recent tweets

The Cost of US Diversity Is About $1Trillion per Year

This post first appeared on Truth to Power

This is a great video from Alternative Hypothesis.

Racial diversity has a net negative impact on white people. This video serves up all the data which illustrates the total financial drain 'brown town' inflicts on Americans.

In nearly every way, non-whites take more than they give in our countries, functionially existing as parasites squeezing us for more and more of our resources until we barely have enough left to take care of our own.

Money that could be going toward colonizing Mars is instead being spent babysitting a dependant underclass of low-IQ third worlders. Human progress is being held back by our pathological desire to carry the world on our back.

It is a methematical certainty that Western civilizaiton will collapse under this burden if we continue being so charitable. Non-white populations continue to grow and show no sign of stopping.

Alternative Hypothesis is a great channel, highly recommended.

(Backup audio in case YouTube deletes this video)


The following is machine transcribed. There may be some errors.

Download the entire transcript as a PDF by clicking the down arrow.

You can listen with the audio player in the embedded transcript below. If the auto-scroll function is on (lower button, second from right), the text will match up with the audio. - Fiscal Impact by Race in the United States_lGpgvkf3THs.mp3 transcript powered by Sonix—easily convert your audio to text with Sonix. - Fiscal Impact by Race in the United States_lGpgvkf3THs.mp3 was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the latest audio-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors. Sonix is the best audio automated transcription service in 2020. Our automated transcription algorithms works with many of the popular audio file formats.

The U.S. federal government, state and local governments do not collect data on race and tax revenue, so the data I'm gonna be presenting here is based on multiple sources to come up with an estimate of net fiscal impact of races in the United States. The overall spending and revenue data includes state, federal and local tax revenue and spending from 2018. All data here is from 2018 unless otherwise stated. So first I will present what I define as the best estimate straight away and then I will explain how I got to these numbers table on the screen. So first you can see White's net fiscal effect are plus three hundred twelve billion blacks, minus six hundred sixty point seven billion Hispanics minus three hundred thirty four billion and Asians which are heterogeneous group two hundred ninety two point nine seven billion positive. In addition, if you took the white U.S. population and assigned to them the entire military budget, they would still run a small surplus. And you can see that on a table here with whites still running a surplus of fifty six point four billion. Even with all military assigned to them and this is a striking fact, whites in the US would be just barely running budget surpluses, even if all of the current military spending in absolute terms of the current U.S. federal government is assigned to whites. And as you will see, this takes into account the high Medicare and Social Security use of whites as well. So how did I come to this? Well, we don't have direct data on tax revenue by race from the federal government. However, there are private organizations that calculate tax revenue by income brackets.

And you can see that here.

And we also have government data on race and income bracket by roughly these brackets. They don't have the top 1 percent, but we can look at the top 5 percent distribution by race. So with these two pieces of data, wonderful. With this, we can estimate how much each race pays in taxes based on their percentages within each income bracket. And so here we have the total revenue estimated based on non interpolated. I'll get into that income bracket placement by race. Now you may be looking at this and go, wait a minute, aren't these numbers different than the ones I presented above? There are a little bit different, but they're pretty close. But yes, they are. And that's because this data isn't interpolated. The problem here is that if you look at the income distribution bracket distribution by race, these are very large chunks and we get the average proportions within each bracket. But we don't see the effects of, say, at the one percentile, the 86 percentile, et cetera. And so what a linear interpolation does is just filling in the gaps between the known and unknown data. And so here's a visual of the gaps between income bracket proportions. And so looking at that graph. It's almost certain that whites within each bracket, for example, have higher incomes than the blacks within the same brackets. This is because the black trend line is further down than the white one. And so unless there is some radical deviation from linearity, this downtrend will also exist within each of these brackets, not just between them.

