Towards a Post-Ethnic Future”

download report

Transcript Towards a Post-Ethnic Future”

“Towards a Post-Ethnic Future”

Presentation by Joel Kotkin, Irvine Senior Fellow, New America Foundation, CRE High Level Conference Park City, Utah July 15, 2006

Essence of Post-Ethnic Vision

“America is the Race of Races” Walt Whitman,

Leaves of Grass

, 1855

Post-Ethnic Perspectives

• New immigrant waves have always unsettled cultural norms; reshaped economic and political life • Over time, a new synthesis emerged, with addition of newcomers • Current wave unprecedented in diversity • Newcomers reshaping economy, society • Long-term: Emergence of a new, post-ethnic, post-racial perspective

The First Wave 1640-1840

• Germans constituted close to a majority in colonial Pennsylvania • Non-English accounted for one-third of signers of Declaration of Independence • American Revolution accelerated disestablishment of Anglican Church and greater religious diversity

Colonial Observations:

“Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, be becoming a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them?

-Benjamin Franklin

Early American Observations:

“…hordes of wild Irishmen [and] the turbulent and disorderly of all parts of the world [who] come here with a view to disturb our tranquility…” -Harrison Otis of Massachusetts

calling for a ban on immigration for Europe

Second Wave Immigration (1840-1880

) • Massive wave of German and Irish immigration • Key to settlement of many eastern cities as well as the Midwest • Reaction: Rise of Know Nothing Movement • Immigrants spark industrial revolution, both providing labor and expertise

Third Wave Immigration (1880-1920)

• Highest percentage of foreign born population • New large immigration from outside Western Europe, predominately Italy, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, as well as Asia • New immigrants dominate politics in many big cities, spark new industries such as garments, movies, intensive agriculture, fishing and franchise banking

Third Wave Reactions

• Powerful nativist reaction; what Henry James called “this sense of dispossession” for old Anglo elite • Italians described in 1875 by New York Times as “the Chinese of Europe”, adding it was “perhaps hopeless to civilize , or keeping them in order, except by the arm of the law”

Science Gets into the Act

Psychologist Henry Goddard examining immigrants at Ellis Island, 1912 87% of Russians, 80% of Hungarians, 79% of Italians, 83% of Jews classified as “feeble-minded”

The Current Wave (1970-today) is more of the same and even more…

• Immigrants Drive Next 100 Million by 2050…key to divergence from Europe, east Asia • Ethnic diversity has become wider and deeper • Immigrants spark revival in urban and some suburban economies • Economy more complex and more difficult for less skilled immigrants • Mass media, telecommunications popular culture accelerate cultural mixture yet allow for maintenance of cultural ties abroad • Long term Perspective: Post-ethnic future

Immigration Is Driving American Demography 32.5

Foreign Born Population in millions Percent of Total Population

64% Increase

19.8

9.2

14.8

10.3

13.6

13.5

14.7

13.9

13.2

14.2

11.6

11.6

8.8

10.3

6.9

9.7

5.4

9.6

4.7

14.1

6.2

7.9

11.5

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2002

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Population Estimates

Immigrants and Their Offspring Drove Over Half of the Country’s Growth During the 1990’s… 69% 50% 44% 1990'S Immigration 1990's Immigration plus births 1990's Immigration plus births to all immigrants

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

US Pop. Growth 1990’s Immigrants 25,572 25,572 11,206 11,206 Births to 1990’s Immigrants 1,663 Share of Pop. Growth 44% 50%

More Crowding to Come: US Population Growth 1960-2050

400,000,000 350,000,000 300,000,000 250,000,000 200,000,000 150,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2030 2050 Source: Bureau of the Census, CensusScope

Minorities Drive the Next 100 Million 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% White Black Hispanic 1995 2050 Asian American Indian

Source: McLeod (1996)

Immigrants help drive higher birthrates

Plunging Birthrates/Aging Populations Birth Rates per 1000 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 U.S.

Source – indexmundi.com

Australia Japan Korea UK Canada Germany

Healthier Long Term Demographics — a Younger Future Population Growth Rates, 2004

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

U.S

.

Can ad a A us tra lia Chi na K ore a U.K

.

Ja pa n G erm an y

Getting Older Slower

Population Over 65 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% U .S.

Japan Canada U.K. Korea China Aus tralia Germ any Source: CIA 2020 2050

which Americans live, work, and shop will have been built after 2000.

