Towards a Post-Ethnic Future”

Report
“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 KnowNothing 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
13.9
14.8
13.6
14.1
14.2
13.514.7
13.2
11.6
11.6
10.3
10.3
9.2
9.7
11.5
9.6
8.8
7.9
6.9
5.4
1890
1900
1910
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Population Estimates
6.2
4.7
1970
1980
1990
2002
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
11,206
25,572
11,206
Births to 1990’s
Immigrants
Share of Pop.
Growth
44%
1,663
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
Source: Bureau of the Census, CensusScope
1980
1990
2000
2010
2030
2050
Minorities Drive the Next 100 Million
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
White
Black
Hispanic
1995
Source: McLeod (1996)
2050
Asian
American
Indian
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
er
G
n
y
lia
a
an
m
.
.K
pa
Ja
U
a
re
ra
st
na
hi
Ko
C
Au
ad
.
.S
an
C
U
Getting Older Slower
Population Over 65
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
a
y
an
m
er
G
lia
ra
st
Au
na
hi
C
a
re
Ko
.
.K
ad
an
U
C
n
pa
.
.S
Ja
U
Source: CIA
2020
2050
In 2030, about half of the buildings58.9
in
which Americans live, work, and shop
will have been built after 2000.
25.7
50%
50%
6.4
Northeast
Midwest
West
Built Before 2000
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
Percent of Net
Change Due to
Nonwhite Pop.
Growth
United States
281,421,906
32,712,033
65%
Northeast
53,594,378
64,392,776
100,236,820
2,785,149
4,724,144
14,790,890
100%
62%
52%
63,197,932
8,049,313
10,411,850
1,420,676
69%
52%
Midwest
South
West
North Carolina
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
1,819,370
2. New York
992,185
3. Chicago
600,810
4. Dallas
594,836
5. Houston
575,098
6. Miami
501,543
Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census
Growth by Age, 2000-2010
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
California
Nevada
Michigan
-10
Under 25
Source: William H. Frey
25-44
45-64
65+
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%
2000 -- Populations greater than 50,000
Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census
600%
700%
The New Melting Pot
Ranked by Percentage Change
of Immigrants, 1994-99
State
Growth
North Carolina
73
Nevada
60
Kansas
54
Indiana
50
Minnesota
43
Virginia
Maryland
Arizona
Utah
Oregon
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
U.S. Population in Urban,
Suburban, & Rural Areas
Millions
1950-1999
160
140
People (millions)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1950
1960
1970
Suburban
1980
Urban
1990
Rural
1999
Minorities to suburbs
Percentage of Population Residing In Suburbs by Race/Ethnicity 1990-2000
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
All Races
NH Whites
All Minorities
1990
NH Blacks
2000
NH Asians
Hispanics
The San Fernando Valley is now the
Mestizo Valley.
0.2%
3.5%
9.3%
45.0%
0.1%
3.6%
White 45%
American Indian and Alaska
Native 0.2%
Hispanic 37.8%
Black or African American
3.6%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Asian 9.3%
37.8%
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
26.50
37.76
Hispanic Population
Total Population
1980
1990
2000
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 6th largest national economy in the world
Gross Product Comparisons, 2003
United States
$10,882
$4,326
Japan
Germany
United Kingdom
France
U.S. Ethnic
World rank
(in Billions)
$2,401
$1,795
$1,748
$1,685
1
2
3
4
5
(6)
Italy
$1,466
6
China
$1,410
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
World rank
(in Billions)
$653
U.S. Hispanic
$626
Mexico
$492
Brazil
Argentina
Venezuela
Colombia
(1)
10
15
$130
35
$85
40
$78
44
Chile
$72
46
Peru
$61
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
$964.6
African American
$723.1
$318
$992.3
U.S. Hispanic
$686.3
$222
Asian/Pacific Islander
$528.2
$363.2
$118
1990
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (2004)
2004
2009
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
6%
5%
5.70%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
-1%
-2.30%
-1.80%
1970-1980
1980-1990
-2%
-3%
Analysis by William Frey
1990-2000
Whose Kids?
Traditional Family Households
40%
35%
35.8%
33.4%
30%
25%
22.8%
20%
15%
16.0%
10%
5%
0%
White
Analysis by William Frey
Black
Asian
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
Contribution of household growth
Hispanics
Whites
Contribution of rising homeownership rate
Top Ten Home-Buyer Surnames (2000)
Northern California
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Nguyen
Wong
Lee
Chen
Tran
Johnson
Smith
Singh
Garcia
Martinez
Southern California
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Source: California Association of REALTORS
Garcia
Hernandez
Lopez
Martinez
Smith
Gonzalez
Rodriguez
Lee
Kim
Johnson
Los Angeles County
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Garcia
Lee
Rodriguez
Kim
Hernandez
Lopez
Gonzalez
Martinez
Smith
Perez
Fewer than half of California’s Latino-headed
households owned their own homes (41%).
The national average is 68%.
California's Homeownership Rates by Ethnicity (2000)
65%
70%
60%
57%
57%
50%
41%
39%
Latino
Black
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
All
Households
White
Asian
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
Source: William H. Frey; Milken Institute
Hispanic
Male Head
White
Female Head
Educational Attainment by Race
Age 25-64, Los Angeles Metro
White
Less than High
School
Black
High School Grad
Asian
Some College
Hispanic
College Grad
Towards the Future:
Post-Ethnic America
• Rapid Growth of Mixed Race couples particularly with
2nd 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%
30.60%
22.12%
25%
20%
15%
15.93%
8.31%
7.26%11.50%
10%
8.61%
5.14%
5%
5.45%
6.34%
0%
US born
Latino
Foreign born
Latino
US born
Asian
Male
Foreign born
Asian
Female
African
American
US born
White
The Under 18 Population Has Already Become very
Multicultural…
Total Population
Under 18 Population
4%
5%
13%
16%
13%
18%
70%
Source: Census 2000
White
Hispanic
African American
Asian
61%
The Millennial Generation is the Most Diverse in American History
Percent of U.S. Population That Is African American, Hispanic, Asian Pacific Islander, American
Indian, and Other; By Age – December 2004
50%
 Echo Boomers
 Generation X
 Baby Boomers
 Pre-Baby Boomers
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1
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%
53%
85%
32%
23%
17%
15%
<19 Years
Current Population Survey, US Census Bureau, 2002
19+ Years
Foreign Born
2nd Generation
3rd Generation
In the Next Fifteen Years, 2nd Generation
Will Dominate Growth
45%
47%
28%
28%
27%
1st Generation
2nd Generation
3rd Generation
25%
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
99
100
98
100
91
English
73
Spanish
68
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.
The Segments
10%
13%
37%
Hip Hoppers
Popsters
Roqueros
Trailblazers
Traditionals
19%
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?

similar documents