2
116 |
|
| 4: NOT AT ALL LIKELY | 2.4
16 |
2.4
17 |
2.4
34 |
|
| COL TOTAL | 100.0
678 |
100.0
733 |
100.0
1,412 |
|
WILL IMMIGRANTS AFFECT NATIONAL UNITY
| Frequency Distribution | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cells contain:
-Column percent -Weighted N |
SEX | |||
| 1
MALE |
2
FEMALE |
ROW
TOTAL |
||
| IMMUNITE | 1: VERY LIKELY | 27.9
352 |
28.5
416 |
28.2
767 |
| 2: SOMEWHAT LIKELY | 35.7
451 |
36.6
534 |
36.2
985 |
|
| 3: NOT TOO LIKELY | 27.3
345 |
26.4
385 |
26.8
730 |
|
| 4: NOT AT ALL LIKELY | 9.1
115 |
8.6
125 |
8.8
239 |
|
| COL TOTAL | 100.0
1,262 |
100.0
1,460 |
100.0
2,721 |
|
IMMIGRANTS ELIGIBLE FOR GOVT ASSISTANCE?
| Frequency Distribution | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cells contain:
-Column percent -Weighted N |
SEX | |||
| 1
MALE |
2
FEMALE |
ROW
TOTAL |
||
| IMMFARE | 1: ELIGIBLE | 35.9
241 |
31.9
233 |
33.8
474 |
| 2: NOT ELIGIBLE | 64.1
430 |
68.1
497 |
66.2
928 |
|
| COL TOTAL | 100.0
671 |
100.0
730 |
100.0
1,401 |
|
ARE IMMIGRANTS DEMANDING TOO MANY RIGHTS?
| Frequency Distribution | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cells contain:
-Column percent -Weighted N |
SEX | |||
| 1
MALE |
2
FEMALE |
ROW
TOTAL |
||
| IMMPUSH | 1: STRONGLY AGREE | 23.3
158 |
27.2
194 |
25.3
352 |
| 2: AGREE | 35.3
238 |
33.1
237 |
34.2
475 |
|
| 3: NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE | 22.2
150 |
23.3
167 |
22.8
317 |
|
| 4: DISAGREE | 16.7
113 |
13.3
95 |
15.0
208 |
|
| 5: STRONGLY DISAGREE | 2.5
17 |
3.0
22 |
2.8
38 |
|
| COL TOTAL | 100.0
675 |
100.0
714 |
100.0
1,390 |
|
It can go the other way sometimes as well.
SHOULD ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS GET WORK PERMITS?
| Frequency Distribution | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cells contain:
-Column percent -Weighted N |
SEX | |||
| 1
MALE |
2
FEMALE |
ROW
TOTAL |
||
| UNDOCWRK | 1: YES, ENTITLED | 11.2
76 |
15.0
109 |
13.2
186 |
| 2: NO, NOT ENTITLED | 88.8
606 |
85.0
620 |
86.8
1,225 |
|
| COL TOTAL | 100.0
682 |
100.0
729 |
100.0
1,411 |
|
US CITIZENSHIP FOR CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
| Frequency Distribution | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cells contain:
-Column percent -Weighted N |
SEX | |||
| 1
MALE |
2
FEMALE |
ROW
TOTAL |
||
| UNDOCKID | 1: YES, ENTITLED | 48.6
327 |
54.1
380 |
51.4
707 |
| 2: NO, NOT ENTITLED | 51.4
346 |
45.9
322 |
48.6
668 |
|
| COL TOTAL | 100.0
673 |
100.0
702 |
100.0
1,375 |
|
UPDATE: Whiskey now says “[…] middle income women always support more immigration, legal or illegal.” I hadn’t broken it down by income before, now I will. This is INCOME by LETIN, filtered with SEX(2).
| Cells contain: -Column percent -Row percent -Weighted N |
INCOME | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 LT $1000 |
2 $1000 TO 2999 |
3 $3000 TO 3999 |
4 $4000 TO 4999 |
5 $5000 TO 5999 |
6 $6000 TO 6999 |
7 $7000 TO 7999 |
R O W T |
||
| L E T I N |
1: INCREASED A LOT |
.0 .0 0 |
7.4 15.4 1 |
5.0 15.5 1 |
6.0 15.3 1 |
8.5 23.0 2 |
3.2 7.8 1 |
9.3 23.0 2 |
5.8 100.0 7 |
| 2: INCREASED A LITTLE |
.0 .0 0 |
3.7 5.6 1 |
12.4 27.6 3 |
9.0 16.6 2 |
23.0 44.7 4 |
.0 .0 0 |
3.1 5.5 1 |
8.0 100.0 10 |
|
| 3: SAME AS NOW |
50.1 16.3 7 |
44.4 15.0 7 |
40.0 20.0 9 |
30.5 12.5 5 |
25.8 11.2 5 |
28.2 11.2 5 |
34.5 13.7 6 |
35.6 100.0 44 |
|
| 4: DECREASED A LITTLE |
30.8 16.8 4 |
14.8 8.4 2 |
20.1 16.8 4 |
21.1 14.5 4 |
17.1 12.5 3 |
34.3 22.9 6 |
12.5 8.3 2 |
21.3 100.0 26 |
|
| 5: DECREASED A LOT |
19.1 7.6 3 |
29.7 12.2 4 |
22.5 13.6 5 |
33.3 16.7 6 |
25.7 13.6 5 |
34.3 16.7 6 |
40.6 19.7 7 |
29.3 100.0 36 |
|
| COL TOTAL | 100.0 11.6 14 |
100.0 12.0 15 |
100.0 17.8 22 |
100.0 14.6 18 |
100.0 15.5 19 |
100.0 14.2 17 |
100.0 14.2 17 |
100.0 100.0 123 |
|
| Means | 3.69 | 3.56 | 3.43 | 3.67 | 3.28 | 3.97 | 3.72 | 3.60 | |
| Std Devs | .80 | 1.21 | 1.14 | 1.23 | 1.33 | .98 | 1.32 | 1.16 | |
| Unweighted N | 16 | 19 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 26 | 25 | 164 | |
Now for the higher earners and no-responses.
