By CONOR DOUGHERTY
America's child population grew more far diverse over the past decade as a decline in the ranks of white children was offset by surging growth of Asians and Hispanics.
All told in 2010, the Census Bureau counted 74.2 million people under age 18, up 1.9 million from 2000.
The number of non-Hispanic whites fell in 46 states and 86 of the 100 largest metropolitan areas. In 10 states, white children are now a minority among their peers, including six that tipped between 2000 and 2010. Others will follow soon: In 23 states, minorities make up more than 40% of the child population.
The number of black and Native American children declined as well, but by a far smaller degree than whites, according to an analysis of 2010 Census data to be released Wednesday by the Brookings Institution, a left-leaning think tank in Washington. ...
Read more
"In Texas, the state with the largest population gain over the decade, Hispanics accounted for 95% of the growth among the population under age 18. "
ReplyDeleteWould this assume 95% of the folks are having Hispanic babies. This number sounds as valid as the numbers we are getting from Japan.
"Low Plains Perspective"
"Hispanics accounted for 95% of the growth among the population under age 18"
ReplyDeleteYes, that's astounding, isn't it.
What on earth can it mean?
It really hurt my head thinking about that. Yet a search of Google News shows everybody's quoting the same statistic.
So, as you say, it's about as good as the radiation data we're getting with Curies, Becquerels and Sieverts all mixed up.
When I try really hard, what it seems to mean is that, of the increase in under-18-year-olds, hispanics make up 95%, but what's the significance of that?
It sounds scarey, but we don't know what it means in absolute terms unless we know what the absolute increase in number of under 18-year-olds is. If it was, say, one tenth of one percent, it would mean the population of hispanic versus other under-18-year-olds was virtually unchanged, whereas, if the absolute increase were, say, 100% it would mean that the population of hispanics versus other under-18-year-olds had changed a lot.
But even then it could mean that hispanic under-18-year-olds had increased from nothing to almost 50%, or merely from 99% to 99-point-something%.
So, yes, the media do an awesome job of keeping us informed.
But if that seems confusing, maybe it is!
ReplyDeleteI think I'm on the right lines but then I shouldn't have specified percentages when I was talking about hypothetical absolute numbers.
Oh well, as long as your IQ over about 180, you'll be able to figure it out for yourself.
Thanks for the explanation.
ReplyDeleteI actually wrapped my head around it while getting the garden ready for a dirt delivery tomorrow.
If population increased 20 people and 19 were Hispanic then movement in the other groups equaled an increase of 1 person.
I was thinking it meant 95% of those 18 and under were Hispanic. I'm from Central Texas so it actually jibs with what I experienced. I miss the Mariachi music but I live in a a meat packing town, so we have great Mexican food.
"Low Plains Perspective"
Yes, I understand what it means, but my contention is that what it means is just about anything and therefore altogether useless.
ReplyDeleteTo take your example, the significance depends largely on the initial population size and composition.
If the initial population were 20 and 19 were Hispanics, then an increase of 20 of whom 19 were Hispanics would mean no change in the proportion of Hispanics to the rest.
But if the initial population were 20 and only half were Hispanics, then an increase of 20 of whom 19 were Hispanics would mean a near tripling in the ratio of Hispanics to the rest.
However, if the initial population were two million not twenty, but the increase were only 20, then whatever the proportion of the increase was Hispanic would make essentially no difference to the overall composition of the population.