Land Barons Committed Genocide Against Whites During the Peak of Boomer Fertility

Posted by James Bowery on Sunday, 23 July 2006 21:41.

The cost of reproduction has risen by a factor of nearly 4 since I was born in 1954, fertilizing the portfolios of landlords, or more properly, land barons, with the decomposing marriages, fetuses and sometimes bodies of the bulk of the baby boom generation, leaving a demographic hole being filled with imported slaves* by those same landlords.

The baronage calls this “progress”, even as as the price of homes was removed from the consumer price index while introducing CPI factors like “hedonic value” and “imputed rent” to make it appear “real” earnings have increased over the time period of demographic collapse and loss of ethnic enfranchisement to imported laborers for the baronage.

I call it genocide.

*It is really being too kind to the baronage to call the imported laborers “slaves” since the baronage doesn’t have to pay for their human capital upkeep—the rest of us do via social programs. Southern Plantation owners were far more moral than these sorry excuses for human beings.

Figures from my insurance agent sent to me on my birthday:

The two big ticket necessities:
3 bedroom house price increase: 22 times
1954 $ 10,250
2006 $219,375

car price increase: 18 times
1954 $ 1,567
2006 $28,000

Even if we grant that the quality/cost ratio of manufactured goods has gone up so much during the last 52 years that $1,567 for a used car in 2006 is as good as a new car was in 1954, it doesn’t bring down the sum of the 2 major debt-service items much:

house+car increase: 19 times
1954 $ 11,817 =$1,567+$10,250
2006 $220942 =$1,567+$219,375

So the debt-service load in a family household has gone up nearly a factor of 20 in the last 52 years.

And don’t kid yourself that it didn’t hit hardest at the peak child-bearing potential of the mid-to-late boomers who were paying 20% mortgage rates when they were trying to form families in the early 1980s.

Look at these foreclosure rates peaking within the first 10 years of boomer’s trying to form families:

Year $ value of mortgage loans foreclosed (in millions)

1965 944
1966 1,034
1967 957
1968 865
1969 364
1970 321
1971 438
1972 478
1973 577
1974 715
1975 1,086
1976 1,129
1977 868
1978 723
1979 683
1980 917
1981 1,563
1982 3,282
1983 4,240
1984 6,163
1985 8,675
1986 13,942
1987 18,373
1988 18,859
1989 18,189
1990 22,862
1991 17,105
1992 12,408
1993 6,852
1994 3,422
1995 2,506
1996 2,138
1997 1,805
1998 1,470
1999 1,022
2000 900

Has household income kept up? Hardly…

average household income increase: 13 times
1954 $ 4,137 (one wage earner)
2006 $54,000 (two wage earners)

So household income has gone up only about 70% as much as the essential household debt service in the last 52 years.

Oh, but wait—that “household” in 1954 was one income and the income was relatively stable—the woman stayed at home and raised the kids.

How can we factor not only that both parents must work in 2006 and not only are each of their jobs less secure, but the effective income of the household, adjusting for risk of not being able to meet debt payments for a substantial period of time?

Here’s a realistic option: We can reasonably say that the odds of both parents being out of work at any given point of time in 2006 is comparable to the odds of the father being out of work in 1954. Hence the reliable household income—the income stream that can service debt without foreclosure—is approximately 1/2 of the household income. Certainly we can say that there will be “fat” times when both parents are working and they can save money for the lean times—but then one of the two parents is likely to be making substantially less money than the other, so we can say the savings during the times they are both working can be put toward bringing the lower-earning working parent up to par with the average of the two in terms of making a reliable payment to the mortgage lender.

Hence, making appropriate adjustments we have a household income increase of approximately 7 times since 1954—and we haven’t taken into account the loss of value of having the full time housekeeper. So let’s take that into account as well. What are the real costs to a family with children of having both parents working rather than one dedicated to staying at home? Is it another factor of 2? Probably not. But we can say the income increase is actually only a factor of 5 rather than 7.

Since the cost of the two major debt items has gone up a factor of 19, it looks to me like the real cost of reproduction has gone up by about a factor of 19/5, or nearly a factor of 4 since I was born.

Our authorities—nearly to the person—call this “progress”.

