Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Net personal wealth by generation

Twice since the turn of the century, in 2006 and 2014, the GSS has asked respondents about personal net wealth (assets minus debt). The following graph shows wealth distributions by generational cohorts in roughly 2010, understanding that the "great recession" occurred in between the two survey years (n = 2,150):


Rather than confidently divining disaster in this, as it's beyond my understanding to say with certainty what, if anything, it presages, allow me to share a few reactions.

There aren't that many geriatrics living off of Social Security benefits. Fifteen percent of Silents are millionaires. The figure is half that among Boomers, less than one-third that half among Xers, and then there's Mark Zuckerberg and his waifu.

Half of millennials aren't worth anything.

Big deal. A look at the general situation of boomers in the mid-seventies, comparable to the life stage of millennials here, wouldn't have looked any better. In fact, it would've been worse! That's what a Boomer will tell you, anyway.

I grew up in a comfortably middle class household. My siblings and I were regaled every Christmas with the story of how my parents married after college with nothing but my dad's old pickup and $500 to their name, the entirety of which was subsequently spent on a month-long road trip through the central, mountain, and pacific time zones.

The story doesn't sound that quaint, at least through the point of the great American honeymoon, but when it was over they both were spoiled for choice when it came to finding work, work that easily accommodated home ownership and family formation. Born smack dab in the middle of the Boomer cohort, they got in on the ground floor of the dual income household, before large scale entry of women into the workforce put severe downward pressure on wages and employment.

Told today, we'd expect to hear that upon returning from the extended road trip, the new couple moved in with one of their parents, with part-time jobs as baristas working off their five-figure student loan debts.

Millennials put a premium on experiences over material goods (or having a house or kids or a career). People don't spend five decades working for the same company, steadily increasing their earnings through tenure before comfortably retiring on a company pension, anymore. Peak labor force participation is in the rear view mirror. So is Peak Marriage.

It's easy to assume that this will not end well. It may not.

GSS variables used: WEALTH, COHORT(1925-1945)(1946-1964)(1965-1976)(1977-1995)

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Forbid face time for fake news

Agnostic suggests breaking the major media companies up:
Destroying the media enemy requires a cold hard look at how they operate, what their source of power is, and what our power is that can counteract that. This will downplay the importance of launching another meme war against CNN (or MSNBC or whoever), and instead shift the focus toward the need to break up the monopolies that control the media.
If it can be done then by all means do so.

A less herculean task, and one that would prove more popular in the nearer-term, is for Trump and his team to simply bar them from press conferences--including Sean Spicer's daily briefings--and grant members of select organizations no more access than the White House allows private citizens visiting the capital as tourists. Make it administration policy not to grant interviews or otherwise talk to anyone from any of those on the figurative proscription list.

If you're part of a fake news outlet, you get no access, period. If you misrepresent yourself in an attempt to get information, you'll be subject to prosecution for fraud, trespassing, etc. If you get in an official's face in public, you'll be charged with assault.

Media figures are not high priests. They're the middle men of information conveyance in a world that increasingly has no need for middle men conveying information. Communications now come from the whole seller directly to the consumer.

The utter collapse in confidence in the major media--both print and television--is staggering. The following graphs show the percentages of people who answered that they have "a great deal of confidence" and "hardly any confidence at all" in each media platform, by year. The third possible response, "only some confidence", is not shown, but is the difference between 100 and the other two percentages shown in any given year:



We are to a point now where a majority of Americans have "hardly any confidence at all" in the press, and most of the balance are themselves wary. Sentiment towards TV isn't far behind.

The latest year we have data for is 2016. Response gathering was scattered throughout that year. Some respondents were answering prior to the Iowa caucuses occurring. Rest assured the figures will be markedly worse still when the 2018 iteration of the survey is released.

