Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

Racial UnemploymentFollow

#1 Aug 20 2013 at 2:07 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Screenshot


That's a graph showing the ratio of unemployment between white and black Americans since 1963. To make it easier on yourself, it essentially says that from 1963-today, there has been around 2-2.5 African Americans unemployed for every unemployed white person (note that data before 1979 includes Hispanics; data was divided between "white" and "non-white"). This has been the case if the president & Congress were controlled by Democrats, Republicans or mixed in whatever flavor. Through periods of welfare restrictions and periods of increased low-income aid. In economic recessions and economic booms. Through tax cuts and tax hikes. It seems largely unmovable.

So what can be done? What should be done? Can this be changed? Education? Work study? Repeal minimum wage so everyone can get $1.25/hr jobs? Any bright ideas?

Edited, Aug 20th 2013 3:08pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Aug 20 2013 at 2:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,277 posts
.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#3 Aug 20 2013 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
******
49,737 posts
Blame the democrats.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Aug 20 2013 at 2:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
Robots. Replace everyone with robots.

Silver colored robots. Or maybe orange ones. With stickers. The stickers make them go faster.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#5 Aug 20 2013 at 2:31 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Robots. Replace everyone with robots.

Silver colored robots. Or maybe orange ones. With stickers. The stickers make them go faster.
Paint them red, everyone knows red goes faster.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#6 Aug 20 2013 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,758 posts
I don't think there are any easy answers, or else the trend wouldn't have stayed the same for so long. Honestly I think the best and most effective thing that can be done starts at home with parents that raise their kids to be self-sufficient, work hard, and not expect things to be given to them. That can be said for any race or culture, but it seems particularly evident in black culture.

Bill Cosby tried to say something along those lines several years ago and was blasted for it by many in the black community, but I thought he made some excellent points and I agreed with pretty much everything he said. I guess you could say it's partially education, but a lot of it is learning life skills and realizing that "expressing yourself" takes a back seat to being able to communicate and conduct yourself in a manner that makes you employable. And if the parents aren't there (whether they be Mom and Dad, Grandma and Grandpa, Aunt and Uncle, whoever is raising the kid) and aren't holding the kid to a higher standard they will just go along doing what they will do and then wonder why they can't get a job. Why can't they get a job when they can't be understood by everyone, why can't they get a job when they don't finish High School let alone college, why can't they get a job because they have a criminal record, etc. etc.

So sayeth a middle-aged white guy who can't possibly understand what's going on. But I can tell you if I had a small business and was looking to hire some young help, you give me the choice between a black kid that maybe graduated high school (but almost as likely didn't, not statisticly) and talks like a gangster on the street with his pants down around his knees and anyone else that can dress, speak, and present themselves respectably and I know which person I'd hire.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#7gbaji, Posted: Aug 20 2013 at 2:54 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This. Definitely this. Smiley: grin
#8 Aug 20 2013 at 2:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Robots. Replace everyone with robots.

Silver colored robots. Or maybe orange ones. With stickers. The stickers make them go faster.
Paint them red, everyone knows red goes faster.



Can't, that triggers the robocommunist revolution, then they overthrow humanity and chop everyone up to make robot bearing grease. Also, you can't see the red blinky robopocalypse warning lights against a red chassis.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#9 Aug 20 2013 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
DA RED WUNZ GO FASTA!
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#10 Aug 20 2013 at 3:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Kakar wrote:
I don't think there are any easy answers, or else the trend wouldn't have stayed the same for so long. Honestly I think the best and most effective thing that can be done starts at home with parents that raise their kids to be self-sufficient, work hard, and not expect things to be given to them. That can be said for any race or culture, but it seems particularly evident in black culture.


