Lifestyle, not oppression drives poverty

[Simpletruther]

The author is using an extremely disturbing premise for his piece that is simply a racist meme that determines that black families and Black Americans in general make their own bed due to this "lifestyle" nonsense when in fact American Blacks have not had more than 40-50 years to recover from 400 years of chattel slavery and 100 of combined Jim Crow and outright apartheid. That meme has been around since I was a kid and is at least as old as NR itself. So ya' its a racist article appearing in a periodical edition written 65 years after its racist founder's first edition.

Chattel Slavery blew black families apart because the master owned any offspring outright. He did not have to purchase them. However he could sell any one of them at any time, the father, separately, the mother separately each of the kids separately and often did. So after 400 years of that and another 100 or so years of WASP's trying to convince Black Americans that nothing had really changed, you and the author snap your fingers and decide they have made their own bed. HOW NICE OF YOU.

I will tell you who has made his own problems. WE HAVE. Too many White Americans that have not made the most of being born into the richest country in the world and at the top of the totem. Poor us.....pity party, pity party. Now some of us are afraid that "others" are joining us and the top of the totem may be getting crowded.....GUTLESS.

Why do you think it’s racist though? The same idea would apply to anyone not doing those things thst lead to success.

It comes across as race baiting when The card is played without any racist claims being made. There is nothing racist about the idea that these steps are highly correlated to success among everybody, which includes blacks. The stats show this. Facts are not racist.

 

[Simpletruther]

What about walking home from football practice with your friends, helmet, pads, etc and 2 young police officers pull over jump out of there cars and put guns in your face. Your on the ground cops walk by kick you hold you on the ground until another police car pulls up and you hear someone screech. Those kids are black, why are you holding them at gunpoint?
Car screeches off cops say get the **** up and go home.
What would be your opinion of police officers then? Does someone have to tell you to be afraid or hate cops?

All of the black people I know that have generational poverty and are having a hard time breaking is for 1 or 2 reasons drug addiction is treated as a crime not a disease, so family's are destroyed instead of helped. Black males are more likely to become felons before they reach drinking age and are blocked from education, better jobs etc. So again families destroyed.
But I'm not getting into statistical arguements most of my opinions are formed by personal, family, friends experiences.

Imwouldmdispute thst Black males are blocked from education and better jobs.

Millions of blacks have good educations and good jobs, the majority in fact do.

The ones do not often grow up in a local culture that doesn’t value those things, and point them in that direction.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Why Marriage Matters: It Reduces Poverty Risk | National Review

From the article:

For instance, only 9 percent of black Millennials who have followed the three steps of the sequence, or who are on track with the sequence (which means they have at least a high-school degree and worked full time in their twenties, but have not yet married or had children) are poor, compared with a 37 percent rate of poverty for blacks who have skipped one or two steps. Likewise, only 9 percent of young men and women from lower-income families who follow the sequence are poor in their late twenties and early thirties; by comparison, 31 percent of their peers from low-income families who missed one or two steps are now poor.


This a gripe I have with progressives. They attack the minor issues, and ignore the major ones, even discourage sometiens the very things that can lead to success, especially on marriage and children.


Just look at those numbers, 9% poverty rate versus 37%, lifestyle choices matter....a lot.

Why do you continue to post this non-political **** in the general political discussion forum?

Is it because there’s no sub-forum dedicated to thinly veiled racist propaganda?

 

[jnug]

Why do you think it’s racist though? The same idea would apply to anyone not doing those things thst lead to success.

It comes across as race baiting when The card is played without any racist claims being made. There is nothing racist about the idea that these steps are highly correlated to success among everybody, which includes blacks. The stats show this. Facts are not racist.

The problem with the progressive approach to poverty is that it denies the importance of culture and character to household prosperity — especially when it comes to marriage. This isn’t to say that a tough job market and bad public policy are irrelevant to explaining why some Millennials are in poverty, but life choices substantially affect the odds of ending up poor.

There it is in bold from the article. That meme is as old as me.

Also from the article least we forget we are talking about Black Americans:
For instance, only 9 percent of black Millennials who have followed the three steps of the sequence, or who are on track with the sequence (which means they have at least a high-school degree and worked full time in their twenties, but have not yet married or had children) are poor, compared with a 37 percent rate of poverty for blacks who have skipped one or two steps. Likewise, only 9 percent of young men and women from lower-income families who follow the sequence are poor in their late twenties and early thirties; by comparison, 31 percent of their peers from low-income families who missed one or two steps are now poor.


