Saturday, July 28, 2018

Hispanic flight from white

Prompted by a post where Steve Sailer discusses how unlikely it is that American whiteness will be redefined more broadly, thereby extending further into the future the point in time when the US becomes "majority-minority", here are the percentages of respondents identifying ethnically as Hispanic who simultaneously racially identify as "white", by decade of birth (N = 2,583):

Pre-1949: 71.0%
1950s: 61.0%
1960s: 60.1%
1970s: 54.4%
1980s: 52.7%
1990s: 50.3%

Some portion of this flight from white among younger Hispanics--maybe most of it--must be attributable to shifts in the sources of Hispanic immigration into the US over time (ie more Cubans then, more Squatemalans now). The middle class Cubans were quite white. The Amerindian peasants are not.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1)(2-16), HISPANIC(2-50), COHORT(1900-1949)(1950-1959)(1960-1969)(1970-1979)(1980-1989)(1990-1999)

18 comments:

216 said...

We'll start seeing more whites identifying as Hispanic, than the reverse. Anyone that is fluent in Spanish should check the box.

Even if Kavanaugh is confirmed, I can't see Roberts ruling to end the AA spoils system which is the root cause. They have the dirt on his illegal adoptions.

It is foolish to think the establishment will ever play fair with us. Institution building is our only path to self-determination, and it is the hardest. We can't even get a protest organized right, let alone a domain registrar, a payment processor or university.

IHTG said...

What you should be looking at is the percentage who identify as white in recent years, now that Mexican immigration has dropped relative to the early 2000s. The idea has always been that they need to assimilate to start identifying as white, but if more of them keep coming in...

Passer by said...



Thats normal, as data shows that the percentage of whites living in Latin America is declining too. In other words, the quality of the immigrants coming from Latin America will worsen, as less and less of them will be white.



https://diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/white-people-are-declining-in-latin-america-too/

sykes.1 said...

A great many Hispanics are, in fact, White even by the most stringent definition. Those would be people with pure Portuguese or Spanish ancestry, and there are many of them in the upper classes in Latin America. Hispanic includes both the black Sammy Sosa and the white Castilian Ricardo Montalban.

Your analysis would be more meaningful if you could identify white, Portuguese or Spanish Hispanics who were denying whiteness.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

Right. I urge white men who work for me and who I know to racially identify as "other" rather than white. In Orwellian fashion, "white privilege" is really a white millstone. Even if explicit affirmative action becomes illegal, it will still be something HR/marketing departments in private institutions will continue to push and celebrate relentlessly.

IHTG,

By year there is a decline from the 70s through the mid-2000s, but it's leveled off since then. That could be because the invasion has slowed.

Passer by,

Just as the American public school system is running out of white kids, so is the world running out of white people.

sykes,

Yeah, good point. The sample sizes of Hispanics who trace their ancestry to Spain or Portugal is less than 5% of the total GSS Hispanic sample. Of course a lot of the white Latin Americans you're talking about in South America are going to show up as "Brazilian" or "Argentinian" instead of "Spanish" here, so the true figure is higher than that. There just isn't a good way to isolate it.

Passer by said...

@Audacious Epigone

These days, part of the immigrants are white, so this helps offset things. For example there are lots of white migrants coming to Australia. And some white latinos coming to the US. But this won't be the case in the future.

When you think about immigration after 2050, many of those coming from other formerly white countries will be non-white themselves. For example many europeans immigrating to the US or Australia will be non-white or muslim.

In other words, a point will come where the migrants from any country, even the former white countries, will be majority non-white. At that point the percentage of whites will dwindle rapidly, as non-whites will be coming from all immigrant directions, including Europe, North America or Australia.

216 said...

Passer,

We have limited projection capacity out to 30 years. Political trends could shift by then. Those in 1945 had no understanding of the Hubbert Peak in US oil production by 1973, and no one in 2000 was able to predict that fracking would cause us to set a new peak in oil production. The atomic future shown in the Fallout series never happened due to Three Mile Island.

