(08-19-2013 11:45 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 10:06 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 03:59 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Prices are already increasing due to our current administration. It's called printing money and devaluing the dollar. We put a man on the moon we can pick our own food and mow our own damn lawns.

I've heard all the scare tactics about how lettuce will cost 10 dollars a head. I doubt that, but so be it. The market will resolve that problem on its own.

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie [the middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." Karl Marx, Obama hero.

Not that it makes much of a difference, but bourgeoisie doesn't refer to today's idea of the middle class in Marx's writing. Back then he was referring to the new class that formed between the working people(middle class) and aristocracy. To be fair, a lot of capitalists of the day hated the new bourgeoisie.

So in other words, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and small business owners... the upper-middle class?

(08-19-2013 12:19 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 11:45 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 10:06 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 03:59 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Prices are already increasing due to our current administration. It's called printing money and devaluing the dollar. We put a man on the moon we can pick our own food and mow our own damn lawns.

I've heard all the scare tactics about how lettuce will cost 10 dollars a head. I doubt that, but so be it. The market will resolve that problem on its own.

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie [the middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." Karl Marx, Obama hero.

Not that it makes much of a difference, but bourgeoisie doesn't refer to today's idea of the middle class in Marx's writing. Back then he was referring to the new class that formed between the working people(middle class) and aristocracy. To be fair, a lot of capitalists of the day hated the new bourgeoisie.

So in other words, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and small business owners... the upper-middle class?

Actually, by then it was the absolute ruling class.

(08-19-2013 12:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 12:19 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 11:45 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 10:06 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 03:59 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Prices are already increasing due to our current administration. It's called printing money and devaluing the dollar. We put a man on the moon we can pick our own food and mow our own damn lawns.

I've heard all the scare tactics about how lettuce will cost 10 dollars a head. I doubt that, but so be it. The market will resolve that problem on its own.

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie [the middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." Karl Marx, Obama hero.

Not that it makes much of a difference, but bourgeoisie doesn't refer to today's idea of the middle class in Marx's writing. Back then he was referring to the new class that formed between the working people(middle class) and aristocracy. To be fair, a lot of capitalists of the day hated the new bourgeoisie.

So in other words, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and small business owners... the upper-middle class?

Somewhat, yes. There was a widespread fear of that class then.

History often repeats itself, no?

(08-19-2013 12:56 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 12:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 12:19 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 11:45 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 10:06 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  "The way to crush the bourgeoisie [the middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." Karl Marx, Obama hero.

Not that it makes much of a difference, but bourgeoisie doesn't refer to today's idea of the middle class in Marx's writing. Back then he was referring to the new class that formed between the working people(middle class) and aristocracy. To be fair, a lot of capitalists of the day hated the new bourgeoisie.

So in other words, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and small business owners... the upper-middle class?

Somewhat, yes. There was a widespread fear of that class then.

History often repeats itself, no?

Yep. Now everybody fears everybody else.

(08-19-2013 01:02 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 12:56 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 12:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 12:19 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 11:45 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Not that it makes much of a difference, but bourgeoisie doesn't refer to today's idea of the middle class in Marx's writing. Back then he was referring to the new class that formed between the working people(middle class) and aristocracy. To be fair, a lot of capitalists of the day hated the new bourgeoisie.

So in other words, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and small business owners... the upper-middle class?

Somewhat, yes. There was a widespread fear of that class then.

History often repeats itself, no?

Yep. Now everybody fears everybody else.

Today's Christians are taking a beating and not bowing to anyone. Doesn't appear to be fear to me. You're seeing the patience of a people and mistaking it for fear, likely out of your own fears as we all know humans have limits.

Philippians 4:13

(08-19-2013 01:06 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 01:02 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 12:56 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 12:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 12:19 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  So in other words, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and small business owners... the upper-middle class?

Somewhat, yes. There was a widespread fear of that class then.

History often repeats itself, no?

Yep. Now everybody fears everybody else.

Today's Christians are taking a beating and not bowing to anyone. Doesn't appear to be fear to me. You're seeing the patience of a people and mistaking it for fear, likely out of your own fears as we all know humans have limits.

Philippians 4:13

Maybe fear isn't a good word. Wary is better.

(08-19-2013 09:29 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:04 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Which averages out to 1.6 per woman in 2008 and 1.89 per woman in 2011.

The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

This overall contraction in childbearing was also seen in the nation’s total fertility rate, which dipped to 1.89 children per woman — well below the 2.1 children-per-woman replacement rate that a nation needs for demographic stability. The U.S. fertility rate was at replacement level in 2007, but it has been falling ever since

Can you not see the incoherence in your own posts? The total fertility rate (not birth rate) was at the replacement level for demographic stability (not cultural stability) in 2007 and has been falling ever since. Yet you say it was 1.6 in 2008 and 1.89 in 2011. I guess the total fertility rate managed to pull off that unique trick of falling up.

