Not buying it. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China (post 1-child), Hungary, Poland, Russia, and other places all over the Western(ized) world with low and stable levels of diversity also show TFRs well below replacement. It's the gals, pure and simple.
Combining their natural hypergamy (desire to marry only upward in wealth/status) with pro-feminist/anti-male cultural influences and disparate educational and employment opportunities yields a potent mix of saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal—shattering the world and destroying its future potential.
The wars of the 21st century will be fought over access to the youth of the Global South.
This fertility difference has been extensively explored by author Anatoly Karlin in his four-part 2019 series on the demographics in the Age of Malthusian Industrialism https://akarlin.com/where-do-babies-come-from/.
Fertility is a heritable personality trait and varies between populations and their place in the demographic transition.
Part 2 examines how France was long Europe's most populous country, to falling to just 60% of Germany's population in WW1, with ~half the available manpower on hand, and why today it enjoys one of the highest fertility rates in Europe and grew tremendously in population in the post-WW2 era, outshining its' other near homogeneous European neighbors in fecundity https://akarlin.com/breeders-revenge/.
Additional work by Gérard Cornilleau examining the demographic gap between France and Germany throughout the post-war Era. France follows a similar demographic trajectory, albeit consistently ~0.5 children per woman ahead.
How does that disprove the premise of this article? The claim wasn't that TFR's are low as a result of racial diversity, but that racial diversity adds to the problem.
The appropriate thesis then is that if a country like Japan with an already low TFR embraced diversity, it would suppress the birthrates of the Japanese even more. Someone could probably already produce these results by analyzing fertility and racial diversity data from Japan.
For instance, if by magic, we moved half the Japanese into Korea, and half the Koreans into Japan, the fertility rates would be lower for both groups in both places.
That's a non-sequitor really. The (most important) question is if diversity surpresses native TFR, which it does. But also according to the study, all racial groups are negatively impacted by diversity.
This means that all of the insividual racial groups would have had higher TFR's if they remained separate. That's the point.
In terms of overal TFR: Yes, importing a higher TFR group would probably boost it, but only temporarily, because immigrant TFR also collapses within a generation or two. In effect what people like you (I assume) are advocating for is a never-ending cycle of population replacement.
Is this Russian diversity a recent phenomenon or was it (mostly) present in the past when Russian TFRs were vastly higher? Also, I was under the impression that European Russia is distinct in racial/ethnic composition when compared to other more Asiatic regions. Not so anymore?
Lol. How is hypergamy to blame for monogamous couples having so few kids these days? The vast majority of people in relationships are in monogamous relationships, by the way. You people have some really weird ideas.
Hmm...never heard of a "cat lady"? I think they've been in the news lately for one reason or another. You might think a bit about their life cycles and how it relates to rates of monogamous, um, relationships and, um, um, children...very instructive.
They already controlled for numerous confounding factors. Quoted directly from the study:
“Our use of granular panel data combined with high dimensional fixed effects and demographic controls considerably narrows the set of plausible explanations for our findings. For instance, the use of state-by-year fixed effects helps mitigate concerns that the negative link between fertility and diversity is attributable to general economic or cultural attributes of a state. The use of race-by-state and race-by-time fixed effects precludes many explanations about general racial differences within a state. We control explicitly for demographics (education, income, citizenship, employment, marital status), demographics interacted with state and year fixed effects, local area attributes (population, college fraction, income, fraction recently moved to the area, employment, age), and local area attributes interacted with year fixed effects. The effect is large and highly significant in every specification. At a minimum, the most obvious omitted variables and their associated explanations do not seem to be driving the whole effect.”
“for race share, local-area controls can be replaced by an area-by-year fixed effect. If more diverse communities are bigger, richer, denser, have higher costs of raising children, or any other omitted factors, these are absorbed in this specification. Only variation within a local area and year is used, comparing larger and smaller groups within the area (after controlling for patterns in that race-by-state, race-by-year, etc.). Racial isolation effects on birth rates survive these area-by-year fixed effects, and their inclusion does not greatly change the parameter estimates. The effects of racial isolation are not due to any general omitted characteristics of the area that apply to all residents, but appear to capture an effect directly related to the size of one’s racial group.”
I tried to replicate this using BRFSS using the "number of children under age 18 in the household" as a proxy for fertility. The BRFSS lets you control for US states, race, age, income, height, weight, education, etc...
I was unable to get any strong correlations.
It doesn't necessarily negate the author's findings. The number of children under age 18 is not the same as total fertility. Also, lots of people move around between states (I did not control for this).
I compared cost of living vs diversity between states and found a slight correlation there.
