Support NeoGAF

[TheMikado]

This is clearly not racism if Shen-ji Wong does not get a call back but Buford Wong DOES get a call back. This is a matter of acculturation, perceived corporate fit, and the common sense realization that white people are the dominant culture in America so, yes, we minorities have to make some efforts to meet Americana halfway if we want a seat at the table.

When I was 22, I was indignant that Jim Gringo could not parse apart one obscure ethnicity that looked like mine from the other obscure ethnicity that also kind of looked like mine. At some point, you realize it is completely unreasonable to seethe and sulk because Jim and Jill don't know the difference between Hmong and Uzbeks or Venezuelans and Paraguayans.

By 32, I had long realized it's easier to just say "Hey Jim how was your Easter dinner? Let's go check out that microbrewery and drink craft beer and play charades at Jill's after for potluck Thursday."

“This is a matter of acculturation, perceived corporate fit, and the common sense realization that white people are the dominant culture in America so, yes, we minorities have to make some efforts to meet Americana halfway if we want a seat at the table.”

You do understand that is discrimination correct? Discrimination based on place of origin or perceived place of origin is illegal in the US.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm

National Origin Discrimination
National origin discrimination involves treating people (applicants or employees) unfavorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world, because of ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background (even if they are not).
National origin discrimination also can involve treating people unfavorably because they are married to (or associated with) a person of a certain national origin.
Discrimination can occur when the victim and the person who inflicted the discrimination are the same national origin.
National Origin Discrimination & Work Situations
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

 

[prag16]

T TheMikado Again I fully understand the statistics side. Nevertheless, you're being pedantic like I said. Never said the math is shaky. What I said is shaky was the assertion that things are drastically improving because the rise on percentage among black people wasn't as big as the rise in percentage among white people. (And the way percentages work, it would have been impossible anyway... you can't have more than 100% of births be out of wedlock, obviously.

 

[TheMikado]

T TheMikado Again I fully understand the statistics side. Nevertheless, you're being pedantic like I said. Never said the math is shaky. What I said is shaky was the assertion that things are drastically improving because the rise on percentage among black people wasn't as big as the rise in percentage among white people. (And the way percentages work, it would have been impossible anyway... you can't have more than 100% of births be out of wedlock, obviously.

This is not being pedantic at all. You are ascribing a moral application not presented in the statistics. You are viewing this he statistics as unwed mothers are a detrimental factor as a whole. (Which is supported by other evidence) however the statistics show that it is becoming the norm and that black unwed mothers are trending more towards the norm. It’s a valid statistical claim and I never propped it up as a victory but merely a measure which shows these gaps are closing. Not that 70% is an inheritly positive number but hat the closing of the gap itself is inherently positive.

 

[Super Mario]

Again, so what are your solutions? What are your thoughts on how we handle these problems? Republicans have also controlled cities, states and presidencies. Yet here we are. Wages are stagnating relative to inflation so I don’t know where you’re seeing increased wages. You seem to be incapable of offering anything of substance beyond quoting statistics about how bad black people have it or how democrats and liberals are bad.

Is that all you have? Is that really the extent of your capabilities? Do you seriously have nothing to offer? I mean, here is an entire thread about racism with people willing to discuss issues.

I refuse to believe you are such an empty vessel. Do better.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it that the Democratic platform need to be distanced from the black community. Public schooling, welfare, identity politics, etc all need to go away before the problem can start to heal.

The following article is a good read.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/16965-real-solutions-for-black-americans

Here's an interesting fact about the worthless schooling system. More taxes, more bloat, more pandering. No discipline, no results.

let it be known that in the 1850s, prior to the era of widespread public schooling and compulsory education laws, the literacy rate in the United States was over 90 percent. Today it stands at 86 percent, with 21 percent of adults reading below a fifth-grade level and 19 percent of high-school graduates unable to read at all.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

T TheMikado (And the way percentages work, it would have been impossible anyway... you can't have more than 100% of births be out of wedlock, obviously.

But it's not at 100%. If things really weren't getting any better, or even only getting marginally better, the rate would've tracked up to 100% already and then been cutoff. But it didn't, it's only at 70%, and the rate that it's climbing has slowed down considerably.

If your issue is with characterizing the improvement as "drastic" then I'd have to say you're the one being pedantic. It's undeniably an improvement.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it that the Democratic platform need to be distanced from the black community. Public schooling, welfare, identity politics, etc all need to go away before the problem can start to heal.

The following article is a good read.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/16965-real-solutions-for-black-americans

Here's an interesting fact about the worthless schooling system. More taxes, more bloat, more pandering. No discipline, no results.

You're still just shooting down other solutions without presenting one of your own. He's asking what you think will work, not what you think won't work. Unless you're suggestion is to just "take away the Democrats' approach and then leave it alone and let it work itself out"?

 

[TheMikado]

I don't know how much clearer I can make it that the Democratic platform need to be distanced from the black community. Public schooling, welfare, identity politics, etc all need to go away before the problem can start to heal.

The following article is a good read.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/16965-real-solutions-for-black-americans

Here's an interesting fact about the worthless schooling system. More taxes, more bloat, more pandering. No discipline, no results.

This is quite literally the least informed post to have even been written ( ok maybe not the worst but it’s still pretty bad in terms of basic research skills.) The literacy rate of the 1800s was based the voting population which consistent of white male land owners should be required to have a basis amount of literacy for property and tax reasons. It shows you do not do your due diligence at all when presenting statistics. Here are the REAL numbers...

https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

As you can see from the table Only 20% of the population was actually literate. And further of the US born citizens, this entire have any literacy at all even below basic levels is less than 1%.
I hate using the term fake news as it’s divisive but it seems much of your research consists of this. My links are generally US gov sites so I really question your research methods.

 

[Nightstick10]

“This is a matter of acculturation, perceived corporate fit, and the common sense realization that white people are the dominant culture in America so, yes, we minorities have to make some efforts to meet Americana halfway if we want a seat at the table.”

You do understand that is discrimination correct? Discrimination based on place of origin or perceived place of origin is illegal in the US.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm

National Origin Discrimination
National origin discrimination involves treating people (applicants or employees) unfavorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world, because of ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background (even if they are not).
National origin discrimination also can involve treating people unfavorably because they are married to (or associated with) a person of a certain national origin.
Discrimination can occur when the victim and the person who inflicted the discrimination are the same national origin.
National Origin Discrimination & Work Situations
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

I understand the legal (which differs from the colloquial) definition of discrimination very, very, very, very well. I assure you that the "callback" scenario would not come ANYWHERE close to establishing racial or national origin discrimination for a jury in state or federal court.

In this day and age, an employer would have to be pants on head moronic to even get anywhere close to getting hit with racial or national origin discrimination, and I mean even a company wide email by the CEO saying "hey HR guys remember not to call back anyone with foreign sounding names okay it's part of company policy now" would get anywhere close to a slam dunk since there are so many legitimate reasons a company could give to avoid liability

 

[BANGS]

Before I answer this, what do YOU think is causing these stats? I'm asking because I want to get your perspective on this.

I'm sure there are many factors, but the one that sticks out the most is the breakdown of the American family. It's happening all across the board, but blacks are seeing this at a devastating scale...

While racism in the sense of legal discrimination is illegal, there are factors such as education and wealth which disproportionately affect the poor and because of only actually obtaining equal right under the law in be past 60 years black people in American has not had the same opportunity as other immigrants who have voluntarily migrated to America. In fact, voluntary African immigrants are some of the most successful and well educated voluntary immigrants to the US.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/african-immigrants-united-states-0

About two of every five African foreign-born adults had a bachelor's or higher degree.
In 2007, 42.5 percent of the 1.1 million African-born adults age 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher compared to 27.0 percent among the 31.6 million foreign-born adults. About one-quarter (25.2 percent) of African-born adults age 25 and older had some college education (less than a bachelor's degree) or an associate's degree compared to 17.1 percent of all foreign-born adults.