| Cells contain: -Column percent -Row percent -Weighted N |
INCOME | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 $8000 TO 9999 |
9 $10000 – 14999 |
10 $15000 – 19999 |
11 $20000 – 24999 |
12 $25000 OR MORE |
13 REFUSED |
ROW TOTAL |
||
| L E T I N |
1: INCREASED
A LOT |
7.5 8.1 3 |
2.9 8.1 3 |
.0 .0 0 |
7.0 22.5 8 |
2.3 54.9 19 |
2.2 6.5 2 |
2.7 100.0 34 |
| 2: INCREASED
A LITTLE |
7.5 5.1 3 |
8.2 14.3 8 |
3.5 6.2 3 |
7.5 15.2 8 |
3.6 55.1 30 |
2.2 4.1 2 |
4.3 100.0 54 |
|
| 3: SAME
AS NOW |
28.4 2.2 10 |
31.4 6.3 29 |
34.0 6.9 32 |
28.6 6.6 31 |
39.6 68.7 322 |
43.4 9.2 43 |
37.6 100.0 468 |
|
| 4: DECREASED
A LITTLE |
28.3 3.0 10 |
28.4 7.8 27 |
28.6 7.9 27 |
20.0 6.4 22 |
28.5 67.7 231 |
24.8 7.2 25 |
27.4 100.0 342 |
|
| 5: DECREASED
A LOT |
28.4 3.0 10 |
29.0 7.8 27 |
33.9 9.2 32 |
37.0 11.6 40 |
26.0 60.6 211 |
27.4 7.8 27 |
28.0 100.0 348 |
|
| COL TOTAL | 100.0 2.9 37 |
100.0 7.5 94 |
100.0 7.6 95 |
100.0 8.7 109 |
100.0 65.2 812 |
100.0 8.0 99 |
100.0 100.0 1,246 |
|
| Means | 3.63 | 3.73 | 3.93 | 3.72 | 3.72 | 3.73 | 3.74 | |
| Std Devs | 1.20 | 1.06 | .91 | 1.23 | .97 | .96 | 1.00 | |
| Unweighted N | 47 | 124 | 105 | 123 | 751 | 106 | 1,256 | |
The means for every income group are above 3, so they all on average want less immigration. Somewhat surprisingly, the average for the second, higher income, set is more opposed than the lower. The mean for the single highest income bucket is 3.72, above the aforementioned average of 3.60. Perhaps that’s due to more hispanics being in the lower incomes.
Entitled to an Opinion 
May 24, 2009 at 5:21 pm
[…] Women and Immigration  by TGGP […]
May 24, 2009 at 6:15 pm
The problem here is that women in the US consistently vote contrary to their alleged positions. For instance, I believe that women are more pro-life than men, and you’ve demonstrated that they are similar in their stated feelings on the immigration and affirmative action issues as well. But how do they actually vote? And if a group feels X, yet consistently votes ~X, does it really make any difference how they feel? Perhaps a lot of your difference with Whiskey is that you are measuring how this population feels by its self-report, whereas Whiskey is looking at how it behaves in the voting booth and attributing those beliefs to it. There are limitations to both approaches…for instance, I spend more on maintaining my wife’s two cats than I give to the Compassion International charity each year. Does this mean that I care more about the cats than I do about the starving children of the world? Or if I say I support public education, but plan to homeschool our children and always vote against any educational bond increases or the like?
May 24, 2009 at 7:02 pm
There seems to be no statistically important relationship in attitudes on gender lines until maybe the last one – the one involving children, not coincidentally.
May 24, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Yeah, I think the “gender gap” is exaggerated.
May 24, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Does this mean that I care more about the cats than I do about the starving children of the world?
Yes, that is your revealed preference.
Or if I say I support public education, but plan to homeschool our children
That would actually make sense if you thought you could provide a good education to your kids but not all families were so lucky (they might not be too educated themselves, both parents might have to work all day). I believe a lot of public school teachers actually put their kids in private schools. Obama got a lot of flak for sending his daughters to private ones. However, they probably support more money for education.
Married women vote pretty much the same as men (I think they still vote less in general). Part of the problem is that there are two parties and so when someone votes for one or the other we say they are voting against their real desires but there are a host of issues all being lumped into a binary choice. Like Bryan Caplan, I’m more interested in what areas the parties tend to settle on rather than shifting to gain more votes. When I discuss abortion perhaps I am being too glib, because pro-choice attitudes among men are a mile wide but an inch deep. I’ll try to look for data where people say how important an issue is for them when voting.
We might want to look at primary voting. There people aren’t divided simple partisan preferences and are going to support different policies or coalitions. Whiskey thinks are women are far more supportive of open borders/amnesty. Did Bush & McCain get an advantage among women due to that? Was Dick Lamm hurt by it? California also has referenda. We should look to see how women voted on denying benefits to illegal immigrants.
May 24, 2009 at 7:34 pm
I wish the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy was open access. Bryan Caplan notes based on it that women are more protectionist and more concerned by the incentive sapping effects of welfare. They tend to think less “like economists”. He notes that the general public is concerned about immigrants taking jobs from Americans, but not so worried about women taking jobs from men (even men don’t think that’s a big problem).
