Dugout defaced with swastika sign in NewYork

[Spartanmack]

So, your take, as I understand it, is that:

1) black people make bad decisions at a higher rate. They choose to not finish high school and have children out of wedlock...just because they are black.

2) other races have faced bias and overcome it, therefore whatever bias black people face should also be beatable and not a cause of their persistent economic state.

Do I have anything wrong there?

1) No, not even close. I have said repeatedly that black America, which supports Democrats in the voting booth at rates greater than 90% in virtually every election. They have accepted the line sold by michturd and other idiots like him, who have convinced them that they are victims and as victims it's not only not their fault, but they can't themselves do anything about it - they need the government to take care of them. Of course the government has failed them miserably. I also cited the analog of the Native Americans who have done similarly and suffered greatly for it as well. Both have caste their lot with the very people who push policies that harm them and lead them to make poor value judgements that virtually guarantee they remain poor. You're doing it too - you're pushing an unsupported theory of bias causing poverty with no actual link to a bunch of studies that show bias exists. I agree it exists and we should strive to eliminate it, but I clearly see bias is not what is keeping poor people poor - bad decisions, supported by a powerful political party that relies on the permanently poor to keep them in power.

2) yes, other races have overcome persistent bias but unlike native Americans and blacks, they didn't rely on government to fix it for them, and therefore were able to avoid the trap of perpetual poverty. Blacks may face more bias, but that doesn't prove bias is the cause of disproportionate rate of poverty.

 

[Spartanmack]

Loudmouth bigot who never shuts up: "nuthin' wrong with spray paintin' a few swastikas here or there, or flying the Confederate flag. and blacks are poor because its their own fault. they make bad choices because that's what blacks do."

lawyer: "Those are racist statements. Ergo, You are a racist."

scientist: "now hold on here, I'm sure there's a rational explanation for his beliefs that doesn't involve racism. Let's test every possible hypothesis first."

lawyer: "LOL, haha good one. Oh, wait you're serious."

I've never said anything defending swastikas, the confederate flag or anything disparaging about blacks or other minorities. You on the other hand regularly disparage gays, chaldeans, think blacks can't compete on a level playing field with others and LOL, you call yourself a lawyer, like that's something to be proud of. You're a race baiting racist ambulance chaser with a law degree one step above correspondence school. You're a hack, an idiot and the only real racist who posts here.

 

[Gulo Blue]

1) No, not even close. I have said repeatedly that black America, which supports Democrats in the voting booth at rates greater than 90% in virtually every election. They have accepted the line sold by michturd and other idiots like him, who have convinced them that they are victims and as victims it's not only not their fault, but they can't themselves do anything about it - they need the government to take care of them. Of course the government has failed them miserably. I also cited the analog of the Native Americans who have done similarly and suffered greatly for it as well. Both have caste their lot with the very people who push policies that harm them and lead them to make poor value judgements that virtually guarantee they remain poor. You're doing it too - you're pushing an unsupported theory of bias causing poverty with no actual link to a bunch of studies that show bias exists. I agree it exists and we should strive to eliminate it, but I clearly see bias is not what is keeping poor people poor - bad decisions, supported by a powerful political party that relies on the permanently poor to keep them in power.

2) yes, other races have overcome persistent bias but unlike native Americans and blacks, they didn't rely on government to fix it for them, and therefore were able to avoid the trap of perpetual poverty. Blacks may face more bias, but that doesn't prove bias is the cause of disproportionate rate of poverty.

So democrats tell black people they are victims and that's why they make poor value choices? Is that where the value choice thing comes in?

 

[Gulo Blue]

You're doing it too - you're pushing an unsupported theory of bias causing poverty with no actual link to a bunch of studies that show bias exists.

The thing that I think you are calling a stretch (and again correct me if I'm wrong) is the idea that you would be worse off if you had a more difficult time getting an interview because of your name, if you were likely to get lower scores from anonymous reviews (all else being equal), if you are made worse offers on used cars and eBay sales, and you had to pay higher interest rates on loans.