Finally the peace talks about "Sequence following millennials" as if every generation of Black Americans really had half a shot at following the "Sequence" before the children of the generation of 1980's black parents and further implies that all black millennials have that same opportunity. AH-HUH

That is just beyond naive and racism based on naïveté is as bad as any other premise for racism.

 

[2distracted]

What about walking home from football practice with your friends, helmet, pads, etc and 2 young police officers pull over jump out of there cars and put guns in your face. Your on the ground cops walk by kick you hold you on the ground until another police car pulls up and you hear someone screech. Those kids are black, why are you holding them at gunpoint?
Car screeches off cops say get the **** up and go home.
What would be your opinion of police officers then? Does someone have to tell you to be afraid or hate cops?

All of the black people I know that have generational poverty and are having a hard time breaking is for 1 or 2 reasons drug addiction is treated as a crime not a disease, so family's are destroyed instead of helped. Black males are more likely to become felons before they reach drinking age and are blocked from education, better jobs etc. So again families destroyed.
But I'm not getting into statistical arguements most of my opinions are formed by personal, family, friends experiences.

Why do libs want to legalize and promote what is bad and destructive and criminalize what is good? Christianity is essentially criminalized under the far left elite thugs

 

[Simpletruther]

The problem with the progressive approach to poverty is that it denies the importance of culture and character to household prosperity — especially when it comes to marriage. This isn’t to say that a tough job market and bad public policy are irrelevant to explaining why some Millennials are in poverty, but life choices substantially affect the odds of ending up poor.

There it is in bold from the article. That meme is as old as me.

And it applies to everyone, there is nothing racial about it.

Also from the article least we forget we are talking about Black Americans:
For instance, only 9 percent of black Millennials who have followed the three steps of the sequence, or who are on track with the sequence (which means they have at least a high-school degree and worked full time in their twenties, but have not yet married or had children) are poor, compared with a 37 percent rate of poverty for blacks who have skipped one or two steps. Likewise, only 9 percent of young men and women from lower-income families who follow the sequence are poor in their late twenties and early thirties; by comparison, 31 percent of their peers from low-income families who missed one or two steps are now poor.


Finally the peace talks about "Sequence following millennials" as if every generation of Black Americans really had half a shot at following the "Sequence" before the children of the generation of 1980's black parents and further implies that all black millennials have that same opportunity. AH-HUH

That is just beyond naive and racism based on naïveté is as bad as any other premise for racism.

And? It’s being applied to the issue of black poverty, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply to all poverty. Nor would the authors say differently. There is nothing racist about it. It’s pointing out things that correlate to success, factual things. Facts are not racist.


Notice it also sites stats for all people, and the same truth holds for blacks and whites.

How you get racist from that I just don’t know.

 

[Irredentist]

The Effect of Welfare on Marriage and Fertility - Welfare, The Family, And Reproductive Behavior - NCBI Bookshelf


This paper says there is a general consensus among social scientists that welfare had a negative effect on marriage and a positive fertility rates (more births)

This "consensus" comes with some fairly serious caveats that you failed to mention when trying to use it to argue that welfare caused black families to break up.

However, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding this consensus because a significant minority of the studies finds no effect at all, because the magnitudes of the estimated effects vary widely, and because there are puzzling and unexplained differences across the studies by race and methodological approach. For example, the findings show considerably stronger effects for white women than for black or nonwhite women, despite the greater participation rates of the latter group in the welfare system.

 

[Simpletruther]

This "consensus" comes with some fairly serious caveats that you failed to mention when trying to use it to argue that welfare caused black families to break up.

However, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding this consensus because a significant minority of the studies finds no effect at all, because the magnitudes of the estimated effects vary widely, and because there are puzzling and unexplained differences across the studies by race and methodological approach. For example, the findings show considerably stronger effects for white women than for black or nonwhite women, despite the greater participation rates of the latter group in the welfare system.

Ok valid points.

 

[jnug]

And it applies to everyone, there is nothing racial about it.



And? It’s being applied to the issue of black poverty, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply to all poverty. Nor would the authors say differently. There is nothing racist about it. It’s pointing out things that correlate to success, factual things. Facts are not racist.


Notice it also sites stats for all people, and the same truth holds for blacks and whites.

How you get racist from that I just don’t know.

But uses Blacks as its example....if that is not systemic racism at work, I don't know what is.

 

[Simpletruther]

But uses Blacks as its example....if that is not systemic racism at work, I don't know what is.

What??? It uses everyone as an example as well. Black poverty is a majority progressive issue, so it is being dealt with.

