The intellectual dark web

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It was probably 0 cents the first 250 of those 300 years.





Higher rates than what? Again what is your starting point? Blacks couldn't even use the same bathroom 50 years ago. They would just get lynched in the streets for no reason. A black person born before 1960 in a southern state didn't even have a birth certificate or a legal name. You can't flip a switch and change a white-dominated society for centuries overnight. Blacks are more successful and moving up, they have a foundation to build on. I'm not arguing it's not a struggle or there aren't racists out there, the president being the biggest one.

Just because African-Americans are less marginalized than they were 300 years ago, doesn't mean they aren't still marginalized. If I'm 400 pounds and drop to 300 I'm still obese.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Just because African-Americans are less marginalized than they were 300 years ago, doesn't mean they aren't still marginalized. If I'm 400 pounds and drop to 300 I'm still obese.

what if you had no mechanism to get from 400 pounds to 300 pounds.

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I guess it depends on your definition of working class. I don't think a woman working in let's say child care or social work has more opportunity and status than an electrician.

A certified trades person would most likely be considered middle class. A custodian would be considered working class.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

what if you had no mechanism to get from 400 pounds to 300 pounds.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Your statement was that black people are no longer marginalized and you based that on the fact that their lot in life has improved from where it was 50 years ago. That's just an abysmally simple take.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by icecube

I pose this question to you then. Why is it that black and indigenous people have such a lower economic status and in such massively disproportionate numbers?

A) Starting at a lower economic status generations ago, and B) having lower rates of those things that correlate to upward mobility (marriage, education, deferred gratification).

Education is one that we can help with public policy. In Canada, we can safeguard our student based funding and be vigilant against ways in which the already comfortable secure greater funding for their children. When it comes to native communities, it's not quite as simple because the conditions in isolated communities make it very difficult to attract and keep teachers. I think a program to encourage bright and ambitious university graduates of all disciplines to spend a year in a native community teaching, and conferring prestige and special accreditation to those who do so would be a good step.

The U.S. is totally messed up when it comes to funding education, which is the biggest reasons there's lower economic mobility in the U.S. than in countries like Canada, Japan, or Germany. But fixing that for all children in poor neighbourhoods and regions would be a better approach than focusing only on black children.

But marriage is the big one. Being raised in a single-parent household is the single greatest handicap to upward mobility. This research on this is overwhelming. The collapse of marriage and enduring two-parent households to raise children in has been a catastrophe for the working class and poor. No social programs can come close to providing the emotional, social, and economic support of two parents dedicated to raising children.

The problem is this reality does not fit into the narrative of modern progressives. Marriage is seen as patriarchal. Calling for the support of traditional family structure is something conservatives do. Pointing out the really bad outcomes of children raised out of wedlock is denounced as victim-blaming.

So the single biggest factor in encouraging economic security and upward mobility is more or less ignored by those who regard themselves as the champions of the disadvantaged. Ideology trumps utility.

And this isn't really a race issue - marriage is now collapsing as an institution among the white working class now too, with the same catastrophic consequences.

Originally Posted by Makarov

That is a fair comment re immigrants. It isn’t surprising that, generally speaking, immigrants will be less wealthy than people who were born in state x. However, in Canada and the United States, two of the most marginalized groups (blacks in the US and indigenous persons in Canada) have been there for nearly as long or much longer than whites.

See my comments above. The Philippines is not a rich place. Neither is Vietnam. Or Pakistan. And yet by the second generation, immigrants from those countries are typically on the upward trend, attending post-secondary schools at rates matching non-immigrant populations. Again, the keys are A) children raised in stable homes with two parents, and B) a high value and high expectations placed on education.

If our racist social structures determine outcomes, then it how is it that Asian immigrants have done so well? Why haven't those oppressive structures kept immigrants from the Philippines and China in their place? Why, in the space of 30 years, have Canada's engineering and medical schools gone from overwhelmingly white to barely half white? Whoever is supposed to be defending the privileges of European Canadians seems to be asleep at the wheel.

