Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap

[laughing dog]

So Thomas Sowell is more of an ideological bullshitter than a serious researcher?

I'd say Thomas Sowell is a serious ideological researcher with a clear agenda.

 

[Mumbles]

Interesting about the black community -- there is a lot more about it than common stereotypes of it, especially on the Right.

Indeed - studies show that black Americans, most of whom fall into what I called "African American" are more likely to see education as "very important" than white people, both as parents and as high-school students. The whole "Acting White" thing seems to be based on cherry-picked data - I'm sure it referred to education in some areas, but where I'm from it usually referred to music choices and the like.

Like lead. Especially tetraethyl lead as a gasoline additive.

Or in paint additives - particularly poorly-maintained interiors - as well as other environmental toxins. The truth is, environment can have massive negative effects on IQ, and all such factors correlate with race in the US.

As to welfarism, a common criticism from the Right is that it allegedly destroys families. But the "no man in the house" rule seems like something intended to prevent cheating rather than some antifamily plot. As to discouraging work, not being allowed to keep one's earnings without being kicked off the system seems like something else intended to discourage cheating, rather than a plot against paid employment. I've discovered Why Doesn’t the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State? (also https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/g..._u.s._have_a_european-style_welfare_state.pdf). Figure 4.4 toward the bottom of the file is very revealing. The states with hardly any black people were more generous than those with sizable fractions of black people.

And general attitudes towards welfare also vary by the perceived race of the recipient - it's common to see oneself as "deserving" while others as "cheating", and when stereotypes reinforce that perception, well...

Combined with being much more willing to assist white people and such minorities as Cuban-Americans.

There's that as well - also, one should watch out for "per capita" income that measures household totals, versus individual income. these can vary considerably for recent immigrants, who may have multiple generations of workers in the same home.

So Thomas Sowell is more of an ideological bullshitter than a serious researcher?

The few times I've seen him referenced in any sort of social work, they basically tear him apart. More often, they simply don't bother with him in the first place.

 

[Trausti]

So Thomas Sowell is more of an ideological bullshitter than a serious researcher?

I'd say Thomas Sowell is a serious ideological researcher with a clear agenda.

Thomas Sowell is the most dreadful of dreadful things; a Black person who thinks for himself. The horror.

 

[laughing dog]

So Thomas Sowell is more of an ideological bullshitter than a serious researcher?

I'd say Thomas Sowell is a serious ideological researcher with a clear agenda.

Thomas Sowell is the most dreadful of dreadful things; a Black person who thinks for himself. The horror.

You said it, not me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with the Japanese-got-reparations argument is that the Chinese also do very well and they never got a handout after they were discriminated against.

Culture makes a big difference. Not everyone shares the culture but it doesn't take that for the effect to be obvious.

It's the situation in one's home and neighborhood that matters, not the color of one's skin.

This is immaterial to the OP's attempted point, because one's home/neighborhood situation is under no more individual control than past discrimination. Black people born in a bad neighborhood to bad parents inherited that culture just as unfairly as they inherited the larger system of institutionalized racial discrimination that set back their great-grandparents' generation. There is no reason to highlight culture as something that absolves society of the responsibility to provide aid and assistance to those in need of it. There are no "acceptable" roots of racial disparity (like culture) that we can tsk-tsk at and move on from, in contrast with "real" racial disparity (literally the Ku Klux Klan) that requires actual attention.

Where a segment of the population is desperate, poor, and uneducated, whether it's because of their culture or because of the attitudes of others toward their race, in neither case is it their fault, and even if it could somehow be shown to be their fault after all, everybody benefits when society helps people who make mistakes. Point your brain in that direction instead of rushing to excuse every accusation of racism as if it makes a DIFFERENCE why these people are poor. You remind me of that comic about global warming where all the world leaders are at a convention and one says: "What if it's all a big hoax and we improve the environment, the economy, our energy independence, and the health of our citizens for nothing??" Why is it so important to you to monotonously note that something other than racism may be making black people struggle? Are you afraid that if racism turns out to be the wrong explanation, we will have empowered a generation of potential workers, consumers, artists, and scientists to participate in society instead of running after drugs on its fringes, for NOTHING?? The horror!

What you are missing is that if you don't know the cause you probably can't fix it.

If it's due to discrimination then anti-discrimination efforts are the answer. They worked for Asians. They worked for women (despite the oft-hyped earning discrepancy. That's a bad yardstick, not discrimination.) Thus they work. In the early days they produced major gains for blacks--but not anymore.