What this means is that you should be even more freaked out than you already are. If illegals somehow (with your new math and all)accounted for 25% of the total fertility rate in 2008 they probably are making up a similar percentage today. By your math the total fertility rate should be down around 1.3, which, if I remember Craigg639's super special video, means we're DOOMED.

What part of "our birthrate is so low that we must rely on immigration to maintain our demographic stability" do you not understand?

What part of "replacing the population with foreign born citizens destroys the host culture" do you not understand?

You only need to look to Britain, where their problem has a couple decade head start on us. Are you aware of how many Sharia courts are now open for business in Great Britain? Are you aware that in certain parts of the cities all across the UK have sharia zones being enforced? Are you aware that is beginning to take hold here?

Are you aware that Christians have been pelted with rocks and bottles in Dearborn Michigan?(another idiot liberal city taking tolerance to a whole new level) Are you aware that our country is littered with identified radical Islamic groups from coast to coast? Are you aware that the problem starts small and grows over time? That is a culture dying and a new culture fighting for dominance. Pull your head out of your rear. How many clues that something isn't right must appear before liberals like you realize there is a problem? How bad does it have to get before people like you stop justifying the problems by making ridiculous false comparisons?

Even ultra liberal Bob Beckel is now calling for smaller immigration numbers.

You have wasted several pages of this thread arguing over the format of the same figure. The overall fertility rate is 1.89. That means each US woman is having on average 1.89 children per household. Way below the number needed for a society to replenish itself. Illegal immigrants having babies is not only not added into that rate, but adding to the problem of diluting our established culture. That's not a matter of opinion, and acting like we don't have a culture goes against the very fact that we have naturalization laws. Wake up. Stop being part of the problem by acting as an enabler and excuse maker.

(08-19-2013 01:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 09:29 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:04 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Which averages out to 1.6 per woman in 2008 and 1.89 per woman in 2011.

The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

This overall contraction in childbearing was also seen in the nation’s total fertility rate, which dipped to 1.89 children per woman — well below the 2.1 children-per-woman replacement rate that a nation needs for demographic stability. The U.S. fertility rate was at replacement level in 2007, but it has been falling ever since

Can you not see the incoherence in your own posts? The total fertility rate (not birth rate) was at the replacement level for demographic stability (not cultural stability) in 2007 and has been falling ever since. Yet you say it was 1.6 in 2008 and 1.89 in 2011. I guess the total fertility rate managed to pull off that unique trick of falling up.
What this means is that you should be even more freaked out than you already are. If illegals somehow (with your new math and all)accounted for 25% of the total fertility rate in 2008 they probably are making up a similar percentage today. By your math the total fertility rate should be down around 1.3, which, if I remember Craigg639's super special video, means we're DOOMED.

You have wasted several pages of this thread arguing over the format of the same figure. The overall fertility rate is 1.89. That means each US woman is having on average 1.89 children per household. Way below the number needed for a society to replenish itself. Illegal immigrants having babies is not only not added into that rate, but adding to the problem of diluting our established culture. That's not a matter of opinion, and acting like we don't have a culture goes against the very fact that we have naturalization laws. Wake up. Stop being part of the problem by acting as an enabler and excuse maker.

I haven't argued about the format of the figure at all. I've pointed out that you continually use the wrong term, misunderstand what that term means, and cite the wrong value for that term. That's a little bit different than quibbling about the format. People who don't know what a term means don't often use it correctly.

And you are still getting it wrong. It's the total fertility rate. And that doesn't mean that each US woman is having an average of 1.89 babies (and, one more time, I have to point out that we were talking about 2008, not 2011 - why do you keep deflecting?). It's how many babies each woman would have in their lifetime if, every year during their lifetime, they experienced the birth rate for that age for that particular year. The difference is subtle, so I'm not surprised you haven't picked up on it, but meaningful.

You need to make up your mind about whether or not illegal immigrants are included or not. For Craig639's super special video, you claimed that the illegal immigrant contribution (plus your special math) dropped the number all the way from 2.1 to 1.6. Now all of the sudden they don't contribute at all?

Demographic stability is different than cultural stability. Some immigrants are more American than many Americans (it's one possible explanation for why so many entrepreneurs are immigrants - they are self-selected to be risk takers while the pioneer spirit has been bred out of the native population). Some immigrants assimilate almost immediately. Others don't assimilate at all. Attempting to use a measure of demographic stability as a proxy for cultural stability, even if you could actually figure out what numbers you want to use, is an exercise in futility.