Given the demographic collapse followed by mass immigration that ensued, under anti-nationalist ideologies designed to dissolve the demography of the US, I call it genocide.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:38 | #

Excellent log entry.

I also call it genocide. And it’s deliberate, of course—grasping that fundamental fact is essential. It’s all been carefully planned.

Posted by Voice on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 03:51 | #

JB,

Excellent essay and although I am not an economist, I think you assumptions based on dual income Vs historical single income is correct.

Taking liberty as an economist, you could call this measurement the “Bowery Household income and misery index”. hehehe

I was just thinking the same thing last week(albeit with far less analysis) that Real GDP was falling like a rock from the good ole days when my mom stayed at home and my father was ONLY(teaching Homer and Chaucer and being published on his analysis) a high school teacher making $22k a year while we lived in a beautiful 5 bedroom home!(Late 60’s and early 70’s)

But I checked out mainstream real GDP index and found we are all twice as well off as we were in those times!

http://eh.net/hmit/gdp/gdp_answer.php?CHKnominalGDP=on&CHKrealGDP=on&CHKGDPdeflator=on&CHKpopulation=on&CHKnominalGDP_percap=on&CHKrealGDP_percap=on&year1=1950&year2=2005

What a load of rubbish. I would also submit there are many higher fixed costs compared to income, with health care being the 800 pound gorilla.

Although not your intention, this analysis makes guys like Sailer look like lightweights. I have a feeling we will see this essay show up in a slightly different format(no mention of race replacement and genocide of course) somewhere else real soon…

Posted by On Holliday on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:38 | #

http://www.vdare.com/pb/spiral_of_silence.htm
“The older generation of white male managers has compromised, Lynch argues, because they think quotas will fall only on the younger, baby-boom generation.”

Indeed. And we hear older white “conservatives” telling us that things “have never been better”, while white boomers and their families (what little they have) are suffering terribly the consequences of the policies promoted by representatives of the older generation.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:15 | #

Voice said: “I would also submit there are many higher fixed costs compared to income, with health care being the 800 pound gorilla.”

The main reason I didn’t bother with healthcare costs is that evolutonarily speaking we can still have children without doctors. The economics of vital statistics are pretty immune to whether you can afford “healthcare” or not. They are _not_ immune to fundamentals like territory and tools of survival, which automobiles have become.

The main way our ancestors compensated for the health risks to children was to have more of them so there could be a higher mortality rate. There is this cowardly view that has taken hold of the society that thinks it is more important to have a low mortality rate than it is to have children—and that view certainly didn’t originate with the folks who suffered a 25% mortality rate in the first year they migrated to the New World from the British Isles.

Posted by Voice on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:22 | #

I can understand your reasoning but the Middle to Lower Class whites($40-$100k) can’t afford to 3+ children. There are loads of couples in my neighborhood that have to stop because of $3-$4k bill for each child they have to pay to have a child—this includes pre-natal care etc.

Whether or not they should get all the tests is another argument but this does have an impact.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:18 | #

Voice: There is a point to the costs of ob-gyn when the government mandates certain standards of care. The Amish in Missouri near a friend’s farm started having severe alcoholism problems when the government forced them to start either paying for ob-gyn care or accept government charity. The men were forced to find more cash than they historically had to for reproduction since they relied on Amish midwives.

This was a direct biological attack on their reproduction.

It’s had to see how to incorporate this cost properly.

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:49 | #

Don’t overlook the costs stemming from forced desegregation. Millions of parents now have to incur the expense of private schooling or substantial non-productive commuting time.

Posted by On Holliday on Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:02 | #

“substantial non-productive commuting time.”

I laugh every time I hear some sort of commentary or editorial about “long commutes” and the negative consequences of such that does not mention race.

Ever-expanding suburbia - another subject of endless commentary - which itself leads to the commutes is no more or no less a function of white flight and colored pursuit.

Posted by Steve on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:55 | #

Some other things to consider. What was the homeownership rate in 1954. I’m guessing it was a good deal lower than it is now. Another thing is that in 1954 very few families owned more than one car. On the other hand most if not all of America’s urban centers were predominantly white, meaning less home ownership and less need for cars. Also less need for private schools. Just thought I’d throw in those variables for consideration.