Shutting out fake news organizations won't create any significant blow back. Nobody watches these cable news shows. The few who do are geriatric white leftists. The average CNN viewer is in his sixties and getting older by the day. The #resistance that rallies to the defense of the hated and distrusted media will comprise a small contingent of the Coalition of the Fringes, a contingent the rest of the coalition is most eager to push out anyway.

Even the thoroughly converged corporate world is moving away. There are several podcasts I've listened to for years that have recently begun taking on ads that are indistinguishable from the ones that run during NFL games. The advertising used to only be for niche goods and services. Now there are ads for cars on The Art of Manliness and The History of Byzantium.

Trump should grab some easy populism points by helping send the fake news organizations to their graves.

GSS variables used: CONTV(1)(3), CONPRESS(1)(3), YEAR

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Like oil and water despite half a century of being forced to share a container

In 2006, the GSS asked respondents about the racial proportions "among all acquaintances" of theirs. The following percentages, by selected demographic characteristics, who answered either "mostly a different race than you" or "almost all a different race than you":


Fresher data is always preferable, but it's not as though this was queried during the civil rights ructions of the sixties. It was gathered after nearly five decades of trying to force diversity onto the public through relentless legal, cultural, and moral coercion.

How improbable these results appear given a null hypothesis that people assort randomly depends on how exactly we define "all acquaintances". Is it Dunbar's number? Facebook friends?

The chance that most of the acquaintances of a black man who has just three of them are non-black is 95%. That is, if acquaintances were made randomly then 19-in-20 black men would report two or three of his total acquaintances being non-black in this absurdly pro-Diversity! assumption of what "among all acquaintances" means. The reported result is one-tenth of that.

Scale it up to 30 acquaintances or 300 acquaintances and the chances rapidly approach zero. In other words, no matter how we look at it these results are wildly divergent from what we'd expect if segregation wasn't an overwhelmingly strong natural impulse for people of all racial backgrounds. Differences in socioeconomic status, education, and the like come nowhere close to explaining it. Middle and upper class blacks report even higher levels of self-segregation than lower and working class blacks do!

To say the American experiment has mostly worked and that in 21st century America the idea that inherent preferences to be around members of one's own race is a relic of the past is absurd.

This is blatantly obvious not just to those who Notice but to nearly everyone. The NYT's "mapping segregation" is one of the most handy graphical representations of as much.

Liberal whites who live in urban areas that are majority-non-white don't acquaint much with non-whites.

A more direct way of putting it is that liberal whites seek out other whites in their own personal lives, their paeans to Diversity! notwithstanding. Only 25% of white liberals choose "about evenly split", so even when we give them this ideologically comfortable weasel option, the overwhelming majority (73%) still admit they acquaint mostly or almost exclusively with whites.

If Diversity! was a self-evident good, there would be no need to coerce and browbeat people into it. Even it's most vociferous proponents refuse to practice what they preach. We're not in the realm of ancient virtue here, the kind that was practiced because it improved one's existence in there here and now. We're in the realm of supernatural grace, of hair shirts and self-flagellation, of enduring self-abnegating suffering now for the promise of paradise in the future.

Our job is to call those who promote Diversity! out on their hypocrisy. It needs to be done publicly and relentlessly whenever the opportunity presents itself.

GSS variables used: ACQMYRAC, RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), POLVIEWS(1-2)(3-5)(6-7), RELIG(3)

Sunday, July 09, 2017

The left's oriental express

Legate of Judea pointed to an exit poll conducted by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund that found Hillary Clinton's margin of victory among the country's "fastest growing minority" to be wider than the 'official' Edison poll commissioned by several major media companies. By reverse engineering results from Reuters-Ipsos' ongoing presidential approval poll, we can get a third Asian result there. The following table shows the results from each of the three polls in a two-way race:

PollClintonTrumpn =
AALDEF81%19%13,846
Edison71%29%~982
R-I65%35%1,161

In addition to a greater sample size, AALDEF asserts another reason its poll shows Democrats doing better than others do:
While Edison Research conducted polling in English and Spanish, AALDEF used questionnaires written in English and 11 Asian languages including Chinese, Bengali, Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese, plus volunteers who could speak 23 Asian languages and dialects.
Reuters-Ipsos doesn't indicate what languages, if any, beyond English are used in its polling.