I don't see how you can possibly brush all that off as inconsequential and at the same time cling to this idea that being told you're a victim makes you drop out of school.

 

[Michchamp]

I've never said anything defending swastikas, the confederate flag or anything disparaging about blacks or other minorities. You on the other hand regularly disparage gays, chaldeans, think blacks can't compete on a level playing field with others and LOL, you call yourself a lawyer, like that's something to be proud of. You're a race baiting racist ambulance chaser with a law degree one step above correspondence school. You're a hack, an idiot and the only real racist who posts here.

LOL, thanks

 

[Gulo Blue]

What part is the stretch?

Does having a tougher time getting job interviews lead you towards being wealthier or less wealthy?

Does getting lower anonymous reviews (which companies use to determine raises, bonuses, and promotions) lead you towards being wealthier or less wealthy?

Would lower offers in personal sales lead you towards being wealthier or less wealthy?

 

[Spartanmack]

LOL, thanks

you're welcome.

 

[Spartanmack]

The thing that I think you are calling a stretch (and again correct me if I'm wrong) is the idea that you would be worse off if you had a more difficult time getting an interview because of your name, if you were likely to get lower scores from anonymous reviews (all else being equal), if you are made worse offers on used cars and eBay sales, and you had to pay higher interest rates on loans.

I don't see how you can possibly brush all that off as inconsequential and at the same time cling to this idea that being told you're a victim makes you drop out of school.

You are wrong. The stretch is drawing the conclusion that the correlation, weak as it is, between bias and poverty means poverty is primarily caused by bias and not choices. And by that I don't mean people choose to be poor. I mean the choice to back the wrong horse, the choice to rely on others to fix your problems - the choices that lead to circumstances that make it more likely, as you say to make bad value decisions.

I never said it was inconsequential, I said it wasn't the cause of poverty. It's not insurmountable, that's been clearly demonstrated, but that doesn't mean it's inconsequential. Bias creates impediments, but it doesn't make you poor.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Do you have that economic mobility link?

 

[Gulo Blue]

You are wrong. The stretch is drawing the conclusion that the correlation, weak as it is, between bias and poverty means poverty is primarily caused by bias and not choices. And by that I don't mean people choose to be poor. I mean the choice to back the wrong horse, the choice to rely on others to fix your problems - the choices that lead to circumstances that make it more likely, as you say to make bad value decisions.

I never said it was inconsequential, I said it wasn't the cause of poverty. It's not insurmountable, that's been clearly demonstrated, but that doesn't mean it's inconsequential. Bias creates impediments, but it doesn't make you poor.

I think this use of extreme terms is a form of dodging the issue. The issue is what role does bias play in causing poverty. If you are denying that it plays a significant role, then what are you trying to say when you say it's not inconsequential? It has some consequence, just not with regard to poverty? Similarly 'not insurmountable' is another extreme. It is not sufficient that we put a race up against 'not insurmountable' conditions.

There is so much room between not inconsequential and not insurmountable, you are barely saying anything at all.

Meanwhile, I'd like to see anything supporting your theory that black people choose to rely on others to fix their problems leading to other bad decisions.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think this use of extreme terms is a form of dodging the issue. The issue is what role does bias play in causing poverty. If you are denying that it plays a significant role, then what are you trying to say when you say it's not inconsequential? It has some consequence, just not with regard to poverty? Similarly 'not insurmountable' is another extreme. It is not sufficient that we put a race up against 'not insurmountable' conditions.

There is so much room between not inconsequential and not insurmountable, you are barely saying anything at all.

Meanwhile, I'd like to see anything supporting your theory that black people choose to rely on others to fix their problems leading to other bad decisions.

if bias plays such a huge role then explain why just 7% of 2 parent black households are living in poverty. that statistic Aline is far more compelling than listing a bunch of studies that price bias exists and jumping to the conclusion that it's the main driver of poverty. when you look at it on combination with the statistics on single parent households and piverty, then it's even more obvious.

