‘Great Replacement’ Or Market Outcome?

A recent visit to a Golden Corral buffet in Waynesboro, Virginia, offered a stark, almost cinematic illustration of broad trends reshaping the United States. The Shenandoah Valley community is rural and farm-oriented, yet bears the scars of many pathologies afflicting all of America. Many patrons inside the restaurant, most of them white, were morbidly obese, moved using canes or wheelchairs, and projected an aura of chronic illness and unemployability. Yet this did not deter enthusiastic loading of plates with fattening and sugary foods. In contrast, the staff—largely Hispanic—were trim, energetic, friendly, and kept the operation running, with little of the lethargy evident among the native-born customers. This dichotomy between consumers and producers in one small city helps illuminate the tensions over demographic change that are sometimes called the ‘Great Replacement.’

It’s by now common knowledge that the U.S. is undergoing observable demographic shifts from a majority-white, native-born population toward a more foreign-born and diverse one. The foreign-born share of the population went from 4.7% in 1970 to over 15% today. The non-Hispanic white American share of the population over that period went from 84% to 58%. Both factors combined have produced steady shifts in neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, and voting patterns. 

Americans noticing and expressing dislike for this shift are acting on understandable human instincts. The U.S.’ successful political economy of the last 250 years rests on ideas of limited government, property rights, and individual liberty. These were instilled in the nation’s founding people, and in subsequent immigrant groups. Large inflows from societies with different traditions could dilute this cultural software, especially given that such ideas are no longer being enthusiastically taught (to immigrants or natives alike). It is not just aesthetics (different-looking people, food, music, etc.) but the threat of redefining American society by altering its governing system. The left’s intense censorship of this discussion only heightens suspicion; a topic that affects home costs, schools, wages, welfare systems, and national identity deserves open debate.

That said, I am not arguing here whether demographic change is good or bad. I am more interested in why it is happening. 

Part of the explanation is in what I observed at Golden Corral.

A nation ultimately becomes the sum of the choices made by millions of individuals. And the uncomfortable truth is that many Americans are slacking and have set themselves up for economic and cultural replacement.

Roughly 35% of native-born males do not participate in the labor force; many of them are disabled, making questionable claims about their lack of health and work-readiness to collect government checks. Another 1%, not included in that statistic, are in prison. 

Obesity is widespread, affecting over 40% of American adults, depending on the definition used. Chronic health problems are common, with depression diagnoses rising dramatically in recent decades, to the point that one in five adults identify as depressed and 11% take prescription meds for it.

Surveys also show growing social isolation, declining marriage rates, falling birthrates, and increasing numbers of people who report little participation in traditional family and community life. About a quarter of adults have reported not having sex in the last year.

Indeed, large portions of the population are struggling economically, physically, psychologically, and socially—and much of it, to be brutally frank, boils down to their own laziness and lack of discipline.

Now consider many of the immigrants who are arriving. They often come from tough countries—fleeing poverty, violence, and political repression—and have taken enormous risks just to get here. My own experience, particularly in construction and development, is that so-called “low-skilled” immigrants work extremely hard. This, and not only the lower wages, is why they succeed in labor markets – after all, it’s hard in many professions to find reliable workers, and employers just want someone who shows up, no matter their origin.  

Foreign-born male labor force participation is typically about 10% percentage points higher than for native-born men. Immigrants also show higher entrepreneurship rates—often 20-25%+ of new businesses despite being 16% of the population. 

Numerous studies show that immigrants and their offspring have greater upward mobility than the native population. And they are having more children.

Viewed through that lens, what some call a sinister “Great Replacement” is more just a market outcome. Individuals and groups make different choices, and those choices produce different results. Over time, the groups that work more, build businesses, and raise families naturally expand their influence over groups that don’t.

It reminds me of a passage from Teddy Roosevelt’s essay The Manhood of the Nation. Roosevelt warned that civilizations decline when their people lose the qualities that first made them successful. He wrote that, upon building wealth, they eventually grow soft, unable to defend themselves, and overtaken by what he called “ruder people” with more vigor.

The comparison is not perfect—modern immigration is not the same as ancient conquest. Yet there is a parallel: many Americans have become sedentary, unhealthy, and disengaged. Many immigrants arrive hungry and ambitious. When those two groups compete in the same labor market, it is unsurprising who wins.

People who dislike America’s demographic transformation often call for tighter immigration policy. But even the harshest restrictions—such as mass deportation—will be expensive and politically difficult. And it would not address the deeper issue: which is that Americans themselves live in a market economy, have enormous demand for goods and services, and will throw money at whoever provides them—which happens to be many immigrants.

If Americans don’t want to be displaced, they should compete in that ecosystem rather than hoping to shut it off. That means getting healthier, working harder, building stronger families, and developing valuable skills. In the end, a nation is not replaced simply because newcomers arrive—it is replaced when the people already there have checked out.

Cover image – Public Domain.