More from AALDEF:
One of three (32%) Asian American voters surveyed said they were limited English proficient ("LEP"), which is defined as reading English less than "very well." ... Seven percent (7%) of voters said they had difficulty voting because no assistance was available in their native language, while 15% said they either used the interpreters or translated materials provided at the site or brought their own.
This suggests, unsurprisingly, that Asians who speak little to no English are even more inclined to vote Democrat than Asians who speak English are. The Tower of Babel could replace Washington DC as the country's most impenetrable Democrat stronghold.

Most Asian voters in the US were not born here:
Seventy-six percent (76%) of all respondents were foreign-born, naturalized citizens [were they?].
The following table from the AALDEF report shows how various Asian groups voted. Off to the left I've added the percentage growth in the number of migrants to the US from each of the countries listed from 1990 to 2015. The correlation between growth in the size of each particular Asian population over the last 25 years and voting for Clinton is .59 (p = .12):


It's almost as though the left is intentionally importing a new people, with special preference given to those most likely to vote for it.

Friday, July 07, 2017

The White death

++Addition++I made a couple of sloppy transposition errors in the composition of the initial post. They have since been corrected and the figures presented are now accurate. Interactive feedback is a great thing in the pursuit of the truth. I always welcome it.

---

Using the UN's most recent population projection figures, the rate of population increase (decrease) by major geographic area from 2015 to 2100:


In 1950, Europeans comprised 20% of the world's populationAfricans made up 9%. A century and a half later, those figures are projected to be 6% and 40%, respectively. Over a period of 150 years that means for every one European the world has added 17 Africans. 

How does such a disparate rate of population growth come to be? African fertility is high and European fertility is low, but surely not that high and that low?! Differences in maternal ages at the time of childbirth in addition to differences in total fertility rates, that's how (here's an app that illustrates). 

Put in another way, Europe's population from 1950 to 2100 will have gone from 550 million to 653 million, an increase of 18.7% over a century and a half (0.11% per year). During the same period of time, Africa will have gone from 229 million to 4,468 million, an increase of 1,851.1% (2.0% per year).

Thursday, July 06, 2017

Occidental avenger

There was too much bear-baiting, muh freedom, and muh values, sure, but if those are the rhetorical compromises that must be made in return for the following, so be it.

This excerpt is gold (just hit play, it's queued up):



So is this one:



As Heartiste puts it:
Trump knows what he’s doing, and he knows the sides in this battle for the soul of America. His promos, visuals, and speeches are an extended play love letter to Heritage America. To White America, before it became a Dirt World Depot. If you doubt Trump’s loyalty to the cause, dispel your doubt. His heart is in it. He fights for you.
Throw those black pills away. The fight isn't over. It's only just beginning.

Peak Russia

The Fraudulent News Network gets caught admitting the putative Putin-Trump connection is "bullshit" and a "witch hunt" that mendaciously garners big ratings:



This is the same fake news outlet that ran with the risibly fictitious dossier. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us 1,441 times, shame on us.

The New York Times' "conservative" house pet David Brooks, who harbors the predictable (((visceral disdain))) for Trump, concludes there is nothing to the Russian dog and pony show.

Reuters-Ipsos had been running a daily tracking poll on whether or not Trump was obstructing the Russian investigation for several weeks as the charges of collusion--affirmed by 17 US intelligence agencies!--and the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate were bandied about in the news. R-I quietly decommissioned the poll on June 26, an exceedingly unusual move for the organization given that the issue isn't officially settled. The discontinued poll is now effectively archived.

Speaking of the 17 US intelligence agencies, that turned out to be, well, more bullshit.

