The Hail Mary Impeachment

Now that the impeachment inquiry hearings have concluded where does it go from here?

Most assuredly it seems that the House Democrats will bring Articles of Impeachment for President Trump to the full House for a vote before Christmas.

I can't imagine that it can end in any other way in the House. It would be very difficult for the Democrats to turn away now and not lose face.

It is also hard to imagine that the impeachment vote will not be very close to a strict party line vote. There might be a few Democrat defectors. 218 votes are needed for impeachment. The Democrats currently have 233 in their majority (there are currently four vacancies) meaning that they cannot have more than 15 defectors if all Republicans stand with Trump.

I also continue to be amazed that Democrats and Republicans can look at the evidence in this case and come to such diametrically opposed conclusions about it. I think this shows just how partisan this whole process has been. I think it also points to the fact that this is much more about politics than it is about high crimes and misdemeanors. It also speaks to the significant partisan divide we see in the country as a whole.

If you wonder how large the partisan divide is in the country right now, compared to what it has been in the past, look at this chart by the Pew Research Center that graphically shows the gap.

Notice that the Democrats are much more liberal than Republicans are conservative and the median Democrat is much further to the left than the median Republican is to the right.

Consider as well that this chart is from 2017. The divide has only gotten wider as the Democrats have gone further to the left over the last two years. If you doubt it, consider the positions of most of the Democrats running for President.

Why have the Democrats persisted in the impeachment effort when it is clear that no national consensus exists that Trump should be removed?

A big reason seems to be that a large constituency of the Democrat party for three years has been promised by high profile Democrats and the media that Trump will be removed. It hasn't happened despite everything that has been thrown at him. Notice that the impeachment talk actually increased after the much anticipated Mueller Report turned up nothing.

However, Trump's approval ratings, poll numbers and the percentages of Independents opposed to impeachment all have turned up for the President since the impeachment hearings began.

The attacks on Trump seem to have hardened Trump's support with Republicans and Independents seem to be concluding that this is nothing more than a partisan political game for Democrat politicians and the media.

The Democrats must have also decided that they would pursue impeachment because they also could not take the risk that Trump might actually be reelected. Speaking of that, this recent poll by Emerson has to terrify the Democrats.

Trump has a 34.5% approval with Blacks and 38.2% with Hispanics. For context, Trump only received 8% of the Black vote and 28% of the Latino vote in 2016.

By pursuing impeachment Democrats must figure that they can further taint Trump's reputation even if he survives. Trump has to run for reelection as an "impeached" President even if he is not convicted in the Senate.

However, all of this carries significant risks to Democrats.

First, as mentioned above, Independents are seeing this as political theatre as issues that are important to them are swept aside by the Democrats in Congress. Are Democrats really interested in them? What does this portend at the ballot box in 2020?

Second, there are 31 House districts currently held by Democrats that Trump won in 2016. Will these House Democrats defy Democrat leadership and vote to impeach Trump? History suggests that not many will dare cross the line on their leadership. If they vote to impeach and Trump is acquitted in the Senate trial, how many will lose their seat because of that one vote? The Democrats may be putting their House majority at risk by pursuing impeachment.

Third, the Democrats may think that they need to move forward on impeachment or incur the wrath of their base. However, an old adage states, " If you are going to take a shot at the King, you better not miss." What will the base be saying about House leadership if they go through all of this for nothing? Will the failure to remove Trump demoralize those base voters? Will it motivate Trump voters to turn out in the Fall?

Finally, a House vote to impeach Trump by Christmas means that an impeachment trial will begin in the Senate when the new year begins. All Senators will be required to hear the evidence in that trial and ultimately vote on the impeachment of Trump. That includes Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennet. How can these candidates campaign when they are supposed to be sitting as the jurors on a trial to remove the President of the United States? How can they even make any comments about Trump during the trial since they are supposed to be even-handed arbiters? Moreover, how do the Democrats expect there to be any media attention regarding their Presidential candidates when everything is focused on the impeachment trial in Washington?

The Iowa caucus is February 3. New Hampshire is February 11. Nevada February 22 and South Carolina February 29. 14 states primary on Super Tuesday, March 3.