And statistics show much of the racial disparity goes away with regard to poverty when we compare each group that follows these steps of success. That is just more evidence that the steps are a Big factor because they work for everyone, not just whites.

How in the world is looking at racial statistics racist? Is the FBI racist for show black crime stats?

I see no logic in the claim of racism. Can you try to expand ,in the logic of your concussion of racism?

There is literally zero in there that implies blacks are inherently inferior in any way, or any other kind of racist thought.

 

[jnug]

What??? It uses everyone as an example as well. Black poverty is a majority progressive issue, so it is being dealt with.

And statistics show much of the racial disparity goes away with regard to poverty when we compare each group that follows these steps of success. That is just more evidence that the steps are a Big factor because they work for everyone, not just whites.

How in the world is looking at racial statistics racist? Is the FBI racist for show black crime stats?

I see no logic in the claim of racism. Can you try to expand ,in the logic of your concussion of racism?

There is literally zero in there that implies blacks are inherently inferior in any way, or any other kind of racist thought.

The piece starts with a general premise and then like a laser focuses on Black Americans as the example. We have this very popular MO now called dog whistling. It is particularly popular as a way to talk in racial terms without looking like you are talking in racial terms. Its not like the author could not have used white Americans as the example. There are plenty of White Americans caught in the backwash of the American racial caste system in broken homes and in poverty, just flat left behind. But NOOOOOOOO......

Why would the author want to imply that there are White Americans caught in the backwash of the American racial caste system, left behind? Heck, many White Americans might suddenly figure out that they have much in common with Black Americans and the author would not want that now would he.

 

[Simpletruther]

The piece starts with a general premise and then like a laser focuses on Black Americans as the example. We have this very popular MO now called dog whistling. It is particularly popular as a way to talk in racial terms without looking like you are talking in racial terms. Its not like the author could not have used white Americans as the example. There are plenty of White Americans caught in the backwash of the American racial caste system in broken homes and in poverty, just flat left behind. But NOOOOOOOO......

Why would the author want to imply that there are White Americans caught in the backwash of the American racial caste system, left behind? Heck, many White Americans might suddenly figure out that they have much in common with Black Americans and the author would not want that now would he.

What???? It did talk about whites. It compared the overall poverty level, which includes whites, to show that the same truth applies to everyone.


Well there is a reason it focuses some on blacks, because that is a a major cultural topic. How do you discuss the topic of black poverty without focusing some on blacks?

There is zero inherently racist about focusing on blacks with a topic, libs do it all the time. In order for it to be racist the point would have to be racist which it’s not. Again, nothing at all in there about backs being inherently inferior or anything disparaging about blacks.

Where is the dog whistle? Explain the logic? Why am I not hearing it?

I lov all people, I discuss this problem in hopes to make a difference. I think knowledge can lead to better outcomes. Black lives can improve, all lives can improve. There are millions of poor whites that could benefit from undersatsnding and moving in this direction, its not just about blacks.

 

[NotreDame]

Why Marriage Matters: It Reduces Poverty Risk | National Review

From the article:

For instance, only 9 percent of black Millennials who have followed the three steps of the sequence, or who are on track with the sequence (which means they have at least a high-school degree and worked full time in their twenties, but have not yet married or had children) are poor, compared with a 37 percent rate of poverty for blacks who have skipped one or two steps. Likewise, only 9 percent of young men and women from lower-income families who follow the sequence are poor in their late twenties and early thirties; by comparison, 31 percent of their peers from low-income families who missed one or two steps are now poor.


This a gripe I have with progressives. They attack the minor issues, and ignore the major ones, even discourage sometiens the very things that can lead to success, especially on marriage and children.


Just look at those numbers, 9% poverty rate versus 37%, lifestyle choices matter....a lot.

I have not read the underlying study but did you catch the narrowness of the article?

“In fact, 97 percent of Millennials who have followed the success sequence are not in poverty by the time they reach the ages of 28 to 34.

Sequence-following Millennials are also markedly more likely to flourish financially than their peers taking different paths; 89 percent of 28- to 34-year-olds who have followed the sequence stand at the middle or upper end of the income distribution.”

What’s the percentage for the totality of millennials? I’m not impressed with the narrow window of 89% of 28-34 year olds.” What’s the percentage overall for the totality of millennials?

“By contrast, Millennials who have a baby outside of marriage — even in a cohabiting union — are likelier to end up as single parents or paying child support, both of which increase the odds of poverty. One study found that cohabiting parents were three times more likely to break up than were married parents by the time their first child turned five — 39 percent of cohabiting parents broke up, versus 13 percent of married parents in the first five years of their child’s life. The stability associated with marriage, then, tends to give Millennials and their children much more financial security.”