(08-19-2013 08:59 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 01:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 09:29 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:04 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

This overall contraction in childbearing was also seen in the nation’s total fertility rate, which dipped to 1.89 children per woman — well below the 2.1 children-per-woman replacement rate that a nation needs for demographic stability. The U.S. fertility rate was at replacement level in 2007, but it has been falling ever since

Can you not see the incoherence in your own posts? The total fertility rate (not birth rate) was at the replacement level for demographic stability (not cultural stability) in 2007 and has been falling ever since. Yet you say it was 1.6 in 2008 and 1.89 in 2011. I guess the total fertility rate managed to pull off that unique trick of falling up.
What this means is that you should be even more freaked out than you already are. If illegals somehow (with your new math and all)accounted for 25% of the total fertility rate in 2008 they probably are making up a similar percentage today. By your math the total fertility rate should be down around 1.3, which, if I remember Craigg639's super special video, means we're DOOMED.

You have wasted several pages of this thread arguing over the format of the same figure. The overall fertility rate is 1.89. That means each US woman is having on average 1.89 children per household. Way below the number needed for a society to replenish itself. Illegal immigrants having babies is not only not added into that rate, but adding to the problem of diluting our established culture. That's not a matter of opinion, and acting like we don't have a culture goes against the very fact that we have naturalization laws. Wake up. Stop being part of the problem by acting as an enabler and excuse maker.

I haven't argued about the format of the figure at all. I've pointed out that you continually use the wrong term, misunderstand what that term means, and cite the wrong value for that term. That's a little bit different than quibbling about the format. People who don't know what a term means don't often use it correctly.

And you are still getting it wrong. It's the total fertility rate. And that doesn't mean that each US woman is having an average of 1.89 babies (and, one more time, I have to point out that we were talking about 2008, not 2011 - why do you keep deflecting?). It's how many babies each woman would have in their lifetime if, every year during their lifetime, they experienced the birth rate for that age for that particular year. The difference is subtle, so I'm not surprised you haven't picked up on it, but meaningful.

You need to make up your mind about whether or not illegal immigrants are included or not. For Craig639's super special video, you claimed that the illegal immigrant contribution (plus your special math) dropped the number all the way from 2.1 to 1.6. Now all of the sudden they don't contribute at all?

Demographic stability is different than cultural stability. Some immigrants are more American than many Americans (it's one possible explanation for why so many entrepreneurs are immigrants - they are self-selected to be risk takers while the pioneer spirit has been bred out of the native population). Some immigrants assimilate almost immediately. Others don't assimilate at all. Attempting to use a measure of demographic stability as a proxy for cultural stability, even if you could actually figure out what numbers you want to use, is an exercise in futility.

The total fertility rate (TFR), sometimes also called the fertility rate, period total fertility rate (PTFR) or total period fertility rate (TPFR) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if

1.she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through her lifetime, and

2. she were to survive from birth through the end of her reproductive life

The overall fertility rate or "total fertility rate" is 1.89.

That rate is too low to maintain demographic stability. That leads to an increase of immigration. That in turn leads to the loss of the host culture.

(08-19-2013 09:10 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The total fertility rate (TFR), sometimes also called the fertility rate, period total fertility rate (PTFR) or total period fertility rate (TPFR) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if
1.she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through her lifetime, and
2. she were to survive from birth through the end of her reproductive life
The overall fertility rate or "total fertility rate" is 1.89.
That rate is too low to maintain demographic stability. That leads to an increase of immigration. That in turn leads to the loss of the host culture.

Please tell me you didn't type out that whole explanation and not realize that the total fertility rate is not the same thing as the average number of babies a woman will have in her lifetime.

Notice how in all those alternate names, overall fertility rate isn't one of them. Neither is birth rate, for that matter. I do feel good that you are admitting you were wrong and starting to call it total fertility rate though. Progress! I feel like I'm starting to make a difference, and that's all anyone can hope to do in this crazy mixed up world we live in. Have a positive impact in other people's lives.

But about that 1.6 from 2008 . . .

(08-19-2013 09:21 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 09:10 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The total fertility rate (TFR), sometimes also called the fertility rate, period total fertility rate (PTFR) or total period fertility rate (TPFR) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if
1.she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through her lifetime, and
2. she were to survive from birth through the end of her reproductive life
The overall fertility rate or "total fertility rate" is 1.89.
That rate is too low to maintain demographic stability. That leads to an increase of immigration. That in turn leads to the loss of the host culture.

Please tell me you didn't type out that whole explanation and not realize that the total fertility rate is not the same thing as the average number of babies a woman will have in her lifetime.

Notice how in all those alternate names, overall fertility rate isn't one of them. Neither is birth rate, for that matter. I do feel good that you are admitting you were wrong and starting to call it total fertility rate though. Progress! I feel like I'm starting to make a difference, and that's all anyone can hope to do in this crazy mixed up world we live in. Have a positive impact in other people's lives.

But about that 1.6 from 2008 . . .