Bill Clinton was impeached in the House of Representatives on December 18, 1998. (Look for similar timing this year as you can't expect any Congressman to defer their holiday vacation because of a little old impeachment vote). The Senate trial began January 7, 1999 and Clinton's acquittal verdict was voted on February 12, 1999. Similar timing with the impeachment of Trump will mean there will be a substantial conflict with the Democrat Presidential primaries. How does this make any sense if your party is trying to win the White House ten months away?

This may be why the White House and Senate Republicans have already stated that, if articles of impeachment are passed in the House, that they would want a full trial rather than a swift motion and vote to dismiss the charges. This would also allow the White House to call numerous witnesses that might include Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and the whistleblower who initiated all of this.

We may find that Nancy Pelosi considers all of this, and while also counting the votes in her own caucus, decides that it makes more sense to censure Trump rather than impeach him. This may become a more attractive option the Democrats, especially if it continues to look like there are nothing close to 67 votes in the Senate to convict Trump.

That is what a sensible person would do at this stage. However, are there any Democrats with any sense still remaining?

I understand that they don't like Trump. They did not like him three years ago and they dislike him even more today. Let's not forget this headline from The Washington Post on Trump's inauguration day.

However, it is three years later and there is an election in less than one year that can remove him from office. Why put the country through all of this? To what end is this justified?

To use a football analogy, the Democrats are in a tie game and they are at their own 35 yard line with five seconds on the clock. They can take a knee a play and play to win in overtime. Or they can take a chance on a Hail Mary pass even though their quarterback doesn't have the arm to throw it into the end zone.

The Democrats are going for the Hail Mary but they risk fumbling the handoff or throwing an interception that results in the other team returning it for a touchdown.

Credit; CBSSports.com

A Hail Mary is the Democrats' best move right now?

A most curious strategy for a party that booed God at their National Convention.

We live in very interesting times.

Think Before You Ink

When I was growing up, and all the way through the 1970's and 1980's, the only tattoos I normally would see would be on a WWII or Korean War Navy or Marine Corps veteran.

I assumed most of them got their tattoos at some faraway port or after a night on the town in a seedy tattoo parlor just off the base.

This hula girl seems to have been popular with sailors passing through Pearl Harbor.

Of course, Marine Corps vets would often favor a tattoo that looked something like this.

A 30 or 40 year tattoo on a 50 or 60 year old man lounging around the pool was enough for me to decide that tattoos were not for me.

However, I have found it very interesting to see tattoos became more popular and accepted over the last 20 years or so.

Tattoos went from the subculture in my youth to popular culture today where it is now estimated that among those age 26-40, 40% have at least one tattoo and 36% of those 18-25 also have inked at least once.

My exposure and experience with tattoos growing up has always caused me to wonder what was someone thinking when they decided to get a tattoo?

Were they thinking?

A new study confirms what I have always thought was somewhat obvious.

People with tattoos are probably not the first people you should seek out if you are looking for someone to help you with an important long-term decision.

Credit: The Daily Mail

A few cases on point.

Trump tattoos?

How many girls want to date a guy with a Trump stamp?

These might actually be worse. Hillary tattoos. She did not even win.

If there were any doubts, I guess this proves there are still some things where people share similar minds whether conservative or liberal.

My advice...

Think before you ink.

It might not be the best long term decision you will ever make.

That is not just me saying it...it is coming from research scientists.

Believe it.

Credit: http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/winter-haven-man-gets-tattoo-of-hillary-clinton

Credit: https://www.tattoodo.com/p/271016

iPhones, Walls and Dollars

I recently returned from being out of the country for a month. I visited Rome and then boarded a cruise ship that went to various ports in the Mediterranean before doing a transatlantic crossing ending in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

A few random observations.

The iPhone and/or smartphones are ubiquitous wherever you go. Everyone has them. Shopkeepers in the Greek Isles, deck hands on cruise ships, concierges in hotels. Of course, all of it resulting from American technology with Apple or the Google Android operating system. Europe has largely been left out of the value chain on this innovation. The people of Europe are using them but very little of the profits are inuring to companies there compared to Asia and the United States.

Despite all the controversy about building a wall on the southern border of the United States, when you are touring those old Mediterranean coastal cities they almost all were built with high walls around them. They placed a high price on keeping their populations safe and secure from invaders who would do them harm.