Presuming climate cataclysm occurs by mid-century, it won't just be the Third World fleeing, it will be the First World. Automation might nullify the economic need for immigration, just as it nullified the need to have 25,000 men producing steel in the mills of Cleveland.

The invaders are coming here because we have higher living standards, but that might not always be the case. East Asians aren't held down by egalitarian liberal delusions, and that leads to higher economic growth and technological improvement. Western companies won't always be so innovative, especially if leftists enforce AA quotas on FANG.

The US is projected to see a fiscal crisis in the 2040s, but this could be accelerated if the socialists raise taxes in the 2020s. I can't imagine many in the upper class being willing to pay two-thirds of their income in tax, they will go to Singapore, Dubai or Hong Kong rather than LA, NYC and Miami.

In LatAm, only Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala have above replacement fertility. According to certain anecdotes, Brazil is supposedly becoming whiter thanks to imported sperm donors.

19th century Boers resisted the importation of Chinese/Indian workers, but in the 21st century they should arguably encourage as many of them as possible to recolonize.

Mr. Rational said...

The atomic future shown in the Fallout series never happened due to Three Mile Island

It's a lot more complicated than that.  The cost trajectory of nuclear power was being shifted upward by constantly changing regulations starting in the early 1970's, well before TMI.  A huge part of this was the brand-new Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has a charter of cutting nuclear risk regardless of cost, even if other power sources are more dangerous than nuclear.  The NRC represents the triumph of oil and coal interests over superior energy sources.

TMI was a public-relations disaster, but the framework was already in place to strangle the nuclear infant in its crib long before it happened.

216 said...

Mr. Rational,

Was there a political aspect with uranium mining? We get ours from Canada, while France gets it from their old colony Niger. Always was interesting to me that flagrantly anti-nuclear Australia is a large uranium producer.


Will be interesting to see if Germany actually follows through on eliminating nuclear, and whether there are economic costs that knock the sheen off Merkel. That might get the AFD into government. The replacement energy source is Russian gas, not Atlantropa Desertec mega-solar?

Mr. Rational said...

Was there a political aspect with uranium mining?

The politics of the broken rice bowl.  Uranium was and is very cheap per unit energy, and the people who drill for oil have next to none to sell and coal interests aren't much better off*.  When you get your money from moving large amounts of a relatively cheap commodity and somebody comes along to take your whole market away† and replace it with something with a fraction of the dollar volume, you're not going to want to let them.  (Oil companies had the electric market taken from them by the OPEC price shocks, but the US majors morphed into natural gas companies and are still hot for the electric generation market.)

One of the more interesting things IMO is the recovery of uranium as a secondary product from phosphate mining.  Turns out it precipitates out of seawater under the same conditions that make phosphate rock, and is somewhat of a headache as it has to be handled as radwaste above a certain concentration.  There's an entire Superfund site in Florida which is only declared dangerous because of this natural uranium from a phosphate mine.

Will be interesting to see if Germany actually follows through on eliminating nuclear

I'm sure the idiots will.  They've gone overboard with silly romantic movements over the last couple of centuries, and this is very much in character.

* Supposedly, the uranium and thorium which precipitates in coal deposits represents more energy than the coal itself; I do know that coal-fired plants emit more radioactives than any nuclear plant is allowed to.  I read an unreferenced paragraph of a book on nuclear power which said that one particularly rich lignite seam was dug up, burned and the ash sent off for processing as uranium ore during the Manhattan project.  Oil production brings up water which precipitates radioactive radium-rich scale on piping (so-called NORM).  How much uranium comes up with it, I have no idea; probably not much.

† If you read magazines which were popular in the late 60's and early 70's, the death of the coal-fired power plant was a regular prediction in stories listed on the covers.  Electric generation was and is the bulk of the market for steam coal.

