California and its Demographic Contents (Thesis #7)

Before we explore the statistics regarding the huge demographic transformation of California, I’d like to make one thing crystal clear. Statistics do not account for the hardships that individuals face and I do not pretend that they do. There is a lot that goes into the trends and outcomes that warrant further discussion, but are not a part of this particular article. Here, I am merely showing what is statistically accounted for regarding the current state of California’s demography and where the trends suggest it is going. Therefore, this article is descriptive and not normative or emotive. That is, I do not say what ought to be, I only say what is.

Figure A

In 40 years, California transformed from a White-Black State into a diverse cosmopolitan State where the foreign-born account for one-quarter of the population and Hispanics are the plurality. The sheer population of the State grew quickly and those who made up the increase were largely Hispanic and Asian. From 1980-2019, the population increased from 23.7 million to an estimated 39.5 million, an increase of 15.8 million or 66.9%. In comparison, from 1980 to 2019 the United States population increased from 226.5 million to roughly 328.2 million, an increase of about 101.7 million or 44.9%. The population growth of the State of California not only outpaced the national average, but is home to more foreign-born, Hispanics and Asians than the rest of the Nation. The hard figures show that California is racially, ethnically and culturally diverse right now and the trends supporting that declaration show no signs of reversing.

Figure B

The story of the new California (and Unite States) begins with the 1965 Immigration Act. The Act shed the national quota system, which discriminated, as a process, based on national origin- and therefore race. The Act prohibited discrimination based on national origin, and therefore race, in favor of a system based on family ties, firstly, and merit, secondly. This is the system we have today.

The architects of the Act did not foresee that their legislation would usher in a new era of immigration from the Americas and Asia. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) said, “Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ...” [1] Senator Hiram Fong (R-HI) said, “Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned." [2] President Lyndon B. Johnson said, “This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives." [3] They were wrong. Despite their certainty, this Act affected the “ethnic mix” and “cultural pattern” of the Nation profoundly. Californian (and American) society underwent a gradual transformation that is fresh to our acknowledgement, dynamic and enduring. [4]

From immigration and successful homemaking, this transformation is baked into the future of the State. The California Department of Finance estimates that by 2060 the California population will be: 45.6% Hispanic, 23.5% White, 21.9% Asian, 5.6% Black and 4% multiracial. However, given data on the current multi-racial population size, its recent growth, and the shown increase in interracial marriages among 2nd generation Americans living in diverse communities (like California), we can assume that the multi-racial population will constitute much more than just 4% of the population. That is an aside. In total, the general demographic trends show that a new California is here to stay. [5]

The Bay Area is a microcosm of that new California. From 1980 to 2010, the Bay Area population grew from 5.18 million to 7.15 million, representing a gross increase of 1.97 million or 38%. The Asian population in 1980 of 438,000 increased to 1.69 million in 2010, representing a gross increase of 1.25 million or 285%. The Hispanic population in 1980 of 633,000 increased to 1.68 million in 2010, representing a gross increase of 1.05 million, or 166%. The White population in 1980 of 3.6 million decreased to 3 million in 2010, representing a gross decrease of 600,000, or 17%. The Black population in 1980 of 460,000 stayed almost the same, rising slightly to 516,000 in 1990, but returning to roughly 460,000 in 2010. The White and Black populations are decreasing, at least as a share, while the Asian and Hispanic populations are increasing both as a share and as a gross figure. This trend occurs statewide and is likely to continue. [6]

Figure C: CA 2020 % Child Population by Race/Ethnicity.

K-12 Data

The demographic trends will endure. The Californian K-12 student body is increasingly Hispanic and Asian and decreasingly White and Black. Of the 6.2 million students accounted for in the 2014 ethnicity report, there were 3.34 million Hispanics, 1.53 million Whites, 635,000 Asians and 373,000 Blacks. Of the 6.16 million students accounted for in the 2019 ethnicity report, there were 3.38 million Hispanics (up 1.2%), 1.38 million Whites (down 9.8%), 748,000 Asians (up 17.8%) and 324,000 Blacks (down 13.1%). Per K-12 data, the White and Black populations are decreasing while the Asian and Hispanic populations are increasing. Notably, the number of Asian students rose exceptionally quickly, growing by 113,000 or 17.8% in just 5 years. “The children are the future” and with respect to demographic trends this is especially true. [7]

Figure D

The transformation is occurring nation-wide, but to a less intense degree. In his 2018 distinguished lecture for the American Education Research Association, Dr. William Trent said: “The demographic change is real. The demographic imperative has happened. We now have a growing list of counties in America that are majority minority. First grade across the nation is majority minority. We’re not going to change that. That is going to happen and continue to happen.” [8] Indeed, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) show that 2014 was the last year when Whites constituted 50% or more of children age 5 and younger. Additionally, Whites constituted 50.3% of children between the ages of 5 and 17 in 2019- the lowest percentage share on record. In comparison, Whites constituted 72.4% and 74.6% of the same two age groups, respectively, in 1980. This change is exceptional and clear. [9]

The minority is no longer the minority. The phrase majority-minority captures the misconception that the American composition today is what it was 40, 20 and even 10 years ago. Especially in California, the new demographic reality is diverse with Whites, Hispanics and Asians each constituting a large share of the population. For these reasons, the minority-majority phraseology is inadequate. It's about time we recognize that. Some basic indicators suggest that the demographic growth and socio-economic advancement of Asians and Hispanics, in particular, foretell a prosperous future of racial and ethnic diversity well in excess of the State’s (and Nation’s) cultural, social, economic and political past. These nation-wide trends are even more intense in California. [10]

Foreign-born Population Trends

The racial/ethnic composition of the foreign-born- an overwhelmingly adult-aged constituency- contributes to the idea that that the boom in diversity is also cosmopolitan. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, there were about 11 million immigrants living in California in 2019, representing about 27% of the total population. Furthermore, Migration Policy Institute data show that 77.6% of the foreign-born are between the ages of 18 and 64, while only 4% are between the ages of 1 and 17. In contrast, 29.6% of the native-born are between the ages of 1-17 and 57.5% are between the ages of 18 and 64. This indicates that the foreign-born were raised in different cultural and social milieus and not simply born elsewhere and raised the United States. We may safely assume that immigrants import the ways and views from their home nations. Therefore, we may also safely claim that California is cosmopolitan. Figure E illustrates that California is uniquely so constituted with nearly double the national rate of foreign-born residents. [11][12]

The Migration Policy Institute further breaks down the 11 million immigrants’ Nations of origin: 5.3 million Americas (excluding Canada)(53%), 4.2 million Asia (38%), 684,336 Europe, and 202,449 Africa. By contrast, the foreign-born population stood at 6.46 million in 1990, 86.9% of whom came from the Americas (52.6%) and Asia (32.3%). Therefore, the foreign-born population grew by 4.4 million from 1990 to 2019, representing an increase of 71.5%. Given that the total Californian population increased by 15.8 million from 1990-2019, a growth of 52.8%, then the foreign-born immigration (including intrastate) outpaced overall growth by 18.7% and, in addition, constituted 28% of the total population growth. The foreign-born are partly responsible for the large State-wide population increase and diversification, including the gradual replacement of the White and Black populations. [13]

Figure E

Figure F shows that the latest immigrants hail primarily from Asian Nations. The above data show that immigrants are overwhelmingly adult-aged. University admissions and enrollment data (below) reflect this development. So, (1) there is an increase in mature immigrants applying to and enrolling in California’s institutions of higher education and (2) there was a dramatic increase in the total number of Asian K-12 students. These data points show that the increase in the Asian population (native- and foreign-born) is robust, likely to produce high-skilled workers and will endure into the foreseeable future.

Figure F

All in all, the total Californian population is growing, but the White and Black populations are not responsible for it. Immigration data show that Hispanics and Asians constitute the large majority of the additional (and replacement) population. K-12 data and census data show that the racial/ethnic composition of the youth is hedging more and more toward an even more significant growth in the Asian and Hispanic populations. [14]

Higher Educational Attainment Correlates Positively with Higher Median Wages and Lower Unemployment Rates

Higher educational attainment data show two significant trends: (1) Asians and Hispanics are achieving high levels of success in terms of higher educational attainment, and (2) because high educational attainment correlates with higher chances of economic success, then the likelihood of significant socio-economic advancement among Asians and Hispanics is high. [15]

Higher educational attainment is positively correlated with a low rate of unemployment and a higher median income. 2019 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data on the educational attainment of the civilian 25-years-and-older population, show that only 2.1% of the persons with a Bachelor’s degree and higher are unemployed. From that level of educational attainment downward, the unemployment rate rises: some college 3%, high school degree 3.7% and less than high school 5.4%. Further, as figure G clearly shows, higher educational attainment correlates with higher median wages. [16]

Figure G

California University Admittance and Enrollment Data

The political environment surrounding university admittance and enrollment is hostile and polarizing. Proposition 16 on the California 2020 ballot proposes to rescind Proposition 209 (1996), which prohibited racial and other discriminatory policies in admissions and government contract selection processes. Proposition 209 is like the Immigration Act of 1965, because it ended racial discrimination in processes which were qualitatively and quantitatively racially discriminatory. The data show that Proposition 209 did not result in admissions that disproportionately favored White applicants- the presumption of the lay. In fact, after the prohibition of racial discrimination in 1996, the UC and CSU systems’ admissions and enrollment data reflect the broader macro-demographic trends. Absent racial animus (purportedly), admissions and enrollment favored Hispanic, Asian and International applicants the most. [17]

According to the University of California’s (UC) database, the UC student body is mostly Asian, White and Hispanic. The UC student body grew from 178,295 to 285,066 from 2000 to 2019. That growth represents a 59.9% increase in the student body. [18] The change in the student body is no less striking than the demographic change in the State. Knowing that earning a bachelor’s degree corresponds positively with higher wages and lower unemployment rates, then we need not focus on one or another university’s admission rates and enrollment data. Instead, we can look at the whole of the UC system data. Indeed, we can also supplement the UC data with California State University (CSU) data. This will allow us to see which populations will be less likely to be unemployed and more likely to be higher paid. [19]

Table 1

There are three important observations from table 1 above. One, Asians and Hispanic* constitute the greatest number of applicants. Two, Asians and Hispanics are the most admitted applicants. Three, the rate of growth in applications was extremely high among international applicants, high among Hispanics, African Americans and Asians and moderately high among Whites- but comparatively, the White growth rate was less than a third of the Black growth rate and less than a fifth of the Hispanic growth rate.

Table 2 below illustrates these observations as well. Note that Black admission rates dropped the most and that International admission rates were the only to rise.

Table 2

There was a decrease in the admission rate across every statistical category except International. As you can see in Figures H and I, prior to 2006 International admittees never constituted more than 2% share of the total admittances. But by 2019 they constituted 17.1% of all admittances. The change is very recent.

From 2006-2019, International admittances grew by an average annual growth rate of 22.9%, realizing a total growth of 1160%. No discussion of university demographic trends can ignore this tremendous change. Although isolated to university towns, this intake of international persons- the majority of whom are of an Asian origin- is further evidence of California’s present and future cosmopolitanism and diversity (especially cultural). Observe how the admittance figures converge, especially as a share among Asian, Latino, White and International admittees. Likewise, as a monument to the change, the Asian and Hispanic admissions figures surpassed White admissions figures in 2010 and 2016, respectively. That is, more Asians and Hispanics are getting into UCs than Whites. The trend will continue.

Figure H

Figure I

Now let’s take a look at the changes in the UC student body from 2000-2019.

Table 3

Demographic educational attainment trends foretell great fortune among the Asian and Hispanic populations. From 2000 to 2019, the gross number of undergraduate Asian students grew from 49,000 to 75,600, but dropped from 34.8% to 33.4% as a share of the total student body. That is, unless international undergraduate students are considered a a part of that contingent. Since 26,900 of the international students are from China, 2,100 from Korea, 1,480 from Taiwan, 600 from Indonesia and 600 from Japan, that represents an additional 31,680 students of an Asian origin. That brings up the total number of Asian undergraduate students from 75,600 to 107,280, or 47.4% of the undergraduate student body. [20][21]

International graduate students are similarly composed. Of the 16,941 International graduate students 12,716 or 75% hail primarily from a country in Asia: 7,862 China, 2,602 India, 786 S. Korea, 733 Taiwan, 228 Japan, 150 Bangladesh, 123 Thailand, 107 Singapore, 101 Vietnam, 90 Indonesia, 43 Malaysia, 39 Nepal, 29 Kazakhstan, and 29 Philippines. The sum of the Asian and International graduate students of an Asian origin is 23,805, representing 40.4% of the total graduate student body. Together, the total Asian student body is 131,085 or 46% of the UC student body. In comparison, of the 9,024 International students enrolled in 2000, 5,416 or 60% were of an Asian origin. Therefore, 60,696 of the 178,723 total student body, representing 34%, was of an Asian origin in 2000. Altogether, the Asian student body grew from 60,696 to 131,085 or 116% over the 19-year period.

Indeed, the tremendous performance of Asians is reflected in national figures as well. Figure J shows that Asians have been a higher achieving population as long as the figures are available. This data suggest that the effect of achievement is compounding and is very likely to endure.

Figure J

Of the 368,468 CSU students enrolled in 2000, 62,415 or 17% were Asian. Of the 22,123 International students, 6,278 were of an Asian origin. Therefore, 68,693 were of an Asian origin representing 18.6% of the total student body. Of the 481,929 CSU students enrolled in 2019, 75,672 or 15.7% were Asian. Of the 16,122 International students, 10,416 were of an Asian origin. Therefore, 86,088 were of an Asian origin representing 17.9% of the total student body. Together, the UC and CSU Asian student bodies totaled 129,389 or 23.6% of the total in 2000 and 217,173 or 28.3% of the total in 2019. [22]

The growth of the Hispanic student body occurred more recently than the growth of the Asian student body. While the Asian growth was steady, the Hispanic growth accelerated from 2006 on. This indicates that UC enrollment in the 2000s began to reflect the immigration trends of the 1980s and 1990s. From 2000-2019, the UC system Hispanic undergraduate student body grew from 17,328 to 55,971, or 38,643 students representing an increase of 223%. As a share of the total undergraduate student body, Hispanic representation increased from 12.3% to 23.5%. Hispanic graduate student enrollment increased from 2,372 to 6,182, representing a growth of 160.6%. As a share of the total graduate student body, Hispanic representation increased from 6.3% to 9.1%. From 2000 to 2019, the Hispanic student body increased from 19,700 or 11% to 61,153 or 21.8% of the total student body. Together, the Hispanic student body grew 215.4% over the 19-year period. [23]

CSU data from 2000 to 2019 show an even more impressive growth in Hispanic student enrollment. In 2000, 73,097 of the 368,468 CSU student body were Hispanic, representing 19.8%. In 2019, 207,441 of the 481,929 CSU student body were Hispanic, representing 43%. From 2000 to 2019, the Hispanic student body increased by 134,344, representing a growth of 183.8%. Therefore, in 2000, there were 92,797 Hispanic students in the UC and CSU systems, representing 17% of the total student bodies. In 2019, there were 268,595 Hispanic students in the UC and CSU systems, representing 35% of the total student bodies. Hispanic enrollment in California public university tripled over the 19-year period. The trend shows a quick, substantial and enduring advancement among Hispanics.

Observe Table 4 to see how the different racial/ethnic contingents were represented in the CSU and UC data set next to the corresponding state-wide demographic data. [24] Note that the White share of the student body decreased well beyond the rate of decrease in the general population. In fact, the White student body went from being 86,168 and 122,760 students more than the Asian and Hispanic student bodies, respectively, to 42,024 and 93,446 students less than the Asian and Hispanic student bodies, respectively. Further, note that the rate of increase in the Black student body rose slightly higher than the Black rate of increase in the general population. Note also that the Black share of the general population and the Black share of the total UC/CSU student bodies decreased. Altogether, White representation is falling, Black representation is steady, Asian representation is rising in tow with general population growth and Hispanic representation is rising astronomically in tow with the great immigration from 1980 to 2004.

Table 4

Postsecondary Enrollment Data

When we expand our exploration of higher education data to include all postsecondary education, we find the same trends. Postsecondary education is a broad term applied to 4-year and 2-year public and private educational institutions that are for-profit or not-for-profit and need not confer bachelor degrees. The data is important because it shows that the demographic trends pervade even in the intermediary higher educational institutions like community colleges and city colleges. Enrollment figures in such institutions show the potential energy among the racial/ethnic contingents for future growth. The data show huge gains in Hispanic and International (“Nonresident Alien”) enrollment.

Figure K

*Read Figures K, L, M, N, O Right To Left*

Figure K shows that California K-12 enrollment (see Figure D) extends into California postsecondary enrollment. The Asian share of the enrollment is surprising considering the increase in sheer population size. That is, if we don’t count the “nonresident alien” category, which, if the UC and CSU data extends to other institutions, then the majority will be of an Asian origin. In that case, Asian enrollment would closely approach White enrollment. Considering the delayed reflection of Hispanic enrollment after decades of large immigration and how Asian K-12 enrollment rose significantly and quickly, it is likely that Asian enrollment as a total share will likely manifest in a decade or two.

Black and White postsecondary enrollment decreased steadily from 2008 to 2018. This data is consistent with CSU/UC data concerning the quick and substantial fall in White enrollment. However, Black enrollment rose in the CSU/UC system and fell as a total share of secondary enrollment. Child population data helps explain why this occurred. The White child population decreased by an estimated 1,012,814 or 28.5% between 1980 and 2010. However, the black child population decreased by an estimated 98,662 or 15.9% between 1980 and 2010. (See Addendum One) It follows that there are fewer Black and White student-aged persons eligible and likely to enroll in postsecondary institutions.

The demographic trends in California are far less observable in other States that are considered diverse like New York, but are still visible in westward states like New Mexico, Texas and Nevada. Figures L, M, N and O show postsecondary enrollment in New York, New Mexico, Texas and Nevada, respectively. In New York, Hispanic enrollment rose to the second most accounted for racial/ethnic contingent, but it did not get close to intersecting the White population. However, Hispanic enrollment figures intersected and surpassed White enrollment in New Mexico (2008), California (2011) and Texas (2016). In Nevada, Hispanic enrollment will soon intersect White enrollment. Indeed, while White enrollment dropped 30% from 2010-2018, the Hispanic enrollment rose 223% from 2002-2018 (31.8% from 2010-2018). The “demographic imperative” is more evident in States like California, New Mexico, Texas and Nevada. While the demographic transformation took upwards of 55 years, the evidence shows that demographic diversity is baked into the Nation’s future. [25]

Figure L

Figure M

Figure N

Figure O

First-Generation & Future-Generation Compounding Success

First-generation educational attainment is a strong indicator of future generational success. Of the 178,723 UC students enrolled in Fall 2000, 26,841 (15%) were first-generation. Note though, that nearly 70,000 (49%) students were unaccounted for in that statistic. Of the 229,108 UC students enrolled in Fall 2010, 69,371 (39%) were first-generation. Note though, that nearly 13,142 (7%) students were unaccounted for in that statistic. Of the 285,216 UC students enrolled in Fall 2019, 90,983 (40%) were first-generation (all accounted for). Additionally, of the 481,929 students enrolled in the CSU system, roughly 149,000 (31%) were first-generation and an additional 110,800 (21%) are planning to be the first in their family to earn a bachelor’s degree (that is, a parent attended "some college"). In 2019, Hispanics constituted 49.3% of the total CSU First-Time Freshman enrollment, with the other racial/ethnic contingents rounding out the figure: Blacks 4.1%, Asians 15.5% and Whites 19.6%. [26]

The U.S. Department of Education 2018 “First-Generation Students” report tracks select cohorts of students as they progressed in the education system. The data show that first-generation college students dropped out of university at a higher rate than students whose parents had earned a bachelor’s degree, 33% compared to 14%, respectively. Therefore, when first-generation students graduate, they effectively make their children more likely to graduate ("persist"). Given the general demographic trends and the huge increase in the Hispanic first-generation student bodies- many of whom graduate- then Hispanics will increasingly attend university and graduate at a higher rate. Likewise, Hispanics will be unemployed less often and earn higher wages. [27]

Higher educational attainment leads to even higher educational attainment among successor generations. The Department of Education 2018 report also found that 10% of the students who earned a bachelor’s degree and whose parents earned a bachelor’s degree, enrolled in advanced degree programs (PhD/JD) compared to 4% among those who were first-generation. Therefore, consistent with the data above, California will continue to see more and more Hispanic, and to an even greater degree more Asian, advanced degree holding residents. The demographic and educational trends are compounding.

BLS nation-wide data also show that high educational attainment was already a feature of the Asian population (see Figure P and Figure J). If the trends continue, then Asians will continue to outperform all other racial/ethnic categories in educational attainment and socio-economic advancement. Given the correlating data, Asians are and will be a large contributing force to the Californian economy, society, culture and politics for many years to come. Further, per K-12, CSU/UC and postsecondary data, the Hispanic lag in higher educational attainment will shore up very quickly (see Figure P and Figure J).

Figure P

High School Completion Rates are Converging

High School completion, like undergraduate completion, lowers the likelihood of unemployment and increases the likelihood of earning a higher wage. High school dropout and graduation rates show great improvements among all racial/ethnic contingents. From 2009-2016 total dropout rates consistently fell from 16.6% to 9.7%. In the same period, graduation rates rose from 74.7% to 83.8%. In 2009, dropout and graduation rates per racial/ethnic contingent were: African American/Black 26.7%/60.5%, Hispanic/Latino 20.8%/68.1%, Asian 7.2%/89% and White 10.7%/83.5%. In 2016, the advance was significant in each racial/ethnic contingent: African American/Black 17%/72.9%, Hispanic/Latino 11.5%/80.5%, Asian 3.4%/93.7% and White 6.8%/88.9%.

Figure P

Each contingent improved, but Hispanics and Blacks improved the most. Despite the decrease in the number of Black Children and Black K-12 students, there was a steady increase in academic achievement. This helps explain why there was a gross increase in the Black UC/CSU student body. Further, the great increase in the number of Hispanic children, K-12 students and steadily improved dropout/graduation rates, help explain why Hispanics are enrolling in postsecondary institutions at so high a rate. Figure P shows the national high school completion rates among the racial/ethnic contingents and shows a lag in the Hispanic figure. Accounted for in that statistic are all of the foreign-born Hispanics age 25 and over who did not grow up in the American education system. That said, the data explored in this article show that the Hispanic population is set up for great compounding successes.

Whites and Asians continued to dropout at a lower rate and graduate at a higher rate. Sustained high rates of high school completion among Whites and Asians help explain why both populations continue to represent a large share of the total CSU/UC admissions and enrollment data. Indeed, it is totally unsurprising that in 2019, Asians and Whites together accounted for 52.5% of the total California population and 51.1% of the total UC/CSU student bodies. It is also unsurprising that in 2000, Asians and Whites together accounted for 63% of the total California population and 58% of the total UC/CSU student bodies. The White part of that figure is responsible for the decrease over the 19-year period. White success rates will continue, but White constituency will decrease as a gross figure and fall as a share of the total. Asian success rates will continue to exceed any and all other racial/ethnic contingents, increase as a gross figure and rise as a share of the total. [28]

California Government Civil Service Workforce Demography, 2010-2018

A common litmus test for racial/ethnic advancement and integration is to glance at (statistically uncontrolled) outcomes. So, is the corporation or government racially/ethnically diverse now and what trends show reform? Although this study focused on education data to prove the occurrence of a demographic transformation and its future prospects, the California government civil service workforce reflects the transformation as well. Since at least 2010, the California government employs more nonwhites than whites.

The California Department of Human Resources 2010, 2014 and 2018 Annual Census of Employees show that the broader demographic trend of California is reflected in the composition of the civil service workforce. Of the 220,079 civil servants in 2010: 46.6% were White, 32.3% were Hispanic, 12.4% were Asian, 6% were Black and 2.6% were “all others,” representing a White/Nonwhite differential of 6.8. Of the 210,449 civil servants in 2014, 46.1% were White and 53.9% were Non-White, representing a differential of 7.8. Of the 216,910 civil servants in 2018, 42.5% were White, while 57.5% were Non-White, representing a differential of 15. The gap widened and will continue to widen while adhering to nondiscrimination laws. [29]

(See Addendum Two for racial/ethnic distribution data of three big name private institutions with headquarters in the Bay Area.)

Final Remarks

The Census Bureau data show that there was a demographic transformation. The K-12 data and Census data show that the demographic transformation is enduring. The UC, CSU and total postsecondary enrollment data show that the future is especially bright among the Asian and Hispanic populations. The California government Employees Annual Census data proves that the government workforce is already majority non-white and continues to diversify (in racial/ethnic terms).

The story of California’s transformation from 1965 to today, especially 1980 to today, is an invigorating one! However, there is much which ails this State and Nation, so I have no doubt that the cliché holds true, “there is still much to do.” So, before we consider anything like an old policy, we have to understand the new reality. [30]

To reiterate Dr. Trent’s own words, “The demographic imperative has happened… and [will] continue to happen.” In this article we reviewed the demographic data which proves that the State (and to a lesser extent the Nation) underwent a recent and significant demographic transformation. The data also prove that California is diverse and cosmopolitan right now and will continue to trend in that direction. [31]

Legal discrimination did not usher in this new era of diversity, cosmopolitanism and socio-economic advance. Rather, this new era was ushered in by the prohibition of legal discrimination. Enshrined in Federal law by the Immigration Act of 1965 and enshrined in State law by Proposition 209 (1996), shared success and advancement blossomed absent legal racial animus. [32]

---

Footnotes

[1] Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). "The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act: Three Decades of Mass Immigration." September 1, 1995. https://cis.org/Report/Legacy-1965-Immigration-Act Citation: U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.

[2] CIS. "The Legacy..." 1995. Citation: U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965, pp.71, 119.

[3] ibid.

[4] As Rep. Philip Burton (D-CA) said in Congress: "Just as we sought to eliminate discrimination in our land through the Civil Rights Act, today we seek by phasing out the national origins quota system to eliminate discrimination in immigration to this nation composed of the descendants of immigrants." ibid: Congressional Record, Aug. 25, 1965, p. 21783.

[5] Gretchen Livingston and Anna Brown. "Intermarriage in the U.S. 50 Years After Loving v. Virginia: One-in-six newlyweds are married to someone of a different race or ethnicity." Pew Research Center. May 18, 2017. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/05/18/intermarriage-in-the-u-s-50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/

If anyone embodies the doctrine of diversity, inclusion and cosmopolitanism, it is a multi-racial population born to families with foreign-born parents or grandparents.

[6] Bay Area Census: San Francisco Bay Area: census 2000 SF1, SF3, DP1-DP4, Census 2010 DP-1, American Community Survey 2006-2010; http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm

[7] California Department of Education. Data & Statistics: CalEdFacts.

https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp

[8] William T. Trent. “Interrogating Segregation, its Complexities and Consequences for Public Education.” AERA Distinguished Lecture: William Trent; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-Urbana, April 14, 20018. Published by American Educational Research Association, May 28, 2018. 244 views as of 09Sep2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puVn3p-swok

[9] National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): Digest of Education Statistics. Table 101:20, "Estimates of resident population, by race/ethnicity and age group: Selected years, 1980 through 2019." https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_101.20.asp?current=yes

[10] The transformation of the racial/ethnic composition of the student-aged population did not affect the spending trajectory of the American Government (Federal, State or Local). According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), per capita spending on education ranks 3rd, outpacing the likes of the United Kingdom, Sweden, The Netherlands, Iceland, Germany, Denmark, Canada, Belgium, Austria and Australia. In higher education per capita spending, the U.S. ranks second behind Luxembourg, the richest country per capita in the world. There is an increased investment in the children and they are majority non-White. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx

NCES: Digest of Education Statistics. Table 605.10, "Gross domestic product per capita and expenditures on education institutions per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student, by level of education and country: Selected years, 2005 through 2016."

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_605.10.asp?current=yes

[11] Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). "Immigrants in California." Just the Facts. https://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in-california/#:~:text=California%20is%20home%20to%20almost,the%20rest%20of%20the%20country

[12] Migration Policy Institute. Immigration Data Profiles: California, 1990-2018.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-profiles/state/demographics/CA

[13] Ibid.

Additionally, David A. Gerber wrote in American Immigration: A Very Short Introduction (2011): "Between 2000 and 2006 alone, approximately 7.9 million immigrants, an estimated 3,7 million of whom were unauthorized, entered the United States. In those years, the total immigrant population residing in the United States equaled about 35.2 million people, which was was approximately 2.5 times larger than in 1910…” 86

[14] Although it goes beyond the scope of this article, it is logical to assume that with higher educational attainment and higher economic successes, then Asians and Hispanics will participate more often in the political process. With high achievement, individuals are conferred honor and status. With these factors in mind, Asians and Hispanics will be bestowed the honor of representing a large portion of the people in municipal, county, State and National government. The California State Assembly is already quite diverse (in racial/ethnic terms).

[15] David A. Gerber. American Immigration: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2011. 131

Encouragingly, Gerber writes, “When Mexican Americans and native whites are at the same level of educational attainment, there is virtual parity in family income.”

[16] Elka Torpey, "Measuring the value of education," Career Outlook, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, April 2018. https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/education-pays.htm#:~:text=Median%20weekly%20earnings%20in%202017,weekly%20earnings%20for%20all%20workers.

[16] "California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020)" Ballotpedia. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)

[17] University of California. Fall Enrollment at a Glance.

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/fall-enrollment-glance

[18] For purposes of statistics, the undergraduate degree is the correlating factor. The university does not matter regardless if its towers are made of ivory, marble, cement, wood or straw. The UC system as a whole is rather prestigious. All 9 UCs are ranked in the 2020 USNews best university rankings and of 6 of the 9 are ranked in the top 40. (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities?schoolName=University+of+California) Not only is the correlation with a bachelor’s degree strong, but the quality of the entire UC system is very good. There are likely average differences in the outcomes among graduates from the lower tier to the higher tier universities, but those statistics are not obviously significant for the purpose of the study here.

[19] I count the International students of an Asian origin in the Asian student body total, because (1) the immigration data show a recent increase in Asian immigrants right around the time the UC system increased admission and enrollment of International students; (2) given that fewer immigrants are returning to their home countries and that the Bay Area is home to 20 of the 25 highest paying corporations in the United States, we can well assume that a large portion of university graduates will stay and make California their home. Therefore, they will be highly paid and highly valuable residents. I already know, “mi casa es su casa,” but I should probably learn the Mandarin and Hindi versions.

See the following Pew Research Article on the increased likelihood of International students staying in the United States after graduating: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2018/05/10/number-of-foreign-college-students-staying-and-working-in-u-s-after-graduation-surges/

[20] Some experts claim that the U.S. and China are in a cold war (or will be soon). The Thucydidean dilemma is apparently upon us. Namely, when a Nation’s hegemony is challenged by a rising Nation, the challenged Nation must answer the question: do we end the rise before it is too late? Nonetheless, the UC system currently enrolls 26,912 Chinese undergraduate students, representing 11.5% of the total undergraduate student body.

[21] The California State University. State-Supported Enrollment. https://tableau.calstate.edu/views/SelfEnrollmentDashboard/EnrollmentSummary?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:display_count=no&:showVizHome=no

[22] International students from countries of an American origin do not represent a significant share in both undergraduate or graduate enrollment. For example, in 2000 there were 170 Mexican and 68 Chilean students and in 2019 there were 366 and 177, respectively. Indeed, there was an increase, but as a share of the total student body the figures are not noteworthy.

[23] White: UC 2000 71,087 +CSU 2000 144,470 = 215,557 (39.4%); White UC 2019 67,217 + CSU 2019 107,932 = 175,149 (22.8%); Black UC 2000 5,470 + CSU 2000 21,549= 27,019 (4.9%); Black UC 2019 11,794 + CSU 2019 19,384 = 31,178 (4.1%); 2000- 547,191; 2019- 767,156; difference 219,965 more, 40% increase.

Table 4 is supported by four data sets: (1) https://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kprof00-ca.pdf ; (2) https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA# ; (3) https://tableau.calstate.edu/views/SelfEnrollmentDashboard/EnrollmentSummary?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:display_count=no&:showVizHome=no ; (4) https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/fall-enrollment-glance

[24] NCES. Postsecondary Enrollment. https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/TrendGenerator/app

[25] See notes 17 and 21.

[26] Emily Forrest Cataldi, Christpher T. Bennett and Xianglei Chen with Project Officer Sean A. Simone. "First-Generation Students: College Access, Persistence, and Postbachelor's Outcomes." U.S. Department of Education, Stats in Brief, February 2018, NCES 2018-421.

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018421.pdf

[27] California Department of Education. Cohort Outcome Multi-Year Summary: Statewide Results. Data Reporting Office. Their Note: "The methodology used to calculate the four-year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) for the graduating classes of 2010–2016 is not consistent with published non-regulatory guidance from the U.S. Department of Education. The CDE has since modified the four-year ACGR calculation methodology to fully align with currently published non-regulatory guidance effective for the graduating class of 2017 forward. As a result, the CDE strongly recommends against comparing the four-year ACGR for 2017 onward with the four-year ACGR for 2010–2016."

https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/cohortmulti/CohortMultiYear.aspx

Figure Q source data: Cohort graduation rates, California Department of Education, 2009–2015; Note, I got this exact source description and image from: https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-high-school-graduation-requirements/

[28] State Personnel Board. Annual Census of Employees in the State Civil Service. Find the 2014 & 2018 reports here: https://www.calhr.ca.gov/state-hr-professionals/Pages/Annual-Census-2018.aspx and the 2009-2010 report here: http://www.spb.ca.gov/reports/FY%202009-10%20Annual%20Census%20of%20Employees%20in%20the%20State%20Civil%20Service.pdf

[29] The California Annual Census Report stopped detailing the racial/ethnic composition as a share of the total. They now only report white-nonwhite. They also still report which racial/ethnic categories share x% of each paygrade, but there they also fail to give a raw figure of how many of those positions there are. Given the 2010 report data, Black representation in the civil service is disproportionately higher than the Black share of the total population- nearly double. This might be an important statistic for proponents and opponents of Proposition 16 to consider. What will racial discrimination do in a State as diverse as California?

[30] I limit the assertion to race and national origin, because that’s what we reviewed here. Perhaps in another article I will explore the state of affairs among contingents of sex, gender and religious creed. Indeed, there are even more figures that prove the State is transformed that we can explore at another time.

[31] If we tried to run modern computer programs on 1999 software, it just wouldn’t work! In the same way, an old policy like affirmative action (legalized discrimination) will prove problematic in the modern landscape. In the first place, great advancements were made among the so-called racially underrepresented absent racial animus- it is alternatively asserted that absent racial animus- with colorblindness- Whites presumably would benefit the most, but the data show that assertion is patently false. Hispanics advanced at a tremendous rate and have effectively sown the earth with a very high yielding seed. Asians continue to impress across the board. Whites are receding from categorical dominance into a position of shared success among all races, but especially Asians and Hispanics. Blacks made great strides in educational attainment, but as a share of the population, smaller as it is, the rise was less substantial than the great shuffling among the White, Asian and Hispanic populations. This is largely due to the pull of our universities and economy, which attracts troves of immigrants who are highly-skilled and highly-motivated. Even among the lesser-educated and lesser-skilled immigrants, if they follow the trajectory of their very recent predecessors, they will soon realize a success, which is compounding for generations to come.

[32] I take the Confucian position that culture is the preferred means to advance the welfare of the State. Legal prescriptions can dictate, but they will not instill the sense of shame necessary to bring about the humble enactment of one's duty to: family, community, State and Nation. When enacted, this principle of shame translates to less egoism, vanity and narcissism. The Californian culture has operated on a moderated (lesser) sense of shame, but lately this culturally-driven shame is being legislated out of existence. Case in point, SB 826 dictates to Californian publicly traded corporations how many females they are obliged to have on their board of directors. While I agree that females make great managers/directors, I oppose the dictation by Sacramento. The prospect of a culturally-transformed society was likely. Now it is threatened by State fines and obligations that chance to unnecessarily burden enterprise where reform would otherwise occur, albeit gradually- i.e. similar to the gradual transformation of the demographic composition of California as it later translates into broader and deeper institutional compositional changes. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB826

---

Note on Category Labels:

First of all, I find the Census Bureau's (and other research firm/agency's) practice to categorize people by race/ethnicity limiting. The Asian category is huge with Indians, Indonesians, Thai, Mongolian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese and many more. So, when we look at the Asian category, what do we see? The cultures in each and every one of those countries is different. Therefore, the first-generation family is going to be differently oriented depending on which Nation and locale from which they hail. What justice to difference, integration, assimilation, exchange, success or failure do we serve as surveyors if we only track residents by sweeping racial categories?

The limitations of race as a category are huge. The fact that people are still categorized in such a way is a reminder that, one, the world was so divided, and two, scholarly work is stuck in the mire of a Manichean era that, as this study claims, is over. The study of mankind, of society and economics will only be interesting if we shed the narrow statistical aims of 20th century surveyors. The last half-century-plus is useful only to describe the last half-century, but let me be very clear about this, its persistent use is no longer useful. If we persist to categorize people based on these sweeping labels of race we will find a statistical wasteland that tells us scant little about the modern age. Access, for instance, to information-laden digital profiles coupled with a nuanced survey about the thoughts and interests of people from one neighborhood tract or another (or of one profession, income, view of money, view of people, sport preferences, diet, exposure to other cultures, psychological profile, etc.) may help give legitimacy to the study of people, customs and outcomes. Intellectually, this article was unsatisfying, because of the racial labeling limitations. This critique applies to all racial/ethnic categories.

Almost every data set has a different label for the Hispanic/ Latino/a/Latinx racial/ethic contingent, but each means very nearly the same thing since 1980. I went with Hispanic, because it is the most often used label. That is the only reason why I use the label in this article.

The Hispanic population was variously counted as White prior to 1980. Given this constraint, scholars tend not to analyze demographic data prior to 1980. I too have largely restrained my analysis to 1980 and beyond for this reason.

Also, I chose Black over African American as the label for that racial/ethnic contingent, because it is more encompassing, since not all Black Americans are African Americans- hailing from the Caribbean or Africa. In this choice, I admit that most data sets do not carefully distinguish race from ethnicity. For this reason, some data sets may over-represent either Blacks or Hispanics, who are in one survey Black and another Hispanic. However, in California the figure is not large enough to obscure the picture of the general trends.

---

Additional Resources:

1) http://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/projections/

2) https://www2.calstate.edu/data-center/institutional-research-analyses/Pages/enrollment.aspx

3) https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/

4) https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA#qf-headnote-a

5) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vitalstatsonline.htm#Births

6) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/08/key-facts-about-asian-americans/

---

Questions for another discussion:

1) The majority of the Hispanics who immigrated to California between 1980 and 2010 came with scarce anything in their pockets. However, this study shows that Hispanics sowed the socio-economic plane with seeds of fortune. Does this disprove the theory that socio-economic limitations perpetuate socio-economic stagnation? What did Hispanics do so well in this recent age to advance so stupendously? Social capital? Family values? Catholic faith? A Catholic work ethic?

2) To what extent is the antiquated system of legal racial residential segregation responsible for the current state of racial residential segregation?

3) If rent control positively affects the rate at which ‘minorities’ elect to stay in their home, which they were previously legally circumscribed to; if those areas also have low tax bases as a result of rent control; if a low tax base results in the deprivation of school resources and, as a correlation, the decreased success of those students that attend there; if racism is born from the persistent realization of prejudice, like blacks are poorly educated, and poor depressed schools produce under-performing students and wanting learning environments; then to what extent does rent control contribute to the persistence of the ‘Old Racial Regime’ and the perpetuation of racialized prejudice?

