2010 June 11 Friday
California Skills Decay Due To Immigration
A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies finds that California has slid to the bottom of the national work skills heap due to immigration.
Between 1970 and 2008 the share of California’s population comprised of immigrants (legal and illegal) tripled, growing from 9 percent to 27 percent.1 This Memorandum examines some of the ways California has changed over the last four decades. Historically, California has not been a state with a disproportionately large unskilled population, like Appalachia or parts of the South. As a result of immigration, however, by 2008 California had the least-educated labor force in the nation in terms of the share its workers without a high school education. This change has important implications for the state.
For this and other reasons I am very bearish on California government debt. Add on top the power of the government worker unions, a leftward shift in the state's politics driven both by immigration into the state and more conservative white-flight out of the state, and the approach of Peak Oil, and I expect the state will experience many municipal bankruptcies.
It is a tragic waste that this sort of deterioration has to be visited upon a state which has such great climate in its coastal regions. It is hard to move somewhere else with comparable mild climate. One pretty much has to leave the United States to find comparable climate.
Oh how the mighty fall.
- In 1970, California had the 7th most educated work force of the 50 states in terms of the share of its workers who had completed high school. By 2008 it ranked 50th, making it the least educated state. (Table 1a)
- Education in California has declined relative to other states. The percentage of Californians who have completed high school has increased since 1970; however, all other states made much more progress in improving their education levels; as a result, California has fallen behind the rest of the country. (Table 1b)
- The large relative decline in education in California is a direct result of immigration. Without immigrants, the share of California’s labor force that has completed high school would be above the national average.
- There is no indication that California will soon close the educational gap. California ranks 35th in terms of the share of its 19-year-olds who have completed high school. Moreover, one-third (91,000) of the adult immigrants who arrived in the state in 2007 and 2008 had not completed high school.2
- In 1970 California was right at the national average in terms of income inequality, ranking 25th in the nation. By 2008, it was the 6th most unequal state in the country based on the commonly used Gini coefficient, which measures how evenly income is distributed. (Tables 2a and 2b)
- California’s income distribution in 2008 was more unequal than was Mississippi’s in 1970. (Tables 2a and 2b)
- While historical data are not available, we can say that in 2008 California ranked 11th highest in terms of the share of its households accessing at least one major welfare program and 8th highest in terms of the share of the state’s population without health insurance. (Tables 3 and 4)
- The large share of California adults who have very little education is likely to strain social services and make it challenging for the state to generate sufficient tax revenue to cover the demands for services made by its large unskilled population.
California Dreaming is pretty much about the past at this point.
California public school teachers are the best paid in the United States. So the idea that California schools are so pathetic due to poor teacher pay is bogus.
What most amazes me about this huge decline: It brings us no closer to a realistic elite public acknowledgment of innate limits of ability. Rather, the official fantasy gets maintained in the face of copious evidence against the secular religious faith in equality of ability. As John Derbyshire points out, in elite circles public protestations of faith in education to raise up poor performers continues unabated. It is remarkable that during the Middle Ages the Catholic Church abandoned its faith that the Earth was the center of the universe under the weight of far less evidence than the amount of evidence that exists today for the view that group differences in student performance are due to group differences in average ability. Our secular left-liberal defenders of their faith demonstrate far stronger public attachment to irrational beliefs than the Catholic Church did in a supposedly far less rational era of faith in the supernatural.
Update: Where will this decay lead? Eventually some intellectual will propose charter cities for California. They'll have interesting rationalizations for why this concept will work.
Update II: Why is all this happening? Read about the Voldemort View: the View That Must Not Be Named.
California is a clear bellwether and warning to the rest of the USA of the destruction multi-racialism will wreak on that once proud nation.
Oh get over it. Brazil is more vibrant than California. California is on the ascent but still has some catching up to do.
In the big picture, though, this seems to be temporary in the sense that we'll likely be able to start improving human intelligence sometime between 2030-2100, giving the gifts of the few to the many.
Randall, What are your own thoughts about remaining (or not-remaining) a California resident? What are the pluses of staying in place? The minuses? Where would you move to if you left?
Nope, nope. A.Prole is wrong again and again.
