New York City's population may be made up more and more of the foreign-born, but, according to the latest U.S. Census, there are fewer ethnic New Yorkers, and "white ethnics" have declined by almost half over the past two decades. This phenomenon, though, may have less to do with demographic shifts and more to do with changing attitudes
Part of the uncertainty is that the census bureau has changed the way it has defined and counted ethnicity over the years, just as it has done with race. Starting in 1850, the census asked Americans where their parents were born, and then fit them into one of three categories:
1. "Native Born of Native Stock" -- born in the United States and parents born in the United States
2. "Native Born of Foreign Stock" -- born in the United States, but parents (at least one) born abroad, or
3. "Foreign Born of Foreign Stock."
Thus, if a New Yorker's grandparents had immigrated from Mesopotamia, that New Yorker was put in the same category (native born of native stock) as a descendant of a voyager on the Mayflower. A third-generation American was officially considered to be American, period.
Of course what's official and what's for real are not always (seldom?) the same thing, especially in New York, the ethnic capital of the nation, if not the world.
After lobbying by various ethnic organizations, the census bureau changed its classifications. Starting with the 1980 census, it asked for "ancestry or ethnic origin." This question, not as precise as "where were your parents born?", really requires a kind of subjective self-identification. By the time of the 1990 census, the change in the official demographics of the United States based on this question was summed up in the wry title of an article in the American Sociological Review: "How 4.5 Million Irish Immigrants Became 40 Million Irish Americans."
But ten years later, things seem vastly different. In New York City, the percentage of those claiming Irish ancestry has dropped from 9.2 percent in 1980 to 7.3 percent in 1990 to 5.3 percent in 2000. For the other "white ethnic" groups one finds similar declines:
The census allows for up to two ancestries, so a sizable fraction (roughly about 1/6th) of these individuals reported another ancestry as well. All together, the proportion of people reporting themselves as a member of one of these white ethnic groups in New York City declined from about 39 percent in 1980 to slightly over 20 percent by 2000.
There is no question that the population has changed in the city. But how much of the decline in, say, Italian-Americans in New York is simply because fewer New Yorkers are now calling themselves Italian-American? In 1990, 157,000 New Yorkers (about 2.1 percent of the population) identified their ancestry or ethnic origin simply as "American" or "United States." In 2000, that number had grown to 238,000 (or about 3 percent.) Were these extra "Americans" newly arrived New Yorkers, or were some of them long-time New Yorkers who used to call themselves Irish-American or Polish-American?
These self-identified "un-hyphenated" Americans are clearly a growing trend. At the same time, though, other "ethnic" groups are on the rise in New York, even officially. Those New Yorkers claiming Arab ancestry now number about 71,000 (in 1990, there were 52,000.) The number of New Yorkers with African ancestry has more than doubled, from 54,000 in 1990 to 122,000 in 2000. (The largest group of Africans are the 18,000 Nigerian-Americans.) About 550,000 New Yorkers claim non-Hispanic West Indian ancestry, which is up from 392,000 in 1990. Of these about 213,000 are Jamaican-American.
But, the question: In the censuses of the future, will their children keep the hyphen? Will their grandchildren?
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and provides expert testimony on a range of cases, including housing discrimination. The opinions expressed are his alone.
The direct losses to New York and the United States from the WTC attack are incalculable. Yet, as the first anniversary comes and goes, the calculations go on apace.
More than two-thirds of the 2801 victims, or at least 1946, died on the upper floors near or above where the planes crashed: the top 19 floors of the North Tower and the top 33 floors of the South Tower. With the firefighters (343), the police and other rescue workers (about 90) and the victims from the two planes (157), and that accounts for about 90 percent of those who were killed.
Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond trading firm, lost 658 employees, by far the greatest number. Other companies and their losses:
All these were on high floors in one of the towers. Risk magazine, the trade bible of derivatives industry, which defined much of finance in the 1990s, was having a conference at Windows on the World. Everyone in attendance, including many high executives, perished.
Given the firms for whom many of those in the World Trade Center worked (as well as the large number of fire fighters and other rescue workers) the other demographic facts should not be that surprising. The victims were overwhelmingly male (about 75 percent), young (many under 40, most under 50), and white (about 75 percent). Only about eight percent were black, nine percent Hispanic, and about six percent Asian. About 75 percent were born in the United States; the rest came from many countries. Together New York and New Jersey accounted for about 87 percent.
We now know that the Upper East Side had the most losses (44), while Hoboken, NJ had the highest proportion of loss of any area, losing 39 residents, or about one per thousand. The number is probably even higher if parental addresses are taken into account. It is not surprising that many of the victims lived in very affluent parts of the metropolitan area, including the Upper East Side and Basking Ridge New Jersey.
But those working at 10048 represented many aspects of New York City society -- the wealthy older executives at the Risk conference or running some of the firms, the young traders on the make, the lawyers, the computer techies, the immigrants working in the service fields. After 9/11, 10048 is no more.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and provides expert testimony on a range of cases, including housing discrimination. The opinions expressed are his alone.
Manhattan boomed in the 1990s. This was obvious to most New Yorkers, but now it is official. According to figures released this month from the 2000 census, the average income in Manhattan grew 12.3 percent from the 1990 census, to $47,030. This was as good as the booming areas in the West, such as San Francisco and Seattle, which did very, very well. However, though the figures are brand-new, they might as well be historical documents.
The statistics were not all good news for New York City as a whole, which lost ground overall. The median income for New Yorkers dropped 1.1 percent to $38,293. This was because income dropped in all four of the other boroughs. Incomes in Flatbush, Brooklyn and Soundview in the Bronx, for example, both declined by about 17 percent; East Flushing in Queens declined by almost 15 percent; and in Manhattan itself, Chinatown declined by 14 percent.
But the rapid growth of the financial sector fueled a boom that saw those living in the Wall Street area, in Tribeca, in Soho, in Morningside Heights, and in the Upper West Side with much higher median income in 2000 than in 1990. The boom spread to Harlem, East Harlem and Washington Heights, which also showed income growth. And income grew in well-known "hot neighborhoods" outside Manhattan as well -- in the Brooklyn neighborhoods of Boerum Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Carroll Gardens, Park Slope (including the South Slope), Prospect Heights and Williamsburg. New Yorkers did not have to be involved in finance, or even in Manhattan, to participate in Manhattan's boom. The stockbroker benefited his landlady in Carroll Gardens, restaurateurs could open new eateries in Williamsburg, real estate values could surge in "the Slope."
But if there was a boom in Manhattan economically, there was another boom in the other boroughs
The 90's financial bubble has since burst -- Census 2000 was being conducted just as the stock exchanges were posting all-time records
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and provides expert testimony on a range of cases, including housing discrimination. The opinions expressed are his alone.