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.
Trying to get back on track to the thread of 1980s...Once the 1965 Hart Celler Act was passed, millions of people from poor countries, Asian and Central American moved to the US and by the 1980s and they gained a foothold in California. California's education system went down hill, the immigrants out birthed the native whites (4 to 5 kids per child age bearing woman to 1.9 for whites), and schools got very crowded. Now LAUSD is 80% Hispanics and 9% white. That's a HUGE change. By 2042 the US will be less than 50% white and by 2060, estimates are the US will be 30% white and 50% Hispanic. The US was 90% white in 1960: Think about that. From 90% to 30% in 100 years.
"Time will likely help heal the gap for Hispanics" 2nd and 3rd generation are STILL at or near the bottom of virtually every socioeconomic metric: High school graduation rate, crime rate, square inches of grafitti sprayed, income, net worth, grade point average, SAT score, college attendance, truancy, college degree percentage, STEM representation, inmate population.
30% of English Learners are THIRD GENERATION HISPANICS.
What does this mean for California and the United States when the US imports millions of low functioning poor people who aren't competitive? Meritocratic China is clapping its hands as the US continues down this failed path.
I wouldn't be surprised if my the end of this century, California (minus key federal land such as military bases) is part of Mexico or is a separate Aztlan country. It will be a peaceful transition as most Americans will be Hispanic and since Mexicans are taught in school that California was stolen from Mexico in 1848, there will be no objection. This is why Mexicans have no moral issues with crossing a border they believe is invalid in the first place.
There is a much stronger correlation between poverty and school performance than there is anything else. That's really all I have to say about this because this of yours which allegedly is getting us 'back on track' just seems like your original anti-hispanic screed redux
Valid points. I recently saw that CA had a recent surplus and the economy is thriving. I have no doubt that a state with such rich resources and diverse industries will have big numbers.
CA reminds me of Brazil. A beautiful country with a vast economy and a very diverse population. Economically it is near the top of many areas. It attracts world events like the world cup and the Olympics in recent years. However, these events turn out to be an economic failure or don't meet the economic expectations. What the world sees is the beautiful beaches of Rio De Jaeiro and and the incredible views. Brazil, like most Latin American countries, has a small upper class, small middle class and large poor population. What made California great up to the 1980's (IMO) was that great middle class that seems to be getting smaller and smaller. By the time the 2028 Olympics hit LA, it will be interesting to see how the region comes together to make it a successful event economically or if it will be a financial burden.
OP: Come on. Comparing Brazil to California? You can't be serious.
Sunshine and beautiful beaches are about where the similarities end.
Brazil has been in a fairly serious recession the last few years, the violent crime is much higher, corruption is rampant and the income inequality is even worse than the USA.
Crime has fallen to generational lows in California in recent years while Brazil has been going in the opposite direction.
There is a much stronger correlation between poverty and school performance than there is anything else. That's really all I have to say about this because this of yours which allegedly is getting us 'back on track' just seems like your original anti-hispanic screed redux
People become poor because they don't perform well in school. Add in a high percentage of absent fathers and high crime and there's little doubt it's the result of poor decisions.
Nobody is forcing them to ditch school or spray graffiti or drop out of school or have a crime rate multiple times higher than that of whites.
If for 10 years blacks and Hispanics acted like Asians in all things relevant to both academic and economic success starting at a young age, and if black and Hispanic children attended school such that their truancy rate (which is now five times higher than that for whites) fell to the same rate as Asians and if they studied at the same rate of Asians and did not have children out of wedlock and waited until they were married before having children and the did not get involved in gangs, crimes, and drugs and we STILL saw the racial disparities that we do, THEN it is time to look for a structural inequality (systemic racism, white privilege, etc) and to look for an ubiquitous racism explanation. BUT right now when the behavioral disparities are SO glaring and SO obvious it is woefully premature to say that what's going on here is implicit bias or explicit bias.
I disagree. It isn't my or the state's responsibility to do ANYTHING for Latinos.
They know they're not supposed to ditch school.
They know they're supposed to study.
They know they're supposed to wait to get married before having kids.
They know they're supposed to be AT LEAST out of high school before they get pregnant.
They know they're not supposed to spray graffiti.
They know they're not supposed to have such an elevated crime rate.
In the grand scheme of things what you think (or want) doesn't matter!