[GirlySports]

CliffFletcher: we have to disagree here. The Philippines, Vietnam or Pakistan are not rich places but the immigrants we take from those countries are rich. They have the means to apply for immigration. We are taking in their best, not their poor. Don't forget the foreign exchange students. That's an industry on it's own. Universities making a killing on students playing triple tuition costs.

Even refugees are not poor. They had to pay all their money to get on that boat. Money = Safety.

[icecube]

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The problem is this reality does not fit into the narrative of modern progressives. Marriage is seen as patriarchal. Calling for the support of traditional family structure is something conservatives do. Pointing out the really bad outcomes of children raised out of wedlock is denounced as victim-blaming.

So the single biggest factor in encouraging economic security and upward mobility is more or less ignored by those who regard themselves as the champions of the disadvantaged. Ideology trumps utility.

Do we actually know that children raised in single families have worse social and economic outcomes than those raised in a two-parent household where constant conflict or abuse occurs? Seems like that'd be pretty difficult thing to gather data on.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Do we actually know that children raised in single families have worse social and economic outcomes than those raised in a two-parent household where constant conflict or abuse occurs? Seems like that'd be pretty difficult thing to gather data on.

If there is, I haven't come across it.

How Marriage and Divorce Impact Economic Opportunity

...Similarly, social mobility rates between generations are higher among children who live with their continuously married parents than among those who experience either a family divorce or a long period of single parenthood. A child born to a never-married mother in the bottom fifth of family income is 3 times more likely to stay in the bottom fifth than a child born to a continuously married mother with equally low income. Once again, not all of this is the pure effect of family structure but even after adjusting for many of the other differences between married and unmarried parents, a significant impact remains...

The inequality we don’t talk about

..In a widely cited report published last spring, MIT economists David Autor and Melanie Wasserman drew a direct link between the rising tide of fatherlessness and the growing failure of boys in school and the labour market.

"Males born into low-income single-parent headed households – which, in the vast majority of cases are female-headed households – appear to fare particularly poorly on numerous social and educational outcomes," they wrote. It's not just that the girls are outperforming them. It's that the boys are doing worse.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But marriage is the big one. Being raised in a single-parent household is the single greatest handicap to upward mobility. This research on this is overwhelming. The collapse of marriage and enduring two-parent households to raise children in has been a catastrophe for the working class and poor. No social programs can come close to providing the emotional, social, and economic support of two parents dedicated to raising children.

The problem is this reality does not fit into the narrative of modern progressives. Marriage is seen as patriarchal. Calling for the support of traditional family structure is something conservatives do. Pointing out the really bad outcomes of children raised out of wedlock is denounced as victim-blaming.

So the single biggest factor in encouraging economic security and upward mobility is more or less ignored by those who regard themselves as the champions of the disadvantaged. Ideology trumps utility.

And this isn't really a race issue - marriage is now collapsing as an institution among the white working class now too, with the same catastrophic consequences.

There are a couple of issues with that line of thought though. First, it's far from an accepted fact that marriage is the causative force driving the economic results. There is a correlation for sure (at least in the United States), but is marriage the cause of these benefits or are people who are in a position to raise successful children more likely to be married than people who are not?

One of the biggest studies on the issue (a 2014 one from Harvard) found a heavy correlation between areas with high rates of single parent households and poor economic mobility. But importantly, that correlation also extended to children of married parents within the same community. To me that suggests that marriage breakdowns are a symptom of economic instability at least as much as they're a cause of it.

And this correlation of single parent families to poor economic outcomes is heavily variable based on region. On the west coast and in the Northeast of the United States, rates of single parent households are higher than average yet there is much more economic mobility than other places. Conversely, there is far less mobility in the rust belt and in the south. Places like Seattle or San Diego have a similar rate of single parent families to places like Cincinatti or Indianapolis, yet the former cities provide about twice as much economic mobility when compared to the latter.