And so whites within each bracket will be paying more taxes than blacks within each bracket. And so the linearly interpolated data looks like this. So by doing this, we get much more granulated estimates again. So as long as there's not a radical deviation from linearity between these points, this will give us a more accurate idea of tax revenue in the U.S.. And so by this method of a linear interpolation, the racial disparities in income tax revenue are increased somewhat. As you can see here and there's also an article linked in the description where you can just compare the tables at your leisure. And these results were smaller than I expected. Now, from here on, I'm just going to be using the interpolated revenue estimates. But as you'll see, the main conclusions and the big picture don't change very much. Now, some buddy might be asking, why are you using these income ranges? I just saw data breaking down the top 1 percent and the preceding 4 percent. Why don't you include that breakdown before interpolating? And again, the reason for this is that I don't have racial distributions in income down to the 1 percentile, or at least I have not been able to find any. So there we have revenue. Next we should look at government consumption in 2018. Whites were sixty point four percent of the population, but actually. Consumed sixty one point zero six percent of all government.

So this is higher consumption and is higher consumption of whites was driven entirely by Social Security and Medicare payments. So whites actually use slightly more government than their abortion. You could remove Social Security, both the taxes and the revenue from this equation. But since whites pay a similarly proportionate sheriffs' as Social Security taxes, the effects of doing this are going to be net negligible. And the reality is that Social Security is a form of welfare anyway. It's just paid for by taxes. The trust fund is bankrupt. It's reliant on tax revenues. So it is functionally just another tax and spend welfare program, regardless of what some politicians in the past said it would be. It doesn't matter how you sort of define it or draw boxes around things at the end of the day. People pay taxes. Social Security is just another tax. And then money goes back.

Money goes back in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, income, security, unemployment benefits and Social Security.

In addition, things like roads, defense administration, the DMV, all of this. I assume to be equally used by members of each race.

Now the government functions identified as a variable government that they would likely vary between the races. Are these law courts, police, prisons, public transit, welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? And these are the budgets of the government services and their usage by race sources in the description. How I came to the conclusion of usage by race for law, courts, police and prisons. That was fairly simple. I just looked at the prison population because to go to prison you're getting arrested by a cop and you're going through a court. And there may be some differential between individuals, how much court they use, how much police has to be used to send them to prison. But over millions of people, I assume it just washes out between the races and we can just use the prison population as a proxy for how much each race is using the law, courts, police and prisons. Now, usage of cops, courts and prisons by blacks may be seen as unfair because it's not necessarily a real service to blacks. However, this video is not about actual benefits to groups.

It's about the fiscal impact of groups and kind of like with education. The brutal fact is that blacks are costing more money by overloading these government agencies fairly or unfairly, whether they want to or not.

That's a discussion for another time. This is simply about the brute financial costs and so we can convert these percentile numbers into absolute numbers based on the budgets of each of these items. And you can see that here. And with this data, we can come up with assignment of government usage by race based on variable and then what I call equal government. And so here we have the fiscal impact with variable government and equal government breakdowns. And so from this we see that whites, despite constituting sixty point four percent of the population, make up 62 percent of variable government spending. And again, this is driven by Social Security and to a lesser extent by Medicare. The Social Security numbers also take into account SSI payments, which whites take proportionately less of. And this dampens how much whites overuse Social Security a little bit compared to other races. Whites use Social Security at a higher rate and they also have more benefits per person. But SSI transfers almost exactly offset the higher Social Security payout per person that whites use, and the result being that the total amount of money each race gets corresponds almost exactly with just the number receiving benefits.

I don't know if this is just some giant coincidence or this is by design. And so with all these pieces in place, we can finally look at the fiscal effects of each group. And this is the fiscal impact of racial groups in the United States is the table I showed at the beginning. I'll show it again. However, say blacks, Hispanics and Asians who are substantial contributors to the budget deficits or help reduce the budget deficit. As in the case of Asians say, they didn't exist in the US, that the US was just white people. Well, first off, the amount of income earned by whites in the US would probably be about the same. This is based on there being no relation to the percentage of non-whites in the state and the income of the whites in that state after adjusting for cost of living. And so we can look at white median real income in twenty seventeen again from twenty seventeen. Is most recent data I could find not twenty eighteen by state and percentage white and at least in twenty seventeen there was no relation.

Now this is a side, and an all white U.S. would be a more rural U.S. and this is sort of my justification of the cost of living. Adjustment here. So while the nominal GDP of this country would be right at about 14 trillion, the real GDP would be about fourteen point seven trillion in terms of what those dollars could purchase versus what current U.S. dollars could purchase, which is to say it's about 5 percent more, i.e. the dollar would be stronger because white people get more for their dollar because white people more often live in rural areas. And so if blacks, Hispanics and Asians didn't exist in the US, the dollar would be stronger, which isn't necessarily a good or bad thing in and of itself right there. Court costs and benefits to a strong or weak currency. And while this is irrelevant to current fiscal impact, since federal budgets are done on purely nominal terms, right. You pay taxes in based on how many dollars you earn and other factors, regardless of how much you can get with those dollars. Now an all white U.S. would be a rural shift, which means real GDP purchasing power parity would only decline by about twenty six point five percent, not 30 percent, even though nominal GDP would decline 30 percent.

And that is why it is justified to use the cost of living adjustments when looking at the effects of non-whites on white income. Before doing this, I was worried that there may be some relation between the presence of blacks and Hispanics and higher white incomes due to urbanites having higher incomes. This is also true in 90 plus percent white cities in Europe as well. The whites in the cities make more than the whites in the countryside, in cities that are almost entirely white anyway. And so I was worried that I have to point out that we don't know if it's causal because it could just be the effects of urban incomes. But luckily, there is no relation. Thank goodness. And so this isn't even an issue that we have to deal with. So but the point is that there is no boost to white incomes by the presence of blacks and Hispanics or as far as we know, Asians, some white people gain from having cheap labor, some lose.

But on balance, the effect is nil, which means it is appropriate to simply add and subtract the fiscal impact of these groups in sort of a hypothetical. Of course, in the real world, if all Hispanics, blacks and Asians were just instantly, you know, disappeared from the current U.S., there would be enormous economic problems because the economy would have all these holes constituting about 40 percent of the labor force. I'm simply saying that this is approximately what the US economy would be like if those people were never in the US at all. And the economy developed with just white people. It would be smaller but wealthier per person. Real estate would be about 30 percent cheaper. Given that 30 percent of the purchasing power has been disappeared, but there's still just as much land, and so land would presumably be that much cheaper, 30 percent cheaper, and rent would presumably also be roughly 30 percent less. It would be much less crowded, working class wages would be higher and the wealthiest wouldn't be as wealthy due to not having as much cheap labor wage. Labor or the working class would be in a better bargaining position because there's less of them because whites have a higher capital to labor ratio than blacks or Hispanics in the US.

In short, the US would look a lot more like Denmark. So let's look at the budget of white America. I don't for a moment believe white America would spend less on military in absolute terms than it does today. Since all racial groups in the US about equally favor the military spending, right? Militarism in the US is a pan racial attitude. So would white America still run a balanced budget even if military spending was maintained at the same absolute level? Not the same relative level, the same absolute levels above eight hundred something billion. And the answer is yes. Put in the current military budget as it stands. Everything else was reduced proportionately to the white population for the equal government, and the variable government was reduced as defined previously. But just keeping the military, not reducing it at all. Whites would still be running a budget surplus, but there's even more to this in 2018. Interest payments on the national debt were four hundred thirty three point seven billion. If blacks and Hispanics didn't exist in the USA starting in 1950, based on current information, there would be a smaller national debt and thus lower interests today.