On the other hand, if it's culture you wouldn't expect anti-discrimination efforts to work. Which is exactly what we see--SJW's making ever-greater noise about discrimination and accomplishing nothing because that's not the problem.

I don't know what the answer is but ever more of what has shown to be a near total failure isn't it. (Anti-discrimination efforts have already done just about everything they can accomplish.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or in paint additives - particularly poorly-maintained interiors - as well as other environmental toxins. The truth is, environment can have massive negative effects on IQ, and all such factors correlate with race in the US.

And what will anti-discrimination efforts do about lead damage? Nothing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No they were not property as black slaves were, but they did go through a hell of a lot of oppression: http://www.mhso.ca/tiesthatbind/BuildingCPR.php

It is vapid thinking to think the experience of the Chinese in the US is very similar to that of black people. The Chinese were not slaves, they were not bought and sold, and they were allowed to learn to read and write. Nor was their experience as a group for as long. Nor where they targeted for lynching in the 1900s as were black people.

It is even more vapid to constantly play the not-bad-because-this-is-worse game and constantly make accusations of equivalency claims where none are made.

 

[Toni]

Or in paint additives - particularly poorly-maintained interiors - as well as other environmental toxins. The truth is, environment can have massive negative effects on IQ, and all such factors correlate with race in the US.

And what will anti-discrimination efforts do about lead damage? Nothing.

You're kidding, right?

When we decide that housing with deteriorating lead paint and playgrounds and school buildings and neighborhoods contaminated by lead dust are OK in neighborhoods for people who cannot afford to move out of them, then that's a kind of discrimination. When we decide that all people deserve to live in save environments--meaning: free from reasonable environmental risks, such as deteriorating lead paint or chemical contamination, free from pollution, free from crime and then actually do something about it, even if it inconveniences us or makes us a bit uncomfortable because we can no longer afford a triple latte, then we are on the righ track. Refusing to see a problem because it happens in someone else's neighborhood is a kind of discrimination. Especially when we do our best to keep certain people out of our neighborhoods, forcing them into areas with badly maintained housing is a kind of discrimination.

We need to stop discriminating. It's not an accident that water supplies are most contaminated in poor areas. It's not an accident that housing for poor people is more likely to be contaminated by deteriorating lead paint, contaminated water and soil, chemical pollution and other forms of pollution. We wouldn't tolerate it in our neighborhoods but we sure do not have a problem turning a blind eye when it's someone else's neighborhood.

 

[laughing dog]

It is even more vapid to constantly play the not-bad-because-this-is-worse game and constantly make accusations of equivalency claims where none are made.

Quote mining to create a straw man is, at best, sloppy thinking - even if it is the best you can do.

Really, your response was analogous to comparing the long-term recovery and health of someone with a broken femur (the Chinese) with someone who had a massive heart attack (blacks), and asking "How come the latter took so long"?

 

[fast]

No, because I think helping people in need is an ethical obligation.

If someone comes to me for help, and if I'm able to help, then is it your view that I'm a bad person for making the choice not to help?

There are no bad people, at least not in the sense that some are bad and some are good. But if you can help and you choose not to, then whatever your reasons for making that choice, they were not ethical ones. All that can be said is, in that particular scenario, you had other interests that overrided moral considerations.

I have a problem with newborn obligations that are conceived with virgin pregnancy. In other words, I have a problem with unilateral obligations.

If I am apart of an obligation's creation, I'm fine with accepting responsibility. For instance, if I enter a contract to pay you for services rendered, I've participated in the unfolding of an obligation to pay you for those services. Another example; if I accidentally knock a child into a pool, I've been amidst the myriad of events involved in that child's impending doom. I accept that I have an obligation to partake in immediate rescue.

Now, I'm not saying it's not wrong to not help another that someone else sent spireling to an unfortunate fate. See, this isn't about right or wrong but rather that wretched thing called obligation. See, I don't think that not helping is the same as harming. If you are in desperate need of medicine that only I can happen to provide, and if I had no otherwise obligation to provide it, sure, maybe (just maybe) it's wrong to not provide it when I can, but never once can you point to a real obligation that isn't manufactured in the minds of others.

Social obligations are pure unadulterated bullshit. These unilateral obligations that are created without my acceptance are puretine manmade seeds of poppycock. Oh, and my deciding to stay within the borders of a nation or country that breeds social expectations is not a strong enough argument to convince me that I've tacitly accepted to be obligated.

