californias receding hispanic majority (commute, areas, buildings)

[AmorphicDN]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

He posted this for you like 4 times, not sure why you can't see it but I can

What the plummeting Hispanic birthrate means for the U.S. economy | Fusion

Guess oldglory doesn't want to respond to what he asked for.

[505HPC6Z06]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

I never click on links but it sure dosen't look like Hispanics are declining around here. I walk by a elementry school playground and its all brown skin, and black hair.

+1

I wonder if some areas like "Ventura Avenue" (in Ventura, Ca) are just like Mexico. Caucasians are the minority, that is as clear as a bell. All the buildings are looking 3rd world country quality.

I think that article is way off base. Its only going to get worse, not better. Its been getting worse ever since I can remember (late 70's). And with that progression our rights and what was once nice or free has been trashed or now poses a charge to keep trashy people out. Who in the f#$% sake graffiti's all over boulders/rocks near a swimming hole out in the Las Padres National Forest? Mexicans. They don't give a f about our country nor anything else but themselves.

[AmorphicDN]

Originally Posted by 505HPC6Z05

I think that article is way off base. Its only going to get worse, not better. Its been getting worse ever since I can remember (late 70's). And with that progression our rights and what was once nice or free has been trashed or now poses a charge to keep trashy people out.

Perhaps you'd think more of other verifications

the birthrate of immigrants fell the most of all subgroups in 2013. The crude Hispanic birthrate fell 2% from 2012 to 2013, the largest decline among any ethnic group. To be sure, this group’s birthrate was falling before the recession even began, but the economic downturn has amplified the trend
U.S. Birthrate Falls -- Again - Forbes

Or this one

The U.S. birth rate dipped in 2011 to the lowest ever recorded, led by a plunge in births to immigrant women since the onset of the Great Recession. The overall U.S. birth rate, which is the annual number of births per 1,000 women in the prime childbearing ages of 15 to 44, declined 8% from 2007 to 2010. The birth rate for U.S.-born women decreased 6% during these years, but the birth rate for foreign-born women plunged 14%—more than it had declined over the entire 1990-2007 period.1 The birth rate for Mexican immigrant women fell even more, by 23%.
U.S. Birth Rate Falls to a Record Low; Decline Is Greatest Among Immigrants | Pew Research Center

Or this one

A recent CDC survey reports that Hispanic total fertility rate (TFR) has fallen for an unprecedented eighth straight year, while the percentage of children born to Hispanic parents has fallen for seven years in a row.[LEFT]
Read more: No Hispanic Surge On The Horizon | The Daily Caller
[/LEFT]

Or maybe this

“For the second straight year, Asians lead Hispanics in immigration,” said William Frey, demographer and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “The Hispanic declines in both immigration and births are largely due to the recession and its aftermath.”
Baby bust: US fertility rates hit all-time lows | Al Jazeera America

How much confirmation would it take?

[505HPC6Z06]

Originally Posted by AmorphicDN

Perhaps you'd think more of other verifications

Or this one

Or this one

Or maybe this

How much confirmation would it take?

Zero. I don't need confirmation. I need more information about those metrics.

Case in point, the gov says unemployment is really at 5.x%. Well that number is low because "long term unemployed" are not counted. If a person doesn't get a job in x amount of time, they fall off the radar.

Just because there are facts and figures that sound convincing enough to support the notion we have a receding hispanic population, doesn't make it true. Seeing is believing. We could be mislead just like the unemployment precent.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by 505HPC6Z05

Zero. I don't need confirmation. I need more information about those metrics.

Case in point, the gov says unemployment is really at 5.x%. Well that number is low because "long term unemployed" are not counted. If a person doesn't get a job in x amount of time, they fall off the radar.

Just because there are facts and figures that sound convincing enough to support the notion we have a receding hispanic population, doesn't make it true. Seeing is believing. We could be mislead just like the unemployment precent.

lol that's funny. You can't argue with the data so you want to attack the methodology. That argument 'might' work if you had only been offered one source- but you were given FOUR, that reduces the possibility of the data set being invalid or the results an outlier to just about ZERO.

[AmorphicDN]

Originally Posted by 505HPC6Z05

Zero. I don't need confirmation. I need more information about those metrics.

Case in point, the gov says unemployment is really at 5.x%. Well that number is low because "long term unemployed" are not counted. If a person doesn't get a job in x amount of time, they fall off the radar.

Just because there are facts and figures that sound convincing enough to support the notion we have a receding hispanic population, doesn't make it true. Seeing is believing. We could be mislead just like the unemployment precent.

It is well known that certain mindsets don't need confirmation for their beliefs. Still, a particular curiosity about what you just replied leaps out at readers. Just who do you think is misleading you and why? The sources for the data are not from the government. They are from independent studies and professional surveys.

By the way, the government does count the long term unemployed and reports them as part of the total 'metric' in certain categories. There are multiple BLS unemployment categories, U-1 through U-6. All are publicly published for anyone's review and study and use at any time. No conspiracy there. That the government chooses one 'U' category over another to spin their press releases really has more to do with what they are trying to report. The different categories each have entirely legitimate applications in economics projections. Nothing's hidden from you except in your own mindset.

"Seeing is believing" is the world of carnival magic shows. You think people will trust your subjective 'eyeball' census more than scientifically run independent surveys based on what?

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by 505HPC6Z05

Zero. I don't need confirmation. I need more information about those metrics.

Case in point, the gov says unemployment is really at 5.x%. Well that number is low because "long term unemployed" are not counted. If a person doesn't get a job in x amount of time, they fall off the radar.

Just because there are facts and figures that sound convincing enough to support the notion we have a receding hispanic population, doesn't make it true. Seeing is believing. We could be mislead just like the unemployment precent.

Exactly! We get a local paper and the birth announcements are in it. Every week the majority of babies born at our hospital are of Hispanic surnames.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Oldglory

Exactly! We get a local paper and the birth announcements are in it. Every week the majority of babies born at our hospital are of Hispanic surnames.

oh.. that must be why you kept ignoring the links that were provided for your perusal, you were busy looking at newspaper birth announcements

[505HPC6Z06]

Originally Posted by AmorphicDN

It is well known that certain mindsets don't need confirmation for their beliefs. Still, a particular curiosity about what you just replied leaps out at readers. Just who do you think is misleading you and why? The sources for the data are not from the government. They are from independent studies and professional surveys.

By the way, the government does count the long term unemployed and reports them as part of the total 'metric' in certain categories. There are multiple BLS unemployment categories, U-1 through U-6. All are publicly published for anyone's review and study and use at any time. No conspiracy there. That the government chooses one 'U' category over another to spin their press releases really has more to do with what they are trying to report. The different categories each have entirely legitimate applications in economics projections. Nothing's hidden from you except in your own mindset.

"Seeing is believing" is the world of carnival magic shows. You think people will trust your subjective 'eyeball' census more than scientifically run independent surveys based on what?

Earth to Amorphic The first link (which now is requiring a login credential) is where i thought government data was used. The page had a trajectory showing the predicted number of hispanics 30 (ish) years out. That is what I was referring to.

[AmorphicDN]

Originally Posted by 505HPC6Z05

Earth to Amorphic The first link (which now is requiring a login credential) is where i thought government data was used. The page had a trajectory showing the predicted number of hispanics 30 (ish) years out. That is what I was referring to.

Multiple sources / links were provided and the information is easy to find in any case on your own. You and oldglory have declared unfounded opinions as facts without bothering to determine truth, even though it could have been easily researched before firing your salvos. The earlier question remains unanswered by your response in any case. Who do you think is trying to hoodwink you and why do you think so?