the playing field isn't level yet- white households headed by a high school drop out 3x wealthier than black households headed by a college grad

[fabulouslyghetto]

Read the report.

I second this motion, so as to prevent any further misrepresentations about the information contained within the study.

 

[frankfrank]

How many ways can I say that this wealth gap is NOT explained away by "they're choosing the wrong majors."

Actually it's one-and-a-half times as much, because it's 2/3 of white wages versus 3/3, not three times as much as the thread title says. See QUOTE inside Opinterph's quoted post.

That's still pretty damned stark.

The disparity between black and white accumulated wealth has tripled in the last several decades.

Black households with college-educated heads have 33 percent less wealth than White households headed by high school dropouts.

The most profound finding of the study was that parental support of their children by white parents increases white wealth, while black support of parents by their children decreases black wealth.

The disparity growing (not holding its own, or better yet diminishing) certainly tells me we're "not there" yet. Of course the R's want to dismantle everything good that's been passed into law since about 1935.

Opinterph, I think the second bolded part you meant to say something like the first bolded phrase, right? As phrased, it's actually two opposite things...though the results are opposite. I'm not sure, thought I'd just mention it...

 

[KaraBulut]

Opinterph, I think the second bolded part you meant to say something like the first bolded phrase, right? As phrased, it's actually two opposite things...though the results are opposite. I'm not sure, thought I'd just mention it...

It's also in the study- that intergenerational transfers of wealth (i.e. between parents and children) are bi-directional. In white families, there's a larger transfer between parents to children, while in black families there's larger transfers from children to parents.

Meschede and Taylor also observed that other intergenerational financial transfers play an important role in building and maintaining wealth in adulthood. They found that white college-educated households are more likely to give money to their children (to pay for college, for example, or to put a down payment on a home)—and more able to give larger amounts. Black college-educated heads of household, on the other hand, are more likely to financially support their parents, in addition to their children. “For black heads of household, because of the legacy of discrimination in this country, their parents may not have access to social security, for example,” says Meschede.

Source

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Actually it's one-and-a-half times as much, because it's 2/3 of white wages versus 3/3, not three times as much as the thread title says. See QUOTE inside Opinterph's quoted post.

That's still pretty damned stark.



The disparity growing (not holding its own, or better yet diminishing) certainly tells me we're "not there" yet. Of course the R's want to dismantle everything good that's been passed into law since about 1935.

Opinterph, I think the second bolded part you meant to say something like the first bolded phrase, right? As phrased, it's actually two opposite things...though the results are opposite. I'm not sure, thought I'd just mention it...

Always the voice of reason and intelligence, I light up when you post in my topics Frank.

 

[MystikWizard]

Let's look at the alternative for a moment. Let's assume slavery never happened in America and no Africans were sold by their own people and purchased by Whites. The alternative for Blacks is those sold into slavery would have continued living in Africa and most likely the majority of their descendants would still be there to this day.

So the question is whether life and conditions would be better in Africa at this time if the alternative would have occurred or if life would be better in America at this time.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Let's look at the alternative for a moment. Let's assume slavery never happened in America and no Africans were sold by their own people and purchased by Whites. The alternative for Blacks is those sold into slavery would have continued living in Africa and most likely the majority of their descendants would still be there to this day.

So the question is whether life and conditions would be better in Africa at this time if the alternative would have occurred or if life would be better in America at this time.

If we're playing hypotheticals why not also include a clause in your scenario where africa was never colonized. [plot twist] you DO know that africa has a rich, illustrious history of more than just dirty people living in huts with flies around their mouth, yes?

oh and also the notion that a life of slavery, torture, rape, being bred like cattle and virtually every human rights violation known to man is better than living in africa is offensive beyond the telling of it.

 

[MystikWizard]

If we're playing hypotheticals why not also include a clause in your scenario where africa was never colonized. [plot twist] you DO know that africa has a rich, illustrious history of more than just dirty people living in huts with flies around their mouth, yes?

oh and also the notion that a life of slavery, torture, rape, being bred like cattle and virtually every human rights violation known to man is better than living in africa is offensive beyond the telling of it.

The issue is that you didn't live through that. If we are comparing apples to apples, the question really boils down to what African families living in America today have in terms of income, etc. in America versus what they would have if they had never been brought to America and still lived in Africa ... what would have happened, etc.

