Race Relations in the US

[Koul]

I posted it simply to show how badly blacks and hispanics are faring even with an education. People are apparently arguing (against thin air?) that it's not a "smoking gun that racism exists" or something - I'll leave them to clarify what they mean.

I don't think it's a smoking gun because it doesn't take into account the culture of each race, family structure, upbringing, college degrees or personal responsibility with money/making good investments.

[archibaldcrane]

Racism obviously exists

But that wasn't the point I was making with that chart. You were tripping over yourself to defend something I wasn't even saying.

[archibaldcrane]

I don't know, I'm not sure how they define "wealth" or what their source material is aside from saying "Federal reserve", which honestly means little to me unless it was published by an accredited source (was it?). I mean it doesn't really seem to mesh with other reports, such as this: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/med...ty-in-2014.htm which shows that education level is a key determining factor in earnings.

Again, wealth and income are different - and comparing the wealth chart (of say white HS dropouts to black college graduates) to the income chart of the same is, as I said, jaw-dropping.

[Zetanio]

Can I get a source for that graph?

Like what article was it linked from or the sourcing on the numbers?

[archibaldcrane]

Can I get a source for that graph?

Like what article was it linked from or the sourcing on the numbers?

Pulled it from this article: http://www.demos.org/blog/9/23/14/wh...lege-graduates

The source is the Federal Reserve's 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances, which is here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/econre...f/scfindex.htm

[Zetanio]

kk ty.

[Blubbartron]

Again, wealth and income are different - and comparing the wealth chart (of say white HS dropouts to black college graduates) to the income chart of the same is, as I said, jaw-dropping.

Indeed they are different, and we're back again to the argument of equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity. One of those can be rationally pursued, and the other is a fool's errand. Crying about inequality in outcome is a) a waste of time and b) retarded. That's why nobody is sitting at their computer with jaw agape besides, seemingly, you.

[Marootsoobutsu]

the obvious difference between Asian-Americans and the other significant minority groupings is that they are primarily legal immigrants, if not the best and brightest of their countries at least good and somewhat shiny, capable of attaining citizenship and transversing the Pacific. as Archi points out their wealth formation is a relatively recent phenomenon, when poor Chinese laborers faced universal discrimination as they were blown apart on railroads and numbed themselves with opium few were talking about the remarkable Asian commitment to education. the modern Asian experience stands in stark contrast to poor and desperate Latinos cramming twenty people into the back of a van for a cartel-controlled border run, or the enslavement and subsequent institutional repression (a repression lifted only in the 1960s) experienced by the black population. and i wonder where Amerindians would place on that chart but i suspect very low

what does it say about this place that the feminist thread is a thread dedicated to attacking feminism and the race thread is mostly populated by white people mocking other white people over perceived white guilt. the data is overwhelming that the society we live in is neither egalitarian nor equitable but when Archi dare bring it up he's treated like a race traitor; as though the color of his skin ought prevent him from speaking on injustice done to others, or when so doing precludes a motivation other than one pathetic and pitiable

Spoiler: show

There are ways that blacks very definitely get the short stick, and you're right that American Indians are also way, way down on that list. A lot on the right say it's laziness, but I think everyone here knows that's bunk-- neither race are any more lazy than whites. Neither is any more inherently unethical. But there IS a difference with black culture and rez culture, and it's a fierce difference between Asians, the Irish, Italians, Germans, and now Hispanics.

I mean, all five of those groups came into America basically the same way Hispanics are now. All five faced just as much "DER TERKING ER JERBS" inanity. All five were worked to death frequently, hated for it, and paid almost nothing for their time, and it takes a particularly blind historic eye to think that they didn't have it worse off in many parts of our country than blacks did (the Deep South is the one massive exception, and its exception is large enough to taint everything else). But within several generations of the massive migrations, they were integrated in American society, because ultimately, they all wanted to be part of American society. It took longer for the Asians, because, y'know, harder to hide what you are. Asians still aren't fully welcome, though racism against them largely feels like bitter jealousy from white trash (I could be wrong; most of the white folk I hang out with are pretty poor, and there's a pretty clear embarrassment line with a lot of them).

But blacks and American Indians have been involved with American culture entirely and completely against their will. And there are different mentalities with both groups-- a LOT of American Indians have, over the centuries, chosen to just integrate with white society, and when you look at their success rates and rates of earnings and the like, they're about comparable with whites, while those who have stuck with the Reservations and Nations have tended to lag tragically behind. I completely get why they wouldn't want to integrate-- they've been betrayed time and time and time again by the white man. And I get why they would be mistrustful of education-- early schools for American Indians were some of the most brutal things we ever did to a people, very nearly on par with slavery (and I do not make that claim lightly). They were brutally abusive. And blacks, of course, have had the hardest-time-for-the-longest-time of any group, rarely truly easy anywhere (there are exceptions-- 1900s-1950s blacks in the Seattle area were very accepted, were welcome in white neighborhoods as neighbors, had leadership positions in the city, had great schools, etc... mostly because they were allies against the Asians, but still; the initial, "Join us in being against them" did turn into genuine acceptance for a while).