And when you look outside the United States the data actually shows the opposite. Countries like Canada, Finland, Denmark, Norway, etc. have fairly high rates of single parent families yet they have strong economic mobility. In the most industrialized nations in the world, there's actually a negative correlation between the rate of single parent households and a lack of economic mobility:




And secondly, even if one accepts that the viewpoint that marriage is the cure for economic ills, what exactly can be done about it? How can you encourage people who don't want to be married to get or stay married? Make divorce harder? Give tax breaks to married people? Those sound like terrible ideas to me.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If there is, I haven't come across it.

How Marriage and Divorce Impact Economic Opportunity



The inequality we don’t talk about

I mean back to your original point though, does economic status play a bigger role than marriage? It's obviously common sense that a child born into a two-parent household is going to generally be brought into a better economic situation, but I wonder what the results would look like if you compared children being raised in a single-parent home where the parent makes more than $150k vs. those raised in a two-parent household where combined income is $75k or less.

The economic status of your parents also probably plays a large role on whether your born into a single-parent home in the first place. I think that's what I and many others take issue with when it comes to broad statements like "marriage is better for social and economic outcomes." Okay but what is the cause behind why certain groups are more likely to be born to single-parents than others.

You can see below that, once again, African-Americans are significantly more likely to be born and raised in single-parent households than whites are. You can sit there and say "well we need to reduce the number of single-parent households for every race," but the statistics show that it seems to be problem that is more specific to African-Americans, so does it not make sense to determine why this is the case and address the root of the problem? Like I alluded to in another post, unless you believe that being an absentee father is somehow correlated with the amount of melanin in one's skin, then I'm not sure what else you can point to other than specific systemic and environmental challenges that are faced by African-Americans that aren't faced by white people.

EDIT: That said, it is interesting to note that the rate of single-parents among African-Americans seems to have leveled off while the numbers for other races have been steadily climbing.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Am I reading that wrong, because it seems like it's data across all incomes? As you suggest, there's clearly no reason to think that these trends are directly correlated to skin colour, and are more likely to be related to socio-economic status. If that's the case, shouldn't any solution be aimed at people having the requisite socio-economic status rather than people with a certain skin colour? As you said yourself, skin colour clearly isn't the cause, so why would we make it a key consideration in addressing the issue?

I'm not sure what else you can point to other than specific systemic and environmental challenges that are faced by African-Americans that aren't faced by white people.

Historical realities and legacies of oppression that have led more blacks to be poor than whites, for one. I'm sure you could probably make some sort of case about cultural factors, but even if you assume that's just noise, we're still talking more about an issue of economic status than anything else. But that's not a factor that's faced by black people and not white people in any practical sense - if you're poor, you're poor, regardless of how you get there, and you face a similar set of challenges and trends that affect your outcomes (not that I'm saying they're identical, but I would think geography creates as much variance as race).

[icecube]

POVERTY AND RACISM INEXTRICABLY LINKED, SAYS UN EXPERT

http://www.socialwatch.org/node/16324

'The persistence of discrimination against those groups and individuals remains a challenge to the construction of a tolerant and inclusive society, and only the guarantee of equality and non-discrimination policies can redress that imbalance and prevent those groups that are discriminated against from falling into or being trapped in poverty,' Ruteere emphasised.

I think this is a far better explanation than low marriage rates

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Am I reading that wrong, because it seems like it's data across all incomes? As you suggest, there's clearly no reason to think that these trends are directly correlated to skin colour, and are more likely to be related to socio-economic status. If that's the case, shouldn't any solution be aimed at people having the requisite socio-economic status rather than people with a certain skin colour? As you said yourself, skin colour clearly isn't the cause, so why would we make it a key consideration in addressing the issue?