I'm sure we could come up with an especially egregious scenario that shows an evil in the heart for not helping another human being when I had no influence in their predicament, but right or wrong as one might bring their moral shades of gray to bare, never once can one solidify in my mind the presence of a true obligation that isn't made up.

Jury duty. That at least is a construct of law. I will accept that I have a DUTY. I don't have a duty to vote. I don't even have a responsibility to vote. With rights come responsibilities, it's said, but wary we should be. I say I do not have a responsibility to vote. Rather, if I exercise my right, I should do so responsibly. But, an obligation? No. I will vote because it's a helpful. I will vote to help and do so responsibly. I do not have a right, duty, responsibility, or obligation to tip the waitress. What I have slung in my face like feces is a cultural expectation. Something entirely different.

You said, "helping people in need is an ethical obligation." It may be unethical to not do so. I'll let you decide, but how in holy hell do you get to throw about that nasty "O" word? What sorcery must we conjure to make that true? Some kind of what, argument? Trust no one's argument. Refuse to believe in this horrid thing labeled obligation, especially when it's potion for creation is subsidized by humanities finest.

Okay, that's a lil over the top, but the goal is to impress upon you a separation of sorts. Don't assume that even a moral course of action is somehow therefore obligatory. If I see a child fall into a pool and I can easily grab and save her, and let's say I had absolutely nothing to do with causing her plight, then even if I concede that I should help and that there's something bad wrong with not doing so, I find it seriously mistaken to say 1) that I've harmed her. Didn't help, sure, but let's not forget, there's no true obligation to do so; otherwise, one might have a case. Number 2) to reiterate, don't say I have an ethical obligation to help. That's harder to see because we might both agree that it's wrong if I don't.

I'll post this (as is) to see what comes of it.

 

[Mumbles]

For reference, here's a basic primer in the Washington Post on lead poisoning, using Freddie Gray as a case study:

It wasn’t long after that he was given the first of many blood tests, court records show. The test came in May of 1990, when the family was living in a home on Fulton Avenue in West Baltimore. Even at such a young age, his blood contained more than 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood — double the level at which the Center for Disease Control urges additional testing. Three months later, his blood had nearly 30 micrograms. In June 1991, when Gray was 22 months old, his blood carried 37 micrograms.

“Jesus,” Dan Levy, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University who has studied the effects of lead poisoning on youths, gasped when told of Gray’s levels. “The fact that Mr. Gray had these high levels of lead in all likelihood affected his ability to think and to self-regulate and profoundly affected his cognitive ability to process information.”

Levy added, “And the real tragedy of lead is that the damage it does is irreparable.”

Lead is, as Toni said, one of many such issues - prenatal care is another obvious problem, with black women even being more likely to have children with low birthrate. There can be other health-related issues due to environment, such as asthma likelyhood, that can effect earning potential, medical costs, and so forth. But lead poisoning, due to easily found columns like the above, is one of the simpler ones for new people to look into, in large part thanks to research that has linked it directly to impulse control and violence.

 

[Trausti]

Lead is bad for mental health, no doubt. But Freddie Gray was one person. Is the suggestion that Black people as a group are poisoned by lead? Nuts.

 

[laughing dog]

Lead is bad for mental health, no doubt. But Freddie Gray was one person. Is the suggestion that Black people as a group are poisoned by lead? Nuts.

There is research that suggests it is not "nuts":
https://phys.org/news/2016-10-racial-disparities-poisoning-action.html,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26896114,
https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/aizer_feb_12_2015.pdf, and
https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Minority-kids-more-likely-to-have-lead-poisoning-9217962.php
are but a few examples.

 

[Trausti]

Lead is bad for mental health, no doubt. But Freddie Gray was one person. Is the suggestion that Black people as a group are poisoned by lead? Nuts.

There is research that suggests it is not "nuts":
https://phys.org/news/2016-10-racial-disparities-poisoning-action.html,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26896114,
https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/aizer_feb_12_2015.pdf, and
https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Minority-kids-more-likely-to-have-lead-poisoning-9217962.php
are but a few examples.

So if Black children were exposed to the same levels of lead as children of other races income disparities would disappear? Nah.