The U.S. became great because of immigration, which brings diversity, new ideas and openess of mind. If the U.S. is declining is because of that sick unrestrained pursuit of m o n e y, disregarding the rest of the world. When an empire starts exhausting and killing its own slaves with poverty, it simply becomes like the dumb ass who kills the golden-egg chicken. Immigration has nothing to do with the fall of empires, in fact it is precisely immigration one of the few forces that still keeps the U.S. moving -even if only by inertia-
So, enough with the nazi talk already, A.Prole.
Live is lived in the short run. Let us suppose that starting in 2030 pre-implantation genetic testing with IVF enables people to start making smarter babies. Well, when does this really start to impact the economy? In the 2050s. Even then we spend quite a few years just trying to catch up to where we used to be in the 1960s. So what happens to the next 50 years? Do we live thru Idiocracy? Or do we jump in time machines and jump up to 2070 to hop out to a country that is once again as smart as it was 100 years previously?
Really, there's not a positive spin to put on this.
The pluses: Nice weather. Oh, and the weather is really nice. Plus, I do have quite a few friends in town. I'd miss them.
I expect public services to decay while taxes rise along with assorted social pathologies. How will the hospitals remain first class when financial crises stretch out for the next couple of decades shrinking budgets while the lower class who can't afford their own medical care keeps growing?
I think I ought to leave. Not ready just yet.
Where to go? Northern Florida maybe. Or eastern Tennessee. Love those mountains with rich foliage and with big fresh water streams and rivers you can drink out of in the Smoky Mountains. Not like the bare mountains around here.
Next time you are out here we should get together to discuss.
no i don't, go suck start a rifle. California has clearly turned into a dump due to post-1965 immigration. The importation of third world aliens tends to do that. Ethnic conflict is as old as people, I hope you aren't living in CA, but judging from your naive post you must not be. Capital flight out of the U.S. entirely will be the result of this.
I prefer dealing in concrete absolutes such as ethnic IQ levels, ethnic incomes per head, welfare usage, tax generation, crime rates per capita, patents per capita, graduation levels etc etc than such woolly minded, fluffy feel good glib verbiage as 'diversity' ,'open mindedness' and 'new ideas'.
California is now bankrupt.One can actually enjoy the fruits of 'high productivity per capita' in terms of public goods such as good schools or even as food on the table for every family, but one, alas cannot eat 'diversity' or wear 'open mindedness' as a coat to keep out the winter cold.
no i don't said at June 12, 2010 5:10 PM:
I couldn't agree more. No wonder why Japan and S. Korea are on the bottom of the heap. And even though the immigration has benefitted the US in so many great ways, especially giving the police so much more to do, we have committed a crime. By allowing all these hispanics in the US and letting them stay here, we have put a stop to the Mexcian and Guatemalan space programs.
no i don't,
China of course will fail to develop until it gets lots of Cambodian, Laotian, and Burmese immigrants. It is just plain tragic how monocultural China stays totally undeveloped just like in Mao's day.
Similarly, monocultural Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Japan are as poor as the poorest African countries.
Oh wait, that's how it is in the parallel bizarro universe where you came from, not in the current universe.
Why not quote us some social science data that justifies your labeling people you disagree with as Nazis?
Lots of interesting stuff in the report. I note that, in 1970, Michigan, with one of the strongest economies in the nation, ranked 29th in educational level. However, in 2008, the Michigan economy had become the weakest in the nation (Michigan usually has the highest unemployment rate of any state and is the only state actually losing population), yet Michigan had advanced to 15th in educational level. So much for the idea that education is the "magic bullet" which will solve all our economic problems (a mantra we hear endlessly from the politicians).
You need a politician with the courage of Thilo Sarrazin to point this out. http://www.thelocal.de/national/20100611-27781.html
Alex Alexiev had a good article about California's decline last year:
"California's financial unraveling has prompted a long-overdue debate about taxes, regulation, and government spending, but the state's media and government continue to ignore what could be an even greater problem: the irreparable damage to California's human capital that nearly 30 years of unrestrained illegal immigration has achieved...