The same is true of the Vatican which we toured while in Rome.

Vatican Wall

It makes you wonder why walls are so controversial now. It does not appear that was the case in the past and it took a lot more to put up those structures then than it does now.

Tourism dollars have become absolutely critical for countries we visited like Italy, Greece, Croatia and Montenegro. It is a huge part of the economy and the inflow of dollars (US or Canadian) is particularly important. About 2/3 of the passengers on our ship were American or Canadian. You can be assured that if the North American economy sneezes that there will be a lot of people in these European countries who catch a severe cold.

We had a young college-educated tour guide in Montenegro who, although doing well in the tourism industry, told us that he was concerned about the heavy reliance his country now has on tourists. The manufacturing jobs that were once there in the communist days of Yugoslavia were long gone and he wasn't sure that was all good for his country. Many young people in these countries are looking for careers in tourism of some type.

A few images I captured on the trip with my iPhone.

The Vatican Museum

Sveti Stefan, Budva, Montenegro
Rooms could be had on this private island resort enclave for $10/night for Communist Party officials in Tito's Yugoslavia
Today a room costs as much as $1,000/night

Oia, Santorini, Greece

Sunrise in the middle of the Mediterranean

Positano, Amalfi Coast, Italy

Malaga, Spain

Ponta Delgada, Azores
The biggest surprise of the trip. Beautiful islands that are somewhat similar to Hawaii in their lush landscapes.

Sunrise in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean

It is a beautiful world we live in.

I am blessed that I was able to experience some of it this past month.

Cloaked in the Constituion

There are two consistent themes in most everything the Democrats have been doing since Donald Trump was elected President.

1)Donald Trump's Presidency must be resisted in every way possible.

2) It is their constitutional duty to do so in order to protect the Constitution.

What is ironic is that while they cloak themselves in the Constitution they are trampling it at the very same time.

I wrote in a previous blog that Democrats had cited 89 instances why President Trump should be impeached over the last three years. The first was just two weeks after he took office. There were 36 instances alone since the Mueller report came out and Democrat hopes that Trump would be impeached for Russian collusion were dashed.

All of this has now led to impeachment hearings in the House that began last week. Of course, the net result of those two days of hearings has not elicited one witness citing any "crime" that Trump committed. In fact, the witnesses have testified they had no direct contact with Trump.

The main gripe seems to be that these career bureaucrats did not agree with the foreign policy of Trump regarding Ukraine. Never mind that the Constitution vests the power over foreign policy to the President and the executive branch. Never mind that Trump was the duly elected President of the United States and no one ever voted for any of the bureaucrats.

Yes, the Constitution provides the Senate the right to ratify treaties and confirm ambassadors and cabinet officers, and Congress needs to consent to trade agreements, but the Constitution assumes some comity in this process.

Consider, for example, that the Trump administration negotiated a new trade agreement with Canada and Mexico (the "USMCA") to replace NAFTA almost a year ago (November 30, 2018). The House has yet to even begin the ratification process. What are they spending their time on instead? Impeachment of a President who ran on the promise of replacing NAFTA.

Consider as well the stark differences in the use of the "advice and consent" power of the Senate on Presidential appointments regarding Trump and other recent Presidents. That power is intended to be used to reject unqualified appointees but was never intended to be a unilateral power to oppose and draw out the approval process for every appointee. Doing so prevents the operation of a functional government.

Nevertheless, the Democrats in the Senate have filibustered 236 Trump nominees since he became President. How many times did this occur in Obama's first term---17 times. It only occurred four times in George W. Bush's second term.

We have the same thing happening in the Judicial branch. Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued over 40 injunctions ((almost all from Democrat appointees) against the government. The similar number during Obama's first term over the same period---TWO! Do you see a pattern in all of this?

Attorney General William Barr gave a speech before the Federalist Society last week in which he cited these statistics and made this overriding statement.

Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called “The Resistance,” and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration.  Now, “resistance” is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power.  It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate.  This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic.  What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.  

The Democrats cloak themselves in the Constitution while actually abusing it.

Here is how Attorney General Barr describes what is occurring.

The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law.

I predict we will soon see the Constitution invoked by the Democrats in another way.