So on the one hand is people who came here *specifically* for the purpose of being part of America. There's an expectation of integration that comes with that, of joining the system rather than fighting it. Sure, one generation may not speak English well, but that vanishes pretty quickly in almost every case by the 2nd generation, and 3rd gen is basically American, whatever its little family quirks. It's not just about education-- the Irish and Italians, though there's some respect for the Jesuits there, didn't really have a hard focus on education like the WASPs always have. But, as American culture shifted, they shifted with it. Ditto the Germans. And, very notably, and probably most successfully, the Asians (particularly the Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese-- Filipinos have kind of lagged on that scale, as have Pacific Islanders, who are often lumped with Asians on polling data).

So, it's interesting tome to see that Asians are behind on the median of whites, though it seems Asians are well ahead of the non-college grad whites, and are probably trending upward? Do you have that info, Archi?

We do have a pretty clear track record for how to get ahead in America. It's not through the government fixing things, or from whites pushing help on others. It's from wanting to be part of the dominant American culture, and doing what it does, at least broadly. The movement in the 50s and 60s that achieved the most success for the most blacks wasn't X's, it was King's-- the one that pushed to join with whites, that acted very much in unison with whites, the one that wanted a single, unified, America. The melting pot idea is wonderful; the mosaic or the multiculturalism is destructive. I'm not saying we shouldn't be aware of our heritage, and that there's no place for it in how we live-- there is. But there are also uniquely American values, there is a uniquely American culture, and eschewing those, staying apart from them, will never bring a large group the success of one that does.

And it's not just because of racism-- American culture has, almost always, had a higher emphasis on education (one of the reasons the Civil War is so fascinating to study is that you have to go to WW2 to find another war where both sides of a conflict were anywhere near as literate-- everyone, down to most privates, could read and write), and especially on hard work. Much more so than most of Europe ever had, and though the Chinese and Japanese did have a high value on education back in Asia, it was stronger here in that it wasn't just education as an ideal for the rich, it was education as the ideal for EVERYONE. And I think part of why the Chinese and Japanese and Koreans who came here were able to make that transition so easily is because education was something tied, culturally, to success where they came from, so when college education, or even a high school education, became something of a necessary stepping stool for the average person to get ahead, it was a familiar idea.

A lot of American white success isn't because of racism. Europe-- and America-- got to the top of the world-wide-pecking order not because they built up the best militaries; they got the best militaries because they had more successful societal models that began to encourage innovation, that rewarded individual labor, and that valued education, as a whole, more than any other society on Earth from the 1100s~ through, well, today. It took a while (about 500 years) to overtake the enormous advantage the Chinese had in terms of technology and military power, but they got there, and then in 200 years flew past them. The Protestant Work Ethic isn't racist, though-- we've seen numerous groups who adopt it (including the education part), and who have merged with society, rather than fight against it, achieve success over very long terms. It's the people who want to be in America, but who, as a culture, reject some part or other of that PWE who have lagged behind. And I'm not saying adopt Christianity; that has nothing to do with it... the PWE's just that semi-mythical-but-not-unreal thing that did separate America, ultimately, from Europe (that, and essentially uncontested land roughly the size of Europe, and a willingness, if at times reluctant, to integrate with new folks).

Black culture has every reason under the sun not to trust white culture at all. It does. Whites have, historically, been brutal and cruel and oppressive to blacks, and there's no reasonable way to deny that at all. I understand why there is incredible distrust for the police and for the people the police are seen to represent and seen to protect. I get that. And it's not fair to say, "Hey, if you want success, be like your oppressors." But it's partly true, because it's not because of racism that whites have been successful... it's because their model for society has tended to generate more wealth, and because the white model is what built this society up in the first place: it's successful not because it's racist, but because it's what *works*. Trying to succeed in that society, a society of inclusion, while remaining outside of it, while remaining different not in appearance but in culture, just doesn't really work. It didn't work for the Asians when they tried it at first, and it didn't work for Italians and the Irish who resisted or who resented their treatment by the WASPs.

If you want success, conform-- not because it's racist, but because it works. Until that happens, there's no external help that will ever close that gap. You create dependency, which exacerbates division and breeds even more resentment, on both sides of that line. You create entitlement, which withers the soul. And it maintains otherness. Once things are one, you now look at people as people, not as some group who just can't get ahead on their own and need that white help-- and THEN you can help them help themselves. I hate the bootstraps idea-- but the truth is, you can't drag someone out of poverty, and you can't make it happen in a way that doesn't work. You can't GIVE someone out. As long as there is resentment for the dominant culture, rather than an acceptance of the idea that it became dominant because it *WORKS BEST*, there will be no success for any individual, nor for those who adhere to a culture of it.

[archibaldcrane]

I don't have the Asian household wealth by educational attainment breakdown, I'm sure it's in the linked Fed Reserve survey but I can't be fucked to dig it out.

Don't be too surprised Asian wealth is behind whites though, as I said Asians only recently started out-earning whites, and wealth accumulation takes time.

[Zetanio]

There is a huge distortion in this data somewhere.

I poked through the internal and public numbers that this is apparently sourced from. The distortion seems to be coming from the top 10% of respondents in each category.