The unhappy picture in Los Angeles is replicated to one degree or another across much of California and is taking a huge toll on the state's economic competitiveness and long-term prospects. California's educational system, once easily the best in the country, is today mired in mediocrity near the bottom among the 50 states as judged by National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests in math, science, reading, and writing. And for the first time in its history, California is experiencing an increase in adult illiteracy. In 2003, it had the highest adult illiteracy in the United States, 23 percent nearly 50 percent higher than a decade earlier. In some counties (Imperial at 41 percent, Los Angeles at 33 percent) illiteracy approaches sub-Saharan levels.
Perhaps even more important than the collapse of educational achievement among the lower strata is a deterioration of the higher education that was for decades the basis of California's preeminence in science and technology. California currently ranks 40th among the 50 states in college-attendance rates, and it already faces a significant shortage of college graduates. Studies have shown that the economy will need 40 percent of its workers to be college-educated by 2020, compared with today's 32 percent. Given the aging white population (average age, 42), many of these new graduates will have to come from the burgeoning Latino immigrant population (average age, 26). By one estimate, this would require tripling of the number of college-educated immigrants, an impossibility if current trends hold. The state's inability to improve the educational attainment of its residents will result in a "substantial decline in per capita income" and "place California last among the 50 states" by 2020, according to a study by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems....
In short, we are witnessing a highly advanced and prosperous state, long endowed with superior human capital, turning into the exact opposite in just one generation. What can be done to stop this race to the bottom? The answer is simple: California and Washington need to enforce existing immigration law. Unfortunately, it is difficult to convince the public that this is necessary, so deeply entrenched are myths about illegal immigration."
how exactly adding new people "damages" the "human capital"? (whatever it is... people are not capital, dummy).
get off the leftie "everybody must be educated" war horse. thie is plain stupid. somebody got to do cleaning and gardening, and, yes, digging trenches for the fancy fiber optics.
having enough uneducated people around willing to do hard and dirty work for reasonable amount of money is GOOD. it helps to free better educated and more productive people for more interesting (and more productive) work.
this is one of the reasons to stay in California, actually.
now, reducing taxes and firing most of the state's humongous army of tax-eaters (cops, "educators", and innumerable bureaucrats) would change things to the better. dislodging lefties from their cushy seats of power, too.
Ha, ha, ha
I laugh myself aloud at all these nazi talk.
You guys are full of hate. I think you should learn to speak Spanish and have more sex...
It's not immigration that is bringing the U.S. down. It's lack of education, lack of historical and geographical perspective, obesity, childish mentality, drug use, fundamentalism, wall street, poor nutrition, redneck hobbies, oca-cola,mcdonald's, the federal reserve...
Because you don't see your real enemy you follow your animal propensity to direct your hate towards others just like you. The U.S. is now suffering from the same idiocy as Germany in the late 30s; let us remember that the Jews were also the unwanted immigrants then. I'm sure more than one of you roaches would like to get all immigrants into gas chambers too.
Enough with the nazi talk already!
"Oh wait, that's how it is in the parallel bizarro universe where you came from, not in the current universe."
Oh Randy, you make your nothingness sound muy macho. Do you use it to impress the girls or just a line you just heard in a new tough-talk Hollywood movie?
"Why not quote us some social science data that justifies your labeling people you disagree with as Nazis?"
Is HISTORY not enough social science for you? Anyway, what in your childish mind do you consider to be "social science?
See Randy, the worst thing about using sarcasm is using it backwards against oneself. I call people like you nazis, but when I call you nazi, it is not because you belong to the national socialist party of the late 30's Germany, so don't get it wrong. I refer to the simmilar mentality you and others have with the nazis. I mean, I can call you Stalinist if you like it beter, or racist, or Mussolinist or Cruzader...
Tell me Randy, what "social science" do I need for you? All you need is to read your own comments; to actually look at what you type. Look at how you and others blame hispanic immigration for what is happening to the U.S. It sounds really nazi, because that's the way nazi used to sound against the Jewish immigrants. I mean, haven't you noticed?
You and other roaches here really are implying that you really would like to also get all Latin American immigrants into gas chambers if you had your way. You just don't have the courage to say it as openly as the nazis, but with enough subtle and cowardly implications. That kind of trash talk wasn't around in the U.S. back in the 70's 80's or even the 90's
Enough with the nazi talk already!
The demographic change spells doom for libertarianism. Yet you defend it. Libertarianism does not make much sense on immigration. It is suicidal.