50% 25.7

50% 6.4

Northeast Midwest Built Before 2000 West South Built After 2000

Source: Toward a New Metropolis: The Opportunity to Rebuild America, p.v

Total

Regional Impact

• Strong Presence in key urban areas • Rapid Movement into suburbs • Increasing presence in South, Intermountain West and other non-traditional immigrant areas

Net Population Change Attributable to Non-White Population Growth, April 1, 1990 to April 1, 2000 Area 2000 Population Net Change 1990 - 2000

United States Northeast Midwest South West North Carolina 281,421,906 53,594,378 64,392,776 100,236,820 63,197,932 8,049,313 32,712,033 2,785,149 4,724,144 14,790,890 10,411,850 1,420,676

Percent of Net Change Due to Nonwhite Pop. Growth

65% 100% 62% 52% 69% 52% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File and U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census

“Majority Minority” States

Hispanic Magnet States In the U.S. , 2000 Census

1990 - 2000 Greatest Hispanic Gainers

1. Los Angeles 2. New York 3. Chicago 4. Dallas 5. Houston 6. Miami 1,819,370 992,185 600,810 594,836 575,098 501,543 Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census

Growth by Age, 2000-2010

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 California Source: William H. Frey Nevada Under 25 25-44 45-64 65+ Michigan

Up-and-Coming Hispanic Growth Magnets

1. Greensboro 2. Charlotte 3. Raleigh 4. Atlanta 5. Las Vegas 6. Portland, OR 7. Orlando 8. Minn-St.Paul

9. Reno 10. Grand Rapids 11. Salt Lake City

0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700% 2000 -- Populations greater than 50,000

Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census

The New Melting Pot Ranked by Percentage Change of Immigrants, 1994-99

State North Carolina Nevada Kansas Indiana Minnesota Virginia Maryland Arizona Utah Oregon Growth 73 60 54 50 43 40 39 35 31 26

North Carolina Net Population Change by Race, 1990-2000

Total White Black Native American Asian Pacific Islander Hispanic Other 8,049,313 5,647,155 1,723,301 95,333 112,416 3,165 378,963 9,015 1,420,676 676,028 274,159 16,799 63,799 1,189 302,237 6,896 21.4

18.6

18.9

20.8

131.2

68.2

393.9

325.4

Millions 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1950

U.S. Population in Urban, Suburban, & Rural Areas

1950-1999 1960 1970 Suburban 1980 Urban 1990 Rural 1999

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Minorities to suburbs

Percentage of Population Residing In Suburbs by Race/Ethnicity 1990-2000 All Races NH Whites All Minorities 1990 NH Blacks 2000 NH Asians Hispanics

The San Fernando Valley is now the Mestizo Valley

.

3.5% 0.2% 9.3% 45.0% White 45% 0.1% 3.6% American Indian and Alaska Native 0.2% Hispanic 37.8% 37.8% Black or African American 3.6% Pacific Islander 0.1% Asian 9.3% Other Race 0.2% 2 Or More Races 3.5% 0.2%

Latinos Dominate New Demographics in the Inland Empire of California

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

18.63

1980

26.50

1990

37.76

2000 Hispanic Population Total Population Source: Census 2000 analyzed by the Social Science Data Analysis Network (SSDAN).

Demographic Change in Bergen-Passaic

Diversity in Houston’s fast growing suburbs

Fort Bend County, Texas Source: U.S. Census United States

Economic Impacts of New Immigration

• Fast-growing retail markets • The New American Family • Increase in home ownership • Strong in high-wage and low-wage economies • Possible impact on class dynamics

If the U.S. ethnic purchasing power was represented separately, it would be the 6 th largest national economy in the world

Gross Product Comparisons, 2003 (in Billions) United States Japan $4,326 $2,401 Germany United Kingdom France U.S. Ethnic Italy China $1,795 $1,748 $1,685 $1,466 $1,410 $10,882

World rank 1 2 3 4 5

(6)

6 7 Source: World Bank Indicators database, World Bank, September 2004 and Selig Center for Economic Growth, University of Georgia “The Multicultural Economy 2003”

If the U.S. Hispanic purchasing power was represented separately, it would be the largest Latin American economy in the world.

Gross Product Comparisons, 2003 (in Billions) U.S. Hispanic Mexico Brazil Argentina $130 $85 Venezuela Colombia Chile $72 $78 Peru $61 $492 $653 $626

World rank

(1)

10 15 35 40 44 46 51 Source: World Bank Indicators database, World Bank, September 2004 and Selig Center for Economic Growth, University of Georgia “The Multicultural Economy 2003”

Ethnic Purchasing Power More Than Doubled Since 1990

Spending Power by Ethnic Groups (in Billions) 1990 – 2004 with 2009 projections

African American $964.6

$723.1

$318 U.S. Hispanic $222 Asian/Pacific Islander $363.2

$118 $528.2

$686.3

$992.3

1990 2004 2009

Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (2004)

In Short: Latinos and other immigrants are on their way to reaching the American Mainstream

 However, there are challenges to greater entryway into mainstream American society.

 Among the most serious challenges is achieving homeownership and business ownership —the cornerstone of the American Dream.