I agree with the idea, but I'd make a note of caution of "the best and most effective thing that can be done starts at home." I don't know if Jophiel has a chart of, say, literacy among blacks, or high school graduations, or those attaining a degree in higher education. But IF the rates of education are increasing over time but the unemployment ratio remains relatively the same, it would seem to imply that there's a problem with society, not necessarily with blacks failing to better themselves (or at least gain the minimum requirements for decent employment ie education).

Of course if the opposite is true (education has stagnated or even declined), then it implies what you said.

That said, I fully agree that the most effective remedy is grassroots and starts with the life at home. It's pretty obvious that government cannot replace the benefit of having interested and encouraging parents.

Edit: Also, about the Bill Cosby thing: I love his speeches on this topic. Bill O'Reilly made one a month or so ago - old white men seemed to eat it up but go figure, I didn't see anyone else applauding his words. I guess one Bill has more appeal than the other Smiley: lol

Edited, Aug 20th 2013 5:51pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#11 Aug 20 2013 at 4:12 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Kakar wrote:
But I can tell you if I had a small business and was looking to hire some young help, you give me the choice between a black kid that maybe graduated high school (but almost as likely didn't, not statisticly) and talks like a gangster on the street with his pants down around his knees and anyone else that can dress, speak, and present themselves respectably and I know which person I'd hire.
What about another kid but white dressed the same and talkin' trash (we got them around these parts)?

Separate the black from the poor street kid.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#12 Aug 20 2013 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Jophiel wrote:


So what can be done? What should be done? Can this be changed? Education? Work study? Repeal minimum wage so everyone can get $1.25/hr jobs? Any bright ideas?


Integration, or perhaps immersion. Smiley: sly

All black police departments.

Umm, reverse tanning beds

I guess I'm not sufficiently convinced we're over the racism hump and until we are it won't really change. Our inmates are disproportionately black too. But I gotta believe we're making progress. Black unemployment, sure, education, family and education resources, stuff to get families out of the poverty it's all good whether or not it impacts the ratio (hopefully it helps the bottom line).

Edited, Aug 21st 2013 12:27am by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#13 Aug 20 2013 at 4:28 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,373 posts
Export them. You seem to have a steady supply.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#14gbaji, Posted: Aug 20 2013 at 4:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Or it could mean that the rate of employment among blacks without a certain amount of education has decreased over the same period of time. So perhaps back in 1963 70% didn't have a high school education, 29% did, and 1% had a college education, with unemployment rates of say 10%, 5%, and 1% respectively, but today, 35% have no high school education, 45% do, and 20% have a college education, but with unemployment rates of say 20%, 5%, and 1% respectively. This would mean that an African American with a high school or better education had the exact same chance of a job as before, and the rate of those with such educations has increased dramatically, but the resulting overall unemployment rate remains about the same (actually a little higher with my hypothetical numbers).
#15 Aug 20 2013 at 5:12 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
gbaji wrote:
We have neighborhoods with ridiculously high unemployment rates, largely because there physically aren't enough jobs for the number of people living in the area. This is a situation which can only happen after a few generations of social welfare is applied.

Granted right now, we're short on jobs, but as Joph mentioned, the economy (unemployment rates included) hasn't changed the ratios, so what I think you must mean is we don't have enough jobs for blacks.

How come?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#16 Aug 20 2013 at 5:16 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
I can't decide if this is the most out of touch with reality gbaji has ever been. I'm leaning heavily towards yes.

FYI, Black teenagers are FAR more likely to go to college than white teenagers are now. In 2010, 14% of college students in the US were Black (12% of the US population is Black). 61% of students are White (72% of the population is White).

Black students, however, typically end up going to worse schools, primarily due to lack of financial resources to go elsewhere. They're also vastly more likely to be unprepared for the coursework at better schools, due to receiving sub-standard education for most of their life and being almost completely separated from their own cultural groups - studies between similarly performing Black colleges and primarily White colleges, Black students were vastly more likely to drop out of the White schools than Black schools.

The severe lack of quality Black schools makes this difficult. Few schools have made the efforts to place a significant enough value on diversity to avoid this issue (and I'll admit I say this with a certain amount of pride in Rutgers, which does typically value diversity heavily).

So what happens is that Black students, despite being more likely to attend college, are either forced to attend sub-par colleges due to financial restraints, sub-par colleges due to cultural bias, or deal with the stress of cultural severance and attend schools they don't fit into. They're also, regardless, far less likely to gain employment than a white applicant of lesser skill and experience. And they face lower pay and a reduced rate of promotions, stagnating their potential for continuing development and influence.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#17 Aug 20 2013 at 5:18 PM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
The obvious answer is to reinstate the mandatory work programs of the pre-civil war era.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#18 Aug 20 2013 at 5:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
True. Very little black unemployment around 1859 or so.. especially in the agribusiness sector of Virginia, N./S. Carolina, Georgia, etc.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Aug 20 2013 at 5:28 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,373 posts
That will just lead to unemployed machines. You're just creating the same issue with a different demographic.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#20 Aug 20 2013 at 5:31 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
And take all the jobs away from the good, upstanding white folk.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#21gbaji, Posted: Aug 20 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Um... Because blacks are disproportionately likely to grow up in a poor neighborhood with not enough jobs for the number of people in them. And that is because when we implemented our social welfare system, blacks were disproportionately poor due to direct racist government policies, and that welfare system serves to maintain the social ratios at the time it was implemented rather than fix inequities between groups. I could have sworn that I just explained this.
#22 Aug 20 2013 at 6:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
FYI, Black teenagers are FAR more likely to go to college than white teenagers are now. In 2010, 14% of college students in the US were Black (12% of the US population is Black). 61% of students are White (72% of the population is White).


That's wonderful. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the point I just made. I was talking about how blacks who don't get a high school diploma or college degree are less likely to be employed today than in 1963. Thus, even though the overall education level among blacks (compared to whites even) has increased in the US, the relative level of unemployment has not changed.

Quote:
Black students, however, typically end up going to worse schools, primarily due to lack of financial resources to go elsewhere. They're also vastly more likely to be unprepared for the coursework at better schools, due to receiving sub-standard education for most of their life and being almost completely separated from their own cultural groups - studies between similarly performing Black colleges and primarily White colleges, Black students were vastly more likely to drop out of the White schools than Black schools.

The severe lack of quality Black schools makes this difficult. Few schools have made the efforts to place a significant enough value on diversity to avoid this issue (and I'll admit I say this with a certain amount of pride in Rutgers, which does typically value diversity heavily).

So what happens is that Black students, despite being more likely to attend college, are either forced to attend sub-par colleges due to financial restraints, sub-par colleges due to cultural bias, or deal with the stress of cultural severance and attend schools they don't fit into. They're also, regardless, far less likely to gain employment than a white applicant of lesser skill and experience. And they face lower pay and a reduced rate of promotions, stagnating their potential for continuing development and influence.


That's great and all, but still has zero relevance to what I was talking about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Aug 20 2013 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Why is this explanation so hard to believe?

Because you're not really supporting it. The ratio of unemployment hasn't changed since before Johnson and the Great Society programs. As noted, it hasn't changed based on what other administrations have done since. It wasn't affected by Reagan's 1982 welfare cuts. It wasn't affected by welfare reform in the 1990's (in fact it became worse following both periods but I don't posit the two are related). It hasn't changed based on wedlock rates. It hasn't changed based on abortion rates. It hasn't been affected by any number of things.

So, yeah, when you basically say "It's just obvious" about a vague thing like "It's social programs", no one believes you. You haven't given them any reason to.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Aug 20 2013 at 7:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why is this explanation so hard to believe?

Because you're not really supporting it. The ratio of unemployment hasn't changed since before Johnson and the Great Society programs.