The biggest reason to leave California: A dwindling number of net taxpayers and an increasing number of net drains on government services.
You can do your libertarian fantasizing about how it could all be fixed by cutting back the size of government. But the net effect on the most productive is they'll get lousier roads, lousier schools, dumber government officials messing up their management of infrastructure and services, and higher taxes.
Libertarianism is so anti-empirical on immigration. Libertarianism is so unscientific and contrary to human nature. Yet you embrace it.
no i don't,
If you keep making lots of low content comments I'll delete some of them. If you want to argue about the issues you've got to bring real evidence. That's hard work and requires lots of reading and study. If you aren't up for that I'm going to start deleting your comments.
Averros talks shit as usual.Rio de Janeiro, Lagos, Kolkata,Mumbai etc all have super abundances of dirt cheap dirt poor manual workers (care to be pulled along by a human-horse rickshaw anyone?), but are they pleasant and desirable places in which to live?
Do you think your average gang-banger mestizo is acually going to pull your big-fat stinky butt along in a human chariot rather than just shoot you and take your wallet and your shoes from your corpse, do you Averros?(American balck gangs have a fetish for stealing shoes from corpses, fact).
As for that silly cunt 'no I don't', how can any shit-for-brains moron mention 'obesity' and 'malnutrition' in the same brath?, but, wait that's an inevitable result of mass immigration.
"If you keep making lots of low content comments I'll delete some of them. If you want to argue about the issues you've got to bring real evidence. That's hard work and requires lots of reading and study. If you aren't up for that I'm going to start deleting your comments."
Mr. Parker, go easy on that guy. He's just as upset as I am about how the US stole all those geniuses from south of the border.
> The demographic change spells doom for libertarianism. Yet you defend it. Libertarianism does not make much sense on
> immigration. It is suicidal.
Really? Read Fred Reed - a journalist with distinctly libertarian bent - about his life as naturalized expat in Mexico (and other parts of the world). It's much better to learn from people who actually live what they're writing about.
Immigrants are by far more libertarian-leaning than average public education-brainwashed Americans. An average immigrant goes to US to work and make a life better for himself and his family - and not to "organize community" or whatever is the phrase of the day the lefties have for stealing and bullying. A lot of immigrants (Mexicans included) have experience with governments which are much more openly criminal than the US Govt with its sleek PR - and are naturally skeptical of any other government. And "illegals" know for sure that the government is not their friend.
And the best part about illegal immigrants - they don't vote. So they don't participate in this obscene ritual which amounts to advance auction of stolen goods.
As for their criminals... well, I'd take any number of garden-variety street thugs over the Mass-Murderers In Chief the oh-so-civil Americans elect. If you didn't notice these guys keep killing by hundreds of thousands - and to fund this innocent activity they rob half of income from me and you - every two weeks (I assume you're employed). And if anybody dares to keep one's own for himself, they send in guys who dress in black and have a bad case of trigger finger itch.
> The biggest reason to leave California: A dwindling number of net taxpayers and an increasing number of net drains on government services.
That's the reason to move to California. When its government keels over (or at least drastically contracts) it will lose ability to enforce it stupid laws and regulations - so people will start ignoring these. And having no effective enforcement of regulations is the recipe for rapid economic growth - as evidenced by the fantastic economic boom in Russia after the collapse of its government in 1991 (the converse is also evident in the current stangation there resulting from strengthening of the government during Putin's tenure).
> Libertarianism is so unscientific and contrary to human nature.
Really? Because you say so?
Unlike you I have university-level education in biology (which included sociobiology), psychology, and economics. (And, yes, I also had to study Hegel, Marx, and Lenin, - and pass exams in subjects like "Scientific Communism" and "Political Economy" - so I know where your beliefs in what is "scientific" are coming from). So far I consider libertarianism to be the *only* logically consistent and empirically confirmed political theory. Did it slip your attention that only libertarian/Austrian economists have track record of being right in their predictions? Who predicted and explained (before the fact) the collapse of the socialist block? Who has the only theory of business cycle which doesn't allude to "animal spirits of the market"? Who got the subprime crisis right? Who explained why the bailout won't do anything to unemployment? Who predicted raise in gold prices? Who predicted that Obama won't change anything after Bush?