 

[Mumbles]

A quick example of the problems in the OP's link:

I mentioned that so-called "luxury" cars may be more purchased than other larger, and overall more pricey car models, such as trucks or SUVs. According to this link, "luxury" cars make up roughly 5.8% of the US car market in total, compared to 8.4% for SUVs, and a whopping 15.8% for pickup trucks. So while African-American women are 14% overrepresented in "luxury" cars (and I'll note that there's not hard definition for what a "luxury" car even is), this is dwarfed by their underrepresentation in SUVs (at 31% underrepresentation) and trucks (at a massive 55% underrepresentation - of a market that's more than 3 times larger than that of "luxury" cars!).

If you wish to claim that black women truly spend frivolously compared to the overall population, these major differences require an explanation. Do huge numbers of other groups really need pickup trucks? What's a "luxury" car defined by? Do black women who buy them actually just more likely to be wealthy (in terms of net wealth, not just income)? What's the percentage of new versus. used, bought versus leased? What's the actual average cost of the car sale or lease in the first place? There's simply no in-depth analysis here, it's just "here's a random stat that backs me up if you don't look into it, I'm done!" This is simply not a well thought out study - the source used in the article isn't even anything but market research meant to grab ad dollars. It may well be that a "luxury" car brand should consider advertising on How to Get Away with Murder or Atlanta, but as far as backing the article's claim goes, it's garbage, and very selectively quoted garbage at that. Frankly, I'd question that link I just gave above as well, since I didn't take a good look at their numbers either - it suffices for here because it's enough to put these questions forward and illuminate the flaws in the OP's link, but that's it.

- - - Updated - - -

Lead is bad for mental health, no doubt. But Freddie Gray was one person. Is the suggestion that Black people as a group are poisoned by lead? Nuts.

There is research that suggests it is not "nuts":
https://phys.org/news/2016-10-racial-disparities-poisoning-action.html,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26896114,
https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/aizer_feb_12_2015.pdf, and
https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Minority-kids-more-likely-to-have-lead-poisoning-9217962.php
are but a few examples.

So if Black children were exposed to the same levels of lead as children of other races income disparities would disappear? Nah.

"Nah" is not a study.

Look, if you truly want to believe that race-IQ "realism" crap, go ahead, but be honest and just say so.

 

[Trausti]

A quick example of the problems in the OP's link:

I mentioned that so-called "luxury" cars may be more purchased than other larger, and overall more pricey car models, such as trucks or SUVs. According to this link, "luxury" cars make up roughly 5.8% of the US car market in total, compared to 8.4% for SUVs, and a whopping 15.8% for pickup trucks. So while African-American women are 14% overrepresented in "luxury" cars (and I'll note that there's not hard definition for what a "luxury" car even is), this is dwarfed by their underrepresentation in SUVs (at 31% underrepresentation) and trucks (at a massive 55% underrepresentation - of a market that's more than 3 times larger than that of "luxury" cars!).

If you wish to claim that black women truly spend frivolously compared to the overall population, these major differences require an explanation. Do huge numbers of other groups really need pickup trucks? What's a "luxury" car defined by? Do black women who buy them actually just more likely to be wealthy (in terms of net wealth, not just income)? What's the percentage of new versus. used, bought versus leased? What's the actual average cost of the car sale or lease in the first place? There's simply no in-depth analysis here, it's just "here's a random stat that backs me up if you don't look into it, I'm done!" This is simply not a well thought out study - the source used in the article isn't even anything but market research meant to grab ad dollars. It may well be that a "luxury" car brand should consider advertising on How to Get Away with Murder or Atlanta, but as far as backing the article's claim goes, it's garbage, and very selectively quoted garbage at that. Frankly, I'd question that link I just gave above as well, since I didn't take a good look at their numbers either - it suffices for here because it's enough to put these questions forward and illuminate the flaws in the OP's link, but that's it.

- - - Updated - - -

So if Black children were exposed to the same levels of lead as children of other races income disparities would disappear? Nah.

"Nah" is not a study.

Look, if you truly want to believe that race-IQ "realism" crap, go ahead, but be honest and just say so.

Well, I'm not a creationist. If you want to believe that evolution and natural selection apply to all life on this plant except humans, go ahead. But I don't know how keeping you head in the sand does any good. As chance would have it, the New York Times just published a piece on this topic.

Why Progressives Should Embrace the Genetics of Education

On Monday, scientists published a study in Nature Genetics that analyzed the genes of 1.1 million people of European ancestry, including over 300,000 23andMe customers. Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical in all humans, but researchers focused on the remaining 1 percent and found thousands of DNA variants that are correlated with educational attainment. This information can be combined into a single number, called a polygenic score. In Americans with European ancestry, just over 10 percent of people with a low polygenic score completed college, compared with 55 percent of people with a high polygenic score. This genetic disparity in college completion is as big as the disparity between rich and poor students in America.