216 said...

My experience has been from the pre-2003 days warning about Peak Oil, which then disappeared from public discussion with the coming of the fracking boom. The cheap gas has been the main fuel for the manufacturing recovery via lower electricity costs. I've heard that fracking is at best a temporary solution because production declines faster, as I'm not a geologist I don't really know how to understand that. Perhaps that will bring a return of the smaller nuclear reactors under design.

Its strange to look at the E85 ethanol now, perceived as a boondoggle, it was once invested with tremendous political prestige. The same farm belt is now seeing a large increase in wind power.

If Germany becomes a large power importer, would that be enough to rebalance the Euro by whittling down the trade surplus? That would be a geopolitical headache for us by reducing intra-EU tensions.

Mr. Rational said...

I've heard that fracking is at best a temporary solution because production declines faster, as I'm not a geologist I don't really know how to understand that.

Fracked wells have very high decline rates compared to conventional.  IIUC, a lot of this is due to the vastly lower permeability of shale compared to the sandstones and limestones which are the usual reservoir (though not usually source) rocks of conventional oil wells.  If you have a shale field, you are re-fracking it every few years as the production rate falls off and then close it up when the re-fracks don't pay for themselves.

A staggering amount of the yield of current fields is other than crude oil; only 45% of BP's latest US on-shore acquisition is liquid hydrocarbons.  The other 55%, IIUC, is methane through butanes; not something you can put through a gas pump.  They're desperate to find uses for it.  I'd suggest finishing the move to convert trucking from diesel to LPG and LNG which would soak up the equivalent of 2-3 million barrels a day (and free up the diesel for export), but nobody listens to me.

Perhaps that will bring a return of the smaller nuclear reactors under design.

NuScale is pressing on to commercialization.  They re-examined their design and found that it's capable of 20% more power than their original analysis suggested.  Given that the unit doesn't require electric power for safe shutdown, it can operate without a grid connection and is thus available to black-start a grid.  Not too shabby, eh?

Its strange to look at the E85 ethanol now, perceived as a boondoggle, it was once invested with tremendous political prestige. The same farm belt is now seeing a large increase in wind power.

Corn ethanol always was a boondoggle.  It was pushed to soak up corn surpluses which were bankrupting corn farmers.  Notice how good it is at doing that?  Energy is an afterthought.

If Germany becomes a large power importer, would that be enough to rebalance the Euro by whittling down the trade surplus?

Germany is exporting power when its ruinables are cranking, and the neighbors don't like having to deal with the power surges even if they can even get paid to take them.  Germany will become like Denmark, exporting wind power surpluses cheap and buying Norwegian hydropower back dear.  The more of this they do, the more euros they will export along with their power.

Germany really needs domestic dump loads for its excess power.  So far, all the much-vaunted German engineering genius hasn't been able to come up with anything more clever than turning it into electrolytic hydrogen, and some of that into methane.  This is vastly more expensive than Russian gas, but greenwashing fools the rubes and makes good PR.

216 said...

Mr. Rational,

Could it be one day economically feasible to run some kind of carbon-capture into petroleum with the surge power? (I'm guessing trees/wood gasifiers are cheaper) Desalination isn't a concern in Germany, but it might be somewhere else in the grid.

For political reasons I'd expect any kind of synthetic-petroleum to be resisted, as the electric car has powerful advocates. The cars are usually thought of as a storage device for those surges. Wind/Solar are seasonal opposites in temperate climates.

Have you heard of the Congo Inga Dams? Will China complete the project and make Wakanda real?

Mr. Rational said...

Have you heard of the Congo Inga Dams?

No, missed that.

Will China complete the project

China has a solid track record, so I wouldn't doubt it.

and make Wakanda real?

Hahahahaha!  More like a whole Forbidden Continent, populated entirely by Han.

For political reasons I'd expect any kind of synthetic-petroleum to be resisted, as the electric car has powerful advocates.