Except that right around the same time period that we actively worked to eliminate numerous civil rights violating laws in the south, we were busily implementing those programs. The Civil Rights Act was signed into law in 1964. So was the Economic Opportunity Act. Education, Medicare, Medicaid, and HUD acts were all signed in 1965. Put in perspective, we were still fighting against unfair civil rights violating laws in the US through the late 60s, with the Civil Rights Act of 1968 covering housing rights.

As one phased out, the other phased in. There was simply not enough time to see what sort of socio-economic changes would have occurred among blacks in the US by simply removing the unfair obstacles placed upon them by existing laws. We nearly immediately replaced those laws with a huge system of welfare designed at least in part to help offset the existing imbalances. I think that was a grave mistake that has been the primary cause of entrenched poverty among blacks for the past 40 years.

If we had just removed the legal obstacles to success for blacks and then let things run their course, I suspect that we would not see the same kind of discrepancies we see today.

Quote:
As noted, it hasn't changed based on what other administrations have done since. It wasn't affected by Reagan's 1982 welfare cuts. It wasn't affected by welfare reform in the 1990's (in fact it became worse following both periods but I don't posit the two are related). It hasn't changed based on wedlock rates. It hasn't changed based on abortion rates. It hasn't been affected by any number of things.


Um... It's a relative number we're looking at though. Welfare programs don't directly target one skin color or another. They target economic need. The effects are different on different groups within the US only because of differences in economic need within those groups. So changing the welfare criteria a little bit doesn't change the relative effect welfare has on those groups. Or at least, it isn't going to change it much. You also have to realize that these programs don't only exist at the federal level. States each engage in their own programs and use federal funding to cover the parts of their programs which overlap the federal guidelines. It's far too complex to simply look at a couple of federal level changes and say nothing happened, so therefore "welfare" isn't a factor in the outcome.

Quote:
You haven't given them any reason to.


I've given a pretty clear explanation of why and how welfare programs cause harm to the populations who receive them. Instead of addressing that with something like "Oh no! You're completely wrong because people who grow up in households funded by welfare are no more likely to be on welfare themselves as adults", you just point off in another direction.

Am I wrong to say that welfare tends to trap people? Am I wrong to point out that this affect is amplified in communities where a large percentage of the people are welfare recipients? And am I wrong to point out that African Americans are disproportionately likely to live in those communities? I don't think so. So why is it so unreasonable to point at this as a possible (probable even) explanation for the disproportionately higher unemployment among blacks over that period of time?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Aug 20 2013 at 7:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um... It's a relative number we're looking at though. Welfare programs don't directly target one skin color or another. They target economic need. The effects are different on different groups within the US only because of differences in economic need within those groups. So changing the welfare criteria a little bit doesn't change the relative effect welfare has on those groups. Or at least, it isn't going to change it much. You also have to realize that these programs don't only exist at the federal level. States each engage in their own programs and use federal funding to cover the parts of their programs which overlap the federal guidelines. It's far too complex to simply look at a couple of federal level changes and say nothing happened, so therefore "welfare" isn't a factor in the outcome.

Ok, so show me any effects on black unemployment that you can actually correlate to a change in a the social welfare system.

Quote:
I've given a pretty clear explanation of why and how welfare programs cause harm to the populations who receive them. Instead of addressing that with something like "Oh no! You're completely wrong because people who grow up in households funded by welfare are no more likely to be on welfare themselves as adults", you just point off in another direction.

Asking for some sort of support for your arguments? Shame on me...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Aug 20 2013 at 7:56 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
gbaji wrote:
What's happened is that the prospects for blacks who've dropped out of school are vastly worse today than they were 50 years ago. And IMO, this seems to match the reality around us a bit better. And this ties into the problem I wrote about earlier. We have neighborhoods with ridiculously high unemployment rates, largely because there physically aren't enough jobs for the number of people living in the area. This is a situation which can only happen after a few generations of social welfare is applied.

Wait...so the jobs dry up and go away because blacks have been on welfare?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 72 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (72)