When will there be more Venezuelans in the U.S. than in Venezuela?

More Irish people live in the U.S. than in Ireland (31+ million says the US Census, compared to about 7 million in Ireland and Northern Ireland). Joe Biden recently granted permanent temporary status to about 500,000 Venezuelans who walked across the open border in the last couple of years (CNN). Haitians granted temporary status in 2010 still have that status (it gets extended every 18 months) and their U.S.-born children are now nearly old enough to get the parents automatic “chain migration” Green Cards. So let’s assume that the same thing happens with Venezuelans, i.e., temporary status becomes permanent in practice and continues to be expanded to cover later arrivals.

Given the assumptions that the Venezuelans keep accepting our invitation to arrive and, once here, keep creating U.S.-citizen children, how long before there are more Venezuelans here than in Venezuelan?

Population is actually falling in Venezuela right now:

And the Venezuelan population in the U.S. is rising (Pew):

(Note that this may not capture the undocumented since they might not want to answer a lot of questions from a U.S. government Census representative.)

The Pew web page provides numbers through 2021, but migration is rising exponentially and more undocumented Venezuelans arrived in 2022 than in all previous years combined (source):

Perhaps we should assume that migration levels off at 500,000 arrivals per year?

Also from Pew:

6% of U.S. Hispanic females ages 15 to 44 gave birth in the 12 months prior to the July 2021 American Community Survey. The rate for Venezuelan females was also 6%.

(Note the hateful language associating “female” identification with the ability to give birth. This from the same organization that publishes “The Experiences, Challenges and Hopes of Transgender and Nonbinary U.S. Adults” and does “deep explorations of the experiences of LGBT and transgender and nonbinary Americans”.)

It seems reasonable to assume that the declining population of Venezuela levels off at 20 million. Humans have more babies when more resources are available and dividing Venezuela’s resources by a smaller population should result in a birth rate high enough to offset the continued exodus to the U.S.

With that assumption, we can simply try to predict when the Venezuelan-origin population in the U.S. will exceed 20 million. For natural increase, let’s use the 3 percent annual population growth rate that Venezuelans had circa 1980 (it might be larger in the U.S. given our provision of taxpayer-funded housing, food, health care, etc.). In other words, births will exceed deaths and amount to 3 percent of the total (this might not be the best assumption given that the migrant population is younger than average because of the physical rigors of the journey).

It’s tough to estimate a population of the undocumented (Yale study), but let’s assume that we have about 1 million Venezuelans here in the U.S. right now. Our model shows that the Venezuelan-origin population of the U.S. will exceed that of Venezuela in 2048. (If you are preparing to criticize my model for its unsupported assumptions and simplicity, keep in mind that this is in complete accordance with Coronascience! See, for example, Coronascientists are the modern Aristotles?)

YearPopulation SizeMigrantsBirths in excess of deaths
20231,000,000500,00030,000
20241,530,000500,00045,900
20252,075,900500,00062,277
20262,638,177500,00079,145
20273,217,322500,00096,520
20283,813,842500,000114,415
20294,428,257500,000132,848
20305,061,105500,000151,833
20315,712,938500,000171,388
20326,384,326500,000191,530
20337,075,856500,000212,276
20347,788,132500,000233,644
20358,521,776500,000255,653
20369,277,429500,000278,323
203710,055,752500,000301,673
203810,857,424500,000325,723
203911,683,147500,000350,494
204012,533,642500,000376,009
204113,409,651500,000402,290
204214,311,940500,000429,358
204315,241,298500,000457,239
204416,198,537500,000485,956
204517,184,494500,000515,535
204618,200,028500,000546,001
204719,246,029500,000577,381
204820,323,410500,000609,702
Full post, including comments

Why have US stocks outperformed international stocks so dramatically?

One of the mantras of an index fund investor is that you can’t predict which companies or which economies will do best. (Or at least you can’t predict better than other investors, so obviously promising stocks are already priced high to reflect that promise.) Therefore, you should try to invest in a way that mirrors the domestic economy or, if you expect to spend time in other countries, the world economy.

Let’s have a look at the Vanguard all-US fund (“Total Stock Market”) “total returns” (reflects reinvestment of dividends, but not taxes).

12.17 percent return over 10 years. After federal taxes, this is 10.1 percent, says Vanguard. They don’t estimate the effect of state income taxes, but with California at at 13.3 percent on the successful, this could fall to less than 9 percent for a Californian.

How about the Vanguard all-foreign fund (“Total International”)?

