OC Metro Is Relevant for Once, Puts Pioneering Sociologist Jody Agius Vallejo on the Cover

Martha Vallejo

I for one know she has a passion in what she does and believes, she makes me proud!!!

Jody Agius Vallejo

Gustavo, thank you for your support of my research. You are the coolest nerd I know! I am thrilled that OC Metro plugged my book. I hope my research on the Mexican-American middle class helps to combat negative ethnic and sexist stereotypes of Mexican Americans, such as those espoused in the previous comment.Cool people and nerds know that I'm not a grad student but a professor, and second, that Mexican-American fertility rates are not disproportionately high. Nationally representative data derived from the Current Population Survey, and analyzed by The Pew Hispanic Center, directly contradicts the erroneous stereotype of high Mexican-American fertility rates. The typical Mexican-origin woman between the ages of 40-44 has 2.5 children compared to 1.8 for whites and Asians, and 2.0 for African Americans. Moreover, the typical Mexican American woman has a fertility rate of .08 between the ages of 20-24, not 4 as stated below. Mexican Americans' slightly higher fertility rates have much to do with the young age structure of the Mexican-American population and the aging of the white population. Mexican Americans are much younger than other ethnic groups with an average age of 25 compared to 41 for whites, 35 for Asians, and 32 for African Americans. What does this mean? That Mexican American women have more years of child bearing compared to whites. Moreover, Mexican American fertility rates decline as they assimilate. The fertility rate of native-born Mexican American women ages 40-44 is 2.1, barely above replacement level!

gustavoarellano

Jody: Your words are kind, and your insight is great. Of course, our moron skinheads will pay attention to neither of those attributes and whine like the pendejos they are...

mitch young

From the 'skinhead haters' at Pew Hispanic Trust..."The spread of poverty across the United States that began at the onset of the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and accelerated last year hit one fast-growing demographic group especially hard: Latino children.More Latino children are living in poverty—6.1 million in 2010—than children of any other racial or ethnic group. This marks the first time in U.S. history that the single largest group of poor children is not white. In 2010, 37.3% of poor children were Latino, 30.5% were white and 26.6% were black, according to an analysis of new data from the U.S. Census Bureau by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.This negative milestone for Hispanics is a product of their growing numbers, high birth rates and declining economic fortunes. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Hispanics today make up a record 16.3% of the total U.S. population. But they comprise an even larger share—23.1%—of the nation’s children (Passel, Cohn and Lopez, 2011), a disparity driven mainly by high birth rates among Hispanic immigrants (Pew Hispanic Center, 2011). According to the 2010 Census, some 53.5% of children are white and 14.6% of children are black."You guys have to get your stories straight...

Christopher Neal

Jody -

Thanks for the insight; much respect to you. Please just ignore the haters--unfortunately its common on these comment boards.

mitch young

Even accepting your figures -- the "Mexican-American" fertility rate is not 'slightly higher' , it is 38% higher than the White and Asian rate. (2.5-1.8)/1.8.

CDC data for 2008 has 'Latina' teen birth rates in California at 66/1000 girls/women. That is compared to white teen birth rate of 15.4/1000. 'Latina' teen birth in California was, at that time higher than the white rate in any of the southern/bible belt/white trash states, the highest being Kentucky with 54/1000. While the 4 kids by 25 was a bit of hyperbole, the fact is that teen/early pregnancy is far far higher amongst 'Latinas' than whites, Asians, and even blacks. Nationwide, in 2008 [latest data I can find easily] there were 77.5 births per 1000 Latinas, versus 62.5 per 1000 for blacks, 26.5 for whites, and 16.5 for Asians (ages 16-19). Roughly, taking the five years (15-19 inclusive) and the 77 per 1000 rate, that would mean something like a third of all 'Latinas' (of whom Mexican origin is about 2/3) would have had a child by 20. Of course, thats a rough estimate -- some will have 2-3, many none, but overall the early pregnancy rate is much much higher among 'Latinas'. And note, this inherently 'controls' for age, so has nothing to do with the younger population of Latinas.

Stereotypes arise become of reality.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n... (see page 5]

BetaRayBill.

Nomatter how many links you post, you still come up as a petty xenophobe. The girl is a publish author. She has a book to show for her lifeaccomplishment, and I m sure she still has more yet to contribute. What do you have to show for yours? FYI,flooding articles on the OC Weekly with your pathetic blogs does not count aspublishing

BetaRayBill.

You moronic remarks are as useless and irrelevant as you are. It has becoming a pathetic endeavor for xenophobeslike you to frown upon the rest of the ethnic groups that make this great country. Most scholars would look at the littleeducation you have, or lack thereof and weep for society. It is most amusing how easy is to blame aperson for his/her short comings rather that a whole group, yet you are bent onthat quest as if you life depended on it. For example; you spend countless our posting irrelevant crap, much likeyour existence, we can assume that you are just as big of a pimple on societiesass the Mexicans you so blatantly bash in your post.

PS. Don’tcriticize my grammar or spelling unlike you, I m aware of my short comings, andunlike yours there is a remedy for mine