Cost of living vs Diversity: 0.385, p-value=0.0057444318841065
White women ages 18-24 (N=6244)
KidsAtHome vs StateDiversity: -0.206, p-value=0.15184029283564587
KidsAtHome vs Household_Income: -0.202, p-value=0.15858200382615567
KidsAtHome vs Cost_of_living (forbes): -0.391, p-value=0.00499683519556096
White women ages 18-50 (N=19275)
KidsAtHome vs StateDiversity: -0.167, p-value=0.2459662812709494
KidsAtHome vs Household_Income: -0.652, p-value=2.8741486992968895e-07
KidsAtHome vs Cost_of_living (forbes): -0.685, p-value=4.045502762164126e-08
I really thought this was going to show a relationship, but I couldn't even p-hack to get a strong correlation. I tried height, weight, bmi, different age groups, rural vs urban, and home owner vs renter.
For an alternative hypothesis, it may be that cities with lots of recent immigrants have reduced housing availability. Lack of housing drives up the cost of housing and the cost of living, which affects fertility more strongly than diversity alone. This does not negate an independent effect of diversity on fertility.
Have you controlled for nativity? All immigrants tend to have higher fertility rates than the US-born of their race. It would be more interesting to see the data for native-borns
The idea that diversity lowers TFR because most people have a preference for same-race marriage and so diversity decreases the chances of people finding a compatible mate at any given time makes sense, although it is uncertain how much of this can still be explained by selection. The authors also found that lower social trust due to diversity decreases TFR, but lower social trust due to diversity is likely just a result of the greater presence of groups with lower social trust. It's also worth pointing out that the study finds that racial groups that intermarry more suffer a smaller negative effect of diversity on their fertility, and the same is true for the sex of a racial group that intermarries more. In some specifications, the study finds that Hispanics are not negatively affected by diversity. The study also finds that diversity lowers TFR in some countries but not in others, even within Latin America.
Not buying it. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China (post 1-child), Hungary, Poland, Russia, and other places all over the Western(ized) world with low and stable levels of diversity also show TFRs well below replacement. It's the gals, pure and simple.
Combining their natural hypergamy (desire to marry only upward in wealth/status) with pro-feminist/anti-male cultural influences and disparate educational and employment opportunities yields a potent mix of saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal—shattering the world and destroying its future potential.
The wars of the 21st century will be fought over access to the youth of the Global South.
No one was saying diversity explains worldwide fertility differences, so these counterexamples don't mean anything.
You should've made that point in presenting the paper to counter the impression that many would take from its absence.
Unnecessary, no one said so in the study or in my post.
Right. Anything that shines a negative light on race—fine. Anything that dims that light or makes it pale by comparison—verboten. Gotcha.
This fertility difference has been extensively explored by author Anatoly Karlin in his four-part 2019 series on the demographics in the Age of Malthusian Industrialism https://akarlin.com/where-do-babies-come-from/.
Fertility is a heritable personality trait and varies between populations and their place in the demographic transition.
Part 2 examines how France was long Europe's most populous country, to falling to just 60% of Germany's population in WW1, with ~half the available manpower on hand, and why today it enjoys one of the highest fertility rates in Europe and grew tremendously in population in the post-WW2 era, outshining its' other near homogeneous European neighbors in fecundity https://akarlin.com/breeders-revenge/.
Additional work by Gérard Cornilleau examining the demographic gap between France and Germany throughout the post-war Era. France follows a similar demographic trajectory, albeit consistently ~0.5 children per woman ahead.
https://www.ofce.sciences-po.fr/blog/france-germany-the-big-demographic-gap/?print=print
How does that disprove the premise of this article? The claim wasn't that TFR's are low as a result of racial diversity, but that racial diversity adds to the problem.
The appropriate thesis then is that if a country like Japan with an already low TFR embraced diversity, it would suppress the birthrates of the Japanese even more. Someone could probably already produce these results by analyzing fertility and racial diversity data from Japan.
For instance, if by magic, we moved half the Japanese into Korea, and half the Koreans into Japan, the fertility rates would be lower for both groups in both places.
So you import a high(er) TFR population than your natives and your overall TFR goes DOWN? Really?
The overall TFR of the natives goes down.
That's a non-sequitor really. The (most important) question is if diversity surpresses native TFR, which it does. But also according to the study, all racial groups are negatively impacted by diversity.
This means that all of the insividual racial groups would have had higher TFR's if they remained separate. That's the point.
In terms of overal TFR: Yes, importing a higher TFR group would probably boost it, but only temporarily, because immigrant TFR also collapses within a generation or two. In effect what people like you (I assume) are advocating for is a never-ending cycle of population replacement.
Russia is not low diversity and it's rising though at much slower rate than woke countries.