On the other end of the education continuum, about 11.3 percent of African immigrants had no high school diploma or the equivalent general education diploma (GED), compared to 31.9 percent among all foreign-born adults. About 21.1 percent of African-born adults had a high school diploma or GED compared to 24.0 percent among all foreign-born adults.

Further African immigrants, those whose ancestors have not suffered directly under slavery experience increased wealth and Nigerians, Kenyans, and Ethiopians surpass the average white American wealth while rivaling the “model minority” Asian Americans.

Essentially the long history of slavery and discrimination where families are intentionally destroyed, heritage and culture erased, and education denied takes more than 60 years of recovery to equalize. Because he legal system and virtually all institutions in the US function more favorably the wealthier you are, groups which have been intentionally denied wealth will be further disadvantaged by these institutions. Because the denial of the basic rights of America were denied based on the category of race which severely impaired wealth, and our institutions favor those with wealth, a race which lacks wealth will perceive institutional discrimination which coincides with their race due to the history of discrimination.

Basically you can’t strip everything from a group of people work them like animals, throw them out into the streets to fair for themselves while actively denying them any ability to advance and expect that they are going to be ok. Signing a piece of paper doesn’t undo centuries of misabuse.

As I’ve said before, we are less than 60 year out from achieving true equality under the law and every single gap is closing and rapidly. It seems you fail to understand the incredibly achievement that is.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I don't understand what you are saying. I totally understand that in the past things were rough for blacks and that translates to alot of the issues their community is seeing now. I've never denied that and if what I've said ever implied that, I'm sorry for the miscommunication...

What I'm not understanding is how in 2018 how we can blame their woes on CURRENT racism. I don't see any programs, corporations, laws, etc that are holding black people back from advancing. Quite the opposite, we have affirmative action and all kinds of programs specifically targeting the advancement of black people. What you've just show me, that African(black) immigrants in general are doing better than the average American, does more to prove my point that racism/xenophobia in modern day America isn't actually a problem...

Have you not seen the stats that a stereotypical white name is Over 30% more likely to be called in for a interview over a stereotypical black name. That is the world we currently live in. Same resume just a different name.

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

There seem to be alot of holes in that study. There are obviously other factors on the resumes that result in callbacks. They quite literally could not be the same resume with a different name, as the employer would notice such a scam. It says so right in the link that they had to make such changes. Those changes resulted in qualities on the "white" resumes that the employer seemed to like more than the ones on the "black" resumes other than just the name...

But let's say I'm dead wrong and we take this at face value and determine that this was undoubtedly racial discrimination, the companies involved in the discrimination should be charged with the crimes they are committing. Were they?

 

[prag16]

But it's not at 100%. If things really weren't getting any better, or even only getting marginally better, the rate would've tracked up to 100% already and then been cutoff. But it didn't, it's only at 70%, and the rate that it's climbing has slowed down considerably.

This makes literally no sense. No matter how bad anything was, the rate would never hit 100%. It would be basically impossible unless the entire institution of marriage got dissolved and became unrecognized. This literally reads like a joke post. Absurd. But I'm finished on this line of discussion, because there's no point in continuing.

 

[Moneal]

This is not being pedantic at all. You are ascribing a moral application not presented in the statistics. You are viewing this he statistics as unwed mothers are a detrimental factor as a whole. (Which is supported by other evidence) however the statistics show that it is becoming the norm and that black unwed mothers are trending more towards the norm. It’s a valid statistical claim and I never propped it up as a victory but merely a measure which shows these gaps are closing. Not that 70% is an inheritly positive number but hat the closing of the gap itself is inherently positive.

comparing the gap is not a helpful way to look at this issue. comparing the percentages shows a better picture. If you said 1 in 5 black mothers was having kids out of wedlock and now 7 in 10 are having kids out of wedlock. would the numbers be showing a positive? I mean what you are saying is that its a positive because everyone else is increasing too.

I'm not seeing how it can be a positive. It just shows that the other races are catching up in a category that has shown to have some relation to poverty and less wealth generation.

 

[TheMikado]

I understand the legal (which differs from the colloquial) definition of discrimination very, very, very, very well. I assure you that the "callback" scenario would not come ANYWHERE close to establishing racial or national origin discrimination for a jury in state or federal court.

In this day and age, an employer would have to be pants on head moronic to even get anywhere close to getting hit with racial or national origin discrimination, and I mean even a company wide email by the CEO saying "hey HR guys remember not to call back anyone with foreign sounding names okay it's part of company policy now" would get anywhere close to a slam dunk since there are so many legitimate reasons a company could give to avoid liability

https://www.rmlawyers.com/eeoc-workplace-discrimination-claims-over-foreign-accents-on-the-rise/

"According to the new numbers, more than 11800 complaints of employment discriminationbased on national origin were filed with the EEOC in 2011 — up 77 percent from 1997. The EEOChas suggested that it might be the increasing diversity of the American workforce, but civil rights advocates think it’s more likely due to a climate of fear, particularly in states that have been enacting laws hostile to immigrants, both legal and undocumented.

One of the problems has been the introduction of English-only policies by employers. Such policies are only allowed when speaking fluent English is crucial to the job responsibilities, and even then the employer’s rights are strictly limited. The EEOC issued guidelines for employers back in 2002, but apparently that hasn’t solved the problem."

Further, there is a very specific reason why HR companies are required to keep hiring records. The must show the applicants, call-backs, interviews, etc. Such as when a case is brought against them they can produce documentation that there is no systematic discrimination. The callback scenario is only an outward manifestation of internal discrimination practices. Obviously in you are discriminating in some way your records will mostly reflect a trend in the number of call-backs, the number of interviews, and the number of hires. Companies would be required to produce these documents to show no bias in their processes.

There seem to be alot of holes in that study. There are obviously other factors on the resumes that result in callbacks. They quite literally could not be the same resume with a different name, as the employer would notice such a scam. It says so right in the link that they had to make such changes. Those changes resulted in qualities on the "white" resumes that the employer seemed to like more than the ones on the "black" resumes other than just the name...

But let's say I'm dead wrong and we take this at face value and determine that this was undoubtedly racial discrimination, the companies involved in the discrimination should be charged with the crimes they are committing. Were they?

The above has some examples but I will give more:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdr...awsuit-with-department-of-labor/#30282983449c

"In September, the agency alleged Palantir prevented the hiring of Asian applicants on the basis of their race during an 18-month period beginning in January 2010. Asian applicants were "routinely eliminated" in résumé screening and telephone interview phases of the hiring process, despite being "as qualified as white applicants" for engineering positions, according to the government’s complaint."

http://fortune.com/2015/08/24/target-discriminatory-hiring/

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-31-17.cfm

There are a couple of things necessary to bring a lawsuit. The first is standing. Which means the plantiff must be affected in some way personally. You can't send out fact resumes and then sue on the basis of not getting called back for a fake resume. That's not how our legal system works thankfully. So because you need standing the applicant would need to be aware of suspect they had been discriminated against, this forces the issue that the applicant would need to be aware of other applicants. Which is a tough issue by itself. Then they would need to have the resources to then sue. During the process they would need to prove that the company hiring records show they are not discriminating. In the case of the Target suit above, Target failed to produce the documents. The last link I had was about age discrimination, but it just shows the process isn't fast and loose. These suits happen routinely but are often settled as many do tend to turn up some bias.