I would say that the 1% top earners for each category for white families is pulling these numbers up dramatically.

Sourcing I've seen via Bloomberg and WSJ put the median net worth middle class white families between 40-60k depending on the dataset. Still higher but not jaw-dropping.

[archibaldcrane]

Median numbers cannot be dragged up by the top 10 or 1 percent, that's how medians work. You're thinking mean, which we aren't using here.

40-60k middle class numbers you're seeing are clearly about income, not wealth (aka net worth)

[archibaldcrane]

Here's the definition of wealth for these figures:

"Household wealth is the accumulated sum of assets (houses, cars, savings and checking accounts, stocks and mutual funds, retirement accounts, etc.) minus the sum of debt (mortgages, auto loans, credit card debt, etc.)."

[archibaldcrane]

Regarding Asian wealth - apparently they were on top for a little bit there:

Asians: In 2005 median Asian household wealth had been greater than the median for white households, but by 2009 Asians lost their place at the top of the wealth hierarchy. Their net worth fell from $168,103 in 2005 to $78,066 in 2009, a drop of 54%. Like Hispanics, they are geographically concentrated in places such as California that were hit hard by the housing market meltdown. The arrival of new Asian immigrants since 2004 also contributed significantly to the estimated decline in the overall wealth of this racial group. Absent the immigrants who arrived during this period, the median wealth of Asian households is estimated to have dropped 31% from 2005 to 2009. Asians account for about 5% of the U.S. population.

[archibaldcrane]

The housing meltdown crushed wealth across the board, especially for non-whites who had the highest percentages of their wealth in their homes.

I, on the other hand, used it as an opportunity. My 400k house bought in late 2011 (bottom of the LA market) is worth somewhere around 600k now. #stackthatwealth

[Marootsoobutsu]

I don't have the Asian household wealth by educational attainment breakdown, I'm sure it's in the linked Fed Reserve survey but I can't be fucked to dig it out.

Don't be too surprised Asian wealth is behind whites though, as I said Asians only recently started out-earning whites, and wealth accumulation takes time.

No, you're right. I'd thought that they'd had a large enough gap since the 80s~ with home ownership, but then I remembered that A) we have a LOT of Asian immigrants, where the % of Asians who are 1st/2nd gen is relatively high, especially compared to white immigrants, and B) there's a strong tendency to lump all Asians together, but the integration of, say, the Vietnamese, Thai, and Indians is very different from the culture and integration of the Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese. At least looking at my own city, the Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese tend to do the White Thing, and Indians as well, while the Filipinos, Vietnamese, and Thai have tended to cluster more in a single district in Seattle, and remain apart.

[Zetanio]

Median numbers cannot be dragged up by the top 10 or 1 percent, that's how medians work. You're thinking mean, which we aren't using here.

40-60k middle class numbers you're seeing are clearly about income, not wealth (aka net worth)

You're right. I was looking at faulty numbers. The distortion was the top 10% dragging the mean and some other shit around.

I'm not all that surprised by those numbers to be honest.

[RKenshin]

The graph points out a real issue, but I agree that it's somewhat misleading and not as 'devastating' as it attempts to portray itself to be.

Focusing exclusively on the educational attainment levels and current median wealth, ignores the fact that wealth is accumulated over and primarily influenced by time (http://www.demos.org/blog/9/8/14/wea...very-age-group). You can't look at wealth the same way you look at income. A far more interesting and genuine graph would break those categories down further into age brackets (guarantee the result would be vastly different, though yes, I certainly believe a big part of the disparity would still be there).

A significant contributor to this difference will be the fact that the number of aged white men with college degrees (as a share of all whites) will be much larger than the number of aged black men with college degrees (as a share of all blacks). When it comes to wealth, having a college degree and being 30 is significantly different than having a college degree and being 70 - which is going to be incredible rare among blacks, because 70 years ago segregation was still a thing. The average age of a college educated black is far lower than a college educated white. I don't feel like/have time right now to do the searching, but I'm sure you can find plenty of statistics to support it.

Further, I remember an article estimating 25-40% of all personal wealth beyond $100,000 is inherited (again, short on time, but feel free to verify); which is another statistics that greatly favors whites, as blacks have only recently started earning anything close to what whites do (though still quite far behind). Whites have parents working in the 1900s during America's most prosperous financial period to inherit real estate/homes/money from, where as blacks have near nothing from that time.

None of this is to say that there aren't problems here, or that whites don't have a major wealth advantage, but it's really just not as "OMG CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?!" as you might think it is. Wealth, again, is a very time-based measure of 'success' and the fact is that not nearly enough time has passed since the days of segregation/civil rights/jim crow/etc to give blacks a fair chance against whites.

America could change into the land of everyone is 100% equal tomorrow, and it would still take generations and generations for this wealth disparity to even itself out.

[Ragnus]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...complain-pari/

Mizzou protesters, Black Lives Matter complain Paris attacks stole their headlines

[Andalusian girls]

i wonder if the fringe fanatics realize how damaging they are to their movements

[Salodin]

i wonder if the fringe fanatics realize how damaging they are to their movements

No, they do not.