I'd say you simply failed to understand von Mises and Rothbard. They're not the easiest people to read, and some mental effort is needed to follow their logic and understand how it leads to conclusions which contradict everything about the society we were taught in schools and told on TV.
Sure, feel free to delete my comments. Nothing is as gratifying to ego as talking to echo chamber. You can just as well tell me to get lost straight away, if you have balls to admit that you can't stand people who disagree with you, and I will simply go elsewhere and leave you kids to wank in peace. I'm not being paid to spend my time trying to teach you anything, so it's not like I'll be very upset by the lack of your company.
A.Prole -- sorry, shithead, but your local gangbangers are pussies who hardly know which part of the gun to hold so as not to shoot themselves. Probably saw too much Hollywood trash on telly and think that holding guns upside down is cool. Takes a real wimp to be scared of them, I guess. They! Steal! Shoes! Boooo!
I grew up in a rather violent Muslim neighbourhood, and wouldn't advise any trash to pick up a fight with me. I did send more than one idiot to a hospital to fix broken bones. And at my no-longer young age, I'll simply shoot rather than try to prove who's more manly. And, yep, I don't give a rat's ass for the legality of packing. Never had any respect to the pansies and weenies who believe that cops are their friends and protectors.
And, no, you're not any kind of realist. You're simply xenophobe scared shitless of people you don't understand. You also don't understand that most of the world is quite livable, and people who live (and come from) there are not any nastier than native-born Americans (in fact, typically they are nicer - mostly because they don't have that belief that everybody owes them). Venturing outside of Club Med usually helps to gain this insight.
Now, shithead, if you're saying that I should fire my Peruvian housemaid and let go of my Mexican gardener (and my Czech auto mechanic, and my Russian-Jewish dentist, and my Chinese M.D., and my Persian (that's native of Iran, for those of you who are geography-challenged) lawyer) because they're immigrants (and not all of them "legal"), well... go buy some land and make your own rules there. On my land I make the rules and decide who I'm having business with. I guess the idea of minding your own business is sometimes too hard to grasp, so likes of you need some encouragement in learning what that means with the aid of some rock salt in the derriere.
"...with the aid of some rock salt in the derriere."
Dude, you just outed yourself. Only a stupid fuck, ignorant clown or 'tard puts that shit in the shotty.
"If you keep making lots of low content comments I'll delete some of them. If you want to argue about the issues you've got to bring real evidence."
Again Randall, dissagreement is no reason for deleting uncomfortable comments.
For evidence, we have the Roman Empire -no less- which became the greatest empire because it was ethnically and culturally diverse. The most culturally and ethnically diverse in its days. It lasted around 500 years, but the reason it collapsed was not because of immigration which helped build it -that included of course a lot of slaves and cheap labor-. Latin America on the other hand, has never had the cultural and ethnical diversity of the U.S. or its immigrations waves, and it has practically always been poor and backwards. See Randall, I'm not defending the "greatness" of Latin America. I'm just saying that immigration has nothing to do with the collapse of the U.S. The Roman Empire collapsed because of its enormous weight and laziness (mental and physical), however it lasted much longer than the U.S. seems to be lasting, because the it was based on stronger and more solid foundations. The collapse of the U.S. is simply a natural fenomenon; the same happened to the Greeks, the Babylonians, The Persians, The Romans, The Russians, monarchies, etc.
Now, I'm giving you a historical evidence; I'm trying -though briefly- to explain things to you as you request, so if your reasons for deleting messages is because I'm not here playing the game of reinforcing opinions, then you are taking my dissagreement into a personal attack against you. If that's the case it can only be due to a huge narcissism. However I do hope that you can see that my dissagreement is really a fundamental one, so instead of censoring let's get down to fundaments. What I mean is that I do not take for granted many of the opinions held here, even if they are held by most people and is the current trend. My dissagreements are honest so they stand. Don't call them "low content" just because you ignore where I'm comming from. If you'd like we can get into the real reasons on why empires fall, but that belongs to a serious in-depth discussion, not oversimplifications.
Evidence is a word I also like, because it is a tool of science, but the supression of uncomfortable ideas belongs to the time of the inquisition; it has no place in the endeavours of science and it's not the path to knowledge.