The issue for an organization like Target is that local stores have hiring practices. 99% of the stores could be fine, but if one manager decides to independently discriminate then you of course have a case. It happens but not on wide scales because most of the US doesn't discriminate, but that doesn't mean that's evidence that none do. I'm also not sure about NightStick's point as discrimination cases on the very things we are talking about are quite common, and beyond that it doesn't change the fact that they are illegal regardless of how many companies are able to get away with it and how difficult it is to prove. As stated companies are required to have hiring records and can be dinged for not keeping them.

 

[TheMikado]

comparing the gap is not a helpful way to look at this issue. comparing the percentages shows a better picture. If you said 1 in 5 black mothers was having kids out of wedlock and now 7 in 10 are having kids out of wedlock. would the numbers be showing a positive? I mean what you are saying is that its a positive because everyone else is increasing too.

I'm not seeing how it can be a positive. It just shows that the other races are catching up in a category that has shown to have some relation to poverty and less wealth generation.

This makes literally no sense. No matter how bad anything was, the rate would never hit 100%. It would be basically impossible unless the entire institution of marriage got dissolved and became unrecognized. This literally reads like a joke post. Absurd. But I'm finished on this line of discussion, because there's no point in continuing.

I'm sure there are many factors, but the one that sticks out the most is the breakdown of the American family. It's happening all across the board, but blacks are seeing this at a devastating scale...

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I don't understand what you are saying. I totally understand that in the past things were rough for blacks and that translates to alot of the issues their community is seeing now. I've never denied that and if what I've said ever implied that, I'm sorry for the miscommunication...

What I'm not understanding is how in 2018 how we can blame their woes on CURRENT racism. I don't see any programs, corporations, laws, etc that are holding black people back from advancing. Quite the opposite, we have affirmative action and all kinds of programs specifically targeting the advancement of black people. What you've just show me, that African(black) immigrants in general are doing better than the average American, does more to prove my point that racism/xenophobia in modern day America isn't actually a problem...

The problem is that the focus is on 1 single data point, the charts and graphs were not made in isolation. They study is conducted over decades comparing birth/marriage rates across multiple races. Hyper focusing on the single data point is disingenuous to the study. That is the entire point is that this one measurement is 1 PART of a HUGE study and is taken entirely out of the context of the study to prove a political point.

This is the study:

And compare it to this:

Which shows the correlation between wealth and unwed mothers as can be seen by income.

Anyway, the point is that statistically a black mother was 5X more like to be unwed than the average to be unwed. Today that number is LESS THAN HALF AS LIKELY. The statistical likelihood based on race has lessened against the national average. Basically the circumstances which lead to black unwed mothers having a 5x higher rate than the average has been lessened relative to the average. This is not a statement on whether it is GOOD or BAD. It is a statement that the statistical gap between black and white is closing. That is the point I am making. It is the sheer literally meaning of the statistic and not a measurement of what it says about society as a whole which you are extrapolating from that single data point while ignoring the rest of the study. I mean people are completely ignoring the control race of native american which has similar statistics to black mothers and high poverty rates as well.

 

[Nightstick10]

https://www.rmlawyers.com/eeoc-workplace-discrimination-claims-over-foreign-accents-on-the-rise/

"According to the new numbers, more than 11800 complaints of employment discriminationbased on national origin were filed with the EEOC in 2011 — up 77 percent from 1997. The EEOChas suggested that it might be the increasing diversity of the American workforce, but civil rights advocates think it’s more likely due to a climate of fear, particularly in states that have been enacting laws hostile to immigrants, both legal and undocumented.

One of the problems has been the introduction of English-only policies by employers. Such policies are only allowed when speaking fluent English is crucial to the job responsibilities, and even then the employer’s rights are strictly limited. The EEOC issued guidelines for employers back in 2002, but apparently that hasn’t solved the problem."

Further, there is a very specific reason why HR companies are required to keep hiring records. The must show the applicants, call-backs, interviews, etc. Such as when a case is brought against them they can produce documentation that there is no systematic discrimination. The callback scenario is only an outward manifestation of internal discrimination practices. Obviously in you are discriminating in some way your records will mostly reflect a trend in the number of call-backs, the number of interviews, and the number of hires. Companies would be required to produce these documents to show no bias in their processes.

Here are 2016 numbers.
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-18-17a.cfm

Any random Bob/Bobbi can file a complaint with the EEOC. The number of TOTAL discrimination lawsuits filed by the EEOC (this combines disability, race, sex, etc.) was 86. Vast majority of discrimination complaints are baseless, at least under the law.

 

[Super Mario]

The problem is that the focus is on 1 single data point, the charts and graphs were not made in isolation. They study is conducted over decades comparing birth/marriage rates across multiple races. Hyper focusing on the single data point is disingenuous to the study. That is the entire point is that this one measurement is 1 PART of a HUGE study and is taken entirely out of the context of the study to prove a political point.

This is the study:

And compare it to this:

Which shows the correlation between wealth and unwed mothers as can be seen by income.

Anyway, the point is that statistically a black mother was 5X more like to be unwed than the average to be unwed. Today that number is LESS THAN HALF AS LIKELY. The statistical likelihood based on race has lessened against the national average. Basically the circumstances which lead to black unwed mothers having a 5x higher rate than the average has been lessened relative to the average. This is not a statement on whether it is GOOD or BAD. It is a statement that the statistical gap between black and white is closing. That is the point I am making. It is the sheer literally meaning of the statistic and not a measurement of what it says about society as a whole which you are extrapolating from that single data point while ignoring the rest of the study. I mean people are completely ignoring the control race of native american which has similar statistics to black mothers and high poverty rates as well.

I'm not entirely sure why you keep fighting this point. You did in fact say it was good thing, at least that's what most of us would define "progress" as. I will admit, the word progress is more negative to me than it has ever been, so I will give you that. The "statistical gap" argument is poor one that is irrelevant to the discussion. All you've done is take an extremely negative trend and find some way to lessen its impact by focusing on something that has no bearing on what the troubling outcome is. Classic diversion.

What exactly is your point on the "correlation" between income and unwed mothers? Is that supposed to be something no one expected, or does it somehow negate some discussion point? I think it's another irrelevant point.

You're still just shooting down other solutions without presenting one of your own. He's asking what you think will work, not what you think won't work. Unless you're suggestion is to just "take away the Democrats' approach and then leave it alone and let it work itself out"?

I am a big fan of the free market with little government oversight. No one can say they have come up with a smoking gun solution. I do wonder if I was able to turn back the clocks 50 years, and we eliminated all of the Democratic policies and identity politics. Would you expect better, equal, or worse results?

Obviously you want an answer of me saying what button I'd press tomorrow if in charge. Cut government aid benefits. Of course it would be seen as the most cruel and racist thing ever and there would be a mudslinging like you wouldn't believe. It is pretty much career suicide for any politician involved. It would obviously be hard on people, and I don't expect good results in the short-term. With those things said, it is absolutely necessary for long-term building. The current system isn't setting enough people up to "get on their feet". There is a dependence problem, which is very disproportionate, a fun word we like to use when discussing racial issues.

 

[BANGS]

I'm also not sure about NightStick's point as discrimination cases on the very things we are talking about are quite common, and beyond that it doesn't change the fact that they are illegal regardless of how many companies are able to get away with it and how difficult it is to prove.

I'd imagine if these things do exist and it can be proven to an individual, then it shouldn't be hard to prove it in court... But I see your point.

 

[TheMikado]

Here are 2016 numbers.
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-18-17a.cfm

Any random Bob/Bobbi can file a complaint with the EEOC. The number of TOTAL discrimination lawsuits filed by the EEOC (this combines disability, race, sex, etc.) was 86. Vast majority of discrimination complaints are baseless, at least under the law.