And I have to tell you ... when I look at the median income in America and I compare it to the median income for African continents (in U.S. dollars), it isn't pretty for the African continents.

https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php

 

[bankside]

Let's look at the alternative for a moment. Let's assume slavery never happened in America and no Africans were sold by their own people and purchased by Whites. The alternative for Blacks is those sold into slavery would have continued living in Africa and most likely the majority of their descendants would still be there to this day.

So the question is whether life and conditions would be better in Africa at this time if the alternative would have occurred or if life would be better in America at this time.

That sounds like you’re saying “Slavery was a pretty good deal by comparison, after all it got them to the Land of Opportunity™ and away from Africa.”

Is that the point you’re trying to claim?

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

The issue is that you didn't live through that.

Pardon me but that has nothing to do with anything. Any thoughts on the study? Did you read it? Cursory glance? Did you at least check out the title?

And this whole "your life would've been pure shit if white people didn't rescue you to the Americas" insinuation is pretty gross so I'm going to move forward from that.

 

[MystikWizard]

That sounds like you’re saying “Slavery was a pretty good deal by comparison, after all it got them to the Land of Opportunity™ and away from Africa.”

Is that the point you’re trying to claim?

Not dismissing the horrors of slavery at all. This is strictly a talk of income and wealth that Blacks in America have today versus what Africans living in Africa have.

For Africans in America who are complaining about what they have in America, assume your ancestors were never brought to America and you were born and raised in Africa ... and continue to live in Africa. What income and wealth would you have and what conditions would you be experiencing in Africa? Would they be better or worse than America?

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

That sounds like you’re saying “Slavery was a pretty good deal by comparison, after all it got them to the Land of Opportunity™ and away from Africa.”

Is that the point you’re trying to claim?

It's not the first time I've heard it either, a politician recently said the same thing. "We did them a favor" except his version was way more racist, something about how we'd all be sitting around in the mud with flies on our faces I think. Of course this is all predicated on the notion that Africa is just a big shithole with nothing going on and it conveniently ignores the role colonization played in shaping the continent.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Not dismissing the horrors of slavery at all. This is strictly a talk of income and wealth that Blacks in America have today versus what Africans living in Africa have.

For Africans in America who are complaining about what they have in America, assume your ancestors were never brought to America and you were born and raised in Africa ... and continue to live in Africa. What income and wealth would you have and what conditions would you be experiencing in Africa? Would they be better or worse than America?

None of this has anything to do with my topic which is about income disparity in America. You made your [for lack of a more appropriate word] point. Still no thoughts on the actual topic which is a study about income inequality in America? You can only deflect with arbitrary semi-racist hypothetical circumlocution about the current state of Africa for so long.

 

[bankside]

Not dismissing the horrors of slavery at all. This is strictly a talk of income and wealth that Blacks in America have today versus what Africans living in Africa have.

For Africans in America who are complaining about what they have in America, assume your ancestors were never brought to America and you were born and raised in Africa ... and continue to live in Africa. What income and wealth would you have and what conditions would you be experiencing in Africa? Would they be better or worse than America?

I love thought experiments. It's how we've solved some of history's greatest problems. Einstein did it all the time and it pointed the way to his greatest theories.

I don't know what this one is going to tell us though, because thought experiments work better for physics than for history.

But let's give it a go. I've heard versions of this idea before, and when someone brings it up, its surprising how often it goes along with a little remark about the colour of the people who sold their fellow citizens as slaves. It's good to know that black people can also be tyrannical bastards like the white people who paid for slaves or the white people who poured boiling oil on each other during the reformation, or the brown people who literally created an entire class of people whose only job was to touch shit and clean out the latrines. It makes me feel so much better to know that oppression and tyranny comes in a rainbow of colours. Awesome!

Anway, anyway, thought experiment:

Africa's weakest and least capable people died on a boat, or died instead of being captured, or were worked to death once they were enslaved in whatever destination they were kidnapped to. The strongest and most capable, hardiest, people from Africa survived long enough to be made into slaves, run operations on profitable plantations, and figure out how to keep surviving.

Africa also had very strong leaders. Who else but strong dictatorial leaders could get away with capturing their fellow citizens to treat them like marketable goods? The European elites were weak by comparison, because the lower classes could extract concessions and use the threat of revolution to make their own lives better. But the strong African leaders were just a little more adept at their Putinesque techniques, and their opponents ended up on a boat to the new world.

Now, in our thought experiment, we're assuming no one was ever enslaved and sold. To make that happen we need to make the oppressive leaders either a little bit weaker so they would fall at the first sign of uprising. Or they need to be a little bit wiser, to accompany their strength.. I mean, you pick, but it has to be one of those for the experiment to work. So now we have moderate African leadership, or wise African leadership, instead of those terrible traitors you pointed out who sold their own people. PLUS we have Africa's healthiest, smartest, most-likely-to-endure, in Africa, building economies there and supporting wise/moderate leaders.

Now, i'm no mathematician. But I'm gonna say in the scenario you suggest, Africa today would enjoy TRILLIONS of dollars/francs/euros/rand MORE in infrastructure, supporting arts and culture, and education, and human services, and travel infrastructure, and suburbs with aircon and swimming pools, and leisure, and pensions, and universal health care, and general overall prosperity. At no time in history, real or imagined, has having half your population captured or sold into slavery been an effective economic development strategy. And we would be richer for it in the west, because instead of sending aid to Africa, our airports would be filled with wealthy tourists, and our cargo ports would be filled with top notch imports and exports between two prosperous continents.

I'm not sure that's the result you imagined from this thought experiment. The only other result that comes to mind is I got it all wrong, and those sad, sad, Africans would have just made a mess of things for generations, so sad that even being enslaved is a golden ticket out of there, because "that's what they do." And I just don't believe that for a second, because it seems kind of racist to believe that Africans were inevitably destined for failure. I...think that's kind of the dictionary definition.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

I'm not sure that's the result you imagined from this thought experiment.

I'm cock-sure that it isn't.

The only other result that comes to mind is I got it all wrong, and those sad, sad, Africans would have just made a mess of things for generations, so sad that even being enslaved is a golden ticket out of there, because "that's what they do." And I just don't believe that for a second, because it seems [STRIKE]kind of[/STRIKE] extremely racist to believe that Africans were inevitably destined for failure. I...think that's kind of the dictionary definition.

corrected for accuracy

 

[opinterph]

This is strictly a talk of income and wealth that Blacks in America have today versus what Africans living in Africa have.

It’s amazing how the topic keeps changing.

None of this has anything to do with my topic which is about income disparity in America.

Say what? – Did you read the opening post?

Where in the study is wealth accumulation correlated with “post-Civil Rights Act inequalities?”​

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

It’s amazing how the topic keeps changing.




Say what? – Did you read the opening post?

Where in the study is wealth accumulation correlated with “post-Civil Rights Act inequalities?”​

You're a smart man, I don't need to connect those dots for you how those discriminatory practices helped prevent black people from acquiring wealth.

 

[willhunt]

Three things: Spoiler alert, any one who says there is "no privilege of any kind" indicates skin color.
My signature.
Fab, thanks for the PDF, I love data.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Three things: Spoiler alert, any one who says there is "no privilege of any kind" indicates skin color.
My signature.
Fab, thanks for the PDF, I love data.

No no no thank you for participating and sharing your thoughts respectfully with zero hostility and an open mind. Do you mind teaching a class on that? Just one hour a week. Saturdays. 9am. I'll provide donuts.

 

[opinterph]

Opinterph, I think the second bolded part you meant to say something like the first bolded phrase, right? As phrased, it's actually two opposite things...though the results are opposite. I'm not sure, thought I'd just mention it...

It is intended to represent opposite things.

Page 131:

White college-educated households are significantly more likely to receive financial transfers from their parents, whereas Black college-educated households are significantly more likely to provide financial support to their parents.

 

[opinterph]

Where in the study is wealth accumulation correlated with “post-Civil Rights Act inequalities?”​

You're a smart man, I don't need to connect those dots for you how those discriminatory practices helped prevent black people from acquiring wealth.

Here is your first sentence from the opening post:

researchers Tatjana Meschede, Joanna Taylor, Alexis Mann and Thomas Shapiro completed a study called 'Family Achievements?: How a College Degree Accumulates Wealth for Whites and Not For Blacks' published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review reaffirms post-Civil Rights Act inequalities that have consistently been denied in spite of a cornucopia of trends that favor white Americans financially, socially, politically and lord knows legally in every avenue from employment and housing to education.

Condensed to its essential components that sentence says, “A study reaffirms post-Civil Rights Act inequalities.”

The word “right” does not appear in the report. The word “civil” does not appear in the report.

The word “inequality” appears only once in the report to reference a study by Thomas Shapiro and Melvin L. Oliver titled “Sedimentation of Racial Inequality.” Shapiro and Oliver argue that wealth is a better indicator than income for establishing the depth of the socio-economic gap between whites and blacks.​

Level of income is not the primary factor of consideration in the analysis.

the actual topic which is a study about income inequality in America

If you intended the topic to be about income inequality, I think you posted a link to the wrong report.