Buddy. If the overall fertility rate is too low, so is the birth rate. I am not wrong. What about the 1.6 in 2008? It went up almost 3 tenths of a point in 5 years.

(08-16-2013 01:04 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  This overall contraction in childbearing was also seen in the nation’s total fertility rate, which dipped to 1.89 children per woman — well below the 2.1 children-per-woman replacement rate that a nation needs for demographic stability. The U.S. fertility rate was at replacement level in 2007, but it has been falling ever since

Emphasis in the original.

(08-19-2013 09:25 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Buddy. If the overall fertility rate is too low, so is the birth rate. I am not wrong. What about the 1.6 in 2008? It went up almost 3 tenths of a point in 5 years.

Emphasis added.

Just another little piece of friendly advice, if you don't just make things up, you don't have to try as hard to keep your story straight. Not that it looks like you've been trying all that hard.

(08-19-2013 09:38 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:04 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  This overall contraction in childbearing was also seen in the nation’s total fertility rate, which dipped to 1.89 children per woman — well below the 2.1 children-per-woman replacement rate that a nation needs for demographic stability. The U.S. fertility rate was at replacement level in 2007, but it has been falling ever since

Emphasis in the original.

(08-19-2013 09:25 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Buddy. If the overall fertility rate is too low, so is the birth rate. I am not wrong. What about the 1.6 in 2008? It went up almost 3 tenths of a point in 5 years.

Emphasis added.

Just another little piece of friendly advice, if you don't just make things up, you don't have to try as hard to keep your story straight. Not that it looks like you've been trying all that hard.

Here's another piece of advice. Trying to win arguments by trying to confuse the debate is not very effective. The figures have not wavered. They only items that have wavered are the numerous definitions and angles we have explored that draw the same conclusion.

(08-19-2013 10:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 09:38 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:04 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  This overall contraction in childbearing was also seen in the nation’s total fertility rate, which dipped to 1.89 children per woman — well below the 2.1 children-per-woman replacement rate that a nation needs for demographic stability. The U.S. fertility rate was at replacement level in 2007, but it has been falling ever since

Emphasis in the original.

(08-19-2013 09:25 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Buddy. If the overall fertility rate is too low, so is the birth rate. I am not wrong. What about the 1.6 in 2008? It went up almost 3 tenths of a point in 5 years.

Emphasis added.
Just another little piece of friendly advice, if you don't just make things up, you don't have to try as hard to keep your story straight. Not that it looks like you've been trying all that hard.

Here's another piece of advice. Trying to win arguments by trying to confuse the debate is not very effective. The figures have not wavered. They only items that have wavered are the numerous definitions and angles we have explored that draw the same conclusion.

I find it rather telling that you consider 1 to be numerous (must be more of that new math you are fond of). Because we've only been talking about one rate, the total fertility rate (as I repeatedly pointed out). That you keep calling it something else doesn't mean we were ever talking about different rates. We couldn't, because the total fertility rate is the only one where 2.11 has any sort of special significance.

But, despite all the evidence, I still have faith in you, so I'm going to keep trying. This is a link to the report used for the Washington Times article you cited above (in the 8/16 post), Births: Final Data for 2011.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_01.pdf

Now take a look at Table 8 (unfortunately it doesn't have a page number, but it's about 3/5 of the way through). This gives the total fertility rate for various groupings, starting will all origins. Let's take a look at those figures.

2011: 1.89 (give yourself a cookie, you got one right, not the one we were talking about, but yay for partial credit!)
2010: 1.93 (getting bigger)
2009: 2.00 (and bigger)
2008: 2.07 (well this is just awkward)
Maybe if we go back a little farther? After all, Craigg639 probably had to make his super special video without the latest numbers.
2007: 2.12 (it's all going to be ok)
2006: 2.11 (hmmm . . .)
2005: 2.05 (well that's a pretty big drop, maybe 2004)
2004: 2.05 (nope)
2003: 2.05 (I'm starting to think Craigg639's super special video might not be so super special)

So which is it, was the total fertility rate 1.6 in 2008 or 1.89 in 2011? It can be one (with some really funny new math), it can be the other, but it can't be both.

(08-19-2013 10:58 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 10:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 09:38 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:04 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  This overall contraction in childbearing was also seen in the nation’s total fertility rate, which dipped to 1.89 children per woman — well below the 2.1 children-per-woman replacement rate that a nation needs for demographic stability. The U.S. fertility rate was at replacement level in 2007, but it has been falling ever since

Emphasis in the original.

(08-19-2013 09:25 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Buddy. If the overall fertility rate is too low, so is the birth rate. I am not wrong. What about the 1.6 in 2008? It went up almost 3 tenths of a point in 5 years.

Emphasis added.
Just another little piece of friendly advice, if you don't just make things up, you don't have to try as hard to keep your story straight. Not that it looks like you've been trying all that hard.