Sure, but in the interest of fairness I will only use the link you posted and its sub-links.
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/all.cfm

Further, they break down reasonable cause versus no reasonable cause in their statistics.
Which shows in 2016 67.6% of complaints found reasonable cause. Which does not include settlements outside of the EEOC).
However because this discussion is about race and nation of origin I they cover so many kinds of discrimination I will break it down further by race and nation of origin complaints.

Definitions of Terms
Administrative Closure Charge closed for administrative reasons, which include: failure to locate charging party, charging party failed to respond to EEOC communications, charging party refused to accept full relief, closed due to the outcome of related litigation which establishes a precedent that makes further processing of the charge futile, charging party requests withdrawal of a charge without receiving benefits or having resolved the issue, no statutory jurisdiction.
Merit Resolutions Charges with outcomes favorable to charging parties and/or charges with meritorious allegations. These include negotiated settlements, withdrawals with benefits, successful conciliations, and unsuccessful conciliations.
No Reasonable Cause EEOC's determination of no reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in investigation. The charging party may exercise the right to bring private court action.
Reasonable Cause EEOC's determination of reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in investigation. Reasonable cause determinations are generally followed by efforts to conciliate the discriminatory issues which gave rise to the initial charge. NOTE: Some reasonable cause findings are resolved through negotiated settlements, withdrawals with benefits, and other types of resolutions, which are not characterized as either successful or unsuccessful conciliations.
Settlements (Negotiated) Charges settled with benefits to the charging party as warranted by evidence of record. In such cases, EEOC and/or a FEPA is a party to the settlement agreement between the charging party and the respondent (an employer, union, or other entity covered by EEOC-enforced statutes).
Successful Conciliation Charge with reasonable cause determination closed after successful conciliation. Successful conciliations result in substantial relief to the charging party and all others adversely affected by the discrimination.
Unsuccessful Conciliation Charge with reasonable cause determination closed after efforts to conciliate the charge are unsuccessful. Pursuant to Commission policy, the field office will close the charge and review it for litigation consideration. NOTE: Because "reasonable cause" has been found, this is considered a merit resolution.
Withdrawal with Benefits Charge is withdrawn by charging party upon receipt of desired benefits. The withdrawal may take place after a settlement or after the respondent grants the appropriate benefit to the charging party.

Race complaints:
No Reasonable Cause: 73.7%
Settlement: 6.7%
Withdrawals w/ Benefits 4.4%
Admin closures 13.1%
Reasonable cause 2.1%

Origin complaints:
No Reasonable Cause: 71.1%
Settlement: 5.7%
Withdrawals w/ Benefits 5.2%
Admin closures 14.4%
Reasonable cause 3%

What this states is that several thousand, not just 85 complaints have been found to be awarded to complaints of racism and origin. While yes many are unfounded, it is also why we have a legal system in place to filter and determine the legality of these issues. Each year several thousand of cases are awarded to plaintiffs. The system is doing its job in determining the validity of claims, but to act as if these claims and the awards are few and far between are to not look at the facts as a whole. The fact that 100% of the complaints are not valid simply reflects our legal system which allows anyone to make a claim and have it investigated, overall the process works to determine cases of discrimination and those without cause.

 

[TheMikado]

I'm not entirely sure why you keep fighting this point. You did in fact say it was good thing, at least that's what most of us would define "progress" as. I will admit, the word progress is more negative to me than it has ever been, so I will give you that. The "statistical gap" argument is poor one that is irrelevant to the discussion. All you've done is take an extremely negative trend and find some way to lessen its impact by focusing on something that has no bearing on what the troubling outcome is. Classic diversion.

What exactly is your point on the "correlation" between income and unwed mothers? Is that supposed to be something no one expected, or does it somehow negate some discussion point? I think it's another irrelevant point.

Again this is about failure to interpret data IN CONTEXT. Black unwed mothers is a statistical trend which shows the national average against black mothers.
I will go further with the study and go to 1970, because prior to this all races were lumping into a single "non-white" category.

In 1970, when they first began keeping the black unwed mother statistic, the Black unwed mother rate was 35%.
By contrast the national rate was 10%.
by 2014 the black unwed mother rate had climbed to 70% from 35% while the nation unwed mother rate climbed from 10% to 40%.
If we are talking about extremes and trends in statistical charts the NATIONAL average is a more extreme trend over the same time period. That is the point.
There is NO DIVERSION, because the statistics DO NOT EXIST IN A VACUUM. It is a study which tracks the relationship and trends between different categories. You are focusing on a single category of a LARGER STUDY. That's not how research works. I do not understand why this is so hard to comprehend. It would be one thing is the study was ONLY focused on black mothers and tracking unwed births, but the STUDY DOES NOT. IT TRACKS MULTIPLE STATISTICS and you continue to pull it OUT OF CONTEXT.

Let me spell it out clear for you.

THE STUDY TRACKS THE COMPARISON OF RACIAL GROUPS AGAINST THE NATIONAL AVERAGE. YOU, YOU, YOU WANT TO DISMISS THE OTHER DATA AS IRRELEVANT.
THE STUDY IS PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES, HENCE THE COMPARISON.

Again, there is ZERO claim that going from 35% to 70% is positive, the claim is that when compared against the national average, which is WHAT THE STUDY IS ABOUT! The trend and rise in black unwed mothers has slowed relative to the sped to which the national average has risen. You are removing and scrubbing the facts surrounding the data, it is 100% anti-science and fact. In every set this data is presented it is a comparison piece, yet you continue to try to remove the comparison metric. The rate has slowed for black unwed mothers and the rate for the nation increased faster than the rate for black unwed mothers. Period. It is factually an statistically shown.

 

[TheMikado]

I'd imagine if these things do exist and it can be proven to an individual, then it shouldn't be hard to prove it in court... But I see your point.

Not every claim will have basis of violating law, but also not every claim will be provable either.

Even if it does illegally occur it is difficult to gain knowledge of the wrong doing to begin with for the reasons stated.

One side states that it happens all the time, another states that it rarely happens. By and large we can find thousands of verified cases of discrimination in just race and origin alone. In the context of millions of employment it is not alot, but it should also not happen at all which is why the protections exist. We can both acknowledge that racism and discrimination does happen and with some frequency without everything being about race. The focus shouldn't be about whether it does occur, but the rates at which it does and how to minimize it.

 

[Nightstick10]

. . . .

Race complaints:
No Reasonable Cause: 73.7%
Settlement: 6.7%
Withdrawals w/ Benefits 4.4%
Admin closures 13.1%
Reasonable cause 2.1%

Origin complaints:
No Reasonable Cause: 71.1%
Settlement: 5.7%
Withdrawals w/ Benefits 5.2%
Admin closures 14.4%
Reasonable cause 3%
You
What this states is that several thousand, not just 85 complaints have been found to be awarded to complaints of racism and origin. While yes many are unfounded, it is also why we have a legal system in place to filter and determine the legality of these issues. Each year several thousand of cases are awarded to plaintiffs. The system is doing its job in determining the validity of claims, but to act as if these claims and the awards are few and far between are to not look at the facts as a whole. The fact that 100% of the complaints are not valid simply reflects our legal system which allows anyone to make a claim and have it investigated, overall the process works to determine cases of discrimination and those without cause.

A couple of things:

(1) What this means is that only 2.1% to 3% of these racism and origin complaints were bonafide, established examples of discrimination, not several thousand. You are interpreting this data as 25-30% of the complaints were legitimate. This is a grossly incorrect interpretation.

