We, the NFL, condemn racism and the systematic oppression of Black People. We, the NFL, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier and encourage all to speak out and peacefully protest. We, the NFL, believe Black Lives Matter. #InspireChangepic.twitter.com/ENWQP8A0sv
It’s from Obama himself but I can’t find where he got that stat. I’ve seen it countless times though and I’ve yet to see anybody dispute it.
Needles to say I don’t think he’s full of shit.
Politifact seems to think a lot of what this guy Larry Elder says is basically full of shit, so you're going to need to provide the actual source rather than relying upon a YouTube video of a national pundit.
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
Politifact seems to think a lot of what this guy Larry Elder says is basically full of shit, so you're going to need to provide the actual source rather than relying upon a YouTube video of a national pundit.
This has nothing to do with Elder. He’s quoting Obama you fucking moron.
Originally Posted by :
“They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison,” Obama said.
Here’s also a link to an excerpt from a book with that same stat in it:
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
But what if those black crime statistics you cite are a result of generations of racism? And fewer opportunities? And a sense of hopelessness?
Always with the excuses based on feelings and external forces. What if those statistics are just based on personality flaws and bad decisions like they are for everyone else choosing to commit crimes? [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Please explain your plan to fix this issue in the next year.
Please explain how any reasonable solution to a problem that is 40-50 years in the coming needs fit into a 12 month timeline.
"I have a dream" didn't go on to say "that by 1965 we'll have all this stuff wrapped up..."
The Moynihan report remains prescient and in my eyes, required reading to at least provide a baseline understanding of some of these concerns. Many indicators in the 50s predicted a near-term plateau and rapid decline in the AA community. Saying so effectively ended Moynihan's political career.
Why should something that was surfacing as a problem as far back as the immediate post-war era and had started to become a completely unavoidable conclusion by 1980 be fixed overnight? Illegitimacy rates in the AA community went up from 25% to 55% in the 15 years preceding 1980. And it was around 15% immediately post-war.
Again - generations of momentum was wiped out in less than a quarter century despite institutional progress. So why's that a 12 month fix? [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigRichard:
Massive waste of time with all that is going on? I would think it would behoove all parties that have such a investment in this to do some research themselves. I mean, you don't want to be a parrot your entire life right?
There's far too much to research.
You seem to think I'm the type to post numbers without first looking into them myself. Have you known me to do that before? Did I do that somewhere in this thread? [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
But out-of-wedlock births have gone up everywhere since 1965. Have we seen the same level of violent crime increase globally since that period? If not, then perhaps out-of-wedlock births are not the cause. Correlation does not equal causation.
What statistics are you using to gauge that the "lack of black fathers is clearly resulting in a very disproportionate amount of murders and other violent crimes"?
Interesting approach to this is to try to go brick by brick rather than look for a smoking gun. And to do so in a way that is difficult to find an argument against at each step.
We will agree, I presume, that the best way to relative prosperity in america is to simply not be born in poverty, yes? Over large numbers those stats are really clear. The returns diminish higher up the scale, but all the way up to the poverty line (designated as such for that very reason), you get significant returns on your long-term standard of living. This includes educational outcomes, long-term health and yes, criminality (which walks largely in in glove w/ education).
So are you going to try to argue that 72% of children in the AA community being born into single-income households somehow sits outside of that analysis?
Let's take the idea of single parent homes out of this equation entirely. It necessarily requires a degree of subjectivity that many will just not agree on. Just call it single income homes. How can you argue that the vast majority of AA children being born into single income homes doesn't have an extremely negative long-term impact on their well-being? Especially when single-income homes form a significantly disproportionate amount of homes in poverty (I believe it's about 35%).
This is the transitive property at it's most evident. It's as easy an algebra problem as you'll find and ultimately every analysis over every timeline that has ever been reviewed concludes the same.
A single income home is significantly more likely to be in poverty than a married home (nearly 4 times more likely) and nearly twice as likely as a strictly co-habitational home with 2 incomes. Being in poverty (more accurately - not being in poverty) is the single most critical element to long-term educational outcomes and ultimately your odds of being incarcerated at some point. So how can it be possible that 70+% of AA children being born into single-income homes is irrelevant to to discussion as it relates to criminal outcomes? [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Interesting approach to this is to try to go brick by brick rather than look for a smoking gun. And to do so in a way that is difficult to find an argument against at each step.