Here's another piece of advice. Trying to win arguments by trying to confuse the debate is not very effective. The figures have not wavered. They only items that have wavered are the numerous definitions and angles we have explored that draw the same conclusion.

I find it rather telling that you consider 1 to be numerous (must be more of that new math you are fond of). Because we've only been talking about one rate, the total fertility rate (as I repeatedly pointed out). That you keep calling it something else doesn't mean we were ever talking about different rates. We couldn't, because the total fertility rate is the only one where 2.11 has any sort of special significance.

But, despite all the evidence, I still have faith in you, so I'm going to keep trying. This is a link to the report used for the Washington Times article you cited above (in the 8/16 post), Births: Final Data for 2011.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_01.pdf

Now take a look at Table 8 (unfortunately it doesn't have a page number, but it's about 3/5 of the way through). This gives the total fertility rate for various groupings, starting will all origins. Let's take a look at those figures.

2011: 1.89 (give yourself a cookie, you got one right, not the one we were talking about, but yay for partial credit!)
2010: 1.93 (getting bigger)
2009: 2.00 (and bigger)
2008: 2.07 (well this is just awkward)
Maybe if we go back a little farther? After all, Craigg639 probably had to make his super special video without the latest numbers.
2007: 2.12 (it's all going to be ok)
2006: 2.11 (hmmm . . .)
2005: 2.05 (well that's a pretty big drop, maybe 2004)
2004: 2.05 (nope)
2003: 2.05 (I'm starting to think Craigg639's super special video might not be so super special)

So which is it, was the total fertility rate 1.6 in 2008 or 1.89 in 2011? It can be one (with some really funny new math), it can be the other, but it can't be both.

OK, so the source the video used was 4 tenths of a point different than the Washington Post article. The video clearly states that the current fertility rate is 1.6, with the addition of the current. "Latino Immigration" (or if we are being honest), illegal immigration, the number jumps to 2.11. The very minimum to maintain a culture "society." You keep saying 2008, but I think the video is going off 2006 data.

As of 2011, the latest data available, our fertility rate is 1.89. That is a huge drop. So I am not sure what you are continuously trying to argue. The number is below the point of no return.

(08-19-2013 11:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 10:58 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 10:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 09:38 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:04 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  This overall contraction in childbearing was also seen in the nation’s total fertility rate, which dipped to 1.89 children per woman — well below the 2.1 children-per-woman replacement rate that a nation needs for demographic stability. The U.S. fertility rate was at replacement level in 2007, but it has been falling ever since

Emphasis in the original.

(08-19-2013 09:25 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Buddy. If the overall fertility rate is too low, so is the birth rate. I am not wrong. What about the 1.6 in 2008? It went up almost 3 tenths of a point in 5 years.

Emphasis added.
Just another little piece of friendly advice, if you don't just make things up, you don't have to try as hard to keep your story straight. Not that it looks like you've been trying all that hard.

Here's another piece of advice. Trying to win arguments by trying to confuse the debate is not very effective. The figures have not wavered. They only items that have wavered are the numerous definitions and angles we have explored that draw the same conclusion.

I find it rather telling that you consider 1 to be numerous (must be more of that new math you are fond of). Because we've only been talking about one rate, the total fertility rate (as I repeatedly pointed out). That you keep calling it something else doesn't mean we were ever talking about different rates. We couldn't, because the total fertility rate is the only one where 2.11 has any sort of special significance.
But, despite all the evidence, I still have faith in you, so I'm going to keep trying. This is a link to the report used for the Washington Times article you cited above (in the 8/16 post), Births: Final Data for 2011.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_01.pdf
Now take a look at Table 8 (unfortunately it doesn't have a page number, but it's about 3/5 of the way through). This gives the total fertility rate for various groupings, starting will all origins. Let's take a look at those figures.
2011: 1.89 (give yourself a cookie, you got one right, not the one we were talking about, but yay for partial credit!)
2010: 1.93 (getting bigger)
2009: 2.00 (and bigger)
2008: 2.07 (well this is just awkward)
Maybe if we go back a little farther? After all, Craigg639 probably had to make his super special video without the latest numbers.
2007: 2.12 (it's all going to be ok)
2006: 2.11 (hmmm . . .)
2005: 2.05 (well that's a pretty big drop, maybe 2004)
2004: 2.05 (nope)
2003: 2.05 (I'm starting to think Craigg639's super special video might not be so super special)
So which is it, was the total fertility rate 1.6 in 2008 or 1.89 in 2011? It can be one (with some really funny new math), it can be the other, but it can't be both.