It's got nothing to do with advocacy and everything to do with numbers.  Pretty much that exact scheme was proposed back in 2007 and if you calculate the actual power requirements (which are not spelled out in the 9-page paper) they are staggering.  On page 6 it's mentioned almost in passing that stripping to extract CO2 requires 410 kJ/mol of electricity, and back on page 5 it's dropped that the H2 byproduct of stripping yields 33% of the required hydrogen for the process.  Now, to turn CO2 into alkanes you need about 3 molecules of H2:  2 for deoxygenation and 1 to supply the hydrogen that goes into the product.  Best current electrolyzers are running around 43 kWh/kg H2 or about 310 kJ/mol, so 1 mole of (CH2) synthesized from air and electricity is going to run you about 1030 kJ of electricity.  The density of gasoline per AquaCalc is .749, so a liter of (CH2) chains comes to 53.5 moles and would take 15.3 kWh to make.

That 1 liter would take your EPA-average car (26.2 MPG) a whole 6.9 miles.  15.3 kWh into a Tesla using 380 Wh/mile would take it 40.3 miles, almost 6 times as far.  Electricity-to-gasoline just doesn't work.

Could it be one day economically feasible to run some kind of carbon-capture into petroleum with the surge power?

Not unless you can do something about the dismal numbers.  It is obviously going to take something other than a brute-force approach.  It's also going to require low capital cost, because relying on surge power means your stuff sits idle most of the time and you still have to pay interest on the money.  This is a pretty tall order.  Pulling off that kind of trick requires most of the work to be done by natural forces outside the system.  Lots of minds have worked on that yet here we are, still burning fossil petroleum.  Maybe there's a genius out there who can make this look simple, easy and cheap.  Maybe that genius hasn't been born yet.  Maybe he never will be.

216 said...

Thank you for the explanation, it makes a lot more sense now. The paper mentions carbon capture from the atmosphere, is it feasible to do carbon capture to petroleum from a fossil power plant, or does it make sense to just inject the carbon into the ground? Existing coal to oil is inefficient, do you think oil shale will ever become viable.

Mr. Rational said...

is it feasible to do carbon capture to petroleum from a fossil power plant

Even assuming free CO2, reduce the energy cost from 1030 kJ/mol to 930 kJ/mol in my calculations above, and you tell me.

People keep talking about this, but the Kemper boondoggle strongly suggests that that talk of carbon capture from coal is going to remain empty.  We used to be able to gasify coal; I have to wonder if the difference between previous projects and Kemper is the number of affirmative action hires in positions of authority.

does it make sense to just inject the carbon into the ground?

It's useful there and people are trying to do it, so I suspect that is going to go somewhere.  A plant which generates both supercritical CO2 and fresh water is going to get interest anywhere you have older oil wells.  CO2 dissolves in oil and helps get it out of rocks and out to pipes.

Existing coal to oil is inefficient, do you think oil shale will ever become viable.

Every time the cost of oil goes up to the point of making oil shale (kerogen, not petroleum) look attractive, the cost of processing the shale rises too.  This suggests that too much of the cost of shale oil is energy so it can never pay its costs back.  One thing that might change that is some source of energy that is effectively free.  A radical thinker might suggest something utterly insane, like burying a whole bunch of very fresh, very hot used nuclear fuel in an oil shale formation and letting all that heat cook the kerogen down to something that will flow and then draw it off.  Someone a bit less crazy might suggest building wind farms in shale country and dumping power that would otherwise be curtailed into buried electric heaters; this gives you an additional revenue stream.

Lance E said...

An interesting question would be: is this a fixed generational trait, or will the younger generations also begin identifying as white as they age?

For that I think we'd need to look at the same generation(s) over time, in addition to the current status of different generations.

Audacious Epigone said...

Lance E,

I don't know why they would do so. The flight from white isn't reversing anytime soon, is it?