[Dwight Schrute]

well, the gap between income of different races could be explained using Social Darwinism that those with higher incomes adapted to the surrounding culture the most quickly or efficiently and found a way to come out on top, income wise. and once on top, those with similar traits tend to stay on top indefinitely. as this culture was for the most part founded and constructed by whites, it makes sense they would adapt the most efficiently to said system. that being an overly generic interpretation. one could just as easily argue that racism is to blame for the neutral data. as I said, the data is neutral, we are not. and me arguing with you about what the data means is probably as pointless as you arguing with me that that cloud looks more like a duck and less like a sports car.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Dwight Schrute

well, the gap between income of different races could be explained using Social Darwinism that those with higher incomes adapted to the surrounding culture the most quickly or efficiently and found a way to come out on top, income wise.

What the heck does that mean though and how does it compete with racism or sexism as (part of) an explanation?

[Dwight Schrute]

someone could explain the data as a result a racism or sexism - the white males kept the other people down and only promoted white males to positions of power. one could also say that some people adapted to the rules to overcome them into positions of power or wealth (survival of the fittest) while others simply stayed put and did not evolve or adapt and stayed at their lower income level. just different ways of looking at it.

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by metropolis4

Couldn't it be said that some of this is just the natural results of capitalism?

Those who have, posess the leverage to continue to gain more, while those without lack the leverage to gain more and end up selling themselves as labor. Without intervention wealth continues to become more concentrated. I think when you look at modern America that seems to be one point where Marx was spot on.

This.

Originally Posted by metropolis4

It is sad that this is how it is always done... I remember learning once that there is more variability and diversity within races than between races. Yet, with the government this is always how it is looked at. I worked under a government program where we were required to record the race of our clients.

The form gave us four race options: White, Black, Asian/pacific Islander, Native American/Eskimo.

And then two "ethnicity" options: Hispanic, Non-Hispanic.

First, I always wondered why "white" and "Black" were colors, while the rest referred to a geographical region?
It was horribly limiting and often insulting to people. I had a client whose family ancestors had come on a slave ship 300 years ago who grew up in Philladelphia, another who just came immigrated from Ghana, one who was from Morocco and another from Egypt and all were labeled as "black". I had one muslim client from Egypt and another muslim client from Israel. The one from Egypt was labeled "black" while the one from Israel was labeled "asian/pacific islander". Clients from Saudi Arabia, Mongolia and the Phillipeans were al labeled "asian" while clients from east Russia and Australia were "white". "Hispanic" simply meant that the client spoke Spanish, unless they were actually from Hispaniola in which case they were "white/non-hispanic". Also, "hispanic" was a sub-category and these clients had to be listed as a race as well. So, anyone who spoke Spanish who was from Central or South America had to choose to be listed as either "white" or "black" first, then "hispanic" second. Oh, and no one could figure out what to do with people from Brazil who spoke Portugese

All this to say, the way that "race" is prescribed and defined in our government and in many studies like this varies wildly. I would be curious to know where this data came from and who was considered what race for it's purposes.

Absolutely. To have only four groups of people is insane. I don't call Asians "Yellow people," and I don't call Native Americans "Red people." I expect the same in return.

Originally Posted by slap_j

a) I don't really understand this point. It seems you are implying that entrepreneurship is unaffected by systemic/institutional problems like racism or sexism or stigmas toward the impoverished. Take Ted Turner for instance. Was he not already extremely wealthy before he started CNN? How many came out of poverty?

2) That list of 400 was merely symbolic. Make it the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Or wealthiest 25% if you prefer.

I'm implying that most of these people were simply good businessmen. They were in the right place, at the right time, with the right idea, and the right investors.

Originally Posted by slap_j

The NBA analogy doesn't hold. The NBA is basically a bunch of private companies dealing in an extremely specialized product. Very dissimilar to the United States.