May 25, 2009 at 12:18 am
I can see how testing 99 may be most recent pseudonym for whoever went by the evidently now retired handle, evil neocon, but throwing whiskey into the mix? Come on, what’s next? IOZ is really Greg Cochran in disguise?
May 25, 2009 at 7:53 pm
I’m going by what other commenters at isteve have said. I haven’t read much of Whiskey’s site, but his writing seems similar to testing99 (moreso than evil neocon as far as I recall), especially regarding the war of the sexes. Very few references to Spengler or foreign policy though.
May 25, 2009 at 6:47 am
Very interesting data. What is the “GSS” source? Can you provide a link?
It’s interesting that such a large percentage see a link between unemployment and immigration. Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. Immigration, both legal and illegal, are fueling this growth. I’m not talking about environmental degradation or resource depletion. I’m talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.
I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled “Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America.” To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.
This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management, especially immigration policy. Our policies of encouraging high rates of immigration are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.
But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.
The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight third world countries – India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China – as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050. It’s absolutely imperative that our population be stabilized, and that’s impossible without dramatically reining in immigration, both legal and illegal.
If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com where you can read the preface, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It’s also available at Amazon.com.)
Please forgive the somewhat spammish nature of the previous paragraph. I just don’t know how else to inject this new perspective into the immigration debate without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.
Pete Murphy
Author, “Five Short Blasts”
May 25, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Increasing the total number of people should be expected to increase total (if not per capita) unemployment. I don’t know if density does the trick though. Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan are all quite dense and well off. Detroit has been depopulating with stubborn unemployment. I think it is more important to focus on productivity.
May 26, 2009 at 9:03 am
First of all, I should point out that my theory does not apply to tiny city-states like Hong Kong and Singapore – only to larger regions and nations.
Regarding Japan, their extreme population density and low per capita consumption make their economy totally dependent on manufacturing for export in order to sustain themselves. This also explains the high rate of unemployment in the U.S. domestic auto industry. Our free trade policies with countries like Japan, Germany, Mexico, South Korea and China have allowed all of those badly overpopulated nations to export the unemployment to the U.S. that they’d otherwise be forced to bear, riding along with all of the cars they export.
May 27, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Usually we want to avoid adding exceptions to our theories. Could you elaborate on size?
I believe there is considerable employment in the anti-union southern states where many Japanese auto companies produce vehicles. Mexico might be said to export unemployment to the U.S (by sending actual unemployed people), but Toyota is actually employing Americans. Furthermore, gains from trade will tend to increase total employment.
May 28, 2009 at 5:25 am
Yes, Japanese companies do manufacture in the U.S., but that’s not a factor in the trade deficit (except for imported parts used to assemble those cars in the U.S.).
In 2006, our trade deficit in manufactured goods with Japan was nearly $100 billion. Expressed in per capita terms, that’s $778 per person in Japan – a figure 4-1/2 times worse than China’s.
I have no problem with trade, but it’s absolutely crucial that the U.S. restore a balance. (Our Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman have said as much.) The problem is that, when it comes to trade with badly overpopulated nations like Japan, Germany, Korea, China and others, it’s impossible to have a balance of trade without the use of tariffs to compensate for their inability to provide us access to equivalent markets.
May 28, 2009 at 7:24 pm
The U.S did just fine with a trade deficit throughout the 19th century, as I pointed out earlier. I have a trade deficit with the grocery store and a number of drive-thrus. There is no reason to seek “balance” with any particular country.
May 29, 2009 at 5:15 am
Yes, you can run a trade deficit with the stores where you buy stuff, but it had better be at least balanced by a trade surplus with your employer. In the final analysis, try running a trade deficit with your bank and see how that works for you.
May 25, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Has there every been a case where a nation has experienced economic growth with a shrinking population? As far as I have read, no.
I read an article about all the problems Japan is having economically due to an aging shrinking population, recession, drop in aggregate demand, too few workers, health care, etc. It was written by Paul Hewitt and published in the summer 2004 by The Social Contract Press.
I do think we need a metric other than GDP to measure our economic situation. Maybe per capita GDP. I don’t know.
You may be correct in your theory, Pete, but it seems implausible.
May 26, 2009 at 9:09 am
The problem is that, since it’s impossible for the population to grow forever, an aging population is a problem that must be faced sooner or later. Will it be easier to deal with now, or when populations have exploded, making the size of the aging population that much larger? That’s why the “aging population” argument for maintaining population growth is a red herring. Reliance upon population growth as an engine for economic growth is doomed to failure.
We don’t need “economic growth.” We need to focus on a stable, sustainable economy, which means stabilizing the population at a sustainable level. It’s the only economic approach that makes any sense.
I’m so sure that you’d be convinced of the validity of my theory, (and because you have a blog with some following) I’d be happy to send you a complimentary copy if you would just E-mail me with a shipping address.
Pete
May 26, 2009 at 6:33 pm
I don’t know if it’s impossible for the population to grow forever. Julian Simon has been trouncing Malthus in recent history, and with the Singularity we may soon expand throughout the universe. I don’t see how aging becomes more or less of a problem depending on absolute population size rather than their share relative to the total population.
The U.N projects that population will stabilize. I think for Darwinian reasons they are wrong and that the more reproductive will be naturally selected, taking population to the Malthusian limit if technological advances do not outpace it.
I have a large backlog of books to read already. Have others been convinced of the validity of your theory? Also, my blog’s following is fairly minor. I am not a notable person and my blog is not especially distinctive.
May 30, 2009 at 6:57 pm
“with the Singularity we may soon expand throughout the universe”
I nearly spit out my drink. Do people still believe this crap?
May 30, 2009 at 9:54 pm
I’ll give it 1 in 10 odds.