OK, so the source the video used was 4 tenths of a point different than the Washington Post article. The video clearly states that the current fertility rate is 1.6, with the addition of the current. "Latino Immigration" (or if we are being honest), illegal immigration, the number jumps to 2.11. The very minimum to maintain a culture "society." You keep saying 2008, but I think the video is going off 2006 data.
As of 2011, the latest data available, our fertility rate is 1.89. That is a huge drop. So I am not sure what you are continuously trying to argue. The number is below the point of no return.

And here I was so proud of you when you admitted Hispanics could be real citizens too.

Just so we are clear, when you quote a "source," being 0.4 (I'll let that one slide) off is no big deal, but somehow the 2011 number being 0.2 below the demographic replacement level is the end of the world? Cognitive dissonance, thy name is oklalittledixie.

Ok, moving on. Now you want to switch to 2006, fair enough, I said you could pick the year. Back to Table 8 we go.

All Groups: 2.11
Hispanic: 2.89
Non-Hispanic (total): 1.95
Non-Hispanic White: 1.90
Non-Hispanic Black: 2.13

Now please explain to me how these numbers turn into a total fertility rate for citizens of 1.6.

And remember, show your work, I want to see the new math in operation.

(08-20-2013 12:02 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 11:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 10:58 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 10:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 09:38 PM)jh Wrote:  Emphasis in the original.
Emphasis added.
Just another little piece of friendly advice, if you don't just make things up, you don't have to try as hard to keep your story straight. Not that it looks like you've been trying all that hard.

Here's another piece of advice. Trying to win arguments by trying to confuse the debate is not very effective. The figures have not wavered. They only items that have wavered are the numerous definitions and angles we have explored that draw the same conclusion.

I find it rather telling that you consider 1 to be numerous (must be more of that new math you are fond of). Because we've only been talking about one rate, the total fertility rate (as I repeatedly pointed out). That you keep calling it something else doesn't mean we were ever talking about different rates. We couldn't, because the total fertility rate is the only one where 2.11 has any sort of special significance.
But, despite all the evidence, I still have faith in you, so I'm going to keep trying. This is a link to the report used for the Washington Times article you cited above (in the 8/16 post), Births: Final Data for 2011.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_01.pdf
Now take a look at Table 8 (unfortunately it doesn't have a page number, but it's about 3/5 of the way through). This gives the total fertility rate for various groupings, starting will all origins. Let's take a look at those figures.
2011: 1.89 (give yourself a cookie, you got one right, not the one we were talking about, but yay for partial credit!)
2010: 1.93 (getting bigger)
2009: 2.00 (and bigger)
2008: 2.07 (well this is just awkward)
Maybe if we go back a little farther? After all, Craigg639 probably had to make his super special video without the latest numbers.
2007: 2.12 (it's all going to be ok)
2006: 2.11 (hmmm . . .)
2005: 2.05 (well that's a pretty big drop, maybe 2004)
2004: 2.05 (nope)
2003: 2.05 (I'm starting to think Craigg639's super special video might not be so super special)
So which is it, was the total fertility rate 1.6 in 2008 or 1.89 in 2011? It can be one (with some really funny new math), it can be the other, but it can't be both.

OK, so the source the video used was 4 tenths of a point different than the Washington Post article. The video clearly states that the current fertility rate is 1.6, with the addition of the current. "Latino Immigration" (or if we are being honest), illegal immigration, the number jumps to 2.11. The very minimum to maintain a culture "society." You keep saying 2008, but I think the video is going off 2006 data.
As of 2011, the latest data available, our fertility rate is 1.89. That is a huge drop. So I am not sure what you are continuously trying to argue. The number is below the point of no return.

And here I was so proud of you when you admitted Hispanics could be real citizens too.

Just so we are clear, when you quote a "source," being 0.4 (I'll let that one slide) off is no big deal, but somehow the 2011 number being 0.2 below the demographic replacement level is the end of the world? Cognitive dissonance, thy name is oklalittledixie.

Ok, moving on. Now you want to switch to 2006, fair enough, I said you could pick the year. Back to Table 8 we go.

All Groups: 2.11
Hispanic: 2.89
Non-Hispanic (total): 1.95
Non-Hispanic White: 1.90
Non-Hispanic Black: 2.13

Now please explain to me how these numbers turn into a total fertility rate for citizens of 1.6.


And remember, show your work, I want to see the new math in operation.

because in your table, "Hispanic" accounts for both legal and illegal, resident, guest worker, migrant, anchor babies what have you. The study in the video gave a fertility rate before immigration south of the border was factored in. The video stated that the fertility rate was 2.11. The very same figure in your table. I just watched it again.

In other words, the fertility rate was 1.6 before you factored in people immigrating to the country from Latin America and having babies in our hospitals.



The 1.6 number is probably attributed to the White and Asian population having a much lower birth rate than the Latino population.



The U.S. fertility rate is edging closer to TFRs in Europe, where many countries are grappling with very low birth rates (averaging 1.6 children per woman) and potential labor shortages.