In an efficient market, the returns should have been about the same. But the investor enthusiastic about broadening his/her/zir/their investment base got destroyed. The 10-year total return on non-US stocks, in U.S. dollars, has been 4.68 percent. After federal taxes? 3.88 percent. After California state taxes? Perhaps around 3.5 percent. Foreign bonds would have paid better than foreign stocks, I think.

Full post, including comments

Will Mexican cartels be deplatformed from YouTube and Facebook for spreading misinformation?

“Unlawful Border Crossings Are Rising Fast After a Brief Decline” (NYT, September 19):

During President Biden’s time in office, the number of illegal crossings has reached notable highs, exceeding levels seen during a prepandemic influx in 2019 during the Trump administration.

The administration said the decline in unlawful crossings in May and June was driven by new enforcement measures and new legal pathways for people to come to the United States.

Officials have attributed increases like these to several factors, including misinformation spread by the Mexican cartels that traffic drugs and smuggle migrants. Shelter workers, advocates and migrants say that some people who have been waiting months to access these legal pathways have grown impatient and are willing to take a risk.

Even as federal officials signal that there are consequences for illegal crossings, migrants who are given permission to stay in the country temporarily often tell family and friends in their home countries that they made it to the U.S. successfully. Such messages can encourage other migrants to take an often dangerous journey to the United States.

After crossing onto U.S. soil, most migrants turn themselves in to Border Patrol agents, with plans to apply for asylum, instead of sneaking into the country and trying to evade detection.

A few questions… The Newspaper of Record (TM) does not provide any examples of the misinformation that Mexican cartels are purportedly spreading. Are the cartels saying that those who cross the border and request asylum will be released and allowed to stay? That’s exactly what New York Times says is happening:

This influx has strained the capacity of many border facilities where migrants are held for processing by the Border Patrol. And Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers, where many single adults are sent, are running out of beds. When shelters cannot accommodate migrants, authorities start to release them into communities.

“The Border Patrol essentially is releasing people as they process them to decompress their facilities,” Diego Piña Lopez, director of the Casa Alitas shelter network in Tucson, said. “It is leading to street releases all over the place.”

Is it “misinformation” if what the cartels are saying is true?

Also, if low-skill immigration makes existing Americans better off, why would anyone be upset by an increase in what the NYT calls “illegal crossings” (if it is legal to apply for asylum, how can any crossing be “illegal”?)?

Last year, a record of nearly 250,000 people traversed the Darién Gap, a jungle straddling Colombia and Panama, in an attempt to make it to the United States. This year, despite efforts by the United States to curb the flow, that number has risen to 360,000 as of Sept. 10, according to Panamanian authorities.

Why is the U.S. trying to “curb the flow” if immigration makes us better off or if, alternatively, those who are arriving are entitled to asylum and we continue to offer asylum?

Official stats on the migrants who choose to announce themselves to the CBP:

The last line is interesting. The U.S. was officially closed due to coronapanic and yet nearly half a million new Americans arrived and introduced themselves to the CBP officers (plus an unknown number who quietly migrated). Covidians say that we could have eliminated COVID-19 if every American had done his/her/zir/their duty by wearing a mask, staying home except for trips to the “essential” marijuana and liquor stores, etc. But how would a Zero COVID situation have been sustainable when 50,000+ walked across the border in September 2020? (the Federal fiscal year FY2020 ended in September 2020)

Circling back to the main theme of this blog post… what are Mexican cartels saying? What is the procedure for getting them deplatformed or at least demonetized from YouTube, Facebook, and similar services?

Related:

  • “Biden administration to offer thousands of Venezuelans temporary protections” (Axios, yesterday): The Biden administration plans to offer nearly a half-million Venezuelan nationals temporary permission to live and work in the country legally, the Department of Homeland Security announced Wednesday night. … Venezuelans currently qualify for TPS if they arrived by March 8, 2021.
  • “US again extending temporary protected status for Haitians” (AP): “The Biden administration is allowing eligible Haitian nationals residing in the U.S. to apply for a new 18-month designation for temporary protected status, reversing a Trump administration effort that had sought to end the special consideration. … DHS initially designated Haiti for TPS in January 2010..” (i.e., “temporary” so far has been 13 years)
Full post, including comments

Progressive Insurance abandons its Progressive Values

From June 2022, Progressive Insurance is Progressive, the company put a diversity and inclusion banner across its home page, dwarfing the “claims” button:

How about today?

