Mass migration is one of the greatest crises facing the world today as people from all parts over the world are flooding Western nations and changing them forever from within. We and many others have covered the Muslim and African migrations to Europe, the African and Central American Migrations to the liberal states of the USA, but now there is a massive migration taking place into the southern states that is threatening to forever change the face of Dixieland.
This is not a new trend, as according to an article from 2016, people are leaving the northern states and moving to the sun belt and that trend is expected to continue:
Annual Census Bureau data, tracking national and state population totals, brought both good and bad news this year. First the bad news: The nation has just registered a new low point in population growth since the Depression era. However, on a more positive note, population growth is returning to Sun Belt states as their economies revive post-recession.
The nation’s annual growth rate sunk below 0.7 percent in 2015-16, making it the lowest rate of growth since the 1936-37 measurement (see Figure 1). For the bulk of the period spanning World War II through the early 1980s national growth exceeded 0.95 percent. And high growth rates during prime baby boom years exceeded 1.5 percent, topping out at 2.1 percent between 1949-50.
It is likely that some of the reduced fertility in recent years is attributable to recession-related delays in family formation among young adult millennials; this trend could reverse in the near future as the economy continues to grow. But higher death rates are likely to continue due to the long-term aging of the population, a phenomenon contributing to projected declines in U.S. growth rates, which could drop as low as 0.5 percent in 2040.
Still immigration, both past and present, has contributed to the nation’s population growth at a time when several other industrialized counties, such as Japan, Germany, and Italy are facing the specter of long-term population decline. By comparison, the United States can look forward to continued population growth, albeit at lower levels, for decades to come.
...
Population growth is the sum of several components: natural increase, immigration, and domestic migration. The latter is closely tethered to economic circumstances and shapes yearly population gains or losses across states and regions.
The new net domestic migration statistics show a continued revival of movement from the broad Northeast and Midwest “Snow Belt” region to the South and West “Sun Belt” region. The mortgage meltdown, financial crisis, and the onset of the Great Recession converged to stall Snow Belt out-migration to the Sun Belt between 2007 and 2013. Now the Snow Belt to Sun Belt flows, which began to emerge again in 2013-14 are continuing...
...
The greatest out-migration states, with the exception of California, are located in the Snow Belt including New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut Michigan, and Ohio. While many of these states held on to “would be migrants” during the recession when Sun Belt jobs dried up, most are once again seeing increased out-migration. In 2009-10, right after the recession, New York lost 91,000 migrants. This has risen to a loss of 191,000 in 2015-16.
California’s migration trends are a notable Sun Belt exception. Unlike most other states in this region, California followed the “New York model,” losing fewer migrants during the recession and now experiencing renewed out-flows to more affordable states nearby like Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington, as economies pick up there.
Overall, the United States seems to be in the midst of a population growth paradox: As the nation’s population growth continues to stagnate due to fertility declines in the context of an aging population, internal population shifts help places like the Sun Belt continue to grow. Because the latter is more economically driven than former, it is encouraging to see that a key demographic indicator of a strong economy – migration in response to newly emerging employment opportunities – is reviving in tandem with the economy. (source)
The reasons for this migration are almost universal- tax rates, reduced costs of living, and better long-term job prospects. Because of the people voting in ways that are selfish as reflected in their politicians, since a politician is nothing more than a reflection of the people who voted them in, many northern states and cities are either close to or in bankruptcy and utter economic collapse. This has been seen particularly in the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, New York and New Jersey, where jobs are becoming scarcer as tax rates skyrocket. In terms of cities many major cities including Chicago, Detroit, New York, and now Hartford are facing the reality of poor fiscal management according to a recent article:
Back in 2015, my colleague Rex Sinquefield predicted that Governor Dan Malloy’s calamitous tax hike in Connecticut would have a “chilling effect” on the state’s economy.
Two years later, Connecticut’s capital city of Hartford is paying the price — or rather, failing to— for the anti-growth policies that have driven the wealthiest state per-capita into the ground. On the brink of bankruptcy and facing a $50 million deficit, the city has hired Greenberg Traurig, LLP, a high-profile international law firm that specializes in municipal restructuring.
As it stands currently, Hartford is one of the least attractive places for private investment. The current property tax rate has increased seven times since 2000, and much of the city’s real estate is tax-exempt because it is government-owned; the state income tax is notorious for being among the highest in the nation; and with next to no growth, the city will potentially suffer a downgrade to junk-rating by Moody’s. With state pension obligations already consuming half of their state budget, the state is beyond a weak position to bail out any municipality.
