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.
Countries abut each other all over the world and they're not constantly at war with each other. That's ridiculous.
Why is that, why are the not at war with each other and some are?
Quote:
No, it's actually not pretty much a fact. I just told you exactly how Rome fell. You can read the definitive books, Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and get a blow-by-blow account of precisely what happened to the Roman Empire. Not enforcing their borders? That were at almost constant war with barbarian tribes and faced numerous civil wars at the end.
You never said minorities? Then explain the title of this thread and the very first sentence in your original post.
Demographically speaking
Quote:
Did I say one way or the other? Your point? If you want to set it up so you can throw out some pseudo-science pertaining to racial differences, by all means, do so, I will find it amusing.
No it is not, are you saying that demographic would not be changing so fast if we had a fully secured border?
It would still be changing. Even if there was no illegal immigration we would still become a minority country. Where would we import people from? Europe? They have to import people themselves. Russia? They are losing population too, but they don't want to import people so they decided to pay women to have kids.
It would still be changing. Even if there was no illegal immigration we would still become a minority country. Where would we import people from? Europe? They have to import people themselves. Russia? They are losing population too, but they don't want to import people so they decided to pay women to have kids.
Hey strip a great deal of taxes and regulations let the economy flourish so people will have more kids..I mean economical down turns are connected with population growth.
Newsflash OP. I know you hate non-whites, but the reality is much of this change is due to the success of Americans. Higher income folks have always had FEWER kids than lower-middle and lower income folks. Add in the fact women can easily have careers today that make them self-supporting.
Our prior era high birth rates were largely tied to the fact a woman could be 5x as educated and qualified as a guy, and she'd be, at most , a secretary. To increase her lifestyle potential, she had to marry, and guys were more likely to marry young women, in prime child-bearing years. In essence, we'll never know how many of those big 50 and 60s era families were a factor of the limited earning potential of women.
Today, those high incomes get curtailed if the women take the "Mommy Track". Now in lower-income families, the opportunity cost of taking said track is small, but as you move up the economic chain, that cost gets immense. So we see fewer women making that sacrifice, or if they do, marrying later and having fewer kids.
We'll never again see faster rates of childbirth in white families, short of seeing a sustained Great Depression of epic proportions, permanently removing them from middle class America.
Says the guy who believes he deserves everything to be handed to him by his daddy for merely being born. If you're the example other minorities should follow, then suffice to say we have nothing to look forward to in a minority majority America.
Its people like him that make me fight to prevent it from coming to pass.
Newsflash OP. I know you hate non-whites, but the reality is much of this change is due to the success of Americans. Higher income folks have always had FEWER kids than lower-middle and lower income folks. Add in the fact women can easily have careers today that make them self-supporting.
Our prior era high birth rates were largely tied to the fact a woman could be 5x as educated and qualified as a guy, and she'd be, at most , a secretary. To increase her lifestyle potential, she had to marry, and guys were more likely to marry young women, in prime child-bearing years. In essence, we'll never know how many of those big 50 and 60s era families were a factor of the limited earning potential of women.
Today, those high incomes get curtailed if the women take the "Mommy Track". Now in lower-income families, the opportunity cost of taking said track is small, but as you move up the economic chain, that cost gets immense. So we see fewer women making that sacrifice, or if they do, marrying later and having fewer kids.
We'll never again see faster rates of childbirth in white families, short of seeing a sustained Great Depression of epic proportions, permanently removing them from middle class America.
I hate no one, I love all peoples, all races, and all creeds.
How did you come to such a baseless conclusion?
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.