 

[Gulo Blue]

if bias plays such a huge role then explain why just 7% of 2 parent black households are living in poverty. that statistic Aline is far more compelling than listing a bunch of studies that price bias exists and jumping to the conclusion that it's the main driver of poverty. when you look at it on combination with the statistics on single parent households and piverty, then it's even more obvious.

It's 6.2% for all 2 parent households. No difference by race. Once again, this is just the way things are, not the way things are for people that vote a certain way.

 

[Spartanmack]

Do you have that economic mobility link?

I can't find the study from the quote earlier - I'll keep looking and post it here. In the meantime, here's a link to a 2014 study from the racists at Harvard that debunks your studies that show mobility is in decline. It's not.

http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/files/mobility_trends.pdf

Also, here's a summary of a Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis that shows 44% of people in the bottom quintile of earners climb out with in 6 years

https://www.aei.org/publication/tra...-over-time-shows-significant-income-mobility/

It's not unreasonable to conclude mobility would increase over the next 9 years. Also, most of your studies are highly flawed - many focus on income distribution and the increase in inequality skewed by the dramatic increase in the 1%'s share of income. And virtually every one of them focuses on the 9% chance of going from the bottom 20% to the top 1% of earners - they say nothing of the probabilities of going from the bottom quintile to the 4th, 3rd and 2nd. That says nothing about income inequality.

 

[Spartanmack]

It's 6.2% for all 2 parent households. No difference by race. Once again, this is just the way things are, not the way things are for people that vote a certain way.

once again, bias also isn't unique to any particular race. The difference in poverty by race isn't proof of bias as the cause. Bias isn't what causes poor black people to have children out of wedlock at rates up to 2.5x that of other cohorts. Saying it's bias, without proof other than the fact that bias exists, absolves people of responsibility for their own actions, creates a victim class and justifies the choice to put their fate in the hands of government. It merely perpetuates the cycle - if I'm not responsible, why change my behavior? It's not my fault.

Clearly, we're not going to agree on this issue - we're going around in circles. You don't see the compelling evidence that suggests lifestyle choices are the root cause of poverty and I'm not willing to jump to the conclusion that bias is the root cause just because it exists. I have no interest in defending myself against scurrilous accusations just because I disagree with you. When I find that study, I'll post it here - although I think the ones already posted are sufficient - but other than that, I don't think there is much point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Gulo Blue]

once again, bias also isn't unique to any particular race. The difference in poverty by race isn't proof of bias as the cause. Bias isn't what causes poor black people to have children out of wedlock at rates up to 2.5x that of other cohorts. Saying it's bias, without proof other than the fact that bias exists, absolves people of responsibility for their own actions, creates a victim class and justifies the choice to put their fate in the hands of government. It merely perpetuates the cycle - if I'm not responsible, why change my behavior? It's not my fault.

Clearly, we're not going to agree on this issue - we're going around in circles. You don't see the compelling evidence that suggests lifestyle choices are the root cause of poverty and I'm not willing to jump to the conclusion that bias is the root cause just because it exists. I have no interest in defending myself against scurrilous accusations just because I disagree with you. When I find that study, I'll post it here - although I think the ones already posted are sufficient - but other than that, I don't think there is much point in continuing this discussion.