---

Addendum One

Education Statistics Respective of CA Demographic Trends

In California as a whole, the Asian population increased by an estimated 3,611,602 or 133.3% from 1990 to 2019. The Asian child population increased by an estimated 203,871 or 26.8% between 1990 and 2010. (I’m limited by the data to show 2019 estimates). The aforementioned K-12 data from 2014-2018 show a large increase in the Asian student population by about 113,000 or 17.8%. However, the Asian UC student body increased by 31,553 or 57.1% from 2000-2019. Further, from 2000 to 2019 Asian admittances grew as a gross figure from 12,769 to 32,826, but decreased slightly as a share of the total admittances from 32.2% to 30.5%. (again, not including international admittances, who largely originate from Asia) [1][2]

In California as a whole, the Hispanic population increased by an estimated 11,023,484 or 242.6% from 1980 to 2019. The Hispanic child population increased by an estimated 2,023,000 or 74% between 1990 and 2010. The aforementioned K-12 data from 2014-2018 show a small increase in the Hispanic student population by about 40,000 or 1.2%. However, the Hispanic UC undergraduate student body increased by 42,453 from 19,700 to 62,153, a growth of 215.5% from 2000-2019. Further, from 2000 to 2019 Hispanic admittances grew both as a gross figure from 5,835 to 26,245 and grew as a share of the total admittances from 14.7% to 24.4%.

In California as a whole, the White population decreased by an estimated 1,342,000 or 8.5% from 1980 to 2019. The White child population decreased by an estimated 1,012,814 or 28.5% between 1980 and 2010. Further, the aforementioned K-12 data from 2014-2018 showed a significant decrease in the White student population by about 140,000 or 9.8%. The White UC student body decreased by 3,870 or 5.4% from 2000-2019. Further, from 2000 to 2019 White admittances grew as a gross figure from 16,232 to 22,469, but decreased slightly as a share of the total admittances from 41% to 20.9%.

In California as a whole, the Black population increased by an estimated 784,517 or 44% from 1980 to 2019. However, the black child population decreased by an estimated 98,662 or 15.9% between 1980 and 2010. Likewise, the aforementioned K-12 data from 2014-2018 showed a sharp decrease in the African American student population by about 49,000 or 13.1%. However, the Black UC student body increased by 4,620 or 84.5% from 2000-2019. Further, Black admittances as a share of the total admittances deceased slightly from 4.3% to 4.1%. Therefore, despite a decrease in the total student-aged Black population, there was steady increase in Black applicants, admittees and enrollees within the UC system.

Footnotes:

[1] I understand that there are out-of-state students who could account for any number of discrepancies.

[2] http://censusscope.org/2010Census/states.php?state=CA&name=California

Addendum Two

Private Institutions Based in California

The Bay Area is the home of 20 of the 25 highest paying corporations in the United States. Outcome figures reflect the demographic trends outlined in this article. The employee racial/ethnic distribution of Twitter, Google and Facebook show that great jobs are increasingly occupied by non-Whites. [1]

Twitter is the 3rd highest paying corporation in the United States and their racial/ethnic distribution is decreasingly White and increasingly non-White. The 2016 EEO-1 report shows that of the 2,952 employees, 1,730 were White (58.6%), 942 Asian (31.91%), 133 Hispanic (4.5%) and 76 Black (2.57%). [2] Twitter’s 2019 annual ethnicity distribution report found that of the approximately 4,900 employees, 40.9% were White, 27.7% Asian, 5.7& Black, 4.7% Hispanic and 3.6% Multiracial. [3]

Google is the 5th highest paying corporation in the United States and their racial/ethnic distribution is decreasingly White and increasingly non-White. In 2014, the racial/ethnic distribution of Google employees in the U.S. consisted of 64.5% White, 31.5% Asian, 3.5% Hispanic, and 2.4% Black. In 2020, the distribution again reflects the demographic trends consisting of 51.7% White, 41.9% Asian, 5.9% Hispanic and 3.7% Black. [4]

Facebook is the 8th highest paying corporation in the United States and their racial/ethnic distribution is decreasingly White and increasingly non-White. In 2014, the racial/ethnic distribution of Facebook employees in the U.S. consisted of 57% White, 34% Asian, 4% Hispanic and 2% Black. In 2020, the distribution consists of 41% White, 44.4% Asian, 6.3% Hispanic and 3.9% Black. The transition was swift and significant. Considering how Facebook grew from 9,199 employees in 2014 to 44,942 in 2019, we can make some additional calculations. In 6 years Facebook hired an additional: (1) 13,183 Whites, a growth of 251%, (2) 16,826 Asians, a growth of 538%, (3) 2,464 Hispanics, a growth of 669.4% and (4) 1,568 Blacks, a growth of 852.8%. The figures may appear small as a share of the total corporation, but the rate of growth shows that the gains were remarkable. These figures reflect the broader demographic transformation. In addition, corporations are induced, in part, by a culturally-driven sense of shame that propels diversity/inclusion hiring policies. [5]

Footnotes:

[1] Amanda Stansell, "Searching for a Career Paying Top Dollar? These are the Highest Paying Jobs and Highest Paying Companies in 2019." Glassdoor: Economic Research. September 18, 2019.

https://www.glassdoor.com/research/jobs-companies-2019/

[2] The September 2016 EEO-1 report is linked at the bottom of:

Jeffrey Siminoff, "Building a more inclusive Twitter in 2016." January 16, 2017.

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2017/building-a-more-inclusive-twitter-in-2016.html

[3] No EEO-1 Report is available yet. However, less detailed data was self-reported in:

Dalana Brand, "Inclusion & Diversity Report December 2019." December 17, 2019.

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/inclusion-and-diversity-report-december-2019.html

[4] Google Chief Diversity Officer Melonie Parker, "Google Diversity Annual Report 2020."

https://kstatic.googleusercontent.com/files/25badfc6b6d1b33f3b87372ff7545d79261520d821e6ee9a82c4ab2de42a01216be2156bc5a60ae3337ffe7176d90b8b2b3000891ac6e516a650ecebf0e3f866

[5] Facebook Diversity Report https://diversity.fb.com/read-report/ with the 2018 EEO-1 report linked. Additional corporate information can be found at: https://www.omnicoreagency.com/facebook-statistics/