We will agree, I presume, that the best way to relative prosperity in america is to simply not be born in poverty, yes? Over large numbers those stats are really clear. The returns diminish higher up the scale, but all the way up to the poverty line (designated as such for that very reason), you get significant returns on your long-term standard of living. This includes educational outcomes, long-term health and yes, criminality (which walks largely in in glove w/ education).
So are you going to try to argue that 72% of children in the AA community being born into single-income households somehow sits outside of that analysis?
Let's take the idea of single parent homes out of this equation entirely. It necessarily requires a degree of subjectivity that many will just not agree on. Just call it single income homes. How can you argue that the vast majority of AA children being born into single income homes doesn't have an extremely negative long-term impact on their well-being? Especially when single-income homes form a significantly disproportionate amount of homes in poverty (I believe it's about 35%).
This is the transitive property at it's most evident. It's as easy an algebra problem as you'll find and ultimately every analysis over every timeline that has ever been reviewed concludes the same.
A single income home is significantly more likely to be in poverty than a married home (nearly 4 times more likely) and nearly twice as likely as a strictly co-habitational home with 2 incomes. Being in poverty (more accurately - not being in poverty) is the single most critical element to long-term educational outcomes and ultimately your odds of being incarcerated at some point. So how can it be possible that 70+% of AA children being born into single-income homes is irrelevant to to discussion as it relates to criminal outcomes?
It is relevant but it is also chicken or the egg. Broken windows policing and the war on drugs has been outright destructive to communities, many of which tend to be minority communities. One of the biggest drivers of family instability is financial stress. Many of these communities are still dealing with some aftermath of institutional oppression. While those conditions have gradually improved criminal justice has created another layer of weight. How can a man in these communities make a steady income when they they have a permanent mark on their record because of some petty crime they committed as a stupid teenager? How many dads are out of the house because they're serving a long sentence for a nonviolent crime? How many of these create long term patterns of dysfunction.. An early stint in juvy creates a lifelong criminal? A long term hopelessness that leads to mental health issues, drugs, and/or crime?
I agree this is two way. Community members need to be accountable for their own actions. But we have to stop letting infrastructure create added weight to fixing anything. Fixing the system isn't a cure all. But it can at least help create more stable environments. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501: It is relevant but it is also chicken or the egg. Broken windows policing and the war on drugs has been outright destructive to communities, many of which tend to be minority communities. One of the biggest drivers of family instability is financial stress. Many of these communities are still dealing with some aftermath of institutional oppression. While those conditions have gradually improved criminal justice has created another layer of weight. How can a man in these communities make a steady income when they they have a permanent mark on their record because of some petty crime they committed as a stupid teenager? How many dads are out of the house because they're serving a long sentence for a nonviolent crime? How many of these create long term patterns of dysfunction.. An early stint in juvy creates a lifelong criminal? A long term hopelessness that leads to mental health issues, drugs, and/or crime?
I agree this is two way. Community members need to be accountable for their own actions. But we have to stop letting infrastructure create added weight to fixing anything. Fixing the system isn't a cure all. But it can at least help create more stable environments.
Is it?
Again - broken window policing, the war on drugs - all of those things are recent creatures.
For decades in the early part of this century, some of the worst for minorities in the country's history, this stuff was stable. And when the largest legal gains the AA community were being achieved throughout the 60s and 70s, the decay only accelerated.
Let's use the War on Drugs as the line of demarcation. From 1982 to now we've seen an illegitimacy rate that has gone up roughly 16%. It went up 20% in the mere 15 years preceding that. Even if you see room for wiggle in the numbers, at best there has been less decline in the last 40 years than there were in the previous 15. Moreover, it was some of the apparent decline leading up to that 40 year period that encouraged AA leaders and lawmakers to pursue and support the distinctions between Crack and pure cocaine (which has somehow been given a racial component since then, despite near universal acknowledgement at the time of its impact on the AA community by community leaders). Moreover, the same approach has now been taken to meth, a drug that is essentially a mirror image to crack in who/where it hits hardest.
If there's an egg here, it's the decline that came WELL before the policies you're citing that led to support within the AA community for many of these same policies when they were passed.
For the life of me I cannot understand what happened in/round the 40s/50s that led to the explosion. From a family background perspective, black and white familial bonds were nearly identical through the early 20th century. Then they just....weren't. I don't know what caused it, but it came WELL before the things people are complaining about now.
The premise needs to be accepted first - the family structure is hurting AA communities in a big way. And then reasonable analysis need be done. No, it's not broken window policies that became en vogue in the 90s. No, it's not the 'war on drugs' that didn't show up until well after there had already been exceptional levels of familial decay in the AA community (at a time when other long-standing minority populations weren't suffering the same fate).