In mid-May, at the height of the Russian scare, markets showed the chance of Trump's impeachment by the end of 2017 rising as high as 33%. Those odds have steadily declined since then and are now bumping along at 8%. The true likelihood would be even lower than that were it not for the sunken cost fallacy working its destructive magic.

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

Best. Tweet. Ever.

Or at least runner-up for the award:




Trump's top tweet on election night has, as of today, more likes than the CNN take down:


It is so far as I am able to tell the only one out of the more than 35,000 over an eight year period that has garnered more. The take down, however, has more retweets.

The take down has been shared more than any announcing his candidacy, accepting the Republican nomination, or being inaugurated into office have.

This despite it being delivered on a holiday weekend during a time of the year when engagement with the virtual world is at an annual low and having had only a few days for the numbers to accrete.

In case the significance isn't readily apparent, see here.

As has been argued extensively here, Trump's tweets and facebook posts are not bugs but are instead features of his appeal.

The major media and the useless, cuckservative controlled opposition that has done nothing but lose reliably and respectably on everything for decades--they can't even conserve women's restrooms for God's sake--largely doesn't understand it. Those among them who do delusionally hope it will be a flash in the pan despite two years and counting of incomparable success after success.

The only people advising Trump to stop utilizing social media are the ones who want him to fail or, at best, reluctantly voted for him in the general election after backing anyone other than him during the primaries.

Taking advice from your enemies is often foolish. The stupid party has done that for decades and what has it gotten them? When the New York Times tells core America to Hispander for its own good, core America needs to tell Carlos Slim the wall is getting ten feet higher and that if we find him stateside he'll be swiftly sent to the other side of it.

They didn't understand how he won, they don't understand the significance of his social media feed dwarfing the combined subscription base of the nation's 50 largest newspapers and the prime time viewership of the major cable news networks.

They don't understand his continued pugilism even as CNN fires multiple people for especially egregious mendacity, among them one who has worked for USA Today and another who worked for the New York Times.

They're in denial about how fitting a descriptor "fake news" is for the propaganda they push, and they're in denial about how much anger there is for the lies they tell.

Parenthetically, the choreographed take down isn't bad for a guy in his sixties. Must be the gene thing!

Saturday, July 01, 2017

Black tears stain the cheeks that once were so admired

Last year Reuters-Ipsos ran a poll asking participants to choose a term that best described themselves from a list of twelve responses. One of those is "Feminist". The following graph shows the percentages of female respondents, by age, who chose it over the other eleven possible answers (n = 6,269):


The other options are Democrat, Conservative, Republican, Liberal, Environmentalist, Socialist, Libertarian, Nationalist, Anarchist, Populist, and Communist, so this isn't the consequence of something like "Mother" or "Wife" confounding the results.

The term is hardly novel. It's not as though the figures are higher for younger women because it's a new thing the old fogies haven't ever heard of. To the contrary, the blue hairs have known feminism the longest--and it's central to the identity of very few of them.

For women under 30, the Yolo/Eat, Pray, Love lifestyle is enticing. The world bends its knee--for a few years.

Petals begin falling through the twenties. The attention that came as easily as a summer's breeze before now requires effort. With each passing day it takes a little more effort than it did the day before.

By the mid-thirties wilting is well underway. Diet, working out, sleeping better--at best these merely slow the decline. Despite the best efforts, the hourglass transforms into a pear and then into a box. Gravity relentlessly renders all things saggier, looser.

Reaching that point without a family is realizing the chances of ever having one to be in free fall. Partner options are limited and uniformly less appealing than any who excited stirred the passions a decade ago.

Upon turning forty the spinster becomes invisible to the world (the human world anyway--there are always cats). Family functions are painful. Being the cool aunt is bittersweet. Mostly bitter.

The prospect of several decades of lonely, slow decay is immiserating, suffocating, and... unavoidable.

There won't be any visits in the retirement or nursing home. There are no visitors to do the visiting.

At expiration, scarcely a soul notices. It's as though she never was: