Racism on display at University of Virginia

[rjs330]

Statistically speaking?

Quite a bit actually:

Median Household income by race:
View attachment 272675

Statistically speaking the average white baby will be born into a family that has over twice the income as their black counterpart.

With family income, comes opportunity (particularly, in the educational realm...which leads to future income determinations as an adult). A family with double the household income is likely going to live in a better school district, and be more equipped to help their children with covering the ever-rising costs of post-secondary education.

I'm not buying that. Family income has nothing to do with the ability or opportunity to succeed. You can still graduate from a bad school district. We have requirements for ALL schools and what they teach. Schools must teach up to standards. What a child learns and how they do in school is up to the child and the family. A high school diploma is a high school diploma. Grades are grades. If you graduate with a 3.4 gpa, it's still a 3.4 gpa.

I was born into a poor white family. I was poor growing up. My family couldn't afford an education for me. But I got one anyway. You can go to college in America no matter who you are. Economics is not an excuse. My wife grew up in abject poverty. But she went to school and got a degree. So, economics had NOTHING to do with our ability to get an education.

Yes, it is awesome if parents can help their kids. But not having parents that can dies not take away opportunity in any fashion. You can still go to school, still get an aducation, still do well and still graduate. The opportunities are the same for all races. You are not kept out of school because of skin color. You are not kept out of school because of economics anymore. My parents and my wife's parents provided $0 towards education. And a lot of kids are in that boat these days.

 

[rjs330]

People do overcome them...which is why the disparity level in 2020 is smaller than the disparity level in 2000...which was smaller than the disparity level in 1980, etc...

The issue is that people don't seem to want to acknowledge that the differences are attributed to things that were out of their control.

When you have a situation where someone is born into a disproportionate disadvantage, the expectation that "it's 100% on them to overachieve in order to cover the difference", that is, in and of itself, a manifestation of inequality.

Even if we table the race aspect for a moment and just focus on economic difference, the expectation that a poor kid should have to be an exceptional academic overachiever in order to get the same things as a upper-middle class kid with a C+ average isn't "equal opportunity".

Now, when you introduce the fact that statistically, black kids are more likely to be born into lower income households, that highlights the inequity both in terms of opportunities and expectations.

The animosity was created when people had the attitude that the onus is on black people to vastly overachieve (in comparison to their white counterparts) in order to attain the same things that the average white kids get by default.


If you're a child, born into a low income family, in a neighborhood with sub-par schools, it's not "equal" to expect you to have to somehow "fight your way to the top" against kids born into families with more money, in good school districts, who have parents who can afford to send them to better schools, then college.

Who is asking black people to overachieve? Or anyone for that matter. All we are saying is the opportunity to achieve is there for the taking.

You know that's life right? Everyone does NOT have the same baseline where to start. And unless we dictate income equality for all, it will never happen. Unless we dictate that everyone makes $85000 (pick any number) a year, no more no less we will not and cannot have an equal economic baseline.

And the answer is not to take away economic advantage nor is the answer to give economic advantages. The answer is to do what we do right now and provide opportunity. What people choose to do with opportunity is individualistic.

Black kids are not prevented from getting an education. They are not prevented from employment. They are not prevented in pursuing financially beneficial jobs. They have the same opportunity as anyone else.

Black people do not have to get a B average to get a diploma while us white folks get to have a D average. Black people don't have to pay more to get into college. In fact they have their own colleges, they have their own foundations and support mechanisms.

They don't have to do more pushups than a white guy to get into a fire department or a police department.

They just have to go do it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Anger at the situation...sure. Anger at the grandchildren? Not at all.

Sure, if the grandchildren are completely being dismissive of your anger over the situation, that's going to cause you to develop some anger towards them.

There's an issue there...of how much is caused by circumstances and how much is caused by choice.

The gap in wealth between white and black was at it lowest in the mid to late 1960s. What's the great discrimination that increased it since then?

I would actually need to see some data on that, the only infographic and data I'm finding when researching the topic starts in the mid-late 80's.

If it is a case where it was it's lowest in the 60's, one may be able to make the argument that many of the more robust efforts to "even the playing field and make up for past damages" were beginning to get thoroughly gutted in the early 80's under the Reagan administration when the false notion of the "welfare queen" started to be popularized.

Rising education costs, along with meaningful careers (that pay well) increasingly moving toward the direction of "you need college for that" could be a factor as well.

It was much more possible to get a job out of high school back then (with no college) that had the prospect of working your way up to a middle class living.

Groups that are disproportionately already in poverty to begin with are going to be more impacted by that... That's why wealth gaps have been growing across the board between top earner and bottom earners for quite some time.

Sure...but I'd be wrong to blame you. After all, you didn't steal the car.

...but there's only so long I can be dismissive before you perceive my indifference toward your issues as "tacit approval" of what took place.

If someone stole your car and that drastically altered your life (by making it harder to get to work, get your kids to school etc...) and my only response is "meh, if you would've worked harder, you'd have had a 2nd car and this wouldn't be a problem"...that's only going to go on for so long before you develop the impressions that A) I don't care about your stolen car and B) that I don't necessarily disapprove of what happened.

If something bad happens to you, and my commentary of the situation is mostly focused on "your shortcomings that are allowing this thing to have such a big impact on you", that's going to hit a boiling point eventually and there's a good chance many in that position are going to develop the mindset that "Hmmm...their failure to acknowledge it and address it is complicit in things like this happening in the first place" (right or wrong).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Who is asking black people to overachieve? Or anyone for that matter. All we are saying is the opportunity to achieve is there for the taking.

You know that's life right? Everyone does NOT have the same baseline where to start. And unless we dictate income equality for all, it will never happen. Unless we dictate that everyone makes $85000 (pick any number) a year, no more no less we will not and cannot have an equal economic baseline.

And the answer is not to take away economic advantage nor is the answer to give economic advantages. The answer is to do what we do right now and provide opportunity. What people choose to do with opportunity is individualistic.

Anyone who is putting the onus on a kid (in a less-than-stellar school district) to achieve the same outcome as a kid growing up in a good school district is asking for over-achievement.

» Unequal Opportunities: Fewer Resources, Worse Outcomes for Students in Schools with Concentrated Poverty

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not buying that. Family income has nothing to do with the ability or opportunity to succeed. You can still graduate from a bad school district. We have requirements for ALL schools and what they teach. Schools must teach up to standards. What a child learns and how they do in school is up to the child and the family. A high school diploma is a high school diploma. Grades are grades. If you graduate with a 3.4 gpa, it's still a 3.4 gpa.

I was born into a poor white family. I was poor growing up. My family couldn't afford an education for me. But I got one anyway. You can go to college in America no matter who you are. Economics is not an excuse. My wife grew up in abject poverty. But she went to school and got a degree. So, economics had NOTHING to do with our ability to get an education.

You can, but that doesn't reflect the norm.

Sure, you can find that scenario of a kid from a bad school district getting into a good college, and succeeding, but if you look at the data, that's not the typical scenario.

The median family income of students at non-selective private colleges was about $91,000.
The median family income of students at non-selective public colleges was about $70,000.

Kids who are born into families with more money are more likely to get educational opportunities than their poorer counterparts.

As far as a "GPA of 3.4 is the same no matter what school you come from", that's not true at all.

Colleges do take into consideration high school rankings when making their considerations. Meaning, if you got a 3.4 in a private school that's well-known for having top-notch academic course load and standards and overall difficulty, vs a 3.4 from a very lax inner-city public school, college admissions reps are going to consider that.

Roughly 95% of non-parochial private high school grads go on to four-year postsecondary institutions compared with 49% of public school grads...even though there's not a stark difference in terms of median & mean GPAs or ACT scores when comparing the two categories as a whole.

Either the school matters, or your parents' money matters, in either case, it's a demonstration of the benefit to being born into a family with more money.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure, if the grandchildren are completely being dismissive of your anger over the situation, that's going to cause you to develop some anger towards them.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that those grandchildren have to baby me, give me a pat on the back, and tell me they sympathize or I'm justified in being angry at them?

That doesn't sound completely ridiculous? They don't owe me anything...they aren't my family or friends...

Let's be honest, they can feel any way that they want....if I'm directing my anger at them, I'm the bad person because it's misdirected anger.

I would actually need to see some data on that, the only infographic and data I'm finding when researching the topic starts in the mid-late 80's.

If it is a case where it was it's lowest in the 60's, one may be able to make the argument that many of the more robust efforts to "even the playing field and make up for past damages" were beginning to get thoroughly gutted in the early 80's under the Reagan administration when the false notion of the "welfare queen" started to be popularized.

Rising education costs, along with meaningful careers (that pay well) increasingly moving toward the direction of "you need college for that" could be a factor as well.

It was much more possible to get a job out of high school back then (with no college) that had the prospect of working your way up to a middle class living.

Groups that are disproportionately already in poverty to begin with are going to be more impacted by that... That's why wealth gaps have been growing across the board between top earner and bottom earners for quite some time.

Speaking of high school graduation rates....those weren't all that great for the black community back then either.

Black income is half that of white households in the US—just like it was in the 1950s

There you go....median household income over time. I've seen it where in the mid sixties it was closer...but I'm satisfied with that graph.

...but there's only so long I can be dismissive before you perceive my indifference toward your issues as "tacit approval" of what took place.

Let's see...

Right now the opioid epidemic is ravaging the primarily white community. It's going to be decades before we can really calculate the impact...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...d-epidemic-cost-white-house-economic-advisers

But generally speaking, it's probably going to be billions if not trillions....

You're saying that if the black community doesn't suddenly show an outpouring of support and sympathy for the situation...it's as if they tacitly approve of the whole thing?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What are you talking about? Are you saying that those grandchildren have to baby me, give me a pat on the back, and tell me they sympathize or I'm justified in being angry at them?

That doesn't sound completely ridiculous? They don't owe me anything...they aren't my family or friends...

Let's be honest, they can feel any way that they want....if I'm directing my anger at them, I'm the bad person because it's misdirected anger.

Depends on the reason for the anger...if they're angry at you because your grandparents supported Jim Crow laws when you don't, that would be misdirected anger.

If they're mad at you for being dismissive of the impact it's had on their community, and implying that their current situation is 100% their fault, then it would be justified.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that those grandchildren have to baby me, give me a pat on the back, and tell me they sympathize or I'm justified in being angry at them?

That doesn't sound completely ridiculous? They don't owe me anything...they aren't my family or friends...

Let's be honest, they can feel any way that they want....if I'm directing my anger at them, I'm the bad person because it's misdirected anger.

Again, one would have to look at the reason for why they're angry for the reason I listed above.

Anger at you for something you didn't do: unjustified
Anger at you for being dismissive of the impact that past laws have had on the community as a whole: justified.

Black income is half that of white households in the US—just like it was in the 1950s

There you go....median household income over time. I've seen it where in the mid sixties it was closer...but I'm satisfied with that graph.

It's not surprising that things haven't changed too much, as we're still only 2-3 generations out and have 2-3 more to go.

Also, one has to consider inflation adjusted dollars when comparing 1965 to present day. Specifically with regards to CPI, as costs of various things don't rise at the same rate, so when you have the Rent CPI skyrocketing compared to other goods and services, that's going to disproportionately impact lower income communities as they spend a greater percentage of their income on rent than people who make more, but that's a whole 'nother econ discussion.

Let's see...

Right now the opioid epidemic is ravaging the primarily white community. It's going to be decades before we can really calculate the impact...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...d-epidemic-cost-white-house-economic-advisers

But generally speaking, it's probably going to be billions if not trillions....

You're saying that if the black community doesn't suddenly show an outpouring of support and sympathy for the situation...it's as if they tacitly approve of the whole thing?

Well, that's not an exact comparison, as the government didn't force opiods upon anyone with the force of law.

But that aside, to stick with your analogy... imagine a kid was born into a household with a parent who's addicted as a result of loose prescribing policies of the past, doctor gave an Rx willy nilly, a parent got hooked, doctor tried to cut them off cold turkey, they turn elsewhere to get their fix...thus starts the cycle of addiction...

Now, if that kid grows up and starts making statements about how loose prescribing policies of the past are still negatively impacting them, and a substantial number of people they interact with them look at them and say either
"Nah, it's your fault for not trying hard enough to overcome this challenge"
or...
"Nope, prescribing policies of the past don't have anything to do with it, it's 100% about willpower, if your parent had exercised willpower, they wouldn't have gotten your family into this mess...I know a guy who was on pain pills and was able to quit without a problem, that means everyone should be able to, there must just be a culture of addiction in your community"

It's only going to be a matter of time before that kid starts to develop a chip on his shoulder about the topic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Depends on the reason for the anger...if they're angry at you because your grandparents supported Jim Crow laws when you don't, that would be misdirected anger.


If they're mad at you for being dismissive of the impact it's had on their community, and implying that their current situation is 100% their fault, then it would be justified.

Nothing is 100% anyone's fault....but it's not entirely not either.

I mean, we can't expect someone to know their house is going to get blown down....but at the same time, if you live in southern Florida and have to abandon your house once a year...maybe you should stop pretending to be a victim of circumstance and hope everyone else will foot the bill after a few years.

Again, one would have to look at the reason for why they're angry for the reason I listed above.

Anger at you for something you didn't do: unjustified
Anger at you for being dismissive of the impact that past laws have had on the community as a whole: justified.

And what's the magical method for telling if someone is "dismissive"?

No offense, but a big part of the reason why your excuses fall flat is this girl got up and just started racially discriminating against whites. She didn't take a survey....she didn't have a conversation. She hates white people because she's racist. Period.

It's not surprising that things haven't changed too much, as we're still only 2-3 generations out and have 2-3 more to go.

Oh is this where it's all going to even out? The next couple of generations?

I suppose we can revisit this in 20 years and see if your theory holds up.

Well, that's not an exact comparison, as the government didn't force opiods upon anyone with the force of law.

Well it was an institution....it was deliberate...

I really don't see why that institution has to be the government for a comparison.

But that aside, to stick with your analogy... imagine a kid was born into a household with a parent who's addicted as a result of loose prescribing policies of the past, doctor gave an Rx willy nilly, a parent got hooked, doctor tried to cut them off cold turkey, they turn elsewhere to get their fix...thus starts the cycle of addiction...

Right.

Now, if that kid grows up and starts making statements about how loose prescribing policies of the past are still negatively impacting them, and a substantial number of people they interact with them look at them and say either
"Nah, it's your fault for not trying hard enough to overcome this challenge"
or...
"Nope, prescribing policies of the past don't have anything to do with it, it's 100% about willpower, if your parent had exercised willpower, they wouldn't have gotten your family into this mess...I know a guy who was on pain pills and was able to quit without a problem, that means everyone should be able to, there must just be a culture of addiction in your community"

Uh huh.

It's only going to be a matter of time before that kid starts to develop a chip on his shoulder about the topic.

And that justifies their racism directed at anyone they presume isn't sympathetic?

Does this really seem like a good excuse for racism?

 

[Ken-1122]

I would actually need to see some data on that, the only infographic and data I'm finding when researching the topic starts in the mid-late 80's.

If it is a case where it was it's lowest in the 60's, one may be able to make the argument that many of the more robust efforts to "even the playing field and make up for past damages" were beginning to get thoroughly gutted in the early 80's under the Reagan administration when the false notion of the "welfare queen" started to be popularized.

Nigerian Immigrants in the US are doing quite well. They have among the highest education level, and an average household income on par with the Asians. If they are able to out perform white Americans, what do you suppose is stopping African Americans?
Data show Nigerians the most educated in the U.S.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Nigerian Immigrants in the US are doing quite well. They have among the highest education level, and an average household income on par with the Asians. If they are able to out perform white Americans, what do you suppose is stopping African Americans?
Data show Nigerians the most educated in the U.S.

I would have to see what kind of resources they're coming into the country with.

If they have enough money to send their kids to Baylor, then they're doing quite well.

Even in the article, one of the Nigerians said:
"Being black, you are already at a disadvantage," said Olutoye, whose wife, Toyin Olutoye, is an anesthesiologist at Baylor. "You really need to excel far above if you want to be considered for anything in this country."


Which demonstrates what I said in a much earlier post where Black Americans need to overachieve in order to accomplish what a mediocre Caucasian can accomplish.

So the very group that you're highlighting via this article are acknowledging the fact that it's tougher for certain demographic groups.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And what's the magical method for telling if someone is "dismissive"?

If they're ignoring data by the experts and clinging to the idea that "they're just not trying hard enough, if they would just work hard...", then that would be dismissive.

Oh is this where it's all going to even out? The next couple of generations?

I suppose we can revisit this in 20 years and see if your theory holds up.

Sure...If in 2-3 generations the same issues still persist, then feel free to say "I was right, the experts from a panel comprised of sociologists and economists from over 20 countries were wrong"

Right.

Uh huh.

And that justifies their racism directed at anyone they presume isn't sympathetic?

Does this really seem like a good excuse for racism?

Again, as I've said in multiple posts, it's not a "justification", it's an "explanation".

If the question is "why does this girl have a chip on her shoulder when it comes to white people", the things I've mentioned would explain that, not justify it.

The question is whether or not that explanation is something people can sympathize with...and that's going to be subjective based on who you ask.

"I don't like group XYZ because of this different immutable trait and nothing more"
vs
"I don't like group XYZ because many from that group I've interacted with have been dismissive of my issues and condescended to me about things that are out of my control and made them seem like they're all my fault"

Both are examples of broad-brushing (and are wrong), but one is more understandable than the other for a person looking at it objectively in terms of determining a rationale for the mindset.

I doesn't take much in terms of inference and reasoning skills to understand differences between why a woman who was abused by her father has a sour attitude toward men vs. a college feminist who wants to hate men simply because of some sort of indoctrination about how "the patriarchy is evil" she picked up in her first semester of philosophy class.

Acknowledging the differences in those two mindsets (and where they come from) is how fences are mended.

If a person is angry about being mistreated by group XYZ, telling them "well, your dislike of XYZ means you're just as bad as XYZ" isn't productive and isn't going to solve anything.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Nigerian Immigrants in the US are doing quite well. They have among the highest education level, and an average household income on par with the Asians. If they are able to out perform white Americans, what do you suppose is stopping African Americans?
Data show Nigerians the most educated in the U.S.

The article mentions most of the major issues. Culture (Nigerian culture emphasises education) and Immigration law forcing people to stay in school longer. Plus people who immigrate to study in another country almost always come from wealthy families, as they're the only ones who can afford the fees.

 

[Ken-1122]

The article mentions most of the major issues. Culture (Nigerian culture emphasises education) and Immigration law forcing people to stay in school longer. Plus people who immigrate to study in another country almost always come from wealthy families, as they're the only ones who can afford the fees.

Nigerians aren't the only ones from African nations that come here to study, yet they are the only ones who have this distinction. IOW if immigration laws and wealthy families had anything to do with it, other African nations would be excelling this way as well.

I would have to see what kind of resources they're coming into the country with.

If they have enough money to send their kids to Baylor, then they're doing quite well.

Even in the article, one of the Nigerians said:
"Being black, you are already at a disadvantage," said Olutoye, whose wife, Toyin Olutoye, is an anesthesiologist at Baylor. "You really need to excel far above if you want to be considered for anything in this country."


Which demonstrates what I said in a much earlier post where Black Americans need to overachieve in order to accomplish what a mediocre Caucasian can accomplish.

So the very group that you're highlighting via this article are acknowledging the fact that it's tougher for certain demographic groups.

Personally I think it is the culture that makes the difference. If you are raised in a culture where excelling in education is of utmost importance, you are more likely to succeed than if you are raised in an environment where education is often seen as actin' white.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The article mentions most of the major issues. Culture (Nigerian culture emphasises education) and Immigration law forcing people to stay in school longer. Plus people who immigrate to study in another country almost always come from wealthy families, as they're the only ones who can afford the fees.

Pretty sure we aren't talking about student visas....right? They can't work and have to return to their homeland...

.....and considering Nigeria's middle class makes about 600$ a month, these must be some extraordinarily wealthy Nigerians. They'd have to be 10 times wealthier than the average Nigerians to be having a slight advantage on the average white person.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If they're ignoring data by the experts and clinging to the idea that "they're just not trying hard enough, if they would just work hard...", then that would be dismissive.

Experts? Experts in what? Have they ruled out cultural differences or do they simply refuse to examine them?

Sure...If in 2-3 generations the same issues still persist, then feel free to say "I was right, the experts from a panel comprised of sociologists and economists from over 20 countries were wrong"

When did you offer up all these sociologists and economists for evidence? I offered up a graph from the largest study on racial income in the last 30 years....and it showed that black women and white women from equal income brackets do basically the same as each other.

That point seems to be lost on you.

Again, as I've said in multiple posts, it's not a "justification", it's an "explanation".

If the question is "why does this girl have a chip on her shoulder when it comes to white people", the things I've mentioned would explain that, not justify it.

Well I'm all for explanations....why don't I offer mine?

She's racist because she's spent probably a third of her life (an important third, her late teens to early twenties) mired in a culture that has pushed a false narrative at her. She's been told that implicit bias is working against her (it's not) and white privilege is holding her down (it's empirically not...at least regarding income).

We could go into more detail about all of this....but I think that's sufficient to explain the chip on her shoulder. She's been told it's acceptable to blame her failures on whites, that whites are so awful that they are racist against her without even trying.

She's entitled. She thinks because of these things she is entitled to racial privileges....namely her own space free of white people.

The most baffling thing she's been told is that her culture is both extremely vital and important....yet never in any way connected to her outcomes. No, some people completely refuse to even consider that notion. It's completely contradictory.

That's led her to a place where she feels not only entitled to express her racism....but that she should be praised for it (as evidenced by her response and posts on Twitter).

It seems a much more likely explanation than some imaginary series of negative interactions with "dismissive white people".

Acknowledging the differences in those two mindsets (and where they come from) is how fences are mended.

If a person is angry about being mistreated by group XYZ, telling them "well, your dislike of XYZ means you're just as bad as XYZ" isn't productive and isn't going to solve anything.

I think her problem is best solved by treating her as you would if you didn't know her race or the race of the people she discriminated against. All that really needs to be understood is that a person of one race made some very selfish and racist demands of her peers.

After all, that's how the law is going to look at her should she pull some racist garbage like this in the private sector. She'll be just as guilty of racial discrimination as if she was white. It's far better that she learns that now....and that the real world won't give her a pass because of white guilt.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Experts? Experts in what? Have they ruled out cultural differences or do they simply refuse to examine them?

When did you offer up all these sociologists and economists for evidence? I offered up a graph from the largest study on racial income in the last 30 years....and it showed that black women and white women from equal income brackets do basically the same as each other.

That point seems to be lost on you.

The OECD data I provided a few pages back that suggests that in the US, it takes 5 generations (on average) for a family to recover from poverty and reach the median income levels.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is an intergovernmental economic organisation with 36 member countries, founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and world trade.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The OECD data I provided a few pages back that suggests that in the US, it takes 5 generations (on average) for a family to recover from poverty and reach the median income levels.

Well apparently they're wrong....white and black women have comparatively equal income. We can talk about why that hasn't happened for black men....but discrimination is going to be tough to argue.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is an intergovernmental economic organisation with 36 member countries, founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and world trade.

The organization has all those experts and members lol....are you trying to say they all had a hand in that particular research?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well apparently they're wrong....white and black women have comparatively equal income. We can talk about why that hasn't happened for black men....but discrimination is going to be tough to argue.

Median weekly earnings data doesn't seem to support your assertion on that one.

Black women only earn, on average, 89% of white women
Black men only earn, on average, 73% of white men.

The disparity in the women's category is smaller, but still not non-existent.

Things have been moving in the right direction (it's been a few generations since the destructive policies were in force so things are moving toward equilibrium), but we're still a few generations away from true equality in terms of opportunity.

The organization has all those experts and members lol....are you trying to say they all had a hand in that particular research?

They aggregated and validated data from a number of different studies to reach that conclusion I'm sure...but if you have a particular study or data point you'd like me to look at, I'm open to it

 

[Ana the Ist]

View attachment 272842

Median weekly earnings data doesn't seem to support your assertion on that one.

I'm sorry....was my graph unclear?

It's the aggregate data of everyone's income over the past 30 years...lets start there. As far as I've seen, there's no more complete data set.

Secondly, it looked at 2 things....the average household income at the beginning of those thirty years, and the household income of someone coming from that household 30 years later.

Why? To see if someone's race affected that financial trajectory.

What did it find? You saw the graph....if a black woman came from a household that earned 50k a year....she did just as well as a white woman who came from a household that earned 50k a year, or slightly better, on average.

Sorry if that wasn't clear from the start. Would you like me to also explain why your chart is utterly meaningless?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm sorry....was my graph unclear?

It's the aggregate data of everyone's income over the past 30 years...lets start there. As far as I've seen, there's no more complete data set.

Secondly, it looked at 2 things....the average household income at the beginning of those thirty years, and the household income of someone coming from that household 30 years later.

Why? To see if someone's race affected that financial trajectory.

What did it find? You saw the graph....if a black woman came from a household that earned 50k a year....she did just as well as a white woman who came from a household that earned 50k a year, or slightly better, on average.

Sorry if that wasn't clear from the start. Would you like me to also explain why your chart is utterly meaningless?

That's a bit of a word game or "selective statistics"

Saying "a black woman who came from a 50k household does just as a well as a white woman who came from a 50k household" ignores the fact that fewer black women come from >=50k households than white women.

Saying "The 4/10 women born into group (that come from >=$50k households) do just as well as 7/10 women born into this other group (that come from >=$50k households), so everything is even" is ignoring half of the picture. The question is, why are people from one particular group more likely to be born into households that have higher household earnings?. The generational poverty & economic mobility data I posted earlier answers that question.


It's kind of like the game people play when they claim there are no racial disparities left in the workplace, and use examples like "well, you see these folks in this group who work as <insert low paying job here> make the same as folks in this other group who work as <insert low paying job here>", without acknowledging or calling into question why a higher percentage of the first group are relegated into taking those low paying roles when compared to the latter group.



Or, a more plain way of putting it.
If Group A has 10 people: 2 lawyers, 2 doctors, 2 accountants, 2 computer programmers, and 2 maids
If Group B has 10 people: 0 lawyers, 1 doctor, 1 accountant, 1 computer programmer, and 7 maids

It's disingenuous to say "See there's equality of opportunity, because the 7 maids from Group B made the same as the 2 maids from Group A"