Was it inherent bias that came more strongly to the front when the country was trying to pull itself out of the depression in the 30s and fewer job opportunities led to an exacerbation of minority hiring discrimination that had been bubbling beneath the surface during the roaring 20s? I mean...maybe. I'd listen to that argument. But what other laws do you propose passing to address that now? And how do you square that with the fact that minority unemployment has been on the decline recently and yet illegitimacy continues to go up?
Moreover, the idea that 'financial stress creates familial stability' doesn't speak directly to the fact that these kids are BORN into that status. This wasn't a caring family that cratered after the kids were born - the family never existed at all. Additionally you again have to go back to the fact that earlier in the century when minorities had even worse hurdles to financial stability than they do no, the figures weren't even close to as dire.
I'm freely willing to say that I've never been able to hammer down what created the problem. But simple comparison and chronology allows me to say what almost certainly did not. [Reply]
It was thought at one time. If you were an unmarried mother. The medical bills would be paid. There is someone in government that would call that smart [Reply]
Originally Posted by OrtonsPiercedTaint:
It was thought at one time. If you were an unmarried mother. The medical bills would be paid. There is someone in government that would call that smart
The costs of having a child in the US are, give or take, $10K absent complications.
And that's a hell of a lot higher than it was, say, 20-30 years ago when all these figures were already well on the upswing.
So your belief is that women were leaving willing fathers to save $10K up front? Or willing fathers were willing to lie on a birth certificate, effectively surrendering parental rights, to save money?
I mean that doesn't make economic sense in 2020 and it DAMN sure wouldn't have made sense 30 years ago when a pregnancy cost about 10% what it does now.
It's a common argument used against 'welfare queens' - people try to argue that having kids becomes a net financial benefit for them so that's why they have them. Eh - doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all. It's such a non-starter that I cannot believe it's a thought process that exists in the AA community, if it ever did at all.
It requires enough forethought that, if you had the mental acuity for that kind of planning, you would immediately recognize how quickly the math falls on its face. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Interesting approach to this is to try to go brick by brick rather than look for a smoking gun. And to do so in a way that is difficult to find an argument against at each step.
We will agree, I presume, that the best way to relative prosperity in america is to simply not be born in poverty, yes? Over large numbers those stats are really clear. The returns diminish higher up the scale, but all the way up to the poverty line (designated as such for that very reason), you get significant returns on your long-term standard of living. This includes educational outcomes, long-term health and yes, criminality (which walks largely in in glove w/ education).
So are you going to try to argue that 72% of children in the AA community being born into single-income households somehow sits outside of that analysis?
Let's take the idea of single parent homes out of this equation entirely. It necessarily requires a degree of subjectivity that many will just not agree on. Just call it single income homes. How can you argue that the vast majority of AA children being born into single income homes doesn't have an extremely negative long-term impact on their well-being? Especially when single-income homes form a significantly disproportionate amount of homes in poverty (I believe it's about 35%).
This is the transitive property at it's most evident. It's as easy an algebra problem as you'll find and ultimately every analysis over every timeline that has ever been reviewed concludes the same.
A single income home is significantly more likely to be in poverty than a married home (nearly 4 times more likely) and nearly twice as likely as a strictly co-habitational home with 2 incomes. Being in poverty (more accurately - not being in poverty) is the single most critical element to long-term educational outcomes and ultimately your odds of being incarcerated at some point. So how can it be possible that 70+% of AA children being born into single-income homes is irrelevant to to discussion as it relates to criminal outcomes?
Ah, yes. But you are presuming that being born out of wedlock means you live in a single income home. The CDC did a study which showed that the majority of black fathers are actually involved:
- Most black fathers live with their children. There are about 2.5 million who live with their children, and 1.7 million who don’t, according to the CDC.
- Black dads who live with their children are actually the most involved fathers of all, on average, a CDC study found.
So instead of this 70%+ figure thrown around because kids are born out of wedlock, this study indicates that only 40% grow up classically ‘fatherless.’ So that considerably narrows the gap with other races (whites 18%, hispanics 30%).
And then who’s to argue the difference is then not just a result of a generally lower socioeconomic status? And then who’s to argue that’s not the result of some reduced level of opportunity given race? And who’s to argue that the overrepresentation of blacks in prison because of a criminal justice system stacked against them doesn’t play some role?
I don’t think anyone would argue that this isn’t a real issue in that community, but holding this out as a counterpoint to the BLM movement is missing and obscuring a crucially important point. [Reply]