By the way Randall, the Catholic Church did NOT abandon its faith that the Earth was the center of the universe, in the Middle Ages; it was until 1992, when it declared that the judgment against Galileo had been a mistaken one. That implies as a matter of course that the Catholic Church officially accepted that the Earth goes around the Sun until 1992. With a delay of 3 centuries... only 3!
Sorry, but to me, the only class act here so far is AVERROS. Sorry, but I happen to agree with him on most of what he posts. I simply believe opposite ideas should be respected. I see that Averros dissagreement with you -and a.prole- are also FUNDAMENTAL dissagreement. (Now I've decided to ignore a.prole, because like I've said before, I think he/she is just another middle school kid using daddy's lap top instead of doing homework.#
Sorry Randall, I sincerely am sorry, but I simply cannot agree with you. #I trust I've provided at least one evidence in my previouss post, so as to show you that I take discussion seriously). Don't take it personally. Just remember that just as you consider other people's dissagreements to be idiocies, other people might consider yours so. I simply do not see how is it that immigration is making the U.S. collapse. I believe that's a rash conclussion that seems to be leading in a very similar way to the hatred nazis had against Jewish immigrants. Many anti-immigrant comments here are really xenophobic, but you don't seem to notice. Don't encourage idiots like a.prole thus.
I respectfully invite you not to be so dogmatic in your views Randall.
Having a conclussive opinion, having a rash answer for what you'd like to believe and then finding reasons to support it is no kind of philosophy; it might be called theology, oscurantism, inquisition.
Let's revise together, without all the garment tearing and all the drama; without such huge vanities. Maybe we'll come to discover truths that have been lying there just ignored for years.
No offense intended Randall, but I plan not to take any either...
The phrase "human capital" is very, very offensive for those who still consider themselves humans. I respectfully recomend not to use it, or to be careful when using it. It's an insult to Humanism.
No intention to pick up a fight or anything; just a suggestion for your kind consideration.
I laugh at this notion: "empirically confirmed political theory". Empirically confirmed? How'd you control for all the variables? How'd you introduce different changes and measure the effects of each change? Did you control for IQ, personality type, and lots of other ways that populations differ?
The problem with social science is it is incredibly difficult to prove stuff. Biology is hard enough with really complex systems. But proving stuff about whole societies? Incredibly hard. The three body problem is child's play in comparison.
As for my paltry understanding of biology: You got me there. I can't remember much about my first molecular genetics course (e.g. I can no longer tell you the DNA sequence that BamHI cuts) or the nucleic acid chemistry course for grad students I took or the molecular virology course I took either. I recall the prof having an intense fascination with interferons. But back then in the dark ages the role of gamma interferon in bacterial infection response was not understood. So I guess it is best that I've forgotten all that misunderstanding.
Then there's sociobiology. Well, since I didn't think that E.O. Wilson went anywhere near far enough in developing a biological view of human nature. So I would tend not to brag about understanding sociobiology. The evolutionary psychologists go a lot farther. But they pull their punches too due to the leftist inquisition. Though Geoffrey Miller (whose books are worth reading btw) has hinted very strongly that some research papers making their way toward publication on DNA sequences and cognitive differences are going to provide the intellectual cover to allow evolutionary psychologists like himself to come out of the closet on their real beliefs. But I digress.
Consider the possibility that one can know a great deal about human nature and conclude that libertarianism is hopelessly naive.
'The hatred Nazis had against Jewish immigrants' - doesn't this complete dipshit idiot know that Jews had been present on German soil since the time of the Roman occupation of lower Germany #ie around the time of Christ# and therefore could hardly be called 'immigrants'?
'Latin America never had the immigration waves that the USA had' - what, utter, utter tripe that only could be uttered by a completely uniformed, uneducated idiot.
Argentina and Brazil accepted far more immigrants per capita than the USA.
A.Prole said: "how can any ....... mention 'obesity' and 'malnutrition' in the same brath?"
There was no shortage of food 100 years ago, so why didn't people eat a whole bunch and become obese back then? Why are people compelled to eat so much nowadays that they become fat?
no I don't is right on this point. Americans are malnourished and that is part of the reason for our societal decay. Modern foods are devoid of micronutrients and there is evidence that this is precisely a cause of obesity: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/06/low-micronutrient-intake-may-contribute.html.