May 30, 2009 at 9:42 pm
“Has there every been a case where a nation has experienced economic growth with a shrinking population?”
Yes, Russia is one example. Japan is another.
May 30, 2009 at 9:55 pm
I forgot about Russia. Good catch.
May 25, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I’ve taken the bus straight across the USA from Philly to Frisco. Also from Salt Lake up to Montana, and Minnesota to Balti. It would take a lot to convince me we are running out of space. The NE coastal plain and SoCal are pretty full of habitation, and the midwest is packed with corn and beans, but elsewhere there seems to be a lot of space.
May 25, 2009 at 8:33 pm
There’s even talk of turning over the Great Plains to bison.
May 25, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Not to mention it’s probably not that expensive to acquire agricultural lands in the midwest when you want to build dwellings. So, really, I think only the coastal NE and SoCal are crowded.
May 26, 2009 at 10:27 am
I think Pete’s point is more about per capita usage of resources. He seems to think that if all the world averaged the same per capita usage as US residents, there would not be enough. It would not be sustainable. I don’t know if that is true, but it is more plausible than simply there is not enough actual space. I mean, we are not bison, that just need space and grass.
Pete might be glad to know that there are six million fewer children now than there were in the 90’s, according to the UN. If the number of children continues to wane, then in the long term, the total population will decline. It will not happen within our lifetime unless we blow each other up. Given the track record of humans, that is possible, motive, opportunity, weapons. Yeah, it could happen. I hope not.
May 26, 2009 at 5:35 pm
My theory deals not with resources but with the effect of population density on the per capita consumption of products. Beyond a certain point, further rise in population density begins to drive down per capita consumption, due simply to a lack of space. What’s the problem with this? Per capita consumption and per capita employment are inextricably linked. Low per capita consumption translates into high unemployment.
Consider this example: Japan is a modern, wealthy country like the U.S., but is ten times as densely populated. As a result, their per capita consumption of dwelling space (or housing) is less than a third that of Americans, not because the Japanese people like to live in tiny, cramped quarters but because there is no room for anything else. As a result, their per capita consumption of everything involved in building, furnishing and maintaining their homes is proportionately reduced.
And with the exception of food and possibly clothing, their per capita consumption of everything is similarly reduced to a greater or lesser extent. This means that per capita employment in producing goods and services for domestic consumption is quite low. This makes Japan and other badly overpopulated nations utterly dependent on manufacturing for export in order to sustain their economies. Without the U.S. market (and the markets of other more reasonably populated countries like Canada and Australia), they would experience extreme levels of unemployment and their economies would completely collapse. But the U.S. trade deficit that has been created by their dependency on exports has now collapsed our own economy.
This theory has major implications for not only population management policies (like immigration), but for trade policy as well.
My concern with further growth in our population is not resources but its capacity for worsening unemployment and poverty.
May 26, 2009 at 6:26 pm
It’s true that urbanites consume less material goods per capita (it’s harder to measure services, which have displaced manufacturing and resource extraction/agriculture in modern economies). That does not translate into high unemployment. Japan has low unemployment. Primitive societies have much lower consumption and no unemployment. I also don’t see where you showed the connection between the trade deficit and the recent economic downturn.
May 27, 2009 at 4:34 am
teageegeepea, Japan has low unemployment only because they rely on manufacturing for export to sustain their labor force. If they had to depend only on domestic consumption, their unemployment rate would soar to 25% or higher.
The trade deficit, now a cumulative $9.2 trillion since our last trade surplus in 1975, is responsible for our economic collapse because it is financed by a sell-off of American assets, things like mortgage-backed securities as an example. There’s an obvious limit when the supply of those assets is depleted. It’s a dirty little secret that gets little press. Stand on the top floor of a tall building anywhere in America and look out the window. Literally everything you see is foreign-owned, if not directly, then through the purchase of mortgage that was issued by the bank. Those mortgages were repackaged and resold so many times that the system finally collapsed under its own weight. There is nothing left to sell except government issued treasurys, and an over-reliance on those will quickly send our national debt through the roof, destroying the credit rating of the U.S. and sending interest rates sky-high. After 33 years of continuous trade deficits, the U.S. has finally been bankrupted.
May 27, 2009 at 6:06 pm
The U.S has had a trade deficit for nearly all of its history. The Great Depression was a brief exception. The federal deficit is a concern, but I am not worried about the trade deficit. If anything it is the foreigners who are getting screwed by Americans!
May 27, 2009 at 7:16 pm
You’re flat wrong on this one. The U.S. ran trade surpluses or had a balance of trade virtually from its very beginning until 1975. We had a long history of successfully employing tariffs to avoid trade deficits.
You don’t seem to understand that a sell-off of American assets – stocks, bonds and treasuries – is required to finance the trade deficit. It’s the exhaustion of that supply of assets that has collapsed the U.S. economy.
In addition, a trade deficit is a huge drag on the economy. Every dollar of the deficit is subtracted from GDP and every dollar of trade deficit in manufactured goods eliminates jobs in the U.S., accounting for six million manufacturing jobs.
May 27, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Accord to Mark Thomas in the 19th century America’s balance of trade was characterized by deficits.
How did you arrive at your six million figure? I would think that the increased productivity (we manufacture more material now) reduced manufacturing jobs.
It is true that imports are subtracted from GDP. Paying everybody in the U.S to mow their own lawns would increase it.
May 28, 2009 at 4:39 am
I arrived at the six million figure as follows: Prior to the global economic collapse in the fall of last year, the portion of our trade deficit attributable to manufactured goods was running consistently at about $480 billion per year. A good rule of thumb is that 2/3 of the cost to manufacture a product is labor cost – in other words, about $320 billion. Figuring about $50,000 per year per job, that works out to over six million jobs.