Obviously, some of that debt was a function of World War One, World War 2 and the New Deal. So it's not like there would be no national debt and white America, but it would be less to some degree that I haven't quantified. Just as an experiment, because a lot of people may have problems with my interpellation thing or my breakdown of of government usage. Let's see how much these results with all the work I did and all the breakdowns I did, how much they differ from a much simpler method of justice.

Being equal government for everything, no breakdowns for welfare or public service or Social Security. And just assume each race uses government at the same rate and then use the non interpolated data on tax revenue. Don't make any assumptions about what's between the bars, just, you know, weight the bars and kind of a dumb Grug line. So this is what I call the Grug analysis that assumes equal government and non interpolated revenue and the results are fairly similar.

Hispanics come out looking a bit worse and whites and Asians come out looking quite a bit worse and whites come out looking a little bit worse. Blacks come out looking a little bit better. So all of my deeper analysis actually doesn't yield results meaningfully different from just using non interpolated tax revenue and then just assuming equal government usage for everyone.

So it's telling that even with this debt that was in part it accrued by deficits caused by blacks and Hispanics. White America would still be running a budget surplus while not cutting the military one cent. And while Asians substantially contribute to the budget, they are not necessary for balanced budgets. Whites can do that on their own, even with whites bloated bill, military budget, even with bloated white usage of social security benefits and Medicare. Even with all that taken into account, whites still for all their foibles would be running a surplus. So to all the conservative deficit hawks who say we need to run balanced budgets, well, I have news for you. We already are. We as in white people already are. The entire budget deficit, along with some proportion of the national debt itself, is a function of black and Hispanic populations. The net effect of these two populations, even after taking away all military spending assigned to them, costs the US eight hundred twenty two point five billion per year. Keep in mind that some proportion of black and Hispanic incomes itself comes from blacks and Hispanics in the military.

So more of these people means this number goes up. It is very expensive to have these people in your country and countries made up entirely or almost entirely of these people have constant financial problems. Discussions about Hispanic countries center around debt, currency devaluations. The IMF and African countries also centered around those same things. But they also have. In addition, African countries have lots of discussions about foreign aid and emergency relief. The same kinds of discussions that you have with blacks in the US. That's what countries made up entirely of these people look like. And it doesn't matter if their constitution is virtually a carbon copy of the United States's, as in the case of Liberia. It doesn't matter or if they went to U.S. schools or if they're in France or the UK. For example, blacks have similar fiscal impacts in France and the UK as well. Whenever you interact with these people within a country or internationally, it's going to cost you lots and lots of money, going to cost you trillions. And while I'm one of those horrible people who thinks these differences are down to genes, that's the most parsimonious explanation for these things transcending time and space all throughout history. This was true. And in all countries, this is true. Fine. You don't want to believe that.

Ok. Well, practically speaking, it's still relevant because it has proven to be unchangeable. We have not been able to change this fact thus far. And this is why immigration needs to be stopped, not legal, illegal.

Any of that stuff. But immigration period needs to be stopped. Or at least this is just one of the reasons immigration needs to be stopped. And that reason is the economic health of the United States.

If you care.

Automatically convert your audio files to text with Sonix. Sonix is the best online, automated transcription service.

Sonix uses cutting-edge artificial intelligence to convert your mp3 files to text.

Create and share better audio content with Sonix. Automated transcription is much more accurate if you upload high quality audio. Here's how to capture high quality audio. Create better transcripts with online automated transcription. Automated transcription can quickly transcribe your skype calls. All of your remote meetings will be better indexed with a Sonix transcript. Get the most out of your audio content with Sonix. Here are five reasons you should transcribe your podcast with Sonix. Automated transcription is getting more accurate with each passing day. Are you a podcaster looking for automated transcription? Sonix can help you better transcribe your podcast episodes.

Sonix uses cutting-edge artificial intelligence to convert your mp3 files to text.

Sonix is the best online audio transcription software in 2020—it's fast, easy, and affordable.

If you are looking for a great way to convert your audio to text, try Sonix today.