Except the article doesn’t tell us how many in the focus groups attained “financial security,” or ended up as paupers. What does that phrase mean anyway, “financial security? How’s it quantified?

The article isn’t good at communicating its message. Hopefully, the underlying study will be an improvement from the article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Simpletruther]

I have not read the underlying study but did you catch the narrowness of the article?

“In fact, 97 percent of Millennials who have followed the success sequence are not in poverty by the time they reach the ages of 28 to 34.

Sequence-following Millennials are also markedly more likely to flourish financially than their peers taking different paths; 89 percent of 28- to 34-year-olds who have followed the sequence stand at the middle or upper end of the income distribution.”

What’s the percentage for the totality of millennials? I’m not impressed with the narrow window of 89% of 28-34 year olds.” What’s the percentage overall for the totality of millennials?

“By contrast, Millennials who have a baby outside of marriage — even in a cohabiting union — are likelier to end up as single parents or paying child support, both of which increase the odds of poverty. One study found that cohabiting parents were three times more likely to break up than were married parents by the time their first child turned five — 39 percent of cohabiting parents broke up, versus 13 percent of married parents in the first five years of their child’s life. The stability associated with marriage, then, tends to give Millennials and their children much more financial security.”

Except the article doesn’t tell us how many in the focus groups attained “financial security,” or ended up as paupers. What does that phrase mean anyway, “financial security? How’s it quantified?

The article isn’t good at communicating its message. Hopefully, the underlying study will be an improvement from the article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you see the 59% after that:


89 percent of 28- to 34-year-olds who have followed the sequence stand at the middle or upper end of the income distribution, compared with just 59 percent of Millennials who missed one or two steps in the sequence.


That is a pretty drastic difference.

 

[NotreDame]

Did you see the 59% after that:


89 percent of 28- to 34-year-olds who have followed the sequence stand at the middle or upper end of the income distribution, compared with just 59 percent of Millennials who missed one or two steps in the sequence.


That is a pretty drastic difference.

Still not impressed yet. It is A) 89% of B.) 28-34 year olds who C.) followed the sequence. Those aged 28-34 who didn’t follow the 3 step sequence, what percentage of them hit the same mark? If it’s 89 or higher, or some other high number, then the 89% doing the three step isn’t so impressive.

In addition, if the number of millennials between 28-34 who followed the three step sequence is, say, a total number of 100, out of however many millions in that age range, then the fact 90 (rounding up from 89 to 90 for simplicity)of them hit a benchmark isn’t very compelling to show a causation or to establish a likelihood. The article doesn’t include this info.

I have other thoughts but I’m tired. The study is 34 pages long. Hopefully the study is more informative and has fewer holes than the article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Middle_Ground]

Imwouldmdispute thst Black males are blocked from education and better jobs.

Millions of blacks have good educations and good jobs, the majority in fact do.

The ones do not often grow up in a local culture that doesn’t value those things, and point them in that direction.

So you only want to focus on one thing.
The difference is when a 17 year old black male with 2 joints in his possession ends up with a felony but a 17 year old white male 5 miles away never gets searched or if he does cops throw it away. That felony blocks education and jobs for the next 10 years it doesn't matter the reason he's a felon.

 

[Middle_Ground]

Why do libs want to legalize and promote what is bad and destructive and criminalize what is good? Christianity is essentially criminalized under the far left elite thugs

I guess what you typed out makes sense to you. So I'll leave you to it.

 

[Simpletruther]

So you only want to focus on one thing.
The difference is when a 17 year old black male with 2 joints in his possession ends up with a felony but a 17 year old white male 5 miles away never gets searched or if he does cops throw it away. That felony blocks education and jobs for the next 10 years it doesn't matter the reason he's a felon.

I am highly pro legalizing drugs, partly for that reason. I think the drug issue is high on the list of things that have kept localized cultures down (poor inner city whites too), but unwed childbearing is the biggest issue.


This doesn’t mean blacks are “blocked” from education or good jobs. Except in the sense thst their own culture blocks them. I get it, if I grew up in that culture I likely would not have succeeded. But it is the culture that has to change, not the system for the most part. The system is a fairly pretty equal playing field, it can be improved. But no amount of improving of the system will do much until the culture changes.

I don’t see most problems of poor as race things, though it might play a small role. the plight of inner city whites is almost indistinguishable from blacks. Whatever “white privilege” they have pales in comparison to negative effects of local culture, and their overall lot in life is virtually indistinguishable from blacks.

