Tuesday, April 24, 2012
In the Interesting/Did You Know? Category 4
That, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census ("Household and Family Characteristics: March 1980"), college-educated black married couples actually earned slightly MORE than college-educated white married couples?...Holy shit, not even this blogger expected that one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
Do you have a reference? I'm interested in seeing the actual numbers.
I did look at information from the 1980 census, but could not find information on specifically "college-educated black married couples". What I did find does not support what you said.
According to Table 4 in this report from the 1980 Census, the mean income for white households with 4 or more years of college is $33,000, while for black household, it is $23,441.
From Table 21 in the same reference, the mean income for white families with 4 or more years of college is $37,466. Similar black families had a mean income of $27,226.
Households and families include people who are not married so it is not exactly your criteria, but they do represent a greater share of the population.
Current Population Reports, Series P-20, Number 366 (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981), pp. 182,184.............Beware of data on "household income", Jerry. As I've shown in other instances (the fact that per capita income has actually been going up over the past 30 years but household incomes not so much due to the fact that households have been shrinking), it isn't a reliable indicator when comparing time periods and groups. That data in Table 4 could just be a function of there being more wage-earners per family among the white population than the black population (the black illegitimacy rate being higher).
Interesting/Did you know = Non-racist (in Will's opinion) bash of African Americans.
By pointing out that African-Americans can actually succeed at a higher rate than whites is bashing them? Interesting. Typical though. You don't have an intelligent retort to the point and so you purely lash out.
I was referring to your citing of the "black illegitimacy rate" and implicit bashing of African Americans who don't do well because of it... this is the kind of "blame the victim" nonsense that has been at the heart of many of your latest posts. As proven by the research in "The Spirit Level" social problems like these are caused by inequality.
As for college-educated black educated black married couples earning slightly MORE than college-educated white married couples... I'd say it's probably due to there being fewer of them and them have to work harder to achieve that goal (can't get the job unless they prove they're better than the white guy).
In other words, the stat doesn't mean what you think it means. I take it your conclusion is that Blacks who don't achieve this don't due to their laziness and conditioning by the state to accept welfare. Which is ANOTHER bash on African Americans (and Liberals as well).
It's with posts like these that Will proves his Conservative bona-fides.
What's nonsense is the "Spirit Level" (a pathetic publication that cherry-picked subjects and indicators and then performed a statistical analysis that virtually any college freshman could have done significantly better with). The book proved absolutely nothing (and, yes, here your lack of sophistication regarding statistics and social research is indeed breathtaking).......And, like I said, the poverty rate in the African-American community in the '40s and'50s was WAY larger than it is today. It's not even frigging close. You'd think that if "inequality" was the major cause of crime and illegitimacy you would seen a hell of a lot more of it then. You didn't.......And why do you always have to play the frigging race card whenever this discussion comes up? Unless a person fully signs onto the progressive platform they're a frigging racist? Give it a break. And, YES, I am putting some of the onus for this on the liberal ideology of the '60s. Policies such as building restrictions, eminent domain, and, yes, the fact that the state started allowing women on welfare to continue to shack up with their boyfriends and not lose any of their benefits (which by that time also started including food stamps, rent subsidies, and increased payments per child) were ALL quite destructive, I think. I mean, just look at the black unemployment rate in 1968 - it was frigging 3.4%, for Christ! And then, of course, your philosophy took over, wd.
As for what the stat "means", it means what it says. If you graduate from college and don't get knocked up by multiple partners, you're probably going to do just fine. Otherwise, not so much.
Will,
Do you have a link to your report? I found a bunch of P20 reports, but not -366.
The report that I used includes the number of people. For the household earnings there are 2.76 people per white household and 2.54 people per black household. For the family earnings, there are 1.85 earners in the white families and 1.74 earners in the black families. These difference are not large enough to account for the differences in earnings.
Oh yeah.
No, I don't have a link, Jerry. It's from Thomas Sowell's book, "Economic Facts and Fallacies". It's possible that he made it up but perhaps he controlled it for the age (the average age of a black person in this country is several less than that of a white person) of the person, too. I'll have to investigate mire.
Will: And why do you always have to play the frigging race card whenever this discussion comes up? Unless a person fully signs onto the progressive platform they're a frigging racist? Give it a break.
Why do I have to point out something that exists? I don't know, but how DARE I, huh? How can we ever hope to conquer racism unless we all start ignoring it so it goes away. In other words I should follow dmarks' example.
Well wd it is fairly common, indeed almost sheeple like that the progressives play the race card on a very emotional level rather than discussing a very real issue of racism objectively.
Now I give you permission to call me whatever you desire.
Will is right wd, absolutely positively correct.
WD said: "How can we ever hope to conquer racism unless we all start ignoring it so it goes away. In other words I should follow dmarks' example."
You have me confused with another. I want all racism identified, rooted out, and even where appropriate, prosecuted.
You are being careless.
"ou think we should ignore racism unless it's White people that are being negatively affected."
Absolutely not. You have no evidence of this, and all of my comments are to the contrary. In fact, I have identified a variety of racism which you have not (Columbus and others against Native Americans, for example). Also, my opposition to racist quotas is not because the victims of it are mostly (but not always) white, but because these policies punish individuals for their skin color.
My record is clear on this, and it does not match your summary at all.
dmarks: You have no evidence of this, and all of my comments are to the contrary.
I have TONS of evidence of this: All your comment where you discuss the subject.
For example, in your very last comment you said, "Also, my opposition to... quotas is not because the victims of it are mostly... white, but because these policies punish individuals for their [White] skin color".
Your record *IS* clear on this, and it matches my summary EXACTLY.
First he says he doesn't do, then he does it! Is this dmarks trying to be funny?
"Your record *IS* clear on this, and it matches my summary EXACTLY."
No, it completely contradicts it.
Your major confusion is due to the fact that I am opposed to all forms of racism. You are hung up on one particular form of racial discrimination: which you defend and I oppose.
From my opposition to this form of racism you make a wild leap and make claims that I support or accept other forms of racism. This wild leap is a false accusation, and is contradicted to the fact of my other comments in which I oppose other forms of racism also.
You are simply being illogical.
dmarks: You are hung up on one particular form of racial discrimination.
The most prevalent one (discrimination by Whites against minorities).
It isn't at all illogical that, when confronting a problem, to be most concerned about the more serious aspects of that problem.
dmarks, your arguments are getting quite incoherent. I call BS on your claim that you "oppose" these "other" forms of racism also. We know this is nonsense because you oppose measures intended to do something about this racism.
You can point out that something exists, wd. I'm just saying that maybe you don't always have to assume that people are racist simply because they have differing viewpoint from you.
WD said: "We know this is nonsense because you oppose measures intended to do something about this racism."
I have opposes no such measures.
Affirmative action quotas do nothing about existing racism because there is no provision in the programs to test whether or not those punished or rewarded have been victims of or perpetrators of racism.
Instead, as with any racist policy, these policies judge people on skin color alone.
dmarks: Actually, everyone agrees that this is bad and must be eliminated.
Not the racists. Also, not the people (like you) who SAY they want to eliminate it but aren't willing to actually do anything about it. Except if the "victims" are White. Then THAT racism must be dealt with.
dmarks lied: Actually, [I think] all racism must be dealt with.
No you don't. I pointed out that Affirmative Action is one of the ways we deal with the problem of racism against minorities, and you voiced strong disapproval of the program and indicated that you think it should be done away with.
And you've never mentioned any alternative method to deal with racism. The only thing you say we should do is get rid of Affirmative Action (which would have the opposite of the desired effect)... so one can only assume that you think the problem should be ignored... unless it's "racism" against Whites.
WD said: "No you don't. I pointed out that Affirmative Action is one of the ways we deal with the problem of racism "
You SAID this. But you never backed it up. And I showed you how A.A. actually does not do what you claim, for several reasons:
1) There is not any element in AA to punish racists.
2) There is not any element in AA to determine that those being rewarded were even victims of racism.
So, as you can see, it is a complete failure at doing what you claim it does. Even before you get to the fact that it creates new racism.
"and you voiced strong disapproval of the program and indicated that you think it should be done away with."
Of course. A.A. doesn't do anything about exiting racism, and it only adds new racism. It's a terrible idea.
"And you've never mentioned any alternative method to deal with racism."
Substitute "alternative" with the word "Actual", since A.A. is not any way to deal with racism because it simply does not address it at all..
Anyway, I support strong enforcement of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. For one. I think 'stings' to root out redlining problems and racial profiling are great ideas, followed by throwing the book at those caught out.
See? Something that actually deals with racism. And punishes those who engage in it, and gives redress to the victims.
"The only thing you say we should do is get rid of Affirmative Action (which would have the opposite of the desired effect)."
Getting rid of A.A. would definitely reduce racism in this country. The same as getting rid of Jim Crow, real estate redlining. bans on Native American religions, and all other indefensible racist policies.
"so one can only assume that you think the problem should be ignored... unless it's "racism" against Whites."
Only you can assume that, because you are acting like you are replying to someone else, not me. There's no way in hell you can get this from anything I've said.
dmarks: So, as you can see, it is a complete failure at doing what you claim it does.
The success of Affirmative Action is documented in the book "The Shape of the River".
AA "punishes" racists by giving minorities more opportunities.
Also, there is an element in AA to determine that those being rewarded were even victims of racism.
That "element" is that they're a minority.
And why lie about supporting anti-redlining measures? In the past you called these measure racist and blamed them for the housing bubble.
And, concerning profiling, you strike me as someone who would support it... of Muslims at airports for instance. Or Muslims in general as terrorism suspects.
Am I wrong?
"AA "punishes" racists by giving minorities more opportunities."
Completely illogical (as there is no connection) and not true. The white hiring directors who discriminate against minorities get off scot-free. No punishment at all.
"And why lie about supporting anti-redlining measures?"
I am telling the truth, actually.
"In the past you called these measure racist and blamed them for the housing bubble."
Completely untrue. I oppose ANY consideration of race in these matters. For or against. and yes the racist policy of giving out housing loans to people based on skin color (CRA) was very bad and desctructive.
WD asked:
"Am I wrong?"
On every point. Especially the last on on Muslims. There was absolutely no reason and no evidence for you to make such a wild conjecture.
dmarks: Completely untrue... yes the racist policy of giving out housing loans to people based on skin color (CRA) was very bad and destructive.
How can something be completely untrue and also completely true? And the CRA doesn't do what you say it does. Truly a totally bizarre and incoherent comment from dmarks.
dmarks: On every point. Especially the last on on Muslims. There was absolutely no reason and no evidence for you to make such a wild conjecture.
Not "wild conjecture". I thought you'd favor profiling Muslims due to your support of bush's illegal wars. In regards to those you supported murdering thousands of innocent Muslims. Certainly profiling is a step down from murder.
If Muslims at airports keep trying to blow up planes, paying special attention to Muslims at airports is not racist.
If men in white hoods kept going to airports and blowing up planes, no one would call it inappropriate to be on high alert for men in white hoods.
If you were to arrest Muslims in airports for being Muslim, that would be racist.
How 'bout this, gentlemen? Instead of simply profiling Muslims, we profile based upon behavior and other meaningful criteria; coming from and/or having spent a great deal of time in a country that has disproportionately produced terrorism, people purchasing one-way airline tickets, stuff like that?
How 'bout this, gentlemen? Instead of simply profiling Muslims, we profile based upon behavior and other meaningful criteria; coming from and/or having spent a great deal of time in a country that has disproportionately produced terrorism, people purchasing one-way airline tickets, stuff like that?
Any indicator is meaningful, not just the ones you selected as the politically correct ones. I agree that we should profile on all meaningful data and not be ashamed of anything meaningful.
I think you are talking the method that the Israelis use. Thet've been successful.
If "checking" Muslims out will more often lead to discovery of something, then doing it is not racism. Racism is a form of prejudice.
John, it appears that I'm actually to the left of you on this. Yes!
Will, you bleeding heart liberal!
What, you agree with me that John Myste is wrong?
It would seem so, Dervish.
I don't know if he's wrong. I could be wrong.
Post a Comment