 Political issues also abound, from overcoming the traditional black/white racial politics to the reaction to 9-11

Families on the Rise

1% 0% -1% -2% -3% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% -2.30% 1970-1980

Analysis by William Frey

5.70% -1.80% 1980-1990 1990-2000

Whose Kids?

Traditional Family Households 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 22.8% White

Analysis by William Frey

16.0% Black 33.4% Asian 35.8% Hispanic

Strong Household Growth Has Driven the Increase in Minority Homeowners Since 1994 Millions of Homeowners 5 4 3 2 1 0 Asians/Others Blacks Hispanics Whites

Contribution of household growth Contribution of rising homeownership rate

Top Ten Home-Buyer Surnames (2000)

Northern California 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Nguyen Wong Lee Chen Tran Johnson Smith 8.

9.

Singh Garcia 10. Martinez Southern California 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Garcia Hernandez Lopez Martinez Smith Gonzalez Rodriguez 8.

9.

Lee Kim 10. Johnson Los Angeles County 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Garcia Lee Rodriguez Kim Hernandez Lopez Gonzalez 8.

9.

Martinez Smith 10. Perez

Source: California Association of REALTORS

Fewer than half of California’s Latino-headed households owned their own homes (41%). The national average is 68%.

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% California's Homeownership Rates by Ethnicity (2000) 57% All Households 65% White 57% Asian 41% Latino 39% Black

Source: California Budget Project analysis of the Current Population Survey 2000

Class Distinctions: Median Household Income, 1999 Earnings (in Thousands) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Black Married Couples Hispanic Male Head White Female Head

Source: William H. Frey; Milken Institute

Educational Attainment by Race Age 25-64, Los Angeles Metro White Black Asian Hispanic Less than High School High School Grad Some College College Grad

Towards the Future: Post-Ethnic America

• Rapid Growth of Mixed Race couples particularly with 2

nd

Generation • Latinos and Asians “mess up” being white • Universal trend towards English dominance • Cultural values overwhelm ethnic ones • America emerges, intact, just more mestizo in its culture

When the kids get together…something happens…

• Mixed race designation is officially at 1.3 percent • But intermarriage rates are up, particularly in second generation • Mixed race portion of population should explode over the next decade

Percentage of Marriages That Are Mixed Race

Breakout of Mixed-Race Combinations in Selected States

Intermarriage rates in Los Angeles Five County area

35% 30% 31.23% 34.14% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 7.26% 11.50% 22.12% 30.60% 5.14% 15.93% 8.31% 5.45% US born Latino Foreign born Latino US born Asian Foreign born Asian African American 8.61% 6.34% US born White Male Female

The Under 18 Population Has Already Become very Multicultural… Total Population 4% 13% Under 18 Population 5% 16% 13% 70% 18%

White African American Hispanic Asian

61%

Source: Census 2000

The Millennial Generation is the Most Diverse in American History 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

1

Percent of U.S. Population That Is African American, Hispanic, Asian Pacific Islander, American Indian, and Other; By Age – December 2004

   

Echo Boomers Generation X Baby Boomers Pre-Baby Boomers

6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, Dec. 2004 66 71 76 81 86 91

Being White is not what it used to be.

• 50% of Latinos call themselves white • Asians out-perform “majority” in terms of occupation, income and education • Two-thirds of 28 million foreign born people in 2000 consider themselves white, up from half in 1990

A Majority of Younger Hispanics are Already Second Generation

60% 85% 53% 15% 32% 17% 23% Foreign Born 2nd Generation 3rd Generation <19 Years Current Population Survey, US Census Bureau, 2002 19+ Years

In the Next Fifteen Years, 2nd Generation Will Dominate Growth

45% 47% 28% 27% 25% 28% 1st Generation 2nd Generation 3rd Generation 1970 to 2000 Pew Hispanic Center, 2002 2000 to 2020

Spanish language fluency is lost by the third generation.

% Speaking English / Spanish Well or Very Well Base: Total .

100 100 99 98 91 68 73 English Spanish 15 Total 1.5 Generation Q11/12: Would you say you speak English/Spanish…?

Second Generation Third Generation

Post ethnicity emerges…

• A survey by New American Dimensions of LA and NYC Latino youths finds culture more important than race • Spanish language TV ventures into English • Cross-culture Latino music, food, some Asian influence move into mainstream • Ethnicity matters, but less than class or culture.

13% 19%

The Segments

10% 37% Hip Hoppers Popsters Roqueros Trailblazers Traditionals 21%

Final Thoughts

• America’s ethnic orientation will be radically different in a generation • Latino, Middle Eastern, Asian influences will affect cultural life • Americanness will remain and drive towards citizenship increase as a more diverse country becomes more, not less dependent on united aspects of national culture.

• “They” are us, or soon will be

Questions and Comments?