Is this Russian diversity a recent phenomenon or was it (mostly) present in the past when Russian TFRs were vastly higher? Also, I was under the impression that European Russia is distinct in racial/ethnic composition when compared to other more Asiatic regions. Not so anymore?
There’s been a lot of migration of Siberians and Central Asians to European Russia the past couple decades
Thanks for the info. I'll look into it and adjust my understanding accordingly.
what do you mean by 'siberians'?
Lol. How is hypergamy to blame for monogamous couples having so few kids these days? The vast majority of people in relationships are in monogamous relationships, by the way. You people have some really weird ideas.
Hmm...never heard of a "cat lady"? I think they've been in the news lately for one reason or another. You might think a bit about their life cycles and how it relates to rates of monogamous, um, relationships and, um, um, children...very instructive.
I think a confounding factor about cities or some other economic element associated with diversity is more convincing.
They already controlled for numerous confounding factors. Quoted directly from the study:
“Our use of granular panel data combined with high dimensional fixed effects and demographic controls considerably narrows the set of plausible explanations for our findings. For instance, the use of state-by-year fixed effects helps mitigate concerns that the negative link between fertility and diversity is attributable to general economic or cultural attributes of a state. The use of race-by-state and race-by-time fixed effects precludes many explanations about general racial differences within a state. We control explicitly for demographics (education, income, citizenship, employment, marital status), demographics interacted with state and year fixed effects, local area attributes (population, college fraction, income, fraction recently moved to the area, employment, age), and local area attributes interacted with year fixed effects. The effect is large and highly significant in every specification. At a minimum, the most obvious omitted variables and their associated explanations do not seem to be driving the whole effect.”
“for race share, local-area controls can be replaced by an area-by-year fixed effect. If more diverse communities are bigger, richer, denser, have higher costs of raising children, or any other omitted factors, these are absorbed in this specification. Only variation within a local area and year is used, comparing larger and smaller groups within the area (after controlling for patterns in that race-by-state, race-by-year, etc.). Racial isolation effects on birth rates survive these area-by-year fixed effects, and their inclusion does not greatly change the parameter estimates. The effects of racial isolation are not due to any general omitted characteristics of the area that apply to all residents, but appear to capture an effect directly related to the size of one’s racial group.”
I tried to replicate this using BRFSS using the "number of children under age 18 in the household" as a proxy for fertility. The BRFSS lets you control for US states, race, age, income, height, weight, education, etc...
I was unable to get any strong correlations.
It doesn't necessarily negate the author's findings. The number of children under age 18 is not the same as total fertility. Also, lots of people move around between states (I did not control for this).
I compared cost of living vs diversity between states and found a slight correlation there.
Cost of living vs Diversity: 0.385, p-value=0.0057444318841065
White women ages 18-24 (N=6244)
KidsAtHome vs StateDiversity: -0.206, p-value=0.15184029283564587
KidsAtHome vs Household_Income: -0.202, p-value=0.15858200382615567
KidsAtHome vs Cost_of_living (forbes): -0.391, p-value=0.00499683519556096
White women ages 18-50 (N=19275)
KidsAtHome vs StateDiversity: -0.167, p-value=0.2459662812709494
KidsAtHome vs Household_Income: -0.652, p-value=2.8741486992968895e-07
KidsAtHome vs Cost_of_living (forbes): -0.685, p-value=4.045502762164126e-08
I really thought this was going to show a relationship, but I couldn't even p-hack to get a strong correlation. I tried height, weight, bmi, different age groups, rural vs urban, and home owner vs renter.
For an alternative hypothesis, it may be that cities with lots of recent immigrants have reduced housing availability. Lack of housing drives up the cost of housing and the cost of living, which affects fertility more strongly than diversity alone. This does not negate an independent effect of diversity on fertility.
Have you controlled for nativity? All immigrants tend to have higher fertility rates than the US-born of their race. It would be more interesting to see the data for native-borns
This seems related to the recent Peter Frost article "The Goldilocks zone between inbreeding and outbreeding"
The idea that diversity lowers TFR because most people have a preference for same-race marriage and so diversity decreases the chances of people finding a compatible mate at any given time makes sense, although it is uncertain how much of this can still be explained by selection. The authors also found that lower social trust due to diversity decreases TFR, but lower social trust due to diversity is likely just a result of the greater presence of groups with lower social trust. It's also worth pointing out that the study finds that racial groups that intermarry more suffer a smaller negative effect of diversity on their fertility, and the same is true for the sex of a racial group that intermarries more. In some specifications, the study finds that Hispanics are not negatively affected by diversity. The study also finds that diversity lowers TFR in some countries but not in others, even within Latin America.
Maybe the same effect can be found in other animals?
Other animals do not mate so assortative as humans do. We are quite special in this regard.