You are correct that improved productivity also reduces jobs. Economists shrug this off by asserting that the labor freed up by improved productivity is always put to work making new products. That may have been true for most of human history, but seems to have failed in more recent times.
May 28, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Imagine that the American automotive industry consists of one entirely automated factory that makes cars for the entire country. Upper-Slobovistan emerges into the industrial age and beings produces cars. It substitutes its extremely cheap labor for capital, and the super-factory in America is converted to producing cheez-whiz (no Americans had been producing cheez-whiz at the time). Labor costs now make up a non-zero percentage of the cost of the autos yet no American jobs were lost.
You say it “seems” not to be the case any more, but anecdotal impressionistic evidence is of little worth, especially regarding causal relationships.
May 29, 2009 at 4:46 am
It’s pointless to continue a discussion with someone who falls back on preposterous hypotheticals to wish away reality.
May 29, 2009 at 6:32 pm
It was a thought experiment and such things are not intended to be especially realistic but to illustrate a point.
May 27, 2009 at 4:50 am
teageegeepea, yes, it is impossible for the population to grow forever. At the current rate of global population growth, in 850 years the earth would literally be carpeted with human flesh – one person for every square meter of land surface area. In less than 1100 years, every drop of water on earth (including the oceans) would be locked up in the make-up of human flesh. In 2400 years, the mass of humanity would exceed the mass of the earth itself. That’s why I say that simple laws of physics (like conservation of mass) dictate that population growth cannot go on forever. Few people realize the power of exponential growth, even when the exponent is small (like 1%), applied over a very long period of time.
Of course, the above are ridiculous scenarios. Forget about resources. Even if the supply of resources were infinite, continued population growth will eventually drive unemployment through the roof. And poverty is our number one killer. If resources aren’t the limit, it will be poverty that will put an end to population growth. Not a pleasant scenario.
May 27, 2009 at 6:10 pm
We can build high buildings, so simple space isn’t a big deal. More importantly we can go into outer space to escape the constraints of earth. Finally, you’ve yet to convincingly establish a causal relationship between population size and the unemployment rate. Imagine one planet of population P and unemployment rate R. An omnipotent being makes a duplicate of that planet elsewhere. Total population (where we draw our boundaries is arbitrary) is now 2P but the rate is still R. This can be continued indefinitely.
May 27, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Yes, we can build high buildings. But think about what that does to the per capita consumption of products used in the construction of dwelling space when floor space is reduced, walls are shared and one man’s floor becomes another man’s ceiling, not to mention what it does to the per capita consumption of equipment for maintaining lawns and gardens. It’s the very act of trying to conserve space that creates the problem.
“Go into outer space?” Get serious! If we had shuttles that could carry 100 people, we’d have to launch a thousand of them every day to stabilize the earth’s population, sending them to another planet light years away. Today we struggle mightily to send a shuttle with a crew of seven into near-earth orbit once every few months.
Your planet example ignores reality. If you’re looking for proof of the causal relationship between population density and unemployment, I invite you to read my book, where you’ll find population density vs. per capita consumption data from around the world for a wide range of products.
May 27, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Having a floor also be a ceiling is more efficient. There’s nothing wrong with reduced consumption resulting from efficiency. That’s why your data on consumption is not by itself persuasive regarding unemployment.
May 28, 2009 at 4:55 am
Ah, now we’re getting to the crux of the problem! “Improved efficiency” (as in the case of shared walls and ceilings) is certainly beneficial for the environment and is also economists’ remedy for the increased demand on resources posed by a growing population. But it’s terrible for employment. Per capita consumption and per capita employment are locked in a one-to-one relationship. It’s impossible to reduce per capita consumption without reducing per capita employment! Using this example of shared walls and ceilings, think about what happens to per capita employment in the industries involved in making products to build those walls and ceilings. Consider roofing materials. For a single-family home, the per capita consumption of the roof is one roof for one family. Make that into a high-rise building with ten families stacked on top of each other and you now have one roof shared by ten families. Per capita employment in the roof industry just fell by a factor of ten.
Or think about the lawn around that single-family home. They probably own a lawnmower. The same lawn around a ten-story apartment building still uses only one lawnmower. Per capita employment in lawnmower manufacturing just fell by a factor of ten.
The problem is that there is no product that picks up the slack. In my research, I could find no product where per capita consumption increases with higher population density.
The ultimate consequence of all this is that rising unemployment and poverty are inescapable once an optimum population density has been breached. The only way for everyone on the planet to enjoy a high standard of living is to hold the population density below the optimum level. What is the “optimum level?” It’s extremely difficult to define. But all anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that we’re beyond it.
May 28, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Consumption and employment are not locked in a one-to-one relationship. Throughout most of human history we were far poorer than we are now, with a lot less consumption. By your logic unemployment must have been through the roof. But it was not. You seem to exhibit what Bryan Caplan calls “make-work bias“. We do not care at all for work itself and would abolish it if we could. It is the product of work we are after.
May 29, 2009 at 4:47 am
Abolish work and what will people do for income?
May 29, 2009 at 6:31 pm
We only need income so we can consume with it. If through efficiency we didn’t have to consume resources (imagine some sci-fi replicators and perpetual motion machines) we wouldn’t need income either.
May 31, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Are radical depopulation measures needed? – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meMtM6nxQfE&feature=channel_page
May 27, 2009 at 8:58 am
Pete,
I think you overlooked the fact that I mentioned.
There are six million fewer children now than there were in the 90’s. If you track the number of people 18 and under, it has steadily declined. Each year there are fewer people under the age of 18.