Here is a link to the study.

 

[lpetrich]

So Thomas Sowell is more of an ideological bullshitter than a serious researcher?

I'd say Thomas Sowell is a serious ideological researcher with a clear agenda.

Thomas Sowell is the most dreadful of dreadful things; a Black person who thinks for himself. The horror.

Thinking for oneself is generally good, but it can lead to thinking up kooky ideas.

Consider the case of Leonard Jeffries, a black man who thinks that black people are nice "Sun People" and that white people are nasty "Ice People".

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, I'm not a creationist. If you want to believe that evolution and natural selection apply to all life on this plant except humans, go ahead. But I don't know how keeping you head in the sand does any good. As chance would have it, the New York Times just published a piece on this topic.

Why Progressives Should Embrace the Genetics of Education

On Monday, scientists published a study in Nature Genetics that analyzed the genes of 1.1 million people of European ancestry, including over 300,000 23andMe customers. Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical in all humans, but researchers focused on the remaining 1 percent and found thousands of DNA variants that are correlated with educational attainment. This information can be combined into a single number, called a polygenic score. In Americans with European ancestry, just over 10 percent of people with a low polygenic score completed college, compared with 55 percent of people with a high polygenic score. This genetic disparity in college completion is as big as the disparity between rich and poor students in America.

Here is a link to the study.

I hope you realise that the predictive power of the suggested genetic explanation only worked when educational attainment of people of European ancestry was compared within and between members of that group (which is what the study was mainly about, it was not comparing whites to blacks for instance).

It (the genetic factor identified) also didn't predict when used for African Americans. Which to me suggests that things other than genetics are much more of a factor or factors, especially for that latter group, so I'm wondering what your point was, in relation to the OP, in highlighting genetics by citing this paper here.

 

[ZiprHead]

A quick example of the problems in the OP's link:

I mentioned that so-called "luxury" cars may be more purchased than other larger, and overall more pricey car models, such as trucks or SUVs. According to this link, "luxury" cars make up roughly 5.8% of the US car market in total, compared to 8.4% for SUVs, and a whopping 15.8% for pickup trucks. So while African-American women are 14% overrepresented in "luxury" cars (and I'll note that there's not hard definition for what a "luxury" car even is), this is dwarfed by their underrepresentation in SUVs (at 31% underrepresentation) and trucks (at a massive 55% underrepresentation - of a market that's more than 3 times larger than that of "luxury" cars!).

If you wish to claim that black women truly spend frivolously compared to the overall population, these major differences require an explanation. Do huge numbers of other groups really need pickup trucks? What's a "luxury" car defined by? Do black women who buy them actually just more likely to be wealthy (in terms of net wealth, not just income)? What's the percentage of new versus. used, bought versus leased? What's the actual average cost of the car sale or lease in the first place? There's simply no in-depth analysis here, it's just "here's a random stat that backs me up if you don't look into it, I'm done!" This is simply not a well thought out study - the source used in the article isn't even anything but market research meant to grab ad dollars. It may well be that a "luxury" car brand should consider advertising on How to Get Away with Murder or Atlanta, but as far as backing the article's claim goes, it's garbage, and very selectively quoted garbage at that. Frankly, I'd question that link I just gave above as well, since I didn't take a good look at their numbers either - it suffices for here because it's enough to put these questions forward and illuminate the flaws in the OP's link, but that's it.

I drive a luxury car. I didn't buy it because it's a luxury car. I bought it because it was cheap and known for extreme reliability. But damn it's a sweet ride.

 

[laughing dog]

Lead is bad for mental health, no doubt. But Freddie Gray was one person. Is the suggestion that Black people as a group are poisoned by lead? Nuts.

There is research that suggests it is not "nuts":
https://phys.org/news/2016-10-racial-disparities-poisoning-action.html,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26896114,
https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/aizer_feb_12_2015.pdf, and
https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Minority-kids-more-likely-to-have-lead-poisoning-9217962.php
are but a few examples.

So if Black children were exposed to the same levels of lead as children of other races income disparities would disappear? Nah.

Shifting the goal post with a straw man. I wonder if that is due to trolling, lead poisoning or some other environmental factor, or genetics.