The release of the Inspector General report regarding the Obama administration investigation of the Trump campaign and potential FISA abuses involving key figures such as James Comey, John Brennan and James Clapper could come any day now.

You can be sure that if any wrongdoing was done in investigating Trump as a candidate, or as President, (no matter how egregious or outside the bounds of Constitutional protections it was) it will be defended as necessary for the protection of our Constitution.

Democrats will claim that there was evidence to believe that Donald Trump was colluding with Russia and that the Obama administration actors would not have been performing their constitutional duties unless they initiated a counter-intelligence operation against Trump.

Hindsight may suggest that they were wrong but no one should believe that their actions were illegal considering the risks to our constitutional republic with Trump as President.

They were just patriots protecting our constitutional system. Ignore the fact that the "evidence" relied on appears to have been the Hillary Clinton funded Steele Dossier and media reports that were based on leaks from the Obama administration. In effect, they used their own leaks to justify the investigation.

Of course, it was all done to protect our Constitution.

My advice. Beware those who cloak themselves in the Constitution.

The Wit and Wisdom of Warren Buffett

I have been an admirer of Warren Buffett for almost 50 years.

He clearly has been one of the greatest investors of all time.

One of the biggest regrets of my life is that I did not have the courage to introduce myself and express my admiration for him when I was several feet away from him about 25 years ago. Another is not buying stock in Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway when I first heard about it 50 years ago.

I was attending a Congressional hearing in Washington which Buffett also attended at the Hart Office Building. Buffett left the hearing a few moments in front of me and I followed him out to the street. He was completely alone with no handlers and no aides. The only thing he carried was a USA Today newspaper that he looked like he had picked up at his hotel.

Even then, Buffett was one of the richest people in the world.

Did a black limo swing around and pick him up? No.

He stood on the street and hailed a cab to take him to the airport.

I always wondered if that cabbie had any idea who was in the back of his cab as Buffett climbed in.

As for me, I decided not to intrude and introduce myself. It was all too perfect. A man that rich and nobody even noticed. I wish I had introduced myself. I just didn't want to intrude on that splendid solitude he must have been enjoying.

One of the things I like best about Buffett is the wisdom he dispenses. He keeps it simple and delivers it with a certain amount of wit. There can't be much that Buffett has not seen in his 89 years. I have learned a lot over the years by paying attention to what he has had to say.

The Visual Capitalist recently put together an infographic that included what it considered to be "The 25 Best Warren Buffett Quotes". 

Here are some of my favorites from the "Oracle of Omaha".

Enjoy.

Looking For A Few Good Men

Researchers at Cornell University have made an astounding discovery about why marriage rates are falling according to to this article.

Previous studies had attempted to answer why marriage rates are on the decline, but most focused solely on gender ratio discrepancies as opposed to looking into the specific socioeconomic characteristics that make a particular man and woman a good match.

The researchers at Cornell put together a data set on the financial characteristics of men who had actually gotten married over the last few years (the "dream" men) and compared them to unmarried men who were actually currently available to unmarried women (the "real" men).

Researchers found that these estimated potential “dream” husbands had an average income about 58% higher than the actual unmarried men currently available to unmarried women. These synthetic husbands were also 30% more likely to be employed than real single men and 19% more likely to have a college degree.

I guess that really shows there is some truth to the statement you hear from time to time "that all the good men are already taken."

Or course, you did not have to wait for researchers at Cornell University to know this because I have been writing about the effects that gender economics were having on marriages in these pages for at least six years.

Seeing this "new" research I thought this might be a good time to republish my blog post "Marriage and Money" that I wrote a couple of years ago that spoke to this exact issue.

Why is it only now that researchers at Ivy Leagues schools are discovering that there may be something to the fact that marriage rates are down because of the significant imbalance in college degrees (and incomes) between men and women?

BeeLine...the shortest route to what you need to know.

Money and Marriage
(originally published April 25, 2017

Four years ago I wrote a blog post that is still among the five most viewed on BeeLine. It was titled "Degree Dearth=Date Dearth" and it detailed what I predicted would be an increasing problem for young women seeking a husband---the significant imbalance between female and male college graduates.

Why is that a problem?