(2) Settlements are NOT considered a "win" for the plaintiff in terms of liability because the fourth or fifth clause in every settlement agreement is the one in which both parties admit to no liability. Settlements should not be taken as some sort of indication that the claim had any merit. Employers settle out cases versus employees for pain in the ass value alone, given how much the laws favor employees in certain states and the massive cost it takes an employer to defend itself from answer to complaint through judgment or verdict (which costs employers at least 300K.) If they throw some plaintiff 20K to fuck off versus paying their lawyers 200-300K to try the case to verdict, they do a cost-benefit analysis.

(3) Withdrawals w/ benefits is, from a plaitniff pov, a massive loss for the complainer. All that means is "status quo antebellum." If the complainer had an actual, legitimate claim based on discrimination, there is no way in hell that any law firm would advise its client to just accept reinstatement and withdraw the complaint. This is because employers who actually violate discrimination laws are subject to stiff, massive penalties that is literally akin to winning the lottery for a plaintiff.

(4) Admin closures also speak badly as to the actual merit of the complainer. A plaintiff who felt he or she had a legitimate complaint would follow through with the entire process because they would be aware that at the end of the rainbow there would be a massive payout waiting for them. Conversely, if a plaintiff is apathetic towards the process or does not mind if the case gets dismissed, this indicates they either (1) don't care about receiving a payout or (2) they know they don't have a meritorious claim that would withstand cross-examination, deposition, discovery, investigation, etc.

The EEOC is similar to a district attorney in that they exercise prosecutorial discretion. The EEOC would pursue an employer for discrimination only if they felt the could tag the employer with the stiff penalties that come with violating discrimination laws. They would only be able to tag the employer with stiff penalties if there was a reasonable belief that they actually did violate the laws on discrimination. Their refusal to do so is a tacit but damning observation that 97-98% of racial and national origin discrimination claims are complete nonsense.

 

[TheMikado]

A couple of things:

(1) What this means is that only 2.1% to 3% of these racism and origin complaints were bonafide, established examples of discrimination, not several thousand. You are interpreting this data as 25-30% of the complaints were legitimate. This is a grossly incorrect interpretation.

(2) Settlements are NOT considered a "win" for the plaintiff in terms of liability because the fourth or fifth clause in every settlement agreement is the one in which both parties admit to no liability. Settlements should not be taken as some sort of indication that the claim had any merit. Employers settle out cases versus employees for pain in the ass value alone, given how much the laws favor employees in certain states and the massive cost it takes an employer to defend itself from answer to complaint through judgment or verdict (which costs employers at least 300K.) If they throw some plaintiff 20K to fuck off versus paying their lawyers 200-300K to try the case to verdict, they do a cost-benefit analysis.

(3) Withdrawals w/ benefits is, from a plaitniff pov, a massive loss for the complainer. All that means is "status quo antebellum." If the complainer had an actual, legitimate claim based on discrimination, there is no way in hell that any law firm would advise its client to just accept reinstatement and withdraw the complaint. This is because employers who actually violate discrimination laws are subject to stiff, massive penalties that is literally akin to winning the lottery for a plaintiff.

(4) Admin closures also speak badly as to the actual merit of the complainer. A plaintiff who felt he or she had a legitimate complaint would follow through with the entire process because they would be aware that at the end of the rainbow there would be a massive payout waiting for them. Conversely, if a plaintiff is apathetic towards the process or does not mind if the case gets dismissed, this indicates they either (1) don't care about receiving a payout or (2) they know they don't have a meritorious claim that would withstand cross-examination, deposition, discovery, investigation, etc.

The EEOC is similar to a district attorney in that they exercise prosecutorial discretion. The EEOC would pursue an employer for discrimination only if they felt the could tag the employer with the stiff penalties that come with violating discrimination laws. They would only be able to tag the employer with stiff penalties if there was a reasonable belief that they actually did violate the laws on discrimination. Their refusal to do so is a tacit but damning observation that 97-98% of racial and national origin discrimination claims are complete nonsense.

1) I disagree on this statement for the reasons I will list below.

2) The claim that settlements are not a win, while true. When discussing allegations of employment violations should NOT be dismissed lightly. Most cases where there is no probably cause would be dismissed. Its the same reason every joe smoo can't sue McDonalds and hope for a settlement cause on unfounded basis. You're acting as if every complaint even when there is no grounds for discrimination would make it to court for them to pay legal fees. If there is enough evidence for a trial to go to court then many companies would elect to settle quickly out of court. If the "claims are complete nonsense" as you claim it wouldn't even see court and wouldn't need to be concerned with legal fees at all to even consider a settlement. Again, a company isn't going to invest a dime in case unless a judge finds enough basis to allow the case to continue in court.

3) You are making a presumption about this being a case in the first place. These are EEOC complaints to begin with. Their goal is to find resolution first rather than put a case forward. The EOCC seems to push for legal action only when necessary.

4) Admin closures are bad, but they also do not speak to the validity of the case. I no way am I claiming these were all valid claims but in no way am I stating they were not. Any number of situations could have occurred, including finding a new job, not wanting to pursue the case, or simply misunderstanding. You are taking this to mean more that it is as some measure of invalidity of the claim. I take it to mean what it is stated.

No the EEOC cannot unless they have evidence and a plantiff to move forward on the case with. If the plantiff wishes the settle then the EOCC works for the interests of the plantiffs, not their own desires. You are taking all this to mean that 2-3% of these claims are "complete nonsense" which is not at all what that means and they state it right in the data. They even state it in bold for you. NOTE: Some reasonable cause findings are resolved through negotiated settlements, withdrawals with benefits, and other types of resolutions, which are not characterized as either successful or unsuccessful conciliations.

Even if they were reasonable causes they elect have them resolved through other means is the entire point of that note.

 

[Nightstick10]

One side states that it happens all the time, another states that it rarely happens. By and large we can find thousands of verified cases of discrimination in just race and origin alone. In the context of millions of employment it is not alot, but it should also not happen at all which is why the protections exist. We can both acknowledge that racism and discrimination does happen and with some frequency without everything being about race. The focus shouldn't be about whether it does occur, but the rates at which it does and how to minimize it.

Again, "we can find thousands of verified cases of discrimination in just race and origin alone" is simply not true. I would be surprised if there were even dozens of verified cases of discrimination in just race and origin alone. Dealing with discrimination cases every day, having helped to recover a shitload of money for people suffering from discrimination (along with other legally actionable misconduct from employers), even after hundreds of such cases, I have never seen a lawsuit based solely on race or national origin discrimination (or sex discrimination) win a judgment or verdict. I have never seen a lawsuit based solely on race or national origin discrimination (but yes as to sex discrimination) even receive a settlement. I have never even HEARD of a lawsuit based solely on race or national origin discrimination result in jury verdict or settlement.

We have to remove bullshit discrimination causes of action from our lawsuits all of the time, because the average layperson seems to think "racial discrimination" is a strong suit to play versus your employer. Newsflash: it's not. Here's why.

Employment law is literally the only field of law that I am aware of where the jurors are more sympathetic towards the plaintiff versus the defendant. This is because most people are employees who get fucked by their bosses.

The fastest way to lose that sympathy is to use the race card when it is unwarranted; for example, you'd be surprised how many african-american clients try to allege racism because they felt lighter-skinned african-americans were getting treated better by their supervisor.

Federal court is horrible for an employee plaintiff because federal judges are unsympathetic towards mickey-mouse bullshit clogging up their courts and also because a jury verdict in federal court requires a unanimous decision. Short of finding a group-wide email that says "fire all the n-words because they are n-words and no other reason", good luck getting 12 jurors to agree there was racial or national origin discrimination.

