|
rockopete posted:What depends? What question are you answering? What does this made up word 'skewness' mean? Why is it so hard to believe that racism has screwed over and continues to screw over black people in America? It seems like in addition to being ignorant of the math you're trying to deploy, you don't actually have a coherent point. Ignore list for you. Lol skewness is a made up word now.
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
rscott posted:what the gently caress does this word salad even mean 'If we want an accurate gauge, since really only one generation has been eligible for accumulating generational wealth, we need to look at what other factors impact and create such accumulation.' edit: This isn't even the only read I came up with. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 03:54 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Yes, basically. Really to get an accurate measurement though you're only look at 1 generation past that have had the opportunity to build that generational wealth, now we have to look at what contributes to further disproportional generational wealth. The rate of return to capital vs the growth rate of the economy. I.e. The subject of the book of the subject of the thread.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
So asians as a race have a propensity to earn more money than whites?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
rscott posted:e: So why do the Asians have a higher median than whites?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:The median is going to be thrown off by high income outliers, you want to see what the largest portion of black people make in income if you want to make predictions of future generational wealth. Nope, that's complete bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
menino posted:Nope, that's complete bullshit. White people: Negative skew Black people: positive skew X axis: income Y axis: # of people edit: ok the white people won't be completely negatively skewed but they're going to be pushed much further to the right ColoradoCleric fucked around with this message at 15:05 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Post civil rights bill is the only real period you can look at families building generational wealth because minorities were discriminated against by the government it self and any measurement is going to be completely overshadowed by this discrimination. But the fact that household wealth has not been increasing at all since then would seem to completely invalidate this argument? This has been pointed out now multiple times? Are you going to just keep repeating this over and over? Also for the love of god stop talking statistics you don't have any idea what you're talking about
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:But the fact that household wealth has not been increasing at all since then would seem to completely invalidate this argument? This has been pointed out now multiple times? Are you going to just keep repeating this over and over? Are you talking overall economy related or race specific?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:edit: ok the white people won't be completely negatively skewed but they're going to be pushed much further to the left I think you're presupposing additional factors that don't hold up: 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Are you talking overall economy related or race specific?  This chart shows white household wealth increasing during the 90s and stagnant beforehand, and black and hispanic wealth being stagnant since the 80s. If your thesis is "black household wealth is increasing, it just has only been doing so since desegregation and is not at white levels yet" it's 100% horseshit, as evidence by reality.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:I think you're presupposing additional factors that don't hold up: relative to blacks?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:
It's a little hard to read because the white wealth throws it off. Look at the numbers over the years on the black and hispanic lines. Basically hispanic and black wealth doubled since the 1980's, but then went right back to where it had been 20 years earlier in the 2008 financial crash. Hispanics actually are worse off now in the aggregate than they were back in 1984. The fact that white wealth makes the gains in the hispanic and black communities look stagnant by comparison is a depressingly apt analogy for the actual problem at hand. 
ErIog fucked around with this message at 04:38 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
ErIog posted:It's a little hard to read because the white wealth throws it off. Basically hispanic and black wealth doubled since the 1980's, but then went right back to where it had been 20 years earlier in the 2008 financial crash. Hispanics actually are worse off now in the aggregate than they were back in 1984. White household wealth, according to that chart, averaged around $70,000 in the 80s and 90s, then increased to over $100,000 in the late 90s and beyond. Minority household wealth increased from $6,000 to $12,000. If you think that's a meaningful increase or meaningful stride towards equality I don't know what to say. That's basically nothing. At such a rate it would take over 200 years for the wealth to equalize. Like is this actually what you're arguing, that increasing from $6,000 at a rate of $6,000 every 25 loving years, when white household wealth averages around six digits, is meaningful progress?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
My thesis was "black people just barely got equivible equal rights and that was a good spot to start measuring income and wealth attainment.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:White household wealth, according to that chart, averaged around $70,000 in the 80s and 90s, then increased to over $100,000 in the late 90s and beyond. Minority household wealth increased from $6,000 to $12,000. If you think that's a meaningful increase or meaningful stride towards equality I don't know what to say. That's basically nothing. At such a rate it would take over 200 years for the wealth to equalize. Like is this actually what you're arguing, that increasing from $6,000 at a rate of $6,000 every 25 loving years, when white household wealth averages around six digits, is meaningful progress? It is definitely a meaningful increase that it doubled, and similarly a meaningful decrease that it subsequently halved.