So, eventually total population must decline. We have a massive population bubble that demographers know is about to burst. There are tons of people over 40. Obviously they will not still be here in 50 years. A precipitous decline is inevitable whether we like it or not.
There is no “continued population growth” because the under 18 group shrinks every year. Think about it.
May 27, 2009 at 9:15 am
Where are you getting your data? The fact is that the population of the U.S. and of the world as a whole are growing by over 1% per year. U.S. population rises by about 3 million people per year, about half of which is due to immigration, but the other half is due to growth in the native population. This data comes from the U.S. Census Bureau site.
May 27, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I am using UN data.
All growth in the US population is from immigrants and their children. Don’t just look at the numbers, consider the way they are counted. (Look at the system)
Most immigrants are childbearing age.
A native born American has a baby, that counts as one native born American.
An immigrant moves to the US and has two babies, that counts as one immigrant and two native born Americans.
Now let’s total it up like the US Census Bureau.
That comes to one immigrant and three native born Americans.
Technically true. However without the one immigrant, there would be only one new American not four.
Yes, the US population is growing and so is the world’s.
But the total number of people under 18 is shrinking.
Eventually the total number has to decline as well.
It will be some more years before we see population worldwide shrink, but it will happen if every year the number of children continues to goes down.
May 27, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Can you provide a link to the U.N. data you’re quoting? I think that you’re misinterpreting their data. While the percentage of the population that is under 18 may be shrinking, the total number under 18 is not. It’s not mathematically possible for the world’s population to be growing by 1.3% per year if the under-18 category is shrinking. When it comes to world population growth, there are only two factors – birth rate and death rate. It’s impossible for people to be born into the over-18 age group.
Regarding the U.S. population and the impact of immigrants, it depends on how far back you count people as immigrants. For a thorough discussion of the topic, go to http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/about/question-if-congress-reduces-immigration.html.
May 27, 2009 at 6:57 pm
It’s not mathematically possible for the world’s population to be growing by 1.3% per year if the under-18 category is shrinking.
I am high and my arithmetic may be off, but this seems at least mathematically possible if the death rate is decreasing faster than the birth rate is increasing. Under-18s aren’t dying; they’re just turning 19 and not being quickly replaced by infants.
May 27, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Maybe temporarily, but I tried thinking of the extreme case with a 1.3% birth rate and a 0% death rate. The population size increases exponentially, the number born each year is big-O of that exponential function (because it’s a constant multiplicative factor) and the number of new eighteen year olds is equal to the number of births eighteen years ago, so again grows at big-O of an exponential.
May 28, 2009 at 12:27 am
I clicked on the link and it didn’t work properly. Could you maybe repost it? Thanks
May 27, 2009 at 6:15 pm
You’re quite level-headed for a silly person. Where you’re from do comedians have to resort to using statues for foils?
May 27, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Well done. Bogus claims that are quantifiably refutable need to be refuted.
Reader request: show statistics in the future when posting tables. It will auto-generate means, which make tables with more than binary respones easier to follow.
May 27, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I wasn’t sure what you meant at first, but sure enough there’s a Statistics checkbox. Thank you, I’ll try to remember it in the future.
May 27, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Yes, bogus claims should be refuted, whether I make them or anyone else does. I have no patience for claims without data, even my own. I have no pride and am willing to admit it. Honestly, I am pretty sure I saw that number last year on a neat table, but I am having a hard time finding the report I saw last year. The closest thing I have found is a reference to a reference by a reporter in the Arizona Daily Star. http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/267644
“a recent Trends report (trends-magazine.com) that reviewed the research on population trends. You probably heard that the Europeans are facing declining populations, but it’s not just Europe. Worldwide, there are 6 million fewer children under 7 than there were in 1990. Six million fewer children.”
The latest UN report I could find with data by age group listed “people under 25” rather than “under 7”
Since I am honestly am looking for real data, and as an anonymous poster, I have no pride. If not correct fine, I would rather have the data.
Nevertheless, I do still want the data and will seek it as tenacity is one of my character flaws. I will let you know when I find it, even if it proves me wrong. If you happen upon it first, I would like to see it. Thanks.
May 27, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Hopefully Anonymous used to recommend to people that they set up anonymous blogs, even if they had one under their real name. Perhaps you could use another pseudonym to prevent pride from being a factor when you comment elsewhere. An appreciation for data raises the quality of blogs.
May 27, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Sister Y,
Actually under 18’s do unfortunately die, and at a higher rate in the countries with higher birthrates.
May 27, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Yes, your expected lifespan increases a good bit once you survive past the lower years. The young are similar to the elderly in certain respects.
May 28, 2009 at 12:21 am
I got distracted looking for the tables of children’s population #s. When I saw this headline, I just had to laugh. It is a good thing there are experts to tell us such things:
NEWS RELEASE
March 26 2009
SEX IS MAIN CAUSE OF POPULATION GROWTH
Sex, not religious or cultural beliefs or the quest for economic security, is what increases family size and drives world population growth, according to one of the UK’s leading authorities on family planning
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release26Mar09.htm
May 28, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I was sure the problem was cloning, binary fission & grafting.
May 31, 2009 at 11:21 pm
“SEX IS MAIN CAUSE OF POPULATION GROWTH”
No problem whatsoever – just mandate that every women from the time of puberty until they are truly ready to bear children be given birth control pills at NO COST.
June 1, 2009 at 12:21 am
Every one of my students who has a baby got pregnant while on birth control pills. Just saying – sample size is 4.
June 1, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Pretty much all birth control methods have higher failure rates for teens than for older women. Teens are more fertile anyway. Generally all critters start reproducing as soon as they are sexually mature. It’s natural.