Women have historically tended to date and marry men of at least equal educational attainment. However, that is becoming an increasingly difficult goal today. Almost 60% of college graduates are now women. Only 40% are men. This is true for almost all college degree programs.

What difference does it make whether you both went to college? It becomes important because those who have college degrees tend to make more money. Does a women want to marry someone who makes less money than she does?

You would think that it shouldn't matter but it seems that it is pretty important.

CNBC.com recently wrote about the problem in a story titled "Millennial women are 'worried', 'ashamed' of out-earning boyfriends and husbands".

There is also data that supports the fact that when the woman earns more than the man in the marriage, the odds of the marriage ending in divorce increases.

You can see the dimensions of the problem even better in the results from the recent U.S. Census Bureau study that I cited last week on "The Changing Economics and Demographics of Young Adulthood: 1976-2016" which showed that more 18-34 year olds are living with their parents than with a spouse.

That study had another interesting statistic with regard to the income of 18-34 year old males.

41% of these young men made less than $30,000 annually in 2016.

In 1975, only 25% of men of a similar age failed to achieve that level of income (in constant dollars).

If you are a well-educated, young woman looking for marriage material, that statistic is not real comforting today. The pool of eligible bachelors could be looking pretty small depending on where you live.

You know it is bad when there are 10 women for every 8 men in a city (Fairfax, VA) and that is in the Top 10 list for best U.S. cities for dating.

As I stated above, all of this talk of education and income levels should not matter. After all, isn't it about love and companionship first and foremost? If you have that all should be well in the world.

The problem is that even though the world has changed our basic biology and the way the male and female brains are wired has not changed with it. There are primal emotions deep within us that dictate a lot about what we are looking for in a mate.

Many marriage experts will tell you that the most important factor that a woman is looking for in a husband is security. Women want to feel secure that they will be protected and cared for. Men, on the other hand, are looking most for respect. They want to have the respect of their wife.

Do you see a potential problem when the wife is out-earning the husband in the house considering these underlying factors in marriage involving men and women? How does the wife feel secure? How does the husband feel respected?

If you doubt how powerful these factors are in us, consider the survey research I cited in a previous blog involving the dating preferences of millionaires . When asked what they were looking for in a potential spouse insofar as money is concerned, there was a massive difference between men and women.

It seems that the vast majority of the millionaire men, 79.6% according to the survey, are seeking non-millionaire women.  However, 84.5% of the female millionaires want to date another millionaire.
The female millionaires made it clear that they are not looking to use their money to take care of someone else.  However, the men seem to want to find someone they can take care of.

In short, the men are looking for respect. The women are looking for security. Even when they are making a lot of money themselves.

Many marriages survive and thrive despite the woman bringing home more money. However, like everything else in a marriage, it requires a lot of effort to make it work.

What is particularly interesting in all of this is, despite the fact that many Millennial women are earning more than Millennial men today, the youngest Millennials (ages 18-25) of both genders are increasingly in favor of a traditional home in which the man is the breadwinner and the woman stays at home. This is particularly true of young males.

This is from a Daily Caller article on the survey which has tracked young people's opinions on the roles of men and women since 1977.

42 percent of high school seniors in 1994 believed that the best family arrangement was one in which the husband was the financial-earner and the wife stayed at home — this figure increased to 58 percent in 2014. When looking specifically at men ages 18-25, support for this arrangement increased from less than 20 percent in 1994 to nearly 50 percent in 2014.

I assume these young men have not seen the Census Bureau study above in which they are more likely to be living in their parent's basement than supporting a young bride at home in a few years!

The other thing that young women have not likely seen is this blog post by Penelope Trunk on "How To Pick a Husband If You Want To Have Kids".  I referenced Ms. Trunk's advice to women on this subject in my previous post on this subject. I don't know if the choices are as stark as she lays them out but I think there is food for thought here.  For me, this would turn daunting into depressing if I were a single woman.

This is how Penelope Trunk sees it.

You cannot pick a husband to have kids with until you know if you want to work full-time while you are raising them. Some women will say they know for sure that they do want to work full-time. Most women will say that they don’t know for sure. But there are actually only two choices: be a breadwinner or marry a breadwinner. Then, within those two choices, there are a few strategies you could use.