No Hartford insider should be surprised by these harmful economic results. At Malloy’s urging, the legislature approved a $40 million budget that raised taxes by $1.1 billion, with more than $700 million of the hike falling on businesses and the middle class.
Connecticut House Minority Leader Themis Klarides at the time likened the legislation to "holding up a sign at the border to businesses and saying get out." It was not even necessary to stand at the border, though: Businesses and individuals from within Connecticut have fled en masse and never looked back.
Just a few weeks before Hartford began officially considering filing for bankruptcy, insurance giant Aetna, Inc. announced that it would relocate its corporate headquarters from Hartford to Manhattan. Aetna first set up shop in Hartford nearly two centuries ago, employed 6,000 people in 2016, and is Hartford’s fourth-largest source of tax revenue. Citing the benefits of New York City as an intellectual and technological hub, the corporate move was not out of the blue. In 2015, executives from Aetna and Travelers, another Hartford-based insurance magnate, wrote a letter urging Malloy to reconsider the tax hike, questioning the “viability” of remaining in the Nutmeg State. (source)
It has been a while since I have had the opportunity to travel on account of work and family obligations, but something I have noticed from talking to friends, family, colleagues, contacts, as well as my work and the news is exactly what this piece above speaks to. There is a massive migration taking place right now of not foreigners, but of "Northern Flight" from the former northern states of the USA to the southern states. Some of this is well known, such as with the mass relocation of elderly people to Florida, or how the state of Texas has seen a population explosion over the last ten years. However, in spite of the official population statistics, there has been a massive population shift that is taking place in all of the states and will have major implications for the future.
I can personally (as I write this right now) think of at least a half-dozen people who have already left the northern states and another half-dozen who are making preparations to relocate. These are not people who are inclined to just make decisions on mere whims, but who have uprooted their entire lives and permanently relocated with no intention of returning, often times at great financial and personal costs. This is not to mention the many who I have spoken with who would like to go somewhere else, but for various reasons are going to stay, usually because they are very old and with limited resources.
A county-by county map of the 2016 election results. This could change with the changing demographics of the USA on account of the population migrations.
But what about the state of affairs for the southern states? Currently the south consistently votes "republican" (although as we have pointed out, there is no fundamental difference between either republicans or democrats because they adhere to the same essential philosophy and do not care about the people who they represent) and supports laws or champions causes that are otherwise banned or viewed as socially incorrect up north (such a difference can be seen in the firearms laws when compared between the north and the south), but could this change with a massive migration? Likewise, due to the rural nature of the area many parts of the south tend to be more ethnically homogeneous (white or black) and sharing a common cultural understanding even in spite of perceived differences, whereas the north, owing to immigration from all across Europe the Americas, Asia and places between, there are both more types of different people from different backgrounds as well as different mixes of people who, even though their families having been in the USA for at least a century, are still culturally different than many of the people in other parts of the nation.
Right now there is a lot of talk about the profound change that Europe is facing due to the mass migration that as we have constantly emphasized, was blatantly caused and directed by their own governments to try to force a social change in order to bring back national socialism, and without any regard to the good of the people in Europe. But unlike Europe, the migration that I speak of here is not "unnatural" in that nobody is forcing the people relocating from the northern parts to the southern parts to do so, and as I have said the people who are relocating are doing so at great personal costs and without any assitance from the government in doing so. Unlike in many of these European nations where "refugees" are being given perpetual welfare, fully-furnished apartments and unlimited consent to their demands while elderly and poor people are literally being thrown out on the streets, the "Northern migrants" are opening up their wallets and renting "U-Hauls", putting their life's accumulations into them, selling their homes (or at least attempting to by placing them on the real estate market) and driving to their new home.
Some migrants come in boats. This is how American migrants travel.
The migration to Europe is an unnatural movement of people that could not have happened naturally. The migration to the south is a natural migration that is being done by choice- and it just so happens that a lot of people are choosing this. But regardless of the situation, both migrations are going to bring about massive change to the societies that will have long term consequences. For example, as I alluded to above Democrat/Liberal sources have constantly bragged that given the "anti-firearm" tendencies among younger Americans of all races, and in combination with the fact that most non-white demographics are opposed to private firearms ownership, there is a sense that, in terms of firearms, a gun ban may actually take effect at the federal level in the coming years:
GOP faces growing demographic nightmare in West,” The Hill’s National Correspondent Reid Wilson reported Monday. “Demographic change is slowly, but inevitably, moving Western states to the left.”
Inevitably.
“And it could also spread to states with metropolitan areas experiencing significant Hispanic population growth such as Texas, Georgia, North Carolina and Florida.”
That’s a drum far too few gun owner rights advocates have been beating or even acknowledging. More likely, especially with the major “gun lobby” groups, the response has been to ignore it, with an occasional deflection falling back on the “single issue” excuse.