June 1, 2009 at 6:14 pm
I tried to make a similar point at Who is IOZ? but the other folks reacted like I was speaking gibberish.
silly girl, I’ve heard the reasons for failure rates is that some people are doing it wrong (forgetting to take the right pill at the right time, putting on condoms wrong, or forgetting to use the contraceptive at all). I hadn’t thought much about the differential fertility rates, but my suspicion is that it plays less of a role than variance in behavior.
June 2, 2009 at 1:09 am
Clear explanation of teen pregnancy trend by agnostic on gnxp.com:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/01/teen-birth-rates-up-but-nothing-to.php
May 28, 2009 at 9:26 am
Okay,
I found it. I was wrong.
There were nine million fewer children in 2005 than in 1990 in the 0-4 age group.
1990 0-4 636 867k
2005 0-4 627 035k
http://esa.un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp
May 28, 2009 at 9:59 am
Actually you have to select the data you want displayed from the main page:
http://esa.un.org/unpp
panel 2 (on right)
detailed data
then select variables
and region, World
May 28, 2009 at 10:27 am
I see it, Silly Girl, and you’re correct about the 0-4 age range. It did decline from 1990-2005 (the only age range that did). However, it looks like the decline actually ended in 2000. The population in that age range actually grew from 2000-2005 and is projected to grow more by 2010.
May 28, 2009 at 11:04 am
Pete,
Look at the overall trend. The numbers will bump around, but within a range. Population prediction is pretty easy. Number of women of childbearing age multiplied by the birthrate, voila.
We just experienced exponential growth in the 20th century. We have tons of women of reproductive age. We have a fairly low birthrate. We still have significant infant mortality. Things could change, but under current conditions the overall downward trend is likely (not guaranteed) to continue. That includes precipitous declines of certain populations and increases among others.
May 28, 2009 at 10:39 am
I guess I wasn’t that far off.
According to the UN, there were 1,854,577k children under 15 in 2000, but only 1,847,488k in 2005.
That is about 7 million fewer children under 15 in 2005 than there were in 2000.
Actually that is a faster rate of decline than what I had first said. I originally said 6 million fewer over about 10 years, but really its 7 million fewer over 5 years. And birthrates are falling all over the world. Mexico recently hit 2.0.
http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=2
May 28, 2009 at 10:15 pm
[…] slave. To freed slaves, not to illegal aliens! Unfortunately, the US public is divided on this, with about 51% supporting anchor baby citizenship and 47% opposing it. Nevertheless, support for it is probably pretty weak among most […]
May 29, 2009 at 8:39 am
Legally you can still deport an illegal alien parent, it is up to the parent whether to take the citizen child. If the parent wants the child to remain in the US with a citizen or legal resident, they can. This anchor baby thing is just a game. Non citizen relatives (parents or otherwise) of citizens can legally be deported. The child will still be a citizen and if the US gov’t wishes, it may give parents of citizens priority in applying for legal status, but it does not have to.
We make the laws and can keep people out.
May 31, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Americans who are in the White/European-derived majority should just repopulate the Great Plains states, along with other sparsely settled areas of the USA, with a new White American Baby-Boom, building economically self-sufficient (or close to) ‘ecovillages’ which are very efficiently linked up to main transportation networks. In these villages, small/medium-sized towns, and small cities we could grow much of our own food, start our owl local businesses away from the ravages of globalization, and strategically surround ourselves by miles of healthy wilderness, ranches, hunting preserves, forests, lakes, etc.
We could even invite some White Europeans and South Africans to come to America and join us in doing this – many parts of Europe are VERY crowded, with countries like the Netherlands, Germany, and so on with far too high a population density…I’ve personally talked to many Europeans who really want to live in less population-dense places.
June 1, 2009 at 12:25 am
Have you been to the Midwest? That’s basically what they’re doing. Except it’s so fucking miserable to live in White Land that everybody leaves when they’re 18 if at all possible. The only growth industries out there are funeral-related.
June 1, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Why hasn’t your plan already happened yet? I doubt it’s because nobody has thought of it yet, and there aren’t any policy changes that would require. The Great Plains just aren’t a great place to live and farming (even with massive subsidies) can’t provide a competitive job market. I wish you and your fellow survivalists the best of luck though.
I hadn’t thought much about the Europeans who don’t like crowded areas. I think we could comfortably allow more immigration from Europe. I hear that parts of Germany are reforesting due to reduced population though, so that makes the Great Plains seem like less of a unique opportunity.
June 1, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I think the Midwest is distinct from the Great Plains. Illinois (where I live) & Ohio are both part of the “Midwest”. I live in the former state, but the suburbs of Chicagoland rather than any plain. It’s possible that I’ll be moving in Denver in some months, but I most likely will not.
July 1, 2009 at 9:33 pm
[…] a Comment More GSS fun! In response to something Whiskey said, I have updated my post on women & immigration. I got home today planning on doing a different GSS post. There had been two recent posts at the […]
July 2, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Yeah, I’m Testing99 (started that before my blog and kept it for historical purposes) and also Whiskey.
Besides the lack of showing change over time (i.e. how long were the questions asked, if the questions were asked only in 1975, you’d get a far different answer than if you asked them from 1980-2004, with probably marked changes over time) …
My main critiques on this are:
1. USE THE RAW DATA SET. Always. I was shocked at the paucity of the data for White Men some years in age ranges, sometimes as few as 6 or 7, for a year.
This is why it’s important to download the data yourself, dump it into MySQL or Access or what have you, and look at the data yourself. Atomically. Always, always, always.
It’s highly likely that even if the data supports your thesis, the non-random nature of only 6-7 observations per age and gender is going to throw things off. Produce Dewey-beats-Truman results. [Non-random observations, pollsters called those with telephones, missing Truman supporters in 1948 who still did not have phones.]
2. As observed, mis-match between GSS data and observed exit polling results. For example, though I don’t have a link, my memory tells me that exit polls of Prop 187 had considerably more support from Men than Women (Proposition would have halted benefits to illegal aliens). You also have women’s and feminist groups lining up reliably to support immigration, legal or otherwise, including middle and upper class groups such as Emily’s List.
3. I have not seen ANY description in the home of the GSS, at the Univ. of Chicago, on the methodology used to select the people for surveys, and steps taken to produce randomness. Certainly the data from the Webtool (which I believe is “evil” because it does not let you see the data atomically) does not ask the most important questions: “Do you support candidates who advocate Amnesty/Open Borders” or “Do you vote for the Party that most advocates Amnesty/Open Borders?”
In the latter case, the result from the Gallup findings is wholeheartedly YES:
Link here.
It’s my own belief that huge changes in marriage patterns (delayed marriage or single motherhood) across all Western Nations helps explain the remarkable patterns of voting and politics, including across the board, all Western Nations, PC-Multiculturalism AND support for immigration.
Women tend to be segregated (see my Post on the Sandra Tsing Loh article) into professions and occupations that have little competition from illegal immigrants, and benefits (cheap household labor). Half-Sigma noted as did the “Nanny Diaries” that the East Side is awash in nannies taking care of kids, most of the Nannies from Third World nations, likely many of them illegal. Illegal immigration allows middle class women the same opportunities that upper class women have. It would be shocking if they did not wish to take advantage.
But overall, my biggest beef is that the GSS is not a magic eight ball. The Webtool won’t answer your questions, you need to download the data, use a database, look at change over time, and realize it’s only a snapshot in time, probably in some instances non-random, to be used with other tools.
I see blogger after blogger examining the GSS, as if it’s some unfallible oracle. Given the paucity of observations for some years for some ages and gender matches, that’s obviously not the case.
I hope to have my own take on the raw data and analysis soon on my site.
Thanks.
July 2, 2009 at 7:19 pm
I already discussed some of the sampling issues earlier. To reiterate, if date of birth was on the level of a day rather than year, then the buckets would all have a size of about one. But I’m not looking for differences in people who were born one day or even one year (or any amount of years!) apart. If I had used more variables I would have had smaller buckets, but I didn’t use more variables and so I have the unweighted Ns that you see at the bottom of the table. I actually wish the highest income category had been broken down more (it is the largest bucket).
If I am not actually interested in breaking down the data by other variables why would I even want to “Always, always, always” view it atomically? I’m satisfied with polls reported all the time with much less granularity.
If the GSS SYSTEMATICALLY excluded certain kinds of people (like those without telephones in the Truman example) so they were underrepresented, that would make it less reliable. However, your complaint about low numbers of white men for certain birth years in certain GSS years is just the noise of random sampling. I didn’t drill down by any year and so I have larger Ns.
If you actually think the GSS is underrepresenting certain age ranges year after year, how about doing a check on it? I think you can find data for the actual age distribution for the adult U.S population somewhere. Run an analysis on AGE filtered for, say, all GSS surveys within a decade from today. Let us know which age ranges are overrepresented vs underrepresented.
Because I did not break it down by the year in which the question was asked you could have the argument that what was true in the early years is not true in the later years (which we would expect to be more similar to the way things are today). I encourage you to explore that argument! Do an analysis of LETIN by YEAR, filtered for INCOME(12). Like I did for INCOME above, break it up into two halves (or even quarters) for early years vs later years. Is there a major change so that the later years do NOT show a desire to decrease immigration on average? I don’t know, so I’ll leave it as a freebie for you to find out!
My analysis was not a snapshot in time. As mentioned, I did not filter for YEAR, so I got responses for every year the question was asked.
You make some good points that can still be reconciled with my results. For one thing, men are more interested in politics than women and more likely to vote. The more elite, politically interested part of the population is known for being more pro-immigration (though on average any sizable portion may still want less total immigration). It would not be too surprising if the more anti-immigration women were less likely to vote. A survey like the GSS is specifically designed to avoid such selection effects! Additionally, being in favor of immigration is quite a different thing from voting for Democrats. There are a host of reasons why a person might vote Dem even if they disagree with them on certain issues. Additionally, given the dependence of the GOP on cheap labor seeking corporations (the Dems are relatively more reliant on labor unions, law firms and Hollywood) GWB and McCain are unlikely to be aberrations and so the anti-immigration voter gets little benefit from voting GOP.
You make a very good point abut feminists. Feminists/women’s rights groups are best known for being pro-choice. The funny thing is, MEN ARE MORE PRO-CHOICE THAN WOMEN! What’s the deal with that? For one thing, the differences between the genders on the issue is still not that large. But pro-choice men are rarely as invested in pro-choice politics as many feminist women. As the saying goes “A mile wide, but an inch deep”.
The gender gap in politics is actually rather small when it comes to married women. Upper class married women who can hire nannies & housekeepers may benefit a lot from immigration. In fact, Kerry Howley has made just that point a couple times. Bryan Caplan thinks it’s a great reason to have more kids and believes we have an irrational aversion to leaving our kids with nannies or have a housekeeper take over chores for the wife.
Finally, the GSS is not pefect. Sure. The alternative to imperfect data is better data. Because actual data beats anecdotes. ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS.
UPDATE: The Audacious Epigone makes similar points in response to Whiskey on the GSS here.
July 17, 2009 at 9:37 am
! Nice site
Keep posting, and mate thanks.
there is nothing in the world I enjoy more than learning. In fact, i’d rather be learning now!
July 17, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I suspect you are a spam-bot and you’d really rather be spamming. To the extent that spam-bots can prefer any activity. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.