They still have a Diversity & Inclusion link, but you need to scroll down two pages to find it. Unlike in 2022, the linked-to page makes no mention of 2SLGBTQQIA+ or any subset thereof. But this might be just an HTML coding mistake. The linked-to page is a generic “about” page and itself contains a Diversity & Inclusion link. That page does mention “LGBTQ” and “LGBT+”. The company has expert knowledge of what a miserable place the United States is for anyone but a white cisgender heterosexual non-immigrant person:

With so many acts of racism, homophobia, transphobia, and xenophobia in our communities, this is more important than ever. We stand in solidarity with communities of color, the LGBTQ community, and other marginalized groups, and we encourage our people to discuss these all-too-prevalent issues with our leadership team, one another, and our Employee Resource Groups.

(employees tasked with handling claims are supposed to spend at least part of their day discussing “racism, homophobia, transphobia, and xenophobia” with each other? What percentage of customers’ premium payments are to be spent on this activity?)

Possibly contrary to the recent Supreme Court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, the company says that it is passionate about “increasing the representation of women and people of color in management.” They’re proud of their new quota system:

To focus our efforts in 2020, we introduced an ambitious goal to double the representation of people of color in senior leadership from 10% to 20% by the end of 2025. As of December 2022, people of color account for 17% of our senior leadership ranks.

They’re also proud of their ability to cook the numbers:

We’re proud to report that for Progressive employees with similar performance, experience, and job responsibilities, women earn one dollar for every dollar earned by men, and people of color earn one dollar for every dollar earned by their white co-workers.*

This last one is confusing. If equal pay regardless of gender ID and skin color, once adjusted for “performance, experience, and job responsibilities”, isn’t already part of the job market as a whole, is Progressive overpaying some groups while underpaying others in order to achieve the precise pay equity that it claims? If so, why don’t those paid below-market quit and why don’t the shareholders complain about company management paying a selected group above-market wages?

This concludes my research into Progressive’s progressivism. As of this month, I have switched to State Farm for auto/umbrella (State Farm currently writes new homeowners policies in Florida, but not in our neighborhood. Our house is just barely new enough (2003), but maybe it is slightly too close to the ocean or too vulnerable to a storm surge or maybe they already have too many other houses nearby that they cover).

Full post, including comments

What’s property tax inflation in your area?

We are informed that inflation is at 3 percent. The various county and local governments here in Palm Beach County/Jupiter somehow did not get the memo. A “Notice of Proposed Property Taxes” that I recently received shows that the taxing authorities are increasing their budgets by about 9.5% on a per-resident basis. The notice shows the millage rates with and without the proposed budget increases.

(I don’t think that the budget increases can be explained by the lockdown-driven exodus from the Northeast. The county’s population grew by only 13,000 in 2022, less than 1 percent (Palm Beach Post).)

Note that the first $50,000 of value is exempt for full-time residents under the “homestead exemption” and the assessed value for a primary residence cannot go up by more than 3 percent annually (but there is no limit to increases for the millage rates?).

Readers: What’s happening to your property tax bills in our 3% economy?

One of our neighbors is an accomplished oil painter. Here’s a photo that I took of what I think is one of the nicer-looking houses in the neighborhood for her to use as the basis of a painting:

What I think is the same house, but in white:

(The truly custom houses in this area are reserved for the truly rich!)

While shopping for furniture that would help our senior golden retriever get up on the bed, I found this upsetting example of inflation:

Full post, including comments

Science says to avoid monkeypox by going to the bathhouse every night

A tweet from the Righteous:

According to the Scientists at Science, anyone who is not a Covidian is stupid and, worse, a denier of Science.

My response:

If Peter Hotez doesn’t want to get Covid, why won’t he stay home? That’s the one proven technique for avoiding a respiratory virus. He’s voluntarily entering packed rooms and holding indoor book signings (photo below), then telling others that he knows the secret for avoiding an aerosol contagion?

I included a photo from one of Professor Dr. Hotez, MD, PhD’s tweets:

He spends all day every day in crowded indoor environments talking about how stupid the average American is for not taking Covid-avoidance more seriously. If we translate this Scientific knowledge to another disease we find that anyone serious about avoiding Monkeypox should spend all night every night in a bathhouse.

What did the giant-sized brains of Science have to say about Professor Dr. Hotez, MD, PhD’s book?

… the fierce backlash against sensible public health measures … by uninformed citizens and bad actors on social media… Hotez calls for the US federal government to address anti-science aggression… a proposal for a new entity akin to the Southern Poverty Law Center that would both monitor hateful threats to scientists and offer legal advice and resources.

“Right-wing idealogues” are identified as prime targets who should be hit by those who are pro-Science and “Hotez’s warning about the broader implications of Covid denial must be heeded.”