Sure it does. Each player is essentially in business for himself. He can be paid what the market will give him for his services. Each of the list of 400 people is also in basically the same situation. In business for them self. The better businessman with the more profitable model will make more money. The better athlete will be highly sought after, and paid accordingly. Does this apply to the rest of us? Not really, in both the NBA example, or the 400 richest example. I would argue, however, that it's a fair comparison between those two groups.

Originally Posted by slap_j

Maybe, in part. Capitalism is adversarial by nature. However, the big problem here seems to be the lack of a strong juridical framework that puts it more at the service of humanity.

Right. Because the people who make the laws regulating our capitalist(ish) system.... are very wealthy. It can't change. The rich have the capacity to make more money, the poor do not. Therefore, we try to tax the crap out of the rich. It's a strange system.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by +Donny

You may have a point, but statistically, it would be a heck of a lot more complicated and difficult to examine each sub-group. The point of the study was to make general financial observations about general racial groups in America in relation to the housing crisis. The point was not to claim there aren't sub-groups within races.

My point was that essentially "white" and "asian" and such are blanket terms. If you sort out the actual ethnicities, I think you would find that some white racial groups are near the bottom of it all.

Now, I'd find it really interesting to see a study done taking into account certain break-downs within races. But I would see that as an extension of this study, not as opposing it.

I think the terms used are artificial and really ignorant of history and culture. To go to my heritage, the experience of my great grandmother in being white and barred from the general store and such is going to disappear off the radar. Yet this is a part of the racial divide in the mountains today.

To use another example, Asians do not share a common history or experience. Japanese, Korean, Chinese (with a ton of drastically divergent cultures here alone), Vietnamese, Philippine, all have divergent cultures, different values and the study would probably reflect that very much. Because history and culture lead to views on life and the world. I have had friends from those cultures and their view of jobs, money and the world are largely influenced by their upbringing and values.

If a survey is over-broad, it loses ALL usefulness as what it seems to say is based dependent on multiple factors which are not accounted for.

Or what about hair color and style? Glasses/no glasses? Facial structure? Nice teeth? No one's denying that these factor in. They're just different studies.

Actually those tend to be very relevant to earning power. And they also as I hinted at, tend to rest with a particular historical people group and elasticities in American culture. Which really would make the issue something other than color if a dominant subgroup in the color is the source of the data.

If history is in any way responsible for wealth distribution, one would expect that those who historically ruled would be wealthier. However, there are numerous groups of white people that traditionally have been in grinding poverty through all manner of mechanisms.

No, and I don't think anyone in this thread has actually suggested anything of the sort with blacks or hispanics. We're just talking through the study and what it means. It's also be cool to study the rural vs. urban dynamic, the south vs. north dynamic, or certain immigrants groups and how they've done financially.

At the root of this study, and really all this conversation, is the question of why certain families/groups of people succeed and others don't. Is it privilege? Inborn ability? Hard work? Physical appearance? Antagonism from other groups, specifically groups in power? The reality is that it's always a combination of all of these factors (and other ones), and that any statement anyone makes will be a gigantic generalization. But that doesn't make generalizations entirely false or interesting to investigate.

Shall I point out where I have seen it? Being as these sorts of generalizations were outlawed after I was in my Jr year of undergrad, they actually burned me pretty good.

But personally I think it is so broad as to be useless because the terms themselves have no real significance. White is a color, and really is quite a broad range. So is Asian.

[TheProdigalModern]

Originally Posted by mulletman

As was pointed out, most of the wealthiest are entrepreneurs. Why did a Northern European-American start Microsoft?...I guess I just don't get why it really matters who the billionaire entrepreneurs are?

Gates was supported by his haute-bourgeois father while he was developing/stealing his product. Microsoft would likely have never taken off if he hadn't come from some kind of privilege.

My point is that someone's success in the market is often more complex than the usual he-worked-hard-and-made-a-good-product line. I am not saying those don't play into success, but it's a lot easier to get your product to market if you have access to capital to begin with... Which is why white men often do well in mega-businesses. They have historically had access to that capital, whereas others -- say blacks -- did not have access to those same opportunities not because they weren't willing to work hard, but because of systematic oppression or markets that have already been dominated by those with capital.