Yet the cultural terraforming, by all objective measures, represents the greatest growing threat gun owners will face. (source)
Likewise and as alluded to above, there are also massive changes taking place right now on a social and ethnic level. Just as people who came from different immigrant groups eventually married each other and created the different and unique combinations which exist today in large populations in America (Irish-Italian, German-Polish, Ameriasian, Afro-Latin, etc), so is this happening again with the Hispanic migrations in combination with the rest of the people already residing in the USA and it is spreading all across the country. Even among groups that traditionally do not mix in significant number (for example, southern whites with southern blacks), there is a rate of mixing that is larger than even before in term of historical prevalence in the USA and the rate of said change is increasing with the northern migrations to the south. As such, the impact of this "Brazilianization" of the USA is more so visible in the south because of the more homogeneous nature of the society in comparison to the north.
A photo of Brazilian people. Brazilians are interesting because they were founded by the Portuguese (who were originally a people created by the mixing of English, Dutch, Frenchmen and Danes with Iberians and Arabs) that imported such a quantity of slaves to work in Brazil that Brazil now has the largest subsaharan African population of any nation outside of Africa. Likewise, Brazil also saw a tremendous migration from Germany, Russia, and other nations of northern and Eastern Europe for centuries. The result is the creation of a unique "Brazilian" people that essentially is reflected in modern American society on account of the same reasons.
It is interesting to watch this happen- the social, cultural, and ultimately political changes. Some of it will be for good. Some of it will not be for good. But was this change in an absolute sense necessary? Certainly not, and in fact, things for the most part could have stayed as they are for ostensibly centuries more- and I do not speak of the "negative" attributes often associated with the south, but the positive ones. So how did this change happen?
An American family during the Dust Bowl. Many of these people migrated to California and other states in the Midwest or West Coast. Note the large family size. What is interesting is that many of these children pictured here did not have families at or above population replacement rate. It is sad to say, but the fact that they most likely did not reproduce as their parents did in at least part precipitated some of the population and migration issues we face today.
Again, this is not to say that there would be no population issue today if they had children, but one cannot argue that based on the economic data, it would not be at least in part mitigated by larger families. Just as God does not create in vain, there is no such thing as a person or people without a purpose to their existence, but only our choice to do what we can with what we have.
Once upon a time, the southern states were the most heavily populated states in the USA. They were poor, but owing to the large populations they exported people- white and black- all over the USA to do work. In the states east of the Mississippi, people migrated to the northern regions of the Midwest, where the industrial steel and manufacturing powerhouses resided along the great lakes stretching from Wisconsin to just outside of Buffalo. West of the Mississippi and owing to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s in particular, people migrated to California and parts stretching along the West Coast. This was all owing to the fact that at the time, primarily due to a lack of enough people to fill the work that was needed to be done, simply came to compensate for the labor gap that needed to be filled, and not to mention the fact that where they came from there were reduced opportunities owing to various political, social, or natural turmoil.
However, I emphasize from all of this that population is the biggest issue because were it not for the heavily populated southern states it would not be possible for the migration that took place nearly a century ago to take place today in the same way that it would not be possible for the migration that we see taking place today from the north to the south to happen were it not for the large populations. Make no mistake, I am not saying that overpopulation is the issue- far from it, because the issue is related to the work that needs to be done in society, and that there are simply not enough people to fill the jobs that need to be done. The problem is one of underpopulation- that there are far to few people in the areas where work is or where it is moving to and not enough people to do said work.
Now in the case of population, as we have noted, the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for the USA is about 1.8- meaning that when all sources are considered, each woman of childbearing ages has an average of 1.8 children throughout her life. However, this number must be balanced against the fact that this number includes immigration, and given as we know how there has been massive foreign immigration to the USA (in particular from Central and South America), we can say that the actual fertility rate for the average "American born" woman regardless of race is now closer to 1 child. This applies universally throughout the states, so while some areas may have larger families and some may have smaller families, the average comes out to as stated above.
A random photo of a "average" American family. Compare this with the picture of the family from the Dust Bowl above. This family may be more economically prosperous than the one above, but the future for the family in this picture I do not find particularly bright, as it shows a feminized, weak, "surviving" future instead of a robust, healthy, and even possibly expanding one. Truly, the wealth of a society is not found in its trinkets but in the people and their relationship with God.