Most people just will not like these choices. Nothing here is good. It’s reality, and of course it’s not as good as fantasy. The only good, real thing is that you have choices, and you can figure out who you are and what you need and you can get what you need. 

There will be people who say you can’t choose who you fall in love with. This is a lie, of course. There are a million people you could fall in love with. If one is impractical, just go find another.

However, as I point out in the statistics above, it may be just as impractical to "go find another" in light of the dating pool of eligible bachelors in various cities across the country.

Should you think that I don't understand the husband/wife dynamic on incomes and think that I am a chauvinistic pig, this is what Ms. Trunk says on the subject. This is a married woman speaking, not me.

Statistically your marriage is high risk if you and your husband are both in the workforce and you earn more than him because surveys show that you will resent him. This is not logical, or social, it is primal. Statistically, you will marry a guy who does not make as much as you and then you will have kids and get a divorce. Because women hate the feeling of out-earning their husbands.

Trunk's article is worth the full read. It may be uncomfortable for a young woman to read it. However, my experience is that too few women are really thinking through the realities of marriage and child rearing in this day and age.

What does it all mean? We will find out in time. However, we are in uncharted territory with regard to the changing roles of men and women in the workforce and in society. Those changes have come faster than our brains are evolving. Marriage is not easy to begin with. It seems to be getting even more difficult with this new dynamic in play.

Majorities and Minorities

Whites make up about 62% of the U.S. population today.

Hispanics, Blacks, Asians and other ethnic groups comprise the other 38%.

However, where these groups live is not evenly distributed around the country.

StatisticalAtlas.com has some interesting charts on where Whites have large percentages of the population and where minorities have a large presence.

Let's look at state data on the percentage that Whites are in each state's population.

Maine, Vermont, West Virginia and New Hampshire all are over 90% White.

On the other hand, Minorities are already the majority in Hawaii, California, New Mexico and Texas.

How about the Non-White percentages in 50 selected cities?

Detroit is more than 90% Non-White. Miami and El Paso are not far behind.

Portland, Oregon and Colorado Springs are only about 30% Non-White.

What about Metro areas? These are the White percentages in various large metro areas.

The Pittsburgh and Cincinnati metro areas are both more than 80% White.

By contrast, the LA metro area is now only 30% White.

I also found it interesting that the Detroit metro area is 67% White even though the city of Detroit is more than 90% non-White.

What about counties? These are the counties with the largest non-White populations.

The Bronx is over 90% non-White. This might help explain how a 27-year old Hispanic woman, who was working as a bartender. was able to defeat Joe Crowley in a Democrat primary for one of the Congressional seats in the Bronx. Crowley had been in office for 10 terms and was also the Chair of the House Democratic Congress.

Credit: Wikipedia

The United States is more racially diverse than it has ever been in history and this trend will continue into the future based on current demographic trends.

Will that increased diversity result in a stronger nation?

For that, we will have to wait and see.

Numbers and Ages Don't Lie

I think most people understand that the United States is in the midst of changing demographic trends.

The nation is getting older. There are more immigrants. Minority populations are growing. The White population is aging and getting smaller as a percentage of the whole.

However, I doubt many fully understand how profound these changes really are and where it leads.

After all, demography is destiny.

I follow this subject closely and have written about it from time to time in BeeLine.

For example, I wrote about data on 2018 births in June where I pointed out that just 51.5% of births" in the United States last year were White.

Despite all of that, I was still surprised when I came across this factoid the other day.

Over half of all the minority and immigrant populations in the United States today are parts of the Millennial (Generation Y) or younger generation  (Generation Z).

That means that over half of the entire population of minorities or immigrants in the United States are under the age of 38!

Seeing that statement I had to research it myself which led me to StatisticalAtlas.com which puts together data on demographics as well as the ethno-racial composition of the USA population by age.

The information included in these charts is based on population estimates for 2010-2012 so keep that in mind.

Whites comprise 62% of the current population totaling 197 million people.

Minority populations (Hispanic, Black, Asian etc). total 121 million.

The relative Ethno-Racial Composition by Age looks like this.

Notice that Whites are already in the minority at ages 4 and under. At age 9 and under we essentially have an equal proportion of Whites and Minority/Immigrants in the United States.

This clearly shows the effect of the lower White birth rate that I wrote about before, but also the impact that immigrant children are having on the demographics of the country.