Likewise, immigrants for the most part don't have access to a fall back plan until at least the second generation and more often the third.

[jthomas1600]

I find it interesting how much of the conversation here is about the study itself and the definition of terms. Nothing wrong with that, it's just interesting to me.

Yeah other external factors definitely effect wealth. Most studies on wages and an individuals height allow for about $1,000 per year per inch. So two guys with similar educational back grounds and work experience working similar jobs....the guy that's 6-2 will be making about $5,000 a year more than the guy who's 5-9. If he invests that 5 grand a year after a few decades he will be worth far more than the short guy. Sorry BSP, I know that's bad news.

In my mind when we're talking about the general distribution of wealth I would attribute a lot of the disparity to past policies and practices of discrimination which have not allowed minorities to accumulate wealth to be passed on to their kids. It was only the generation before mine where a bank could refuse to make a loan simply because the applicant was black.

However, for the most part those policies and practices have come to an end and yet things don't seem to be changing. Why? Could it be as some have suggested on here that certain people are just not as interested in wealth accumulation? I don't think so.

Personally I think there are some cultural issues that are hindering these minority groups. Teen pregnancy is still much higher among blacks and Hispanics than other racial groups. Same can be said of single family house holds and high school drop out ratios. It seems to me that dealing with these issues might be the place to start.

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by TheProdigalModern

Likewise, immigrants for the most part don't have access to a fall back plan until at least the second generation and more often the third.

See, here's what I don't get. I came from an Asian background, and Asians tend to be left out of studies of income disparities between races, for the simple fact that Asians tend to have incomes at least comparable to Whites. The Asian experience in America tends to start with arriving off the boat (or plane, these days) with nothing but the clothes on their backs. It is no secret that especially on the West coast, Asians tend to have quite a disproportionate presence on higher education campuses and aren't even considered underrepresented minorities at my school.

So does one's income really depend on the income of one's parents?

Are Asians really a "Superminority" in terms of income because they have some advantage over other minority groups? Can we really explain current income disparities on racial inequality that still exists in the workplace, or are there much more pervasive factors on the subcultures of these minorities, like dropping out?

I don't have the answer to these questions.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

See, here's what I don't get. I came from an Asian background, and Asians tend to be left out of studies of income disparities between races, for the simple fact that Asians tend to have incomes at least comparable to Whites. The Asian experience in America tends to start with arriving off the boat (or plane, these days) with nothing but the clothes on their backs. It is no secret that especially on the West coast, Asians tend to have quite a disproportionate presence on higher education campuses and aren't even considered underrepresented minorities at my school.

Socioeconomic Statistics & Demographics : Asian-Nation :: Asian American History, Demographics, & Issues

I guess that would also highlight Bill's objection to overbroad categories (although I don't think they're totally without value for some things).

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Socioeconomic Statistics & Demographics : Asian-Nation :: Asian American History, Demographics, & Issues

I guess that would also highlight Bill's objection to overbroad categories (although I don't think they're totally without value for some things).

That illuminates that specifically Cambodian/Laotian/Hmong families tend to be a bit worse off, however most other groups generally are outdoing Whites in median family income and median personal income, including Vietnamese people with a 40% English non-proficiency rate.

For personal reference, I'll say Vietnamese is my personal experience, seeing as I am Vietnamese.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

That illuminates that specifically Cambodian/Laotian/Hmong families tend to be a bit worse off, however most other groups generally are outdoing Whites in median family income and median personal income, including Vietnamese people with a 40% English non-proficiency rate.

And you think there's something to be said about this which could be encapsulated in the category "asian"?

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by slap_j

And you think there's something to be said about this which could be encapsulated in the category "asian"?

Actually, no, I don't think there is. Which makes me wonder what the reasons for the disparity is.

At least this thread shows we all have very different takes on race here. I have lived my entire life acutely aware of my Asianness. I have always been raised talking about the differences between "our people" and "the Americans".