Yeah we're going in circles. Because for the 6th or 7th time, no bias doesn't cause that. Poverty does. The higher rates of crime and incarceration that go with poverty cause that. The higher unemployment rates and lower wages means people are in worse positions to get married and support a family. All the stats line up, across races, when you account for wealth.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I can't find the study from the quote earlier - I'll keep looking and post it here. In the meantime, here's a link to a 2014 study from the racists at Harvard that debunks your studies that show mobility is in decline. It's not.

http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/files/mobility_trends.pdf

Also, here's a summary of a Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis that shows 44% of people in the bottom quintile of earners climb out with in 6 years

https://www.aei.org/publication/tra...-over-time-shows-significant-income-mobility/

It's not unreasonable to conclude mobility would increase over the next 9 years. Also, most of your studies are highly flawed - many focus on income distribution and the increase in inequality skewed by the dramatic increase in the 1%'s share of income. And virtually every one of them focuses on the 9% chance of going from the bottom 20% to the top 1% of earners - they say nothing of the probabilities of going from the bottom quintile to the 4th, 3rd and 2nd. That says nothing about income inequality.

I'm open to adjusting my thoughts to new data and trying to reconcile this study with others. But I don't think this supports your argument as well as you think it does. They argue mobility has been flat since the 70's, but also point out that due to the increase in inequality, the impact of the "birth lottery" (their term) are larger than they have been in the past.

The 2nd study I don't really find to be surprising. Income quintiles aren't that big, maybe $20-25k wide. Tons of people are close to one of those boundaries, so seeing that 20-25% of people tend to go up or down a quintile doesn't mean much if you have nothing to compare it to.

I'd like to see (and this is a knock of the studies I posted as well) a study that focuses on wealth rather than income. That first study has me open to the idea that I need to update my thinking (I still think it was higher even if it's been level more recently) but not enough to impact the argument I've been making here.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Yeah we're going in circles. Because for the 6th or 7th time...

Fo' rills.

And it isn't just the sixth or seventh time-it's the sixth or seventh time on this thread alone.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

 

[Michchamp]

Happy Thanksgiving!

Thank you, Squanto, for showing the Pilgrims how to grow food and not die. and thank you Pilgrims for giving Squanto whiskey, as requested.

Who got the better end of that deal?

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm open to adjusting my thoughts to new data and trying to reconcile this study with others. But I don't think this supports your argument as well as you think it does. They argue mobility has been flat since the 70's, but also point out that due to the increase in inequality, the impact of the "birth lottery" (their term) are larger than they have been in the past.

The 2nd study I don't really find to be surprising. Income quintiles aren't that big, maybe $20-25k wide. Tons of people are close to one of those boundaries, so seeing that 20-25% of people tend to go up or down a quintile doesn't mean much if you have nothing to compare it to.

I'd like to see (and this is a knock of the studies I posted as well) a study that focuses on wealth rather than income. That first study has me open to the idea that I need to update my thinking (I still think it was higher even if it's been level more recently) but not enough to impact the argument I've been making here.

so you think the distribution among the bottom quintile is so heavily skewed to the top that well over 44% of them are right there and the portion representing that 44%, or most of them just took a little step over? That's highly unlikely and I expect you're well aware of that. Also, I sure some of those in the 44% achieved more than just the lower end of the 4th quintile, even advanced to 3rd, 2nd and first. I will concede that few of them achieved incomes that would put them in the 1% since only about 9% of people do that. But to say they're all or mostly not really doing better is definitely not obvious.

 

[Gulo Blue]

so you think the distribution among the bottom quintile is so heavily skewed to the top that well over 44% of them are right there and the portion representing that 44%, or most of them just took a little step over? That's highly unlikely and I expect you're well aware of that. Also, I sure some of those in the 44% achieved more than just the lower end of the 4th quintile, even advanced to 3rd, 2nd and first. I will concede that few of them achieved incomes that would put them in the 1% since only about 9% of people do that. But to say they're all or mostly not really doing better is definitely not obvious.

Your link actually lists those details. 31% went up 1 quintile, 8% made it to the middle, and 3% and 2% made it to the top 2 rungs.

I don't follow what you're saying about the 1% (especially the 9% part); these stats don't touch on the 1%. And that's kind of the point your first paper was pointing to. As the difference between the bottom 3 quintiles and the top 1% keeps increasing, you can have mobility remain flat, but the birth lottery means more than ever.