Let’s check out the Defender of Science’s Twitter feed to see which crowded rooms he’s in.

In a crowded room where nobody wears a mask…

In Manhattan, which is in no way associated with crowding and filth:

Unmasked in a bookstore with a fellow Covidian:

In a Washington, D.C. bookstore with a Floridian and a Covidian:

Getting ready to gather in a crowd of 50,000 for a book festival (in a state where the New York Times informs us that books are banned):

Cuddling indoors with a Climate Doomer/Covid Doomer in Filthadelphia:

Inside a massive convention center stuffed with potentially infected humans:

(The infectious disease experts decided to hold a mass gathering instead of a Zoom-based conference?)

Flashback to three years ago on this blog: What to do when a family member is an anti-masker?

Update: Professor Dr. Hotez, MD, PhD is not afraid of death, but he is afraid of comments from other Twitter users:

Full post, including comments

Science says that young people sick with COVID-19 should go home to their parents and grandparents

Courtesy of Jay Bhattacharya, the University of Michigan’s policy for dealing with the discovery of an unclean SARS-CoV-2-infected 18-year-old in a dorm shared with healthy 18-year-olds:

Let’s consider Pat Studymuch, a U-M freshman. He/she/ze/they lives in a single room amidst other 18-year-olds whose risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 is minimal. Where should he/she/ze/they go?

Science says “Go back to the parents and elderly grandparents” (in the “permanent residence”). But if removing an infected 18-year-old from a group of 18-year-olds and pushing him/her/zir/them into a community of older people is good, wouldn’t it be even better for contagious students to be sent to quarantine in nursing homes?

Full post, including comments

The UAW strike and the continuing car shortage have a common root in executive incompetence?

At a Chevrolet dealer in Stuart, Florida on September 15, I learned that not-in-demand cars are selling at MSRP sticker price, leaving the dealer with $4000 more in profit than in the old days when the cars sold at invoice. In-demand cars continue to carry an additional markup. For example, an electric Chevy is $10,000 over sticker, as is a regular Corvette. A Z06 Corvette is $75,000 over sticker on those rare occasions when the dealer can get one.

Can you save some $$ by buying used? A three-year-old 2020 Corvette 3LT (the premium trim) is available for $95,800, which I’m sure is more than its original sticker price.

Let’s look at the Z06 Corvette. Here’s what Edmunds says about the simplest model:

According to the official prices, GM thought that the dealer would get about $7,000 in profit from selling this car. In the post-coronapanic world, however, the dealer will get $82,000 for taking an order (the difference between MRSP+$75,000 and invoice).

I’m wondering if this is why the car shortage has continued for so long. Ordinarily, if something goes up in price the producers get paid a lot more and begin working hard to increase production. If gasoline becomes more expensive, for example, gas stations don’t become insanely rich while oil producers keep getting the same old price. The gas station gets its usual small markup and the extra money for petroleum products goes to the oil company, precisely the signal that the market is supposed to give to producers in Econ 101. The legacy automakers, however, never got any financial signal that cars were in demand. Nearly all of extra money paid by consumers went to dealers, who responded by buying new beach houses, new business jets, new jet-powered helicopters for their kids, new yachts, European vacations, etc. The boost in auto prices, thus, spurred production of business jets more than production of cars.

I wrote about this back in 2022: Why aren’t cars (and pinball machines) auctioned as they come out of the factory?. The dealer agreement that I found did not prevent the manufacturer from abandoning a fixed retail/invoice price structure and instead simply auctioning cars to dealers or at least establishing a new market-based price every week. Nothing in the agreement required a manufacturer to keep the price to the dealer fixed for 6-12 months, as has been conventional for legacy automakers even during coronapanic.

Tesla, of course, has been a notable exception. The company has made frequent price adjustments throughout this period of lockdown-induced economic disruption. Thus, Tesla has had a financial incentive to maximize production, e.g., paying chip suppliers extra money if necessary to keep the lines going.

Let’s also consider the recent strike by the United Auto Workers, of whom roughly 146,000 work for the Detroit Three. They want a 40 percent pay increase to compensate for the inflation that the government says does not exist. Could the legacy car companies easily afford to pay this if they hadn’t been selling cars for far less than they were worth for nearly three years?

I think that the Detroit 3 have U.S. revenue of about $300 billion per year, combined. Let’s say that they could have gotten 10 percent more money by selling cars for what they were worth instead of selling them for whatever invoice price they’d established. That would have worked out to approximately $90 billion in additional revenue over three years. In other words, they could have given each UAW member a $600,000 coronapanic bonus and still had money left over to give to shareholders.