 

[Simpletruther]

Still not impressed yet. It is A) 89% of B.) 28-34 year olds who C.) followed the sequence. Those aged 28-34 who didn’t follow the 3 step sequence, what percentage of them hit the same mark? If it’s 89 or higher, or some other high number, then the 89% doing the three step isn’t so impressive.

In addition, if the number of millennials between 28-34 who followed the three step sequence is, say, a total number of 100, out of however many millions in that age range, then the fact 90 (rounding up from 89 to 90 for simplicity)of them hit a benchmark isn’t very compelling to show a causation or to establish a likelihood. The article doesn’t include this info.

I have other thoughts but I’m tired. The study is 34 pages long. Hopefully the study is more informative and has fewer holes than the article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok I get the point that if only a tiny group followed the sequence, the numbers could be of little value. But life experience should inform us a very large amount of people do these things, into the millions for each demographic. I don’t see a need to give those numbers in a brief article, it’s common knowledge.

 

[Middle_Ground]

I am highly pro legalizing drugs, partly for that reason. I think the drug issue is high on the list of things that have kept localized cultures down (poor inner city whites too), but unwed childbearing is the biggest issue.


This doesn’t mean blacks are “blocked” from education or good jobs. Except in the sense thst their own culture blocks them. I get it, if I grew up in that culture I likely would not have succeeded. But it is the culture that has to change, not the system for the most part. The system is a fairly pretty equal playing field, it can be improved. But no amount of improving of the system will do much until the culture changes.

I don’t see most problems of poor as race things, though it might play a small role. the plight of inner city whites is almost indistinguishable from blacks. Whatever “white privilege” they have pales in comparison to negative effects of local culture, and their overall lot in life is virtually indistinguishable from blacks.

I only want 1 drug legalized but legalizing that 1 drug hasn't /won't change erase the millions I mean millions of felons of that 1 drug.
I have no idea what this culture is you keep speaking about. Sounds like American culture to me.
Almost every parent no matter their color wants the best for their kids. Hell there was probably a law that could have put my parents in jail for refusing to be pigeonholed into a neighborhood and finding/paying an opportunistic white man to view and buy the house I grew up in.
White privilege exists and is alive and well especially in the justice/monetary system the place where it should be blind. You will never understand until you or a loved one are in the position to feel the effects.
I will tell you I used to view things similar to you do until I felt and had loved ones feel the effect.

 

[Simpletruther]

‘

I only want 1 drug legalized but legalizing that 1 drug hasn't /won't change erase the millions I mean millions of felons of that 1 drug.
I have no idea what this culture is you keep speaking about. Sounds like American culture to me.
Almost every parent no matter their color wants the best for their kids. Hell there was probably a law that could have put my parents in jail for refusing to be pigeonholed into a neighborhood and finding/paying an opportunistic white man to view and buy the house I grew up in.
White privilege exists and is alive and well especially in the justice/monetary system the place where it should be blind. You will never understand until you or a loved one are in the position to feel the effects.
I will tell you I used to view things similar to you do until I felt and had loved ones feel the effect.

I thought I gave indication of the culture, especially the single parent culture, that models it as acceptable and doesn’t push toward a norm of graduate, get full time job, get married first, then have kids. This model leads to much better financial outcomes for everyone, not just blacks. But the stats show That blacks thst follow this model have pretty good outcomes in America. Millions of,blacks are living nice comfortable middle class lives and most all of them followed this pattern.

 

[Middle_Ground]

‘

I thought I gave indication of the culture, especially the single parent culture, that models it as acceptable and doesn’t push toward a norm of graduate, get full time job, get married first, then have kids. This model leads to much better financial outcomes for everyone, not just blacks. But the stats show That blacks thst follow this model have pretty good outcomes in America. Millions of,blacks are living nice comfortable middle class lives and most all of them followed this pattern.

That's American culture. Whether by original choice or divorce.
From what I understand over the last 40 years birth rates have significantly gone down in some populations which would account for some of the problem.
I remember people graduating highschool, getting a good union job at 18/19, getting married or not, buying a house having kids by 21. Now its graduate 4 or 6 years college, find a job you probably won't be in 5 years down the road, have 50-100k in debt, maybe get married at 30-35, buy a house, have a kid if you can then.
I see a significant change in American culture which has caused a birth rate decline in the country as a whole.
Myself as an unwed mother I see my 28 and 33 year olds unmarried without children but highly successful children as the new norm.