You do not even need a racial explanation for cities like LA losing population - The average rent cost of rent is less than the average pre-tax salary. This gnarly rent to income ratio is a trend across most major US cities. You simply cannot afford to live in them without a high paying salary. In LA, many of those people are fleeing inland, causing prices to increase there as well. It's a problem I'm not sure the solution for.
Corrected wording or not, I think this is simply wrong. A quick Google tells me that median income in LA is $78k (sounds about right given the US household median is $60ish) and per Zillow average LA rent[1] is $2800, so about half that.
One of the biggest problems with meme-driven economics like this (and HN is ground zero for this kind of logic) is the extent to which people just don't cite numbers anymore.
There is some truth here: property values in high-income US cities are growing faster than incomes. And that's a problem, and worth discussing. But that discussion can't happen until people stop with the hyperbole. And needless to say, without discussion there can be no solution. (Which, after all, serves the evolutionary goal of the meme!)
[1] Which surely reflects an average occupancy of 1.5-2 people, so needs to be adjusted even farther downward.
> Has limiting the amount of asylum seekers or people coming over the border to claim asylum crossed your mind
The number of asylum seekers is a tiny proportion of overall immigration of all types so we can basically ignore it.
Population vs housing imbalance in California is not driven by immigrants anyway. The bulk of those people are citizens born to citizens or green card holders. Even if you could stop illegal immigration and simultaneously remove all non-citizens and non-visa holders right now today... that only punts the problem down the road by less than a decade.
That would mean lifting the Venezuela sanctions, Cuban embargo, and so on. I'm for it.
The US has a dry foot policy specifically for Cuba, encouraging people to seek asylum in the US.
The US involvement in Central America - from Honduras in 2009 and before that encouraged migration and asylum servers, but that bell is hard to unring.
Really the big issue is lack of housing production, which was significantly lower in the 2010s and we still have not made up for all that lost time: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST
Linked in the article, but it looks like Black, Asian and other races will stay relatively stable in terms of % of population all the way to 2050. And the main changes will be that the % of Hispanic population will go up (immigration + higher fertile age population) and % of White population will go down (mostly aging). It's not as much as % of "people of color" going up as it is framed.
> And the main changes will be that the % of Hispanic population will go up (immigration + higher fertile age population) and % of White population will go down (mostly aging).
This is misleading, because it's not tracked like this on the US census. Hispanic is a separate question from race - people are "White Hispanic" or "Black Hispanic" or "(something) Hispanic", not just "Hispanic".
Both liberals and conservatives have determined that the two races are "white" and "whatever." More Hispanics means that the "whatever" group is rising.
What I wonder is if they've accounted for the lobbying of various subgroups to leave the "white" category, such as Hispanics themselves did in the late 60s - early 70s (speaking Spanish is neither a race nor a single culture.)
Every time a former white person declares themselves Latino (or MENA for that matter), the ratio changes.
I'm "white" but neither side of my family was considered white when they came to the US.
Hispanics will become "white," as will Asians (East Asians and Desis). The story of America will continue to be blacks getting left behind, and we'll continue to argue about what to do about it.
Per the report [0] linked in TFA, your understanding is wrong. More than twice as many hispanics came from natural increases (~2.21 million), compared to net immigration (~0.94 million)
Population growth was about 3.45m, 3.15m of that was hispanic, 1.18m was asian, 0.6m was black, 0.6m was 2+ races, and white were -2.1m (yes negative). Numbers according to the article, as well as categories.
It's important to note that Hispanic is an ethnicity and not a race. These two get conflated often. To be considered hispanic you just need Spanish roots, I think it's nonsense that people from Spain are not considered "White" but generally all other countries in Europe are. My point being that it's strange that other colonizing peoples descendants (Britain & France) are not tracked the same way descendants of Spanish people are.
I hit the paywall. Is this due to illegal immigration (including the spikes in asylum applicants / refugees) or cultural differences leading to higher birth rates or something else (like location)?
New immigrant/less wealthy women lose less money by deciding to have children than wealthier women (historically white due to distance from equator effects).
The wealthier you are, the more financial sense it makes to have zero children. Until the government decides that subsidizing families is worth doing until the population pyramid is stabilized, every wealthy subgroup will experience decline (except the practicing religious subgroups of those).
Readit News
too late to edit now but other than the butchered sentence I meant the cost of rent is higher than the pre tax salary.
One of the biggest problems with meme-driven economics like this (and HN is ground zero for this kind of logic) is the extent to which people just don't cite numbers anymore.
There is some truth here: property values in high-income US cities are growing faster than incomes. And that's a problem, and worth discussing. But that discussion can't happen until people stop with the hyperbole. And needless to say, without discussion there can be no solution. (Which, after all, serves the evolutionary goal of the meme!)
[1] Which surely reflects an average occupancy of 1.5-2 people, so needs to be adjusted even farther downward.
"It's too expensive, no one lives there anymore"?
The number of asylum seekers is a tiny proportion of overall immigration of all types so we can basically ignore it.
Population vs housing imbalance in California is not driven by immigrants anyway. The bulk of those people are citizens born to citizens or green card holders. Even if you could stop illegal immigration and simultaneously remove all non-citizens and non-visa holders right now today... that only punts the problem down the road by less than a decade.
The US has a dry foot policy specifically for Cuba, encouraging people to seek asylum in the US.
The US involvement in Central America - from Honduras in 2009 and before that encouraged migration and asylum servers, but that bell is hard to unring.
Has building more housing crossed your mind?
Really the big issue is lack of housing production, which was significantly lower in the 2010s and we still have not made up for all that lost time: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/census-shows-americas-pos...
This is misleading, because it's not tracked like this on the US census. Hispanic is a separate question from race - people are "White Hispanic" or "Black Hispanic" or "(something) Hispanic", not just "Hispanic".
What I wonder is if they've accounted for the lobbying of various subgroups to leave the "white" category, such as Hispanics themselves did in the late 60s - early 70s (speaking Spanish is neither a race nor a single culture.)
Every time a former white person declares themselves Latino (or MENA for that matter), the ratio changes.
Hispanics will become "white," as will Asians (East Asians and Desis). The story of America will continue to be blacks getting left behind, and we'll continue to argue about what to do about it.
Deleted Comment
That’s a broad generalization about what people believe.
Dead Comment
[0] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/census-shows-americas-pos...
It's definitely eliding a lot of the nuance of the article, but technically it's not wrong.
Yes, it's still substantially higher than other ethnic groups, but not by as much as it used to be.
The wealthier you are, the more financial sense it makes to have zero children. Until the government decides that subsidizing families is worth doing until the population pyramid is stabilized, every wealthy subgroup will experience decline (except the practicing religious subgroups of those).