Should all of the executives at the Detroit 3 be fired? Every day they produced assets owned by shareholders, i.e., the cars coming off the assembly lines. Every day they sold those shareholder-owned assets for far less than they were worth. They enriched the dealers to whom they owed no fiduciary duty. They starved their own production facilities of the extra cash that could have been used to motivate suppliers, workers, etc. to maximize production and ease the supply shortage that has cost consumers so dearly (and helped to generate ugly inflation numbers). They failed to capture the cash that the UAW is now on strike to obtain.

Related:

  • One thing that keeps the Detroit 3 afloat is a 25 percent tariff on light truck imports imposed by Lyndon Johnson (Reason), though Wikipedia says that a Mexico-built truck wouldn’t be subject to the tariff
Full post, including comments

It’s a “crisis” when more than 1/500th of the nation’s undocumented migrants settle in New York City

Back in 2016, approximately 22 million undocumented migrants lived in the U.S. (Yale study, published 2018). Let’s assume that today’s undocumented migrant population is closer to 30 million. From the August 31 New York Times… “As Migrant Crisis Worsens, New York Leaders Pressure Biden to Do More”:

A broad coalition of civic, business and union leaders has come together to apply pressure on Washington to help with the migrant crisis in New York. … Washington has failed to adequately address the migrant crisis that has overwhelmed the city in recent months.

Of the 107,000 migrants who have arrived since last year, almost 60,000 are still in the city’s care. … The city has opened over 200 sites and humanitarian relief centers to house and process the migrants, which officials estimate will cost $5 billion this year, as much as the budgets for the parks, fire and sanitation departments combined.

Mr. Adams said the current flow of migrants could cost $12 billion over three years, exceeding the city’s current fiscal and physical capacity to deal with the crisis

Adams later elaborated about New York City actually being destroyed (see NYC mayor: Texas governor a “madman” for wanting to send city-destroying migrants away from Texas).

Let’s check some photos from my August 22-23, 2023 trip to Manhattan to see whether NYC is, in fact, being destroyed.

What if the migrants want to relax with some 2SLGBTQQIA+-friendly alcohol? Note the “Bud Light” at the top left of the “Open For All” rainbow neon sign.

Perhaps they prefer healing cannabis? New (“essential”) marijuana stores are opening in every neighborhood:

What about COVID? It does not make sense to move out of the crowded city when one can instead don a mask. At the Union Square Greenmarket:

What would you see if you were brave enough to enter the subway?

On any journey into the subway, we are reminded that Pfizer is taking care of us. From Grand Central Station:

Do you want to learn about the “beautiful complexities of the LGBTQIA+ experience”? A Manhattan sidewalk is the place to do it.

(It was a hater from out of town who wrote “all lie” on the sign about the three local queer artists?)

NYC still has plenty of garbage:

My friend who lives in Lower Manhattan attributes a spike in the rodent population to the “rat hotels” that restaurants have built in the street, each one raised up just enough to provide a cozy condo for multiple rat families. Good luck seeing whether a car is coming:

Note that the rat hotel’s floor is flush with the sidewalk:

Rats can also live in the middle of the street:

(See “‘Rat tours’ boom in rodent-infested New York” (the Guardian, 9/4): “sightings doubled last year”)

My departure from Teterboro was marred by a horrifying scene of inequality:

Related:

Full post, including comments

California innovation: Gun safety freedoms

From Governor French Laundry:

I am in love with him/her/zir/them referring to these restrictions as “freedoms”.

Separately, I can’t figure out why the proposal is so weak. He/she/ze/they says these tweaks will “end our nation’s gun violence crisis”. But if the government continues to allow private citizens access to firearms, won’t there still be plenty of gun violence? Governor French Laundry promises to ban “civilian purchases of assault weapons”, but that still leaves approximately 6 percent of Americans in possession of an AR-15. If any one of those 6 percent wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, that’s high potential for gun violence!

Also, though Americans under 21 will be restricted by these freedoms from legally purchasing a gun, those 21+ will still be able to do so. Aren’t there enough Americans over 21 committing gun violence that we would still be suffering from a “gun violence crisis” even if nobody under 21 ever did any shooting?

Readers may recall Seal off criminal-rich neighborhoods to tackle the public health emergency of gun violence? in which residents of some neighborhoods would be locked down and walled off. Could being forbidden to leave the house/neighborhood also be considered a “gun safety freedom”?

Full post, including comments