This data shows that 57% of the minority and immigrant population in the United States is actually age 34 or younger.

On the other hand, Whites age 34 and under make up only 40% of the overall White population.

The Pew Research Center adds some more context to this subject.

The most common age of white Americans is age 58.

The most common age of Asians in the USA is 29.

The most common age of Blacks is 27.

The most common age of Hispanics is age 11.

Current birth rate trends will undoubtedly skew these numbers even further in the future as will continued immigration which primarily involves those of younger ages..

You begin to get an idea of how these trends will reshape the demographics when you consider a few numbers and what happened over time.

400,000 Africans were imported to America as slaves in the 17th and 18th centuries. The importation of slaves was outlawed in the United States in 1807.

Immigration statistics since that time indicate that an additional 560,000 Africans immigrated to the United States between 1820 and 1996 (the most recent data I could find).

However, those 1,000,000 African immigrants has resulted in 40 million African Americans today.

Interestingly, based on numbers I have seen, about 40 million Europeans have immigrated to the United States since the 16th century. Most of these were Caucasians which now form the base of the 197 million Whites in the country.

 Between 1820 and 1940 there were only 1.2 million Hispanics from Mexico, Central and South America and the West Indies who immigrated to the United States. Things have changed a great deal since that time.

In 1970, there were 9 million Hispanics in the United States.

By 2012, that number had reached 53 million.

Credit: Pew Research Center

Today it is estimated there are over 60 million Hispanics in the USA and projections suggest that this population will be nearly double that number in another 40 years. The number of Hispanics under the age of 20 today and the continuing influx of immigrants (legal and illegal) across the southern border of the United States might actually make this forecast low.

Forecast of Hispanic Population in USA (2016-2060)
Credit: Statista.com

If demography is destiny, what destination are we headed to based on this data?

Within 25 years Whites will be in the minority in the United States.

Numbers and ages don't lie.

Where Do People Want To Live?

The United States takes in more immigrants per year than any other country in the world. Legal immigration law is established to admit approximately 1.1 million immigrants each year.

Even taking account of the percentage that immigrants are represented in the total population, the United States has higher percentages of migrants than countries in Europe such as the U.K, Germany, France, Italy and Spain.

I would say it is no contest when you look at which country has taken the bulk of the immigrants in the world over the last 30 years.

Credit: ImmigrationLawyersLosAngeles.com

The United States numbers also don't take into account all the illegal immigrants in the country. The official number is 11 million but recent estimates by MIT and Harvard economists have placed that number at more than 22 million.

Consider the fact that in the last 11 months, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has apprehended over 800,000 people in the Southwest Sector alone. If this number of illegal immigrants were apprehended trying to sneak into the country, how many actually got in?

All of this data would seem to be a pretty good indicator that most people around the world think the United States is a pretty good place to live. Why else are so many people trying to get into the country from all corners of the earth?

The trend has accelerated the last few years even thought we are supposed to have a President who does not like immigrants. Never mind the fact that he has married two immigrants in his lifetime.

The one group of foreigners who appear to not think too highly of the United States are expatriate workers for foreign corporations.

The most recent survey of expatriates by Expat Insider states that the United States is now ranked 47th as an expat destination in its annual ranking for 2019.

According to the survey, expats would rather live in Mexico (4th), Columbia (16th) Qatar (18th), Philippines (27th), Kenya (36th) and Cyprus (45th) before the United States.

Really?

Taiwan and Vietnam are the favorite destinations for ex-pats.

Kuwait and Italy are at the bottom of the list.

You wonder how reliable this survey is.

There are over 11 million people born in Mexico now living in the United States according to the Migration Policy Institute.

There are 1.4 million people born in Vietnam and 400,000 from Taiwan living in the States.

Why did they journey to the United States if life is so great in those countries? Why do they stay?

It is interesting that in the ex-pat survey of 2015 the United States was listed as the 13th best place for ex-pats.

The U.S. fell from 13th to 47th in four years?

How could that be?

I am not sure  of the total reason but I would not discount the reach and influence of CNN as a news source for people outside of the United States.

If all I did was watch CNN for "news" I might want to move to Kuwait, Kenya or Kazakhstan myself.