Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jack Hydrazine
I'm sure somebody has these figures, but I haven't found them yet. (If you do, please let me know!)

I did find the following, which is not quite "it" but which is perhaps related:

"Because of the “baby bust” of 1965-1982, there are now fewer non-Hispanic white women in the child-bearing years. White and Asian birthrates are below replacement, black fertility at the 2.1 replacement while Hispanic fertility is 2.99, almost 50% higher than replacement fertility. The large number of Hispanic women in their child-bearing years will increase the number of Hispanic children that are born. "

This is from the Population Resource Center, May 8, 2010.

22 posted on 06/01/2010 2:02:39 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child who's got his own." Arthur Herzog Jr./Billie Holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: Mrs. Don-o

Thanks. I didn’t realize there was a baby bust from ‘65 to ‘82. Those years roughly correspond to major acceleration of the women’s lib movement when women abandoned the home in droves to search for fulfillment in the men’s world of work. In the year 2000 census there was a 12 or 13 percent increase in the number of women staying home compared to 1990. I don’t know if that is due to more immigrants or to white American women. Even so white women aren’t having children like Hispanic women are. Hispanics still value family more so than Whitey. I know a lady (white) who has a daughter in college who isn’t going to have children because they are too much work.


24 posted on 06/01/2010 7:25:10 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson