How Does Diversity Affect Economic Growth? A Look at Data on Immigration, Tax Rates and Real GDP per Capita
Authored by Mike Kimel
In this post, I will explain the annualized growth rate in real GDP per capita using tax rates and the percentage of the population that is foreign born using data for the United States. The data shows the following:
A. the tax rate that maximizes economic growth is higher than you think
B. immigration from countries with advanced economies whose population resembles the US correlates with faster economic growth over subsequent years
C. increasing rates of immigration from countries with diverse populations
You can skip ahead to the results of the regression if you want. Otherwise, if you care about the details, here goes…
I used to occasionally write posts where I would build models based on fitting models of the following form:
growth in real GDP per capita, t to t+1 = f(tax rate at t, tax rate squared at t)
In that formulation, tax rate = top marginal income tax rate. The quadratic form allows us to find a tax rate that maximizes growth rates if the real world has such a thing (which, happily, it does as we will see below).
More recently, I have been looking at how immigration has affected the economy. In particular, I had a few posts looking at this relationship:
job growth, t to t+10 = f(foreign born % at t)
Why the ten year look-ahead? To be frank, I just got tired of arguing with readers about causality. Comparing X today to Y over the next ten years puts a halt to chicken and egg arguments tout suite.
I’ve also had a few essays speculating about the effect of changes in immigration law in 1965 on the economy but in those posts, I relied only on logical and not on data.
In this post, I want to combine those three (well, really two and a half) issues. I will fit the following model:
1. Dependent variable: annualized growth in real GDP per capita, t to t+10
2. Explanatory variables i and ii are tax rate and tax rate squared, both at time t
3. The next explanatory variable is the % of the population that is foreign born at time t. But… if immigration, and its impact on the economy, changed as a result of the 1965 Immigration Act as I’ve stated in earlier posts, what we really need is two variables:
3a. Foreign Born as a % of the Pop Until 1965 (and zero otherwise)
3b. Foreign Born as a % of the Pop After 1965 (and zero otherwise)
Tax rates came from the IRS’s historical table # 23. The foreign born percentage was obtained from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI). The MPI’s data originated with the Census, but they organized it a bit better so I downloaded it from them rather than the Census. Data is available in ten year increments from 1850 to 2010, and annually from 2010 to 2015. I annualized the decennial data by simply assuming a linear annual change between every tenth year’s figures.
The entire set of data was organized in Excel, but the regression itself was run in R. The output (click on figure for larger size) appears below:
The first thing to note is that the model explains about half of the variation in the ten year economic growth rate. Not bad for tax rates and immigration alone.
Next, the coefficient on tax rates is positive, the coefficient on tax rates squared is negative, and both are significant. (That’s the quadratic relationship mentioned earlier.) If you do the math, it turns out that the rate that maximizes the ten year annualized growth in real GDP per capita is 55%. This is about what most of my previous estimates over the years have come up with as well.
Moving on, the next variable is the percentage of the population that is foreign born in years prior to 1965. That variable is positive and significant even at the 1% level. In plain English, before 1965, more immigrants -> faster economic growth.
But the next variable is problematic, and spits out a result that is, at a minimum, politically incorrect. That variable, the percentage of the population that is foreign in years after 1965 is negative though not quite significant. If we are worried about being reported by the neighbors, we could with a straight face, stop here and state from this that immigration has not not affected growth since 1965. For the moment, let’s do that.
The coefficients and relative significance of the last two variables essentially restate what I have been writing in the last few weeks. As a result, I can explain what is going on by more or less plagiarizing myself. So, at a high level, why does pre-1965 immigration clearly boost economic growth and post-1965 immigration clearly not? As I noted in earlier posts, from 1921 to 1965, about 70% of the immigrants came from Germany, Great Britain and Ireland. The 1965 Immigration Act was designed to allow more immigration from the rest of the world.
Before 1965 immigrants would have fit in more seamlessly. After all, the US had been strongly shaped by previous immigrants from the very same countries where the new immigrants had just left. Furthermore, most of the people the immigrants would encounter in their new land would have experience with other immigrants from the same culture. Additionally, in the last century technology was an important driver of growth, and the countries which supplied the most immigrants before 1965 also happened to be fairly technological advanced countries. One more thing to keep in mind – the percentage of the population that was foreign born shrunk steadily from close to 12% in 1929 to about 5% in 1965.
Since 1965, of course, the story is very different. The foreign born population has been increasing, reaching 13.5% in 2015. Post-1965 immigrants have been far more heterogeneous in ethnic composition and skillset than the earlier group. May have come from poorer, less technologically advanced societies. Some have cultural traits that are not entirely compatible with accepted norms in the US which results in a variety of frictions.
My guess, from the results, is that if more granular data was available on post 1965 immigration (say, by country of origin, or better still, by education level and education quality), it would turn out that some subsamples of post 1965 immigration had positive and significant effects on growth, but proportionately larger subsamples would have negative and significant coefficients. I will dig a bit harder to see if I can find data that can confirm or repudiate my guess.
A few closing comments. Given the election is coming up, it is worth noting that Hilary and Trump are on opposite sides of both the tax and immigration issues. Hilary’s proposed tax changes are likely to generate faster economic growth, Trump’s proposed tax changes are likely to slow the economy. On the other hand, Trump’s immigration proposals (to the extent that they can be coherently defined) suggest an interest in pre-1965 style policies. Hilary, though, will probably accelerate the path we are already following.
For what it is worth, both tax and immigration policies have consequences. However, it is easier to change direction, or to reverse the effects of earlier policies if those relate to the fiscal rather than the immigration arena. That’s why the Roman Empire could survive crazy behavior by madmen like Caligula and Nero, but one mistake by a dry technocrat like Valens led inexorably to the sacking of Rome.
In future posts, I will try to understand what some of the impediments have been to integration of post-1965 immigrants. I am also interested in whether and how those impediments can be reduced.
Finally, as always – if you want my data, drop me a line at my first name (mike) dot my last name (kimel – and that’s with one m, not two) at gmail which of course is followed by a dot com. I’d be happy to share my Excel spreadsheets and if you want it, the trivial amount of R code that went into this. If you contact me within a month of this post going up, I’ll send it to you. Beyond that, I will probably send it to you but no guarantees. I reserve the right to have my computer stolen, go into a coma, move on with my life, etc. But of course, the data is pretty easy to recreate.
One postscript… This post kind of reminds of me of
Mike there is a similar analysis of these questions over at EPI.com that came out recently. If I read it right their analysis showed that diversity and immigration per say has net benefits to the country especially in the long term view. But as we all know past gains and practices do not guarantee future results especially now with a whole differ culture, value and beliefs starting to enter our country. But with past practices used as a guide line we should expect mostly positive outcomes from all property vetted people. To me the declining GDP is the most problematic and worrisome variable that we all are dependent on that must be turned up along with increasing labor participation rates. If creating more effective demand is the key then why would anyone vote for more of the same failed economic policies?
Sorry Mike that was EPI.org. Then search immigration and look for the many Daniel Costa’s blogs do shed much badly needed light…
William Ryan,
Later today I will look for that study. I note that is important to define the problem the right way. Conflating pre and post 1965 immigration for example leads to a very different conclusion than you would get from this post.
Yeah, who’d think that the average immigrant in this country would be overwhelmingly of “lower” economic value when the vast majority of available work in this country is of “lower” economic value, resulting in:
“C. increasing rates of immigration from countries with diverse populations does not correlate with faster future economic growth.”
Not real surprising to me that John Stumpf’s position was not filled by an immigrant.
?Did you use legal immigration or do the data include immigrants whether vetted in lawful processes or not?
I would still be hopeful that immigration law can bring more of these immigrants into the lawful economy , gaining positives from this. Please look to the data or future studies to see if we can see such an effect.
I would also be curious to look at the numbers of nonimmigrant residents who have also joined the underground economy, and derive some comparative insights.
Finally, imo, we want employment and business activity to be in the lawful economy. Less lawfulness is not good, many aspects, social, economic, political affected.
Yup. I KNEW all those reasons economists have been feeding us for why the economy hasn’t performed robustly in recent decades the way it did in the three or four postwar decades were nonsense. I just didn’t know what the ACTUAL reason WAS.
But now I do! All those non-German immigrants that came here after 1965. If only we’d been smart enough to have allowed immigration only by Germans, our economy would have been booming all these decades. Like Germany’s!
We get it by now, Mike. Pick an immigration or racial statistic and then attribute good or bad economic statistics to it. Works every time!
Data, I tell you. Data!
Not sure how that Great Depression of the 1930s managed to happen, given all the German immigrants and children of German immigrants in this country back then. Although maybe the Depression was caused by all those damn Eastern European Jews and those Irish who insinuated themselves into this country in the previous three decades despite the best efforts of the good people of British, Scottish and German ancestry.
Yeah, that’s gotta be it. Historians and economists haven’t mentioned it because of political correctness. But I’ve figured it out thanks to your posts, Mike.
Oh, and all those Italians! The ones who immigrated here BEFORE Mussolini made the trains run on time. Definitely helped cause the 1929 Crash.
Bev,
Everyone knows it was the Jews. They were sent here by the Rothchilds to destroy our banking system so they could take control.
Every Alt Right web site has all the “facts”.
Uh-oh. We’ve finally been found out.
How much is already explained by pre and post 1965 without bringing immigration into it at all?
How much is explained by percentage of union workers and the change in percentage of union workers?
Arne, you seem to be suggesting that Germany’s economic success in recent decades might be attributable, at least in part, to the fact that employees there have strong bargaining power and also play a significant role in major managerial decisions, and therefore receive a greater share of the company’s profits.
But that obviously is ridiculous, since there’s only one thing that can cause a country’s economic problems. And if you’d been following Mike’s series of posts–this is entry 197, by my count, give or take–you would know that a lack of worker bargaining and decisionmaking power ain’t it.
Seriously, in each post he promises that in the next one or the one after that he’ll produce the statistic that proves his theory. And instead, in each new post, he cites a pair of statistics, claims in purely conclusory fashion that one caused the other, and that in the next post or the one after that he’ll produce a statistic that proves it.
I have no background at all in economics, but I’m pretty darn sure this isn’t what passes for it. Except, I guess, on the internet.
Bev:
Arne is correct. Labor in Germany is a part of the company management team. They do have a strong negotiating position in Germany. US Labor also had a strong negotiating position up till Reagan busted the Air Controllers union and it was then Companies started breaking contracts with the support of the courts. US automotive unions forced healthcare upon auto companies in the fifties and then for retirees in the seventies. I believe the rest of your comment is a non sequitur.
You know absolutely nothing about six sigma and arne appears to be asking appropriate questions.
now, now, Beverly
you have to wait for the final solution
then everything will be nice.
oh, wait
mike might be right.
i just read that Russian GDP went up 500% following the German immigration of 1941-45.
And did you read the follow-up statistic–that Russian GDP collapsed upon the decision by all those German immigrants to emigrate back to Germany? Absolutely proving once and for all that Mike is right?
Geeeez, Dale, if you’re gonna say something that’s gonna practically make me choke on my morning coffee, can you at least give me some warning so that I can swallow my sip before reading on?
JF,
The data I used was the estimated percentage of people in the country who are foreign born. So it includes everything from estimates of the number of illegal aliens to people who arrived in the country decades ago and are now citizens. It may not be the ideal data but it is what is there.
Arne,
“How much is already explained by pre and post 1965 without bringing immigration into it at all?”
Great question. I am embarrassed to say it didn’t occur to me. It turns out that “Years up to and including 1965 and 0 thereafter” and “Years after 1965 with 0 before that” have a 90% plus correlation with the third and fourth variables in the regression, respectively. As I result, I cannot use year and immigration, but when I replace the immigration variables with the respective year variables, the fit doesn’t change much. However, neither of the year variables is statistically significant at the 10% level so I believe that immigration is more the issue than simply year. I do want to think some more about this – there may be more variables that could be incorporated in future posts. I have an idea of what some of those might be, but since they might set off Beverly, who tends to be quite calm about these things, I’m going to think about them before rolling them out. Thanks for the tip!
About Union membership. To be honest, I don’t know, and I don’t have a handy source of data. I will sniff around.
Beverly,
You aren’t reading anywhere near enough into what I’m writing. If you stand on one leg, put one finger up your left nostril, and squint real hard, you will notice I am also blaming the Peruvians for why kelp smells bad when it rots and the Moroccans for the wobble in that chair in your kitchen that irritates you so much. Now go ahead, live the wobble.
You’re an ECONOMIST, yet it didn’t friggin’ occur to you to look at OTHER FACTORS–factors that might already explain pre and post 1965 without bringing immigration into it at all?
Not even LABOR UNION STRENGTH? Not even the dramatic rise beginning in the 1980s in the financial services industry’s SIZE AND INFLUENCE? Not even the switch from sane differences between corporate-top-brass compensation and lower-level employees’ compensation, and from long-term corporate investment to quarterly profits and to stock prices as the sole measure of CEO compensation?
This is exactly what I’ve been saying about this entire ridiculous series of psuedo-economic and pseudo-sociology posts: You take one statistic, match it up with another, and claim cause and effect. But I hadn’t expected you to ADMIT THAT.
Now you have. Thanks.
Another variable to consider is the percent change in workforce. Although this is a lagging indicator of recessions, it can also be a driving force for increasing demand and therefore a driving force in increasing GDP.
Any number of conservative writers will assert that the growth of SS and of Medicare have reduced economic growth. Perhaps you have already looked at those?
Another factor would be the extent to which movement into the workforce is becoming saturated. Something like 85-EPOP(25-54).
Arne
I hope you are not one of those who think SS has hurt growth.
You really don’t want to see me angry.
What is the point of growth if it leaves workers without the means to retire or treat their illnesses?
And if you do not think that, I wish you would make that clear.
Contrary to one Nobel Prize economist, SS does not “reduce savings.” That idea is so ridiculous only an economist could believe it.
And I would guess that people buying health care contribute to GDP even if they have to get the money from the government who gets it from people who would otherwise spend it on very expensive piss against the gold plated walls of Las Vegas restrooms.
One reason I get mad at Mike about this is that he has no idea what he is talking about, neither “race” nor “economic growth.”
I can’t stop people from being stupid, but i can try to give them some idea of what they sound like to me and might sound like to others.
“It may not be the ideal data but it is what is there.”
On close visual inspection it is apparent that the horizon marks the very end of the Earth. Nothing can be seen beyond that point. From that observation it is reasonably safe to assume that the Earth is flat, a rigid plane in all compass directions. Granted that visual observation has some limitations in regards to determining distant geographic aspects of planetary objects, but it was what had been available to cartographers and navigators in the past. It was what there was.
Arne & Coberly,
Similar but not quite the same thought… it used to immigrants showed up and they were on their own, or had to rely on privately funded immigrant aid societies. Now, there is government funding. My guess is that the government is the biggest source of funding for immigrants. I don’t know when that changed, but I would guess it was in the 1960s.
Workforce saturation comes close to the Sandwichman’s turf with lump of labor. At the moment he has me more or less convinced so I don’t think it is a direction likely to bear fruit here.
As to everyone else…. seriously? You don’t have to like the results – I actually don’t – but attacking reality is insane. Now, I am only trained in economics – I don’t work as an economist, but anyone can go to google and look up immigration and dummy variable and you get over 300,000 links, some of them economists you will have heard of. Some of it even includes slope dummies like the ones I used. Feel free to argue that a fairly standard tool cannot be applied to a fairly standard problem if it makes you feel any better, but it only serves to divorce you from reality.
Jack,
You are arguing that increasing in immigration do not increase the share of the population born abroad in the US from 1929 to the present. I can think of situations where such an argument might make sense, but the US, from 1929 to the present, doesn’t appear to be such a situation. YMMV depending on whether you take hallucinogens or not.
Government funding? For immigrants other than actual refugees? Such as?
Ah. I finally understand what sparked the end of the postwar economic boom: All those South Vietnamese refugees who came here in the mid-1970s! Why hasn’t this been pointed out by OTHER economists, not just by Mike Kimel, and not until just now?!
Mike, I’m not making any such argument. If it isn’t clear to you, I’ll be more direct and explain that I’m being a bit sarcastic. I’m extending your quoted line to a logical comparison having to do with the quality of observations from the available data, the data you want to use, to conclusions that may, or may not, be drawn from such data.
As Longtooth was, I think, trying to point out, there are a great many other variables that influence GDP movement from year to year and over several years. You’ve focused on a bare minimum, and those days chosen are far removed from the production process. Your entire presentation only reaches the level of casual conversation. It ain’t science. Not even loose orthodox economic science. Correlation studies are like that. They tend to get ahead of the facts of a phenomenon.
Jack,
I totally concur. In fact, I totally concur with that comment on the last half dozen of these posts.
“Workforce saturation comes close to the Sandwichman’s turf with lump of labor.”
I don’t think so. What he has been saying is really that people who try to use the lump of labor fallacy are arguing with a straw man. He does not provide a model of how fast the use of labor can change. Edward Lambert does have a model that says there is a limit on how much demand can be supported by labor, but that also fails to tell us how fast the use of labor can change.
It is undeniable that over the period you are modelling the number of people in the workforce has approached the limit on the number of people that can be in the workforce. It is reasonable to expect that it would have an impact on the composition of the workforce. For you to toss it off is disappointing.
Arne:
Your 2nd paragraph pretty much states what Mr. Walker is espousing. As a solution, Tom is suggesting work hours be cut in a similar fashion as to what occurred in Roosevelt’s era in going from 48 to 44 hours/week (FLSA). It dropped to 42 hours and then 40 hours by 1940.If you care to fix the work issue, cut it further as the ratio of actual Labor in the manufacture of a part is relative small when compared to Overhead and Materials. Burden applied to Labor is Overhead.
Arne,
Ok. Apologies. But where would I get that data?
Mike/Run
Comparative analysis of immigration trends, over specified time intervals, and the effect on economic growth. With tax policies thrown in to cloud up the issue. That’s what the post reads like, in my opinion. What is the purpose? If I’ve got it wrong then give me a better short form overview. What is the hypothesis you’re trying to support? Or, what is the null hypothesis you’re trying to reject?
Maybe the immigration communities from a single source change over time. Maybe those communities are not as homogeneous as your speculation implies. And how in heck do you put immigration variables and tax policy variables in one study of GDP growth? And most importantly, how do you see economic growth in a nation as large as ours subject to the vagaries of only two measured variables?
Just kinda wondering: Hasn’t Canada had a large number of immigrants over that same period? Also Germany? Holland? Scandinavia? Australia?
Canada probably has more immigrants and children of immigrants, pro-rated for population, than this country has. Yet its economy has held up fine. Granted, it largely became a petro-state in the last two decades. But with the oil market having crashed, it’s still doing well. And Germany is not and never has been a petro-state.
How can these posts pass the laugh test as economics? Attacking reality is insane, Mike says, and that’s the only thing he’s right about. The problem is that making that statement begs the obvious question of what the relevant reality IS.
We all thought the relevant reality was cause and effect. Mike claims the relevant reality is … who knows what, since he doesn’t show cause and effect. He just claims it, with nothing at all to support it.
Bev:
You are babbling again. Stick to law.
Jack:
I am not analyzing anything. Mike has used Six Sigma stats to arrive a t a direction in which to look which is all it does. It does not arrive at any conclusion. It points to further investigation do be made. It is up to Mike to decide how much further he wishes to investigate the direction it points. Perhaps then the variables you point to may come into play.
“It points to further investigation do be made.” run
All research, good or bad, points to further direction to go in. The question often is, what direction to go in? “….used Six Sigma stats to arrive a t a direction in which to look which is all it does. It does not arrive at any conclusion.” The direction in which to look is itself a conclusion if you are saying that that direction is suggested by the stats used.
What most of the criticisms on this thread are pointing out is that by isolating immigration in a discussion of factors causing changes in an economy’s GDP leads to gross speculation at best. Keep in mind that correlation measures suggest only that two phenomenon are occurring at the same time and to a measured extent. It tells us nothing about the relationship between those phenomenon. Using the term variable doesn’t make one the dependent and the other the independent. Mike uses the term explanatory variable, a subtle variation of the independent type. However, the use of the term puts additional weight on the idea that the one, the explanatory variable, has an operative effect on the other, the dependent variable. Mike has clearly stated that the later is GDP change and the former is what is being measured in the immigration data. And I repeat, correlation does not support causation as a conclusion (even when stated as a direction to go in).
Jack:
Thank you for your opinion . . .
Jack,
The depending variable is growth from t to t+10, that is, growth over the next ten years. The explanatory variables are all at time t. That is to say, tax rates in 1987 and immigration in 1987 are used to explain the growth from 1987 to 1997.
If there is a causality, if the relationship is not spurious, then it can only run in the direction of time t happens first, then the change from t to t+10 happens. The growth from 1987 to 1997 cannot cause the tax rate in 1987 and the immigration level in 1987. Now, you can argue that the relationship happens to spurious. I notice nobody is arguing that taxes today don’t affect growth tomorrow. The issue, or rather, the complaint, is that I am saying that immigration at time t affects growth tomorrow. I suspect even that wouldn’t be an issue, except that I made a point of testing whether there is a difference pre- and post- the 65 Immigration Act, and that means I am messing with the idea of tabula rasa.
Why am I doing this? Well, I have been writing post after post. And I am heading in specific direction. To be very clear, I have argued:
1. Cultures matter to outcome
2. Cultures do change over time, but often very slowly. They can persist for a long time and survive substantial geographic movement
Now, this regression was not an attempt to explain the entirety of the economy, just as past efforts using taxation alone were not also not an attempt to explain the entirety of the economy. They were a test of whether a variable (taxes, immigration) affects growth. And since I could differentiate between two immigration regimes, I checked both. Results were compatible with my statements in other posts.
So where am I going with all of this? Well, to put it simply, I am interested in figuring out how to change cultures more easily. I don’t like the idea that certain groups remain an underclass forever. But as a society we have tried a number of different solutions, and they haven’t worked.
Cue Presimetrics – the Democrats are not as good at social outcomes as they think. And the Democrats have been the driving force behind the social programs we have had over the past however many decades, certainly for the entire period of time for which we have data. (This isn’t to say the Democrats have gotten everything they wanted, but the Republicans wouldn’t have pushed for any social programs.) But we are left with some failures that have persisted. And I see variations of the same themes proposed as if they’re brand new. A program virtually the same as one tried several times, that failed every time, won’t work the next time either.
Now, we could keep trying the same thing over and over, or we can try something else. What? Well, first is figure out what the damn problem actually is. And what leaps out to me is culture. Maybe its because I grew up as an expat, but it seems to me pretty obvious that cultures vary, and they define outcomes pretty well.
All these posts are along that same line. They are headed to the same place.
I’m making this my last comment on the topic. I don’t think I’m being heard and I’m putting too much effort into pointing out what is wrong with the concepts being addressed.
“That is to say, tax rates in 1987 and immigration in 1987 are used to explain the growth from 1987 to 1997.” Kimel
If correlation is the primary statistical tool being used how can two independent variables be tested for their effect upon the dependent variable? Rather than a clash of civilizations, here we have a clash of possible causative factors.
“If there is a causality, if the relationship is not spurious,….” Kimel
Two ifs don’t make a right. If, if only. If my grandmother had testacles
I’m making this my last comment on the topic. I don’t think I’m being heard and I’m putting too much effort into pointing out what is wrong with the concepts being addressed.
“That is to say, tax rates in 1987 and immigration in 1987 are used to explain the growth from 1987 to 1997.” Kimel
If correlation is the primary statistical tool being used how can two independent variables be tested for their effect upon the dependent variable? Rather than a clash of civilizations, here we have a clash of possible causative factors.
“If there is a causality, if the relationship is not spurious,….” Kimel
Two ifs don’t make a right. If, if only. If my grandmother had testicles she would have been my grandfather.
That last comment posted prematurely. And when I was near to finishing it blanked some how from the comment box. Too much to do twice. Suffice it to say that there is so much wrong with Mike’s last comment, above, that he has only supported the criticisms leveled throughout the thread. So this is the last word I have.
“Well, to put it simply, I am interested in figuring out how to change cultures more easily. I don’t like the idea that certain groups remain an underclass forever.” Kimel
So if I understand what Mike is proposing, he is using a flawed analysis of data that tries to link immigration and GDP growth in order to justify some effort, that is yet to be described, at social engineering. And it is for the sake of the “under class.” Is this to be an antipoverty program? Or maybe a jobs program? Or an educational program? Hard to say, but it seems that there is a strong focus on characteristics of cultural groups and how they may interact with economic performance. And that sounds like an effort to blame the so called under class for their sorry plight.
Jack
it’s deeper than that. Mike apparently wants to change us all into good germans in order to grow the GDP faster. Efficient workers making more money for Wells Fargo and Donald Trump. People whose idea of having fun is sitting in a chair watching other people paid to look like they are having fun. Turning the country into an oil pit to make more money more more more. Loyal soldiers, yes, sir, no excuse sir, right away sir efficiently killing without asking why.
It’s not just that Mike’s statistics is badly designed (it is) but that his whole concept of what it means to be human is sick.
Jack,
You misunderstood the regression. It is intended to see if a correlation exists. This correlation indicates that for the data used, as specified, the correlation appears to exist at statistically significant levels. I use “if it exists” because statistics being statistics, you can state nothing with certainty, even if (as in this case) there is well under a 1% that something doesn’t exist. As to the spurious comment, I used that term because you were stating that the results didn’t mean what I said they meant. I noted how you misunderstood the timing issue, which hopefully clears that up.
Coberly & Jack,
A culture changes over time. Introduce a new variable, and that changes the culture. As more people immigrate, they are partly affected by the existing culture, and the existing culture is partly affected by them. We are becoming more FGM-y and more bach bazi-y of a culture just by virtue of adding people who bring that culture with them. (This is the point of a melting pot, right?)
Cultures are the people who live in them. There is nothing magical about the physical location of the US or the air we breathe. Replace our population with the population of Brazil, or Nigeria, or Russia, or Japan, and move our population to Brazil, or Nigeria, or Russia or Japan, and the physical US will start to resemble Brazil, or Nigeria, or Russia or Japan in economic outcomes. Similarly,the physical Brazil or Nigeria or Russia or Japan will start to resemble the US in outcomes. It may take a bit of time – a few years – due to existing infrastructure, but there are plenty of examples of a country inheriting or obtaining the physical infrastructure built by another culture so it isn’t like we don’t know what happens.
Jack,
Those who can do, do. Those that cannot do, teach. Those that cannot teach, consult.