 

[TheMikado]

Again, "we can find thousands of verified cases of discrimination in just race and origin alone" is simply not true. I would be surprised if there were even dozens of verified cases of discrimination in just race and origin alone. Dealing with discrimination cases every day, having helped to recover a shitload of money for people suffering from discrimination (along with other legally actionable misconduct from employers), even after hundreds of such cases, I have never seen a lawsuit based solely on race or national origin discrimination (or sex discrimination) win a judgment or verdict. I have never seen a lawsuit based solely on race or national origin discrimination (but yes as to sex discrimination) even receive a settlement. I have never even HEARD of a lawsuit based solely on race or national origin discrimination result in jury verdict or settlement.

We have to remove bullshit discrimination causes of action from our lawsuits all of the time, because the average layperson seems to think "racial discrimination" is a strong suit to play versus your employer. Newsflash: it's not. Here's why.

Employment law is literally the only field of law that I am aware of where the jurors are more sympathetic towards the plaintiff versus the defendant. This is because most people are employees who get fucked by their bosses.

The fastest way to lose that sympathy is to use the race card when it is unwarranted; for example, you'd be surprised how many african-american clients try to allege racism because they felt lighter-skinned african-americans were getting treated better by their supervisor.

Federal court is horrible for an employee plaintiff because federal judges are unsympathetic towards mickey-mouse bullshit clogging up their courts and also because a jury verdict in federal court requires a unanimous decision. Short of finding a group-wide email that says "fire all the n-words because they are n-words and no other reason", good luck getting 12 jurors to agree there was racial or national origin discrimination.

I will definitely concede on this point. I didn't and should not have said "alone" I meant it in terms of counts which could be combined with others. You're right that lawsuits strictly on race and national origin are very rare, but that doesn't negate the frequency with which they appear and are substantiated along with other claims, but then it becomes impossible to tell which claims are substantiated so as part of a settlement so I see your point and can agree that on strictly racial and origin discrimination claims the number which violates law is very low. However the laws exist for protections and that number should be zero.

 

[mckmas8808]

Talking up how smart you are in the field of statistics is neither here nor there. Even if you can claim it's "technically correct" to do so, claiming this shift as a massive improvement in real terms is pretty shaky. Like he said, if it goes from 5/25 to 40/70 and finally to 75/100 are you going to applaud another huge improvement in the ratio and take a victory lap?

I think you've made a lot of valid points in this topic, but this is an odd hill to die on.

No you sir just don't understand how statistics work. The rate of increase is what he was talking about. The increase of unwed white women went up way "FASTER" than the rate of the increase of unwed black women. It's literally right there in the stats. Just plain math. That part isn't up for debate. What is up for debate is "WHY" that rate of increase went way up for white women and up but at a slower pace for black women.

 

[Moneal]

No you sir just don't understand how statistics work. The rate of increase is what he was talking about. The increase of unwed white women went up way "FASTER" than the rate of the increase of unwed black women. It's literally right there in the stats. Just plain math. That part isn't up for debate. What is up for debate is "WHY" that rate of increase went way up for white women and up but at a slower pace for black women.

No one questioned the fact that unwed white births went up faster. the questioning was on them calling going from 25% to 70% progress. Its not better that it went from 1 in 4 to 4 in 5. Just like it isn't better that the rise in white unwed births has risen, even if it has risen faster than the black unwed birthrate.

 

[prag16]

No you sir just don't understand how statistics work. The rate of increase is what he was talking about. The increase of unwed white women went up way "FASTER" than the rate of the increase of unwed black women. It's literally right there in the stats. Just plain math. That part isn't up for debate. What is up for debate is "WHY" that rate of increase went way up for white women and up but at a slower pace for black women.

I understand how statistics work. This all started because Mikado seemed to be asserting that the increase from 40 to 70 percent unwed black mothers was really a net positive because the rate of increase percentage wise was even faster for white women during that time. I just thought that touting that as major progress of any kind was silly. And I also noted that when dealing with percentages you have diminishing returns when approaching 100 since you can't go above 100. Which is why

Okay you know what, never mind. I made my case. You guys are getting caught in the pedantic weeds, either that I'm being trolled. Either way I'm done with this line of discussion. For real this time. I'll try not to be baited again.

 

[TheMikado]

No one questioned the fact that unwed white births went up faster. the questioning was on them calling going from 25% to 70% progress. Its not better that it went from 1 in 4 to 4 in 5. Just like it isn't better that the rise in white unwed births has risen, even if it has risen faster than the black unwed birthrate.

I understand how statistics work. This all started because Mikado seemed to be asserting that the increase from 40 to 70 percent unwed black mothers was really a net positive because the rate of increase percentage wise was even faster for white women during that time. I just thought that touting that as major progress of any kind was silly. And I also noted that when dealing with percentages you have diminishing returns when approaching 100 since you can't go above 100. Which is why

Okay you know what, never mind. I made my case. You guys are getting caught in the pedantic weeds, either that I'm being trolled. Either way I'm done with this line of discussion. For real this time. I'll try not to be baited again.

Ok, this is the final time I will state this. I made no claim in the QUANTITATIVE positive of moving from 20% to 70%.
NEVER NEVER NEVER Did I make this claim.

The study IS A COMPARISON STUDY!!!!

THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE STUDY IS TO SHOW THE DEVIATION TREND FROM THE NORM!!

You are looking at two SINGLE POINTS OF DATA. Yet IGNORING THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE STUDY.
Which once again IS A COMPARISON STUDY!

In terms of the raw percentages the amount is MEANINGLESS. The study is NOT STATING THAT UNWED MOTHERS ARE A NEGATIVE TRAIT.
You are ascribing that element ( and there is statistical evidence to support that which is a separate study entirely.

What the study DOES DO is compare populations. The study DOES NOT ASSIGN A WEIGHT OF GOOD OR BAD OR POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.
IT SHOWS THE COMPARISON OF POPULATIONS AND THE DEVIANCE AND TREND FROM THE NORM.

THIS IS WHY CITING THE SINGLE STATISTIC OF A SINGLE POPULATION MAKES NO SENSE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY, BECAUSE THE STUDY IS ABOUT MULTIPLE POPULATIONS AND THE COMPARISON TO THEM.

AT NO POINT DID I CLAIM 70% WAS A POSITIVE NUMBER UNTIL ITSELF.
RATHER THAT THE SLOWING OF THE GROWTH OF UNWED MOTHERS COMPARED TO THE RATE OF NORM REPRESENTS A CLOSING GAP BETWEEN UNWED BLACK MOTHERS AND THE STATISTICAL AVERAGE.

IT IS SHOWING THAT STATISTICAL EQUALITY IS PROGRESSING. NOT, NOT, NOT WHETHER THE PERCENT OR UNWED MOTHERS AS A QUANTITATIVE NUMBER IS A GOOD OR BAD THING. MERELY THE VELOCITY( RATE OF INCREASE) IS TRENDING DOWN.

Basically if the current trend continues that black unwed mothers will eventually reach equilibrium with the nation average and achieve
STATISTICAL EQUALITY when COMPARED TO THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.

Again I do not understand why this is hard to understand. No one is stating that going from 25% to 70% is "good". The point has been from the beginning that if the trend continues unwed mothers will reach statistical equality with the national average. PERIOD. THAT'S IT.

 

[prag16]

^ Dude, chill. Not a rational hill for any of us to die on. We can all move along.

 

[TheMikado]

^ Dude, chill. Not a rational hill for any of us to die on. We can all move along.

The rational part is what I’m debating about. I’m definitely done on that subject I’m just struggling to under why the concept of studies using comparative trends is so difficult to grasp.