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datashee...ation.aspx

So is your argument that the data in 2006 was much better or that we are not below the point of no return?

Sure we can maintain a population through immigration, but it won't be the American we once knew. Why, because when birth rates are low, immigration rises. Legal and illegal. A host can only withstand that at certain levels before the host begins to dissolve.

(08-20-2013 12:38 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 12:02 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 11:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 10:58 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 10:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Here's another piece of advice. Trying to win arguments by trying to confuse the debate is not very effective. The figures have not wavered. They only items that have wavered are the numerous definitions and angles we have explored that draw the same conclusion.

I find it rather telling that you consider 1 to be numerous (must be more of that new math you are fond of). Because we've only been talking about one rate, the total fertility rate (as I repeatedly pointed out). That you keep calling it something else doesn't mean we were ever talking about different rates. We couldn't, because the total fertility rate is the only one where 2.11 has any sort of special significance.
But, despite all the evidence, I still have faith in you, so I'm going to keep trying. This is a link to the report used for the Washington Times article you cited above (in the 8/16 post), Births: Final Data for 2011.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_01.pdf
Now take a look at Table 8 (unfortunately it doesn't have a page number, but it's about 3/5 of the way through). This gives the total fertility rate for various groupings, starting will all origins. Let's take a look at those figures.
2011: 1.89 (give yourself a cookie, you got one right, not the one we were talking about, but yay for partial credit!)
2010: 1.93 (getting bigger)
2009: 2.00 (and bigger)
2008: 2.07 (well this is just awkward)
Maybe if we go back a little farther? After all, Craigg639 probably had to make his super special video without the latest numbers.
2007: 2.12 (it's all going to be ok)
2006: 2.11 (hmmm . . .)
2005: 2.05 (well that's a pretty big drop, maybe 2004)
2004: 2.05 (nope)
2003: 2.05 (I'm starting to think Craigg639's super special video might not be so super special)
So which is it, was the total fertility rate 1.6 in 2008 or 1.89 in 2011? It can be one (with some really funny new math), it can be the other, but it can't be both.

OK, so the source the video used was 4 tenths of a point different than the Washington Post article. The video clearly states that the current fertility rate is 1.6, with the addition of the current. "Latino Immigration" (or if we are being honest), illegal immigration, the number jumps to 2.11. The very minimum to maintain a culture "society." You keep saying 2008, but I think the video is going off 2006 data.
As of 2011, the latest data available, our fertility rate is 1.89. That is a huge drop. So I am not sure what you are continuously trying to argue. The number is below the point of no return.

And here I was so proud of you when you admitted Hispanics could be real citizens too.
Just so we are clear, when you quote a "source," being 0.4 (I'll let that one slide) off is no big deal, but somehow the 2011 number being 0.2 below the demographic replacement level is the end of the world? Cognitive dissonance, thy name is oklalittledixie.
Ok, moving on. Now you want to switch to 2006, fair enough, I said you could pick the year. Back to Table 8 we go.
All Groups: 2.11
Hispanic: 2.89
Non-Hispanic (total): 1.95
Non-Hispanic White: 1.90
Non-Hispanic Black: 2.13
Now please explain to me how these numbers turn into a total fertility rate for citizens of 1.6.
And remember, show your work, I want to see the new math in operation.

because in your table, "Hispanic" accounts for both legal and illegal, resident, guest worker, migrant, anchor babies what have you. The study in the video gave a fertility rate before immigration south of the border was factored in. The video stated that the fertility rate was 2.11. The very same figure in your table. I just watched it again.
In other words, the fertility rate was 1.6 before you factored in people immigrating to the country from Latin America and having babies in our hospitals.
The 1.6 number is probably attributed to the White and Asian population having a much lower birth rate than the Latino population.

Wait, what? Seriously? Your explanation is that the White and Asian populations had a much lower total fertility rate than Hispanics? Seriously? Do you want to maybe look at the numbers I posted and try again? I'll even bold it for you. And repeat it, just to make it easy for you.

Non-Hispanic (total): 1.95

How about you try again. And at least put a little effort into it.

