Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see any states listed in that link. What am I missing?
EDIT:
I see, it is table 4.
What this adjustment misses is that the cost of living isn't uniform throughout California. While living in Marin County is quite expensive, the rural areas are not. As such, the poorest people don't live in the most expensive areas, which skews the results.
Actually Mexico fertility rate declined below 3 in 1994, and then it slowed down to 2.32 today. US has in the same period had an average of 2.1 which is replacement.
Mexico has given birth to about 23 million babies since 2000, and 5 million has died. The population increase in Mexico from 2000 - 2010 is 15 million. If about 15M left to the US, then the population increase would be 3M people. It would have been very obvious.
I just don't see that. I still see Hispanic families with 4-5 kids all over the place and in the schools.
2.3 vs 2.1 just doesn't seem a large enough difference that Texas went 50% Hispanic in the schools.
If they are not coming here illegally in great numbers and aren't having many kids, how do you explain the rapid growth ?
California has the highest number of illegals so it's not fair to compare.
Texas is not far behind CA and we have a lot living in poverty as well.
And you also have Arizona with a high number of illegals.
These are border states where a majority of the illegals settle after crossing the border.
Nothing will change for these people though. The majority are uneducated (average education level is 5th grade) and have no skills and have a few kids. They will always be living at or near poverty.
The last census did count illegals though.
If they are about to become legal how can we not count them?
I just don't see that. I still see Hispanic families with 4-5 kids all over the place and in the schools.
2.3 vs 2.1 just doesn't seem a large enough difference that Texas went 50% Hispanic in the schools.
If they are not coming here illegally in great numbers and aren't having many kids, how do you explain the rapid growth ?
In Texas 38% of the population is Hispanic, but the majority of those Hispanics are young. So 50% is not unreasonable at school age.
Mexico is a country that had a very high fertility rate, but it has been dropping. Birth rate takes longer time to get down than fertility rate. This is happening all over Latin America.
That is why countries like Nigeria is ****ed. They currenly have 5.5 in fertility rate. If they can get the fertility rate down to 2 in 2 decades (very unlikely) it will still take another 3 decades before the birth rate will drop to safe levels. In that period their population will increase from 160M to 500M.
If they are about to become legal how can we not count them?
We have to go on estimates same as with the Reagan amnesty.
Not until after they applied can you get an actual count and you will still have illegals that don't qualify and don't apply.
Reagan amnesty resulted in twice as many applying than the government estimated.
What this adjustment misses is that the cost of living isn't uniform throughout California. While living in Marin County is quite expensive, the rural areas are not. As such, the poorest people don't live in the most expensive areas, which skews the results.
Cost of living isn't uniform in other places too. Manhattan is much more expensive than other parts of NY. Austin TX has more expensive housing than San Antonio, which is more expensive than Brownsville. I don't think Los Angeles is inexpensive anywhere. Yet the official (not adjusted for cost of living) poverty rate for LA was 25.9% in 2009. Much higher than the state average.
The SPM is too distorted by housing and renting costs, as they are very localized and don't fit a state by state paradigm. That is why "expensive" states like the Northeast and West Coast see huge increases with this experimental method.
It would need to be refined down to actually asking on the Census form "how much do you pay in rent/housing a month" to make this method worthwhile.
And anyone who knows real estate knows a "state-wide" measure is very poor way to find out true cost of living expenses for habitat.
EDIT: BTW, I do believe that poverty rate is slightly higher then the old method indicates, maybe ~1 to 2%. I also like how that study finds that without Social Security, Poverty for the elderly would be 55% and 25% for everyone else.
That is a HUGE increase and is why the country basically needs "forced" retirement savings; the economy can't work without it since the vast majority of people don't know how to save money in this country (or physically can't).
California is an odd state where it comes to welfare. Much higher than average "welfare" participation but well below average rates of disabilty and SNAP participation.
They don't allow SSI receivers to get SNAP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