 

[Moneal]

Ok, this is the final time I will state this. I made no claim in the QUANTITATIVE positive of moving from 20% to 70%.
NEVER NEVER NEVER Did I make this claim.

This is what you said

As I stated earlier the gap between the black unwed mothers use to be by a factor of 4-5 against the average. That factor has been reduced to less than double. Soon the relative gap will close even further. Progress is being made but it isn't an overnight process and wasn't solved on July 2nd, 1964. That was just the beginning of the healing process, not the ending.

Unless I have been reading that wrong and the last sentence didn't have anything to do with the first two, you were saying that because the gap was getting smaller, as the rest of the nation catching up to the black unwed birthrate, progress was being made.

 

[TheMikado]

This is what you said




Unless I have been reading that wrong and the last sentence didn't have anything to do with the first two, you were saying that because the gap was getting smaller, as the rest of the nation catching up to the black unwed birthrate, progress was being made.

Exactly, you just proved that I never did. I specifically stated progress was being made on CLOSING THE GAP. Because that’s what the statistics show. I never said that going from 25% to 70% was in itself a positive and any claim of positive movement was in comparison to the average trend which is what the ENTIRE STUDY is about!

 

[Nightstick10]

Basically if the current trend continues that black unwed mothers will eventually reach equilibrium with the nation average and achieve
STATISTICAL EQUALITY when COMPARED TO THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.

Again I do not understand why this is hard to understand. No one is stating that going from 25% to 70% is "good". The point has been from the beginning that if the trend continues unwed mothers will reach statistical equality with the national average. PERIOD. THAT'S IT.

I honestly am completely befuddled as to how anyone misconstrued your point as to mean anything but the above.

 

[Super Mario]

Basically if the current trend continues that black unwed mothers will eventually reach equilibrium with the nation average and achieve
STATISTICAL EQUALITY when COMPARED TO THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.

Again I do not understand why this is hard to understand. No one is stating that going from 25% to 70% is "good". The point has been from the beginning that if the trend continues unwed mothers will reach statistical equality with the national average. PERIOD. THAT'S IT.

I honestly am completely befuddled as to how anyone misconstrued your point as to mean anything but the above.

So there we have it. The theory is black unwed mothers will not improve (but also not increase) their unwed rate at 70%. We can only hope the trend continues to where white people are at 70%. Then one day when I volunteer to mentor some black boys without fathers (which I seriously want to do), I can let them know not to worry, because statistical equality is here.

Oh, and btw. If there is a "correlation" between income and unwed mothers, why isn't there a proportionate change in income? Whites are closing that unwed birth gap. What's going on with the income gap?

 

[TheMikado]

So there we have it. The theory is black unwed mothers will not improve (but also not increase) their unwed rate at 70%. We can only hope the trend continues to where white people are at 70%. Then one day when I volunteer to mentor some black boys without fathers (which I seriously want to do), I can let them know not to worry, because statistical equality is here.

Oh, and btw. If there is a "correlation" between income and unwed mothers, why isn't there a proportionate change in income? Whites are closing that unwed birth gap. What's going on with the income gap?

Ignoring the rest of your post, because the statistic is only relevant against the society norm. You are ascribing an non-implicit merit to the 70% statistic. The statistic is only relevant relative to what it "should be" and it's only measure of what it "should be" is the societal norm. Thus if society deems this unwed mothers are the societal norm, then achieving statistical equality is one of the best outcomes.

As far as the correlation, white people are getting poorer too. In fact, the entire middle class is. As the income gap closes almost all statistical measurements begin to close as well. As middle class relative incomes decline, other measures begin to increase.

 

[TheMikado]

So there we have it. The theory is black unwed mothers will not improve (but also not increase) their unwed rate at 70%. We can only hope the trend continues to where white people are at 70%. Then one day when I volunteer to mentor some black boys without fathers (which I seriously want to do), I can let them know not to worry, because statistical equality is here.

As a side note, I won't question your sincerity on whether you genuinely would mentor black boys without fathers, I encourage anyone with an interest in making a difference in a child's life and the lives of those around them to volunteer some time. An hour or two can make a world of difference in a world which can be cruel, callous, and apathetic to individual struggles. Even if you are not posting in good faith, it doesn't matter because people around the world with the capacity for kindness and empathy are. Those who are looking for a good time trolling anonymously on the internet will continue to do so, those who want to learn, understand, and who want to make a difference and take action will do so. I do not post for anyone's entertainment, I post because of the knowledge of our interactions taking place on a global stage and hope that I can encourage and strengthen others with my words.

 

[mckmas8808]

I don't know how much clearer I can make it that the Democratic platform need to be distanced from the black community. Public schooling, welfare, identity politics, etc all need to go away before the problem can start to heal.

The following article is a good read.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/16965-real-solutions-for-black-americans

Here's an interesting fact about the worthless schooling system. More taxes, more bloat, more pandering. No discipline, no results.

How do white\straight\men get away with using identity politics to their advantage (which is fine because identity politics isn't an issue at all in general), but the "tag" never gets associated with them? It only seems to follow people of color, women, and the LGBT communities.

 

[mckmas8808]

The rational part is what I’m debating about. I’m definitely done on that subject I’m just struggling to under why the concept of studies using comparative trends is so difficult to grasp.

I promise you the reason why they are struggling to understand the concept that you are showing is that it goes against their true belief that culturally, black people have a "unique" problem in their family structure and mentality. The closing of the gap shows that it doesn't mean black people are unique in unwed births. So now they have to explain this and the truth is it will spell out that unwed births has NOTHING to do with so called "black" culture.

 

[ThePrequelsSuck]

The left pushed hard with identity politics and "SJWisms" and now the right backlashed hard with the alt right and whatnot, exacerbated by the rise of social media in the past decade.

 

[BANGS]

The left pushed hard with identity politics and "SJWisms" and now the right backlashed hard with the alt right and whatnot, exacerbated by the rise of social media in the past decade.

 

[TheMikado]

I promise you the reason why they are struggling to understand the concept that you are showing is that it goes against their true belief that culturally, black people have a "unique" problem in their family structure and mentality. The closing of the gap shows that it doesn't mean black people are unique in unwed births. So now they have to explain this and the truth is it will spell out that unwed births has NOTHING to do with so called "black" culture.

I'm sure many feel this is the case, but it doesn't have to even be said when the debate begins to devolve into nonsensical tangents. Challenging these claims with evidence strips and robs the claims of merit and causes doubt in those who have parroted the claims. Even if we do not totally agree, but we have come to a point where there is at least acknowledgment that the racial gaps are closing in some measures even by the most diehard members of this thread. That alone is a hard fought achievement. My focus isn't on convincing them of my correctness, but to challenge their existing view and perspective which will generate the greatest outcomes.

Just to be clear, I don't want people to see things MY way, just to see things ANOTHER way.

 

[mckmas8808]

The left pushed hard with identity politics and "SJWisms" and now the right backlashed hard with the alt right and whatnot, exacerbated by the rise of social media in the past decade.

So you don't think this is identity politics and SJWisms?

 

[Moneal]

I promise you the reason why they are struggling to understand the concept that you are showing is that it goes against their true belief that culturally, black people have a "unique" problem in their family structure and mentality. The closing of the gap shows that it doesn't mean black people are unique in unwed births. So now they have to explain this and the truth is it will spell out that unwed births has NOTHING to do with so called "black" culture.

I never struggled with the concept. I don't understand why they kept on about the gap. The gap doesn't matter and the problem of not having wealth among black people isn't going to get better because white mothers get pregnant out of wedlock as much than black mothers. That is just create a problem for poor white people too.

