“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 an m pa Ja . a re na .K U Ko hi C y lia da ra st . a an Au C .S U Getting Older Slower Population Over 65 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% y an m er G lia ra st Au na hi C a re Ko . .K a 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?