(08-20-2013 12:49 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 12:38 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 12:02 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 11:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 10:58 PM)jh Wrote:  I find it rather telling that you consider 1 to be numerous (must be more of that new math you are fond of). Because we've only been talking about one rate, the total fertility rate (as I repeatedly pointed out). That you keep calling it something else doesn't mean we were ever talking about different rates. We couldn't, because the total fertility rate is the only one where 2.11 has any sort of special significance.
But, despite all the evidence, I still have faith in you, so I'm going to keep trying. This is a link to the report used for the Washington Times article you cited above (in the 8/16 post), Births: Final Data for 2011.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_01.pdf
Now take a look at Table 8 (unfortunately it doesn't have a page number, but it's about 3/5 of the way through). This gives the total fertility rate for various groupings, starting will all origins. Let's take a look at those figures.
2011: 1.89 (give yourself a cookie, you got one right, not the one we were talking about, but yay for partial credit!)
2010: 1.93 (getting bigger)
2009: 2.00 (and bigger)
2008: 2.07 (well this is just awkward)
Maybe if we go back a little farther? After all, Craigg639 probably had to make his super special video without the latest numbers.
2007: 2.12 (it's all going to be ok)
2006: 2.11 (hmmm . . .)
2005: 2.05 (well that's a pretty big drop, maybe 2004)
2004: 2.05 (nope)
2003: 2.05 (I'm starting to think Craigg639's super special video might not be so super special)
So which is it, was the total fertility rate 1.6 in 2008 or 1.89 in 2011? It can be one (with some really funny new math), it can be the other, but it can't be both.

OK, so the source the video used was 4 tenths of a point different than the Washington Post article. The video clearly states that the current fertility rate is 1.6, with the addition of the current. "Latino Immigration" (or if we are being honest), illegal immigration, the number jumps to 2.11. The very minimum to maintain a culture "society." You keep saying 2008, but I think the video is going off 2006 data.
As of 2011, the latest data available, our fertility rate is 1.89. That is a huge drop. So I am not sure what you are continuously trying to argue. The number is below the point of no return.

And here I was so proud of you when you admitted Hispanics could be real citizens too.
Just so we are clear, when you quote a "source," being 0.4 (I'll let that one slide) off is no big deal, but somehow the 2011 number being 0.2 below the demographic replacement level is the end of the world? Cognitive dissonance, thy name is oklalittledixie.
Ok, moving on. Now you want to switch to 2006, fair enough, I said you could pick the year. Back to Table 8 we go.
All Groups: 2.11
Hispanic: 2.89
Non-Hispanic (total): 1.95
Non-Hispanic White: 1.90
Non-Hispanic Black: 2.13
Now please explain to me how these numbers turn into a total fertility rate for citizens of 1.6.
And remember, show your work, I want to see the new math in operation.

because in your table, "Hispanic" accounts for both legal and illegal, resident, guest worker, migrant, anchor babies what have you. The study in the video gave a fertility rate before immigration south of the border was factored in. The video stated that the fertility rate was 2.11. The very same figure in your table. I just watched it again.
In other words, the fertility rate was 1.6 before you factored in people immigrating to the country from Latin America and having babies in our hospitals.
The 1.6 number is probably attributed to the White and Asian population having a much lower birth rate than the Latino population.

Wait, what? Seriously? Your explanation is that the White and Asian populations had a much lower total fertility rate than Hispanics? Seriously? Do you want to maybe look at the numbers I posted and try again? I'll even bold it for you. And repeat it, just to make it easy for you.

Non-Hispanic (total): 1.95

How about you try again. And at least put a little effort into it.

You've already lost the argument dude. There is no dependency in the numbers. Your source equals the same outcome as my source. I don't know how your source broke down its categories. I can tell you how my source broke down the numbers by demographics. Including legal and illegal births.

Fertility Rates for Latinas and Black Women Are Approaching Those of White and Asian Women.

How about you put some effort into approaching the actual point. There is no argument about the fertility rates in 2006 or now.

(08-20-2013 12:59 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 12:49 AM)jh Wrote:  Wait, what? Seriously? Your explanation is that the White and Asian populations had a much lower total fertility rate than Hispanics? Seriously? Do you want to maybe look at the numbers I posted and try again? I'll even bold it for you. And repeat it, just to make it easy for you.
Non-Hispanic (total): 1.95
How about you try again. And at least put a little effort into it.

You've already lost the argument dude. There is no dependency in the numbers. Your source equals the same outcome as my source. I don't know how your source broke down its categories. I can tell you how my source broke down the numbers by demographics. Including legal and illegal births.

No, your sources (you provided the links to both of them, remember) are completely at odds with one another. I'm guessing that the CDC's numbers are a little better than Craigg639's, but, if you want to go the other way you have to pick a different number for 2011.

But wait, there's more.

When talking about the 2011 total fertility rate, you said:

(08-19-2013 01:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The overall fertility rate is 1.89. . . . Illegal immigrants having babies is not only not added into that rate, but adding to the problem of diluting our established culture.

Now, somehow, in 2006 illegal immigrants having babies is enough to drop the total fertility rate from 2.11 to 1.6. You do realize that both the 2006 (2.11) and 2011 (1.89) total fertility numbers came from the same chart, right? Did illegals simply stop having babies in the meantime?

You need to stop changing your story. Pick something and go with it. Man up and show some conviction. If you can't be right, and you've certainly demonstrated that point, be certain.