 

[prag16]

I promise you the reason why they are struggling to understand the concept that you are showing is that it goes against their true belief that culturally, black people have a "unique" problem in their family structure and mentality. The closing of the gap shows that it doesn't mean black people are unique in unwed births. So now they have to explain this and the truth is it will spell out that unwed births has NOTHING to do with so called "black" culture.

This once again comes off like you're race baiting. Nobody is struggling to understand. At worst people were talking past each other with slightly different premises. I think we've all basically moved past this.

 

[BANGS]

This once again comes off like you're race baiting.

That's been his gimmick for some time now. Facts are racist...

 

[mckmas8808]

I'm sure many feel this is the case, but it doesn't have to even be said when the debate begins to devolve into nonsensical tangents. Challenging these claims with evidence strips and robs the claims of merit and causes doubt in those who have parroted the claims. Even if we do not totally agree, but we have come to a point where there is at least acknowledgment that the racial gaps are closing in some measures even by the most diehard members of this thread. That alone is a hard fought achievement. My focus isn't on convincing them of my correctness, but to challenge their existing view and perspective which will generate the greatest outcomes.

Just to be clear, I don't want people to see things MY way, just to see things ANOTHER way.

I 100% agree with you on the bolded. There are a number of reasons why the gap has closed. It's not a secret at all. A few being.....

A. Western society norms are changing. The "reason" to be married from a woman's point of view has changed.

B. Leveling the playing field for black women to have access to proper women body care increased. So given them access to condoms, many groups like planned parenthood helping more of them to make different decisions, etc.

C. Black women getting more degrees based on percentage that every race/gender in America

D. Black families getting more wealth relative to where we were 50 years ago means that what the kid learns at a young age will now be different. Young Keisha has a different outlook on what life can be like being born in 2002 (with what her choices are in a career and family), than she would have if she was born in 1952.

I never struggled with the concept. I don't understand why they kept on about the gap. The gap doesn't matter and the problem of not having wealth among black people isn't going to get better because white mothers get pregnant out of wedlock as much than black mothers. That is just create a problem for poor white people too.

The gap is literally what this whole thread is about. The thread is literally about "RACE". So why are you trying to not talk about how the gap has closed amongst the races? If the gap has closed, then there must be a reason why. Once you find out those reasons, we can get some where. But again this is why some people feel as if race relations have gotten worse, because to acknowledge race means that someone is "race baiting".

This once again comes off like you're race baiting. Nobody is struggling to understand. At worst people were talking past each other with slightly different premises. I think we've all basically moved past this.

Why do you want to move past something if we are clearly talking past each other? We haven't even come to the conclusion that the gap closing with unwed births between the races is a good thing for black people. People are still debating if there's anything positive to take away from the facts.

 

[TheMikado]

I never struggled with the concept. I don't understand why they kept on about the gap. The gap doesn't matter and the problem of not having wealth among black people isn't going to get better because white mothers get pregnant out of wedlock as much than black mothers. That is just create a problem for poor white people too.

this is actually a valid point and my fault for not contextualizing it for the problem that it is.

Ironically this is why I kept emphasizing that you have to read the stat in context.

The fact is income for poor and lower middle class whites has dramatically closed and actually halved for lower incomes where the unwed stat is most prominent. As the gap in income decreased between poor whites and poor blacks, in thsi case lower income whites a significant decrease in wealth and a slight increase for lower income blacks results in a closing of the gap.

Basically it helps us control for different measures and we see that as relative income decreases, unwed motherhood increases. It helps us tie the issue to economics and why it is important to read the data IN CONTEXT.

With this data and correlations we see as the poverty gap decreases and the income gap narrows we move closer to statistical equality thus pointing to economic figures as an indicator of the measurement of unwed mother rates.

However, one other interesting thing we find is that the overall wealth gap is increasing by race due to the increase gap in income inequality.
Or to put it another way. Income inequality has skyrocketed to near record levels. The rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer.

The net affect is that the already wealthy were disproportionately white and asian as a share of wealth.

So to drive my point home, as the income gap between rich and poor increases, it will disproportionate increase the wealth of the richest historic wealth holders.
By contrast poor income families get hit hardest and in this since lower income white families experienced significant financial loss, while rich white people experienced significant financial gain.
Black families have closed the gap moderately, the take away here is that as income equalizes the statistics come more income based and less race based. Because poor whites wealth has fallen they are not exhibiting trends which are associated with poverty, while black poverty falling has slowed the rates of measures associated with poverty.

It isn't a simple or easy answer and its incredibly complex and nuanced, so again.

poor white people getting poorer = more statistics associated with being poor.
poor black people becoming less poor = more statistics/ slowed rate of statistics of being poor.

 

[LordPezix]

I just can't wait for the day when everything is equal and people are scratching their heads trying to figure out what to bitch about next. I look forward to that day.

 

[Darryl]

Then Obama was elected and anyone who criticized him was called a racist. In fact Obama seemed to revel in this and used it to his advantage. Then there was the shooting of Trayvon Martin...followed by even more police shootings...with Obama putting blame on the police officers which I felt did not help at all and just made people angrier...

From my personal experience, I think that this was the thing that did far more damage than anything. I know these people were getting unfairly being called racist for fact, because I was there with my counter-protests and my sign waving, and my yelling at tea partiers calling them racist because I truly believed that the only explainable reason for their beliefs was racism. I didn't want to admit the opposing side had complex beliefs on complex issues, many of which completely transcended the issue of race. I wanted to pretend that my higher education somehow put me in a higher intellectual standing, and I wanted to pretend that they were all idiot racists who just weren't woke yet to multiple skin tone-lovin'. This constant damning of rural/working class whites/non-higher education morphed into serious, legitimate hate movement under my complicit watch. I feel bad, but I also don't know if there was anything else that I would have done differently at that time even if I were to give myself this knowledge in retrospect. It felt pretty right to me - oh well.

After that, we basically Double Jeopardy'd these people with the 2016 election. The campaigners took this hate movement that I was originally a part of and played it up for politics. :\

 

[i_am_ben]

I think it was obvious that race relations had passed a tipping point when the majority of republicans believed Obama was born in Kenya or weren't sure.

birtherism is a racist conspiracy theory and a sad indictment of America.

 

[mckmas8808]

From my personal experience, I think that this was the thing that did far more damage than anything. I know these people were getting unfairly being called racist for fact, because I was there with my counter-protests and my sign waving, and my yelling at tea partiers calling them racist because I truly believed that the only explainable reason for their beliefs was racism. I didn't want to admit the opposing side had complex beliefs on complex issues, many of which completely transcended the issue of race. I wanted to pretend that my higher education somehow put me in a higher intellectual standing, and I wanted to pretend that they were all idiot racists who just weren't woke yet to multiple skin tone-lovin'. This constant damning of rural/working class whites/non-higher education morphed into serious, legitimate hate movement under my complicit watch. I feel bad, but I also don't know if there was anything else that I would have done differently at that time even if I were to give myself this knowledge in retrospect. It felt pretty right to me - oh well.

After that, we basically Double Jeopardy'd these people with the 2016 election. The campaigners took this hate movement that I was originally a part of and played it up for politics. :\

So what do you do with the fact that some of those same people said that Obama was born in Africa and wasn't a citizen of America?

 

[NickFire]

I think it was obvious that race relations had passed a tipping point when the majority of republicans believed Obama was born in Kenya or weren't sure.

birtherism is a racist conspiracy theory and a sad indictment of America.

You realize there is no actual and reliable evidence more than 50% of republicans believed that, right? Just because someone with partisan intentions says it over and over does not make it true.