As reported by the NY Times, in the 12-month period ending July 2011, non-Hispanic white babies were only 49.6% of all births. There’s accompanying graph which shows that white births have fallen off a cliff since the year ending July 2006, while non-white births have increased. It’s a pretty big change in just five years, and it makes you wonder what the graph will look like in another five years.
The tone of the article is giddy. Reading between the lines, the reporter is saying that the United States has been a racist country for so long. Whites enslaved blacks and genocidally killed off the American Indians. When whites become a minority, we will finally have purged our nation of its evil whiteness.
The last two paragraphs read:
And the fact that the country is getting a burst of births from nonwhites is a huge advantage, argues Dowell Myers, professor of policy, planning and demography at the University of Southern California. European societies with low levels of immigration now have young populations that are too small to support larger aging ones, exacerbating problems with the economy.
“If the U.S. depended on white births alone, we’d be dead,” Mr. Myers said. “Without the contributions from all these other groups, we would become too top-heavy with old people.”
This kind of nonsense is bought into by liberals and conservatives alike. Because of modern technology, there has been such a massively huge increase in worker productivity that we do not need a pyramid scheme of ever-larger numbers of young workers in order to provide food, clothing and shelter for “old people.”
There may be some limits with respect to the amount of labor-intensive healthcare we can provide, but there has never been a rational discussion of that issue.
I enjoyed the following comment by a NY Times reader:
I am curious about the comment that "...increasingly diverse young population is a potential engine of growth ...".
Does this imply that a homogeneous population is not an engine for growth (ie. China, India and Germany using the classifications in the article would be fairly homogeneous.)
Does it imply that "white" people are not a viable engine for growth due to some deficiency or other?
I am not quite sure what the point of this statement was intended to be.