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

My point was that essentially "white" and "asian" and such are blanket terms. If you sort out the actual ethnicities, I think you would find that some white racial groups are near the bottom of it all.


I think the terms used are artificial and really ignorant of history and culture. To go to my heritage, the experience of my great grandmother in being white and barred from the general store and such is going to disappear off the radar. Yet this is a part of the racial divide in the mountains today.

To use another example, Asians do not share a common history or experience. Japanese, Korean, Chinese (with a ton of drastically divergent cultures here alone), Vietnamese, Philippine, all have divergent cultures, different values and the study would probably reflect that very much. Because history and culture lead to views on life and the world. I have had friends from those cultures and their view of jobs, money and the world are largely influenced by their upbringing and values.

If a survey is over-broad, it loses ALL usefulness as what it seems to say is based dependent on multiple factors which are not accounted for.



Actually those tend to be very relevant to earning power. And they also as I hinted at, tend to rest with a particular historical people group and elasticities in American culture. Which really would make the issue something other than color if a dominant subgroup in the color is the source of the data.

If history is in any way responsible for wealth distribution, one would expect that those who historically ruled would be wealthier. However, there are numerous groups of white people that traditionally have been in grinding poverty through all manner of mechanisms.



Shall I point out where I have seen it? Being as these sorts of generalizations were outlawed after I was in my Jr year of undergrad, they actually burned me pretty good.

But personally I think it is so broad as to be useless because the terms themselves have no real significance. White is a color, and really is quite a broad range. So is Asian.

I just wrote up a long post, and now it's gone, so I'll be concise. Basically, I don't think you're sufficiently distinguishing between the facts and the explanation of why those facts are true. Just because you think things are very complicated and qualified doesn't mean the statistics are wrong.

So, when you look at a study like this, you can have two very distinct problems. On the one hand, you can have a problem with the numbers, how they gathered their data and tallied it up. If you think they counted wrong, you can question the numbers.
On the other hand, you can have a problem with where they go with those numbers. If you don't think their explanations are solid (they have a few attempts in the study), then you can object to those.
But that doesn't invalidate the data, and the data still needs some sort of explanation. If it's in fact true that "blacks" make less than "whites", even less now after the housing crisis, then there must be some sort of reason that's true. Same with tall people vs. short people. If the tall people make more than the short people, then there's some reason why that's true. Explanations may vary, from tall people seeming more powerful and therefore being better at business deals, to tall people being aided by space aliens who prefer them to the short people, but that doesn't change the numbers, no matter how absurd the explanations may be.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by +Donny

I just wrote up a long post, and now it's gone, so I'll be concise. Basically, I don't think you're sufficiently distinguishing between the facts and the explanation of why those facts are true. Just because you think things are very complicated and qualified doesn't mean the statistics are wrong.

So, when you look at a study like this, you can have two very distinct problems. On the one hand, you can have a problem with the numbers, how they gathered their data and tallied it up. If you think they counted wrong, you can question the numbers.
On the other hand, you can have a problem with where they go with those numbers. If you don't think their explanations are solid (they have a few attempts in the study), then you can object to those.
But that doesn't invalidate the data, and the data still needs some sort of explanation. If it's in fact true that "blacks" make less than "whites", even less now after the housing crisis, then there must be some sort of reason that's true. Same with tall people vs. short people. If the tall people make more than the short people, then there's some reason why that's true. Explanations may vary, from tall people seeming more powerful and therefore being better at business deals, to tall people being aided by space aliens who prefer them to the short people, but that doesn't change the numbers, no matter how absurd the explanations may be.

I am not saying they are wrong, but rather too broad to be of any use. White is a rather arbitrary distinction. Used in broad terms it could include peoples from multiple continents and entirely different backgrounds. Like Jon said about asianness I don't think you can attribute anything to whiteness.

The experience of a polish or romanian immigrant, an old hillbilly from appalachia, and someone from the midwest are going to be wildly different. In fact more different than some are to minority groups.