The vast majority of college graduates (regardless of ethnicity/race) in California (and the USA) graduate from a PUBLIC university. It is in everyone's interest to promote increased educational attainment across the spectrum of society. Innovation and future standards of living depend on it.
Last edited by Astral_Weeks; 08-06-2019 at 02:28 AM..
People become poor because they don't perform well in school. Add in a high percentage of absent fathers and high crime and there's little doubt it's the result of poor decisions.
Nobody is forcing them to ditch school or spray graffiti or drop out of school or have a crime rate multiple times higher than that of whites.
If for 10 years blacks and Hispanics acted like Asians in all things relevant to both academic and economic success starting at a young age, and if black and Hispanic children attended school such that their truancy rate (which is now five times higher than that for whites) fell to the same rate as Asians and if they studied at the same rate of Asians and did not have children out of wedlock and waited until they were married before having children and the did not get involved in gangs, crimes, and drugs and we STILL saw the racial disparities that we do, THEN it is time to look for a structural inequality (systemic racism, white privilege, etc) and to look for an ubiquitous racism explanation. BUT right now when the behavioral disparities are SO glaring and SO obvious it is woefully premature to say that what's going on here is implicit bias or explicit bias.
Of course, public policy should encourage (and reward) good behavior. But there is plenty of research to show that being in poverty is concurrent with a strain on cognitive resources. That is, being in poverty reduces brainpower needed for navigating other areas of life.
The public policy challenge is to thread the needle that both reduces economic hardship so people can thrive and encourages the sort of behavior which leads to long-term success (e.g., delaying child birth, getting skills/education, etc.).
You seem to want to single out blacks and Latinos.
But if you dig into it you'll see high rates of college graduates among Nigerian immigrants (well above the national average). If you look at Cubans/Cuban-Americans you'll also see relatively high educational attainment and income levels.
What the Nigerians and Cubans share in common is they usually brought high levels of human capital with them. There is no reason the same can't be achieved for African-Americans and other Latinos.
Last edited by Astral_Weeks; 08-06-2019 at 02:03 AM..
California was the beneficiary of a ton of military spending. Much of that got cut in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Not all of it but a lot.
During this time it also became the place to go. Everyone was moving there. Developers built entire new cities in a year. That made it boom, but also set up a downfall. Housing got insanely expensive. At the same time, economic opportunity brought people by the millions from all over the world. This resulted in some people living 20+ to a house in order to afford real estate. Close quarters leads to crime and other social ills.
Shortages of everything started being the norm. Electricity, water, parking, space.. . .
Warm weather and generous social programs brought in homeless people by the hundreds of thousands.
Too many problems popped up all at once and the society has been unable to deal with them.
Is it awful? no, it is still a magnificent place, but it is not what it was. What is really dismaying is where it is going. The positive aspects of everything booming have leveled out while the negative aspects continue to grow. A basically dysfunctional government at most levels is making things worse.
Still it was awesome. Now it is only great. Eventually it will be Meh. Can it become an awful place? Maybe. It got pretty bad in the early 1980s. Huge crime issues. Huge smog problem.
We wish we could claim the homeless were drawn to California by the weather and welfare, but alas they are almost all California residents who no longer have a place to live. Regarding welfare - the only people who get welfare are parents with minor children, single adults can get 3 months of SNAP benefits every 3 years and medicaid, probably not enough to draw thousands of homeless here
I don't recall any "electricity shortages". California like other states have had brownouts when there is excessive load on the grid usually from too many people during air conditioners. And I have never seen an entire city built in a year, that must be quite a sight~
I have yet to see a single family home with 20 residents, last month in a different thread you claimed that 54 people live in homes in California, what is that all about, if you have addresses please provide them I would love to see what a SFH occupied by 54 people looks like! Housing hasn't been affordable to the middle class in expensive urban areas for a very long time, but fortunately, it's a big state and there are still plenty of areas that with very reasonably priced homes.
And a dysfunctional government? What does that even mean?
In the grand scheme of things what you think (or want) doesn't matter!
The vast majority of college graduates (regardless of ethnicity/race) in California (and the USA) graduate from a PUBLIC university. It is in everyone's interest to promote increased educational attainment across the spectrum of society. Innovation and future standards of living depend on it.
Yes, I agree 100% as long as college admission is 100% merit based and no preferences are given to race or gender or any other non-academic criteria. Do you agree?
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.