Historical realities and legacies of oppression that have led more blacks to be poor than whites, for one. I'm sure you could probably make some sort of case about cultural factors, but even if you assume that's just noise, we're still talking more about an issue of economic status than anything else. But that's not a factor that's faced by black people and not white people in any practical sense - if you're poor, you're poor, regardless of how you get there, and you face a similar set of challenges and trends that affect your outcomes (not that I'm saying they're identical, but I would think geography creates as much variance as race).

Here is a great presentation of a recent study done showing the affect of race after accounting for sociology economic status, parental conditions and many other commonly cited factors outside race to explain inequality. It's American so not directly relevant to this conversation but is a direct rebuttal to these assumptions.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...black-men.html

One of the most popular liberal post-racial ideas is the idea that the fundamental problem is class and not race, and clearly this study explodes that idea,” said Ibram Kendi, a professor and director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University. “But for whatever reason, we’re unwilling to stare racism in the face.

”

[CliffFletcher]

One of the most popular liberal post-racial ideas is the idea that the fundamental problem is class and not race, and clearly this study explodes that idea,” said Ibram Kendi, a professor and director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University. “But for whatever reason, we’re unwilling to stare racism in the face.

See, this is one of those statements that show how difficult it is to discuss social issues. In the media and social environments I travel in, stories and anxiety about racism outnumber stories and anxiety about poverty by at least 5:1. I honestly struggle to think of ways we could move racism higher on the public agenda. Mandate that the CBC must devote six hours a day, instead of only three, to the issue?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

See, this is one of those statements that show how difficult it is to discuss social issues. In the media and social environments I travel in, stories and anxiety about racism outnumber stories and anxiety about poverty by at least 5:1. I honestly struggle to think of ways we could move racism higher on the public agenda. Mandate that the CBC must devote six hours a day, instead of only three, to the issue?

What is wrong with acknowledging that after accounting for other factors race plays a roll in limiting economic mobility. And Acknowledging that the solution to lifting black boys out of poverty and keeping them from falling into poverty is different from whites, Asians, and even black girls.

Custimizimg solutions for specific groups likely leads to better outcomes.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

See, this is one of those statements that show how difficult it is to discuss social issues. In the media and social environments I travel in, stories and anxiety about racism outnumber stories and anxiety about poverty by at least 5:1. I honestly struggle to think of ways we could move racism higher on the public agenda. Mandate that the CBC must devote six hours a day, instead of only three, to the issue?

For whatever reason, you seem unwilling to stare racism in the face.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by icecube

For whatever reason, you seem unwilling to stare racism in the face.

I suspect you're unwilling to stare the hard, hard reality of social dysfunction and inter-generational poverty in the face.

It would be a much better world if the reason for inter-generational poverty among Canadian Natives was bigoted white bosses who won't hire a Native welder or accountant. All we'd have to do is educate or shame Canadians out of being bigots and the problem would be solved.

But the problem is Natives aren't getting the accreditation to become welders or accountants in the first place. And the reason they aren't getting accreditation to become welders and accountants in the first place is because they don't finish school. And the reason they don't finish school is because they're raised in neglectful or toxic homes.

For too many Natives in Canada, by the time they're 12 or so, the damage is done. And the most comprehensive and well-meaning social programs in the world can't compensate for a neglected or toxic childhood. The only way to break the chain is to take children out of the toxic environment at a young age, but that's a case where the cure is as bad as the disease.

That's the profoundly depressing reality. If only the main issue was really bigotry.

[PepsiFree]

It’s pretty weird how social dysfunction and inter-generational hits minorities far more often but isn’t... you know... because of racism.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s pretty weird how social dysfunction and inter-generational hits minorities far more often but isn’t... you know... because of racism.

I don't know if that response is fair. There is an important question of whether it's historical racism or current racism as it would point it different solutions.

Cliffs statement appears to be leaning toward it being historical racism which would lead to anti-poverty and child welfare solutions. Whereas when it's institutional racism and public racism addressing the poor policy and educating the public are potential solutions.

The good news is that in the Case of Canada there is plenty of evident that all 3 play a significant factor in the plight of aboriginal youth today.