So now look at the entire situation with the population. In America, all of the states have declining populations from the "native-born citizens," which has for years been compensated by immigration from the Americas. As we pointed out, this immigration is publicly opposed for political reasons but privately given unconditional support and will not stop from the same people speaking against it because due to a lack of people to fill the work necessary to run the machinery of society it would collapse the nation, in particular the agricultural sector. Not only that, but people are willing to travel long distances to take care of their families, and what is considered nothing for one man is a lot for another:
Now think about this from the perspective of your average Jose from Guatemala- if he comes to the USA, he can earn 7.3 times more money for the exact same work than what he would get paid in his native country. If strawberry picking season is only for 3 months (13 weeks), and he works 6 days a week at 12 hours a day (an average schedule), then he will bring back approximately $4,875 USD. Even if he is lazy, working 8 hours a day for a reduced rate (say $5 an hour) and only 5 days a week, he will earn $2,600 USD. Basically, no matter how you do the math, even a lazy man working at below average rates will earn a year’s worth of income, and at the absolute average he will earn almost two years worth of income in the span of a mere three month. If he is very industrious and proficient at his job (since pickers are paid by pounds and not per se at a fixed rate), they average $150 per day, and at that rate and over the same time period, they can earn up to $11,700 USD, or almost four and a half times the average annual salary of a middle-class income.
Again, put yourself in our average Jose’s shoes- if you were in his spot, don’t you think that the chance to earn FOUR YEARS worth of wages in three months for your culture’s context is an opportunity you would be willing to work long and hard hours for? I know that if somebody told me I could earn $200,000 USD for working my tail off for three months non-stop, I don’t care, I’m going to take that opportunity and just keep my mouth shut and be happy that I was the one who received it. (source)
As such, these people are working and are looking to make a better life for themselves with better opportunities at the same time as the "average American" is working in his day job and see himself continually earning less and less and it becoming continually more difficult to pay his bills, even if he is not living a lifestyle that is at or well above his means. The changing work patterns globally on account of decades of outsourcing and now the rise of robotics to replace workers are threatening his existence even more, and he see what is happening. Just like the "average Jose" who came to the USA from Central America, many an "average Joe" is likewise migrating, and they are flooding into areas that can accept large populations that they can afford. This is already changing cities is major ways.
For example, I know a small town in the rural south that has seen an explosion of people from Central America. While people talk about the change, the same people who complain about the change are the exact same people who have no more than 2 children and will actively scorn people who have more than 2 and do not sterilize themselves immediately after (through a vasectomy or tubal ligation). Meanwhile the Hispanic people will arrive with 4, 5, or 6 children and have at least 1 or 2 more while in the USA. This has been going on for at least a decade, and the town population is nearly HALF Hispanic, either immigrant or born in the USA.
A random woman with her 8 children in Guatemala. I'm not saying that EVERY AMERICAN WOMAN MUST HAVE 8 CHILDREN, but the fact is that Americans and really, people around the world sterilize themselves like farm animals because they are willfully deluded by promises of greater personal wealth when the reality is that the wealth of any society is found in its people. A society that refuses to reproduce is a society that will cease to exist and be conquered by others. In the case of the USA, it is how the nation, which was once a majority Anglo-Saxon country, came to be a majority of other ethnicities and various combinations of different peoples. It is also the reason why the southern states are changing too, because those who are not having children are being replaced by those who are.
This pattern replicates itself all across the USA and is happening in Europe too, where people complain about "overpopulation" while at the same time actually refusing either to do the necessary work of society or to live self-indulgent lives (or both) and universally ask other people to do what they could do themselves. Again, while this is often times understood in the context of international migration, it can also be understood in the context of intranational migration as what is happening in the USA.
There is a joke in the south that the difference between a "Yankee" and a "damn Yankee" is that "the damn Yankee don't leave." There are a lot of reasons not to like the "damn Yankees" because a lot of their ways are irritating, rude, disrespectful, and just in poor taste, not to mention how they are slowly pulling apart one society and remaking their migration location into, at least partially, a reflection of the place which they came from, as does every immigrant group regardless of where it goes. But that said, and even in spite of the reduced taxes and lower cost of living, the "damn Yankees" would not come (or would at least come in far smaller numbers) if there were enough people in these other regions of the country who would do the work being asked of them.
Likewise, as I have mentioned several times already, the value of a society comes from its people because they are the source from which value is ultimately derived. While there are many legitimate problems caused by the mass international immigration to the USA as well as from mass intranational migration in the USA, much of it is a result of people choosing sloth and luxury instead of industry and modesty, for when economic hardships strike, the larger populated areas will go to the lesser populated ones for work and like it or not will bring their ways of life, culture, and ethnicity with them. Indeed, it is far better to take action in spite of the failures of previous generations to fulfill their social role to reproduce by simply having families and taking up the necessary burdens of society instead of complaining about those who do.
Post a Comment