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:My thesis was "black people just barely got equivible equal rights and that was a good spot to start measuring income and wealth attainment. They don't have equal rights in practice. How else would you explain our criminal justice system's bias against black defendants or unemployment rates that are significantly higher than whites at all levels of educational attainment?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:They don't have equal rights in practice. How else would you explain our criminal justice system's bias against black defendants or unemployment rates that are significantly higher than whites at all levels of educational attainment? The problem with writing law is that you have to specify directly the transgressions as they happen.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:White household wealth, according to that chart, averaged around $70,000 in the 80s and 90s, then increased to over $100,000 in the late 90s and beyond. Minority household wealth increased from $6,000 to $12,000. If you think that's a meaningful increase or meaningful stride towards equality I don't know what to say. That's basically nothing. At such a rate it would take over 200 years for the wealth to equalize. Like is this actually what you're arguing, that increasing from $6,000 at a rate of $6,000 every 25 loving years, when white household wealth averages around six digits, is meaningful progress? No, I don't think it's meaningful progress. That's why I didn't say it was meaningful progress, and also why I edited my post. However, calling a doubling of something "stagnation" is just inaccurate unless you explain what the hell you mean by that. The gains weren't nearly as big as they should have been. The graph shouldn't look like that at all, but you're being just as dumb about statistics as the mean = median guy if you think a thing literally doubling is "stagnation." You can describe progress toward racial equality as a whole as "stagnant" if you like. That's a subjective thing. However, you're pointing at some actual number here about a specific fast of racial inequality, and you're saying the opposite of what those numbers actually show. ErIog fucked around with this message at 04:59 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Going back to the idea that successful businessmen might actually have a worse understanding of the world as a whole, here's a PBS report on a study of rigged Monopoly (starts at 3:20): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC7KQSdxR0 Transcript posted:PAUL SOLMAN: Piff has run this experiment with hundreds of people on the Berkeley campus. The rich players are determined randomly by coin toss, the game rigged so they cannot lose. And yet, says Piff, despite their presumably liberal bent going in … In all likelihood, we drastically underestimate the brain's ability to completely disregard reality in an attempt to rationalize our advantages as fair and legitimate. And for bonus content: quote:PAUL SOLMAN: And, as Piff observed when he ran this experiment with hundreds of doggedly friendly Berkeley types, those in the role of top dog began to bark like one.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:The problem with writing law is that you have to specify directly the transgressions as they happen.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:What does this have to do with discrimination in courts and in employment? Because you have to write ever Law that prevents ______.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:57
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Because you have to write ever Law that prevents ______. idgi
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Because you have to write ever Law that prevents ______. You don't actually have a point to make, do you?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Because you have to write ever Law that prevents ______.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
You're writing patchwork laws to prevent the transgression from happening again.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Alternative if you don't think you can fix the existent system using the system Thomas Jefferson suggested shooting your corrupted leaders.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:You're writing patchwork laws to prevent the transgression from happening again. Who? What laws? When? Give specific examples, posts, laws proposed, etc, etc Like it's obvious you don't have any point to make and are just here to drop shitposts and feel smug about the libtards ITT, all the while you don't understand statistics terms you're supposed to learn in loving middle school icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:18 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:You're writing patchwork laws to prevent the transgression from happening again. ColoradoCleric posted:Alternative if you don't think you can fix the existent system using the system Thomas Jefferson suggested shooting your corrupted leaders. How dare you get spit on my gloves! FWACK FWACK.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:So why do the Asians have a higher median than whites? The teacher said, first, just because our classes are relatively porous compared to, say, the UK, doesn't mean they don't exist. Second, he asked, is being a dentist a middle-class sort of profession in India? Yes, the student said. Ah, the teacher said: Your father, not to poo poo on his taking a risk or working hard or anything at all, chose to move from being middle-class in India, to being middle-class in America. That isn't the same thing as rags to riches; in relation to his overall society, he was in about the same place, even if he was obviously much better off in absolute terms. And this worked backwards too - he was already a dentist, and therefore educated, in India, right? I imagine this is more common in the Asian American community (though this is both conjecture, and obviously not universal; "Asian" includes Hmong refugees and stockbrokers from Taiwan, after all) than it is in the Hispanic or African American community. Whites in America include all of the poor whites (and there are many) as well.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:No we're just trying to separate the two post civil rights. Why would you attempt to do that? Is capitalism embellishing itself in existing racism that problematic for you? It's like the mutually exclusive concepts of being "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative". One ultimately undermines the other, depending on which you choose.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Well, before we go down another bad derail (not saying your post was bad, just that this thread has some bad juju): http://www.education.com/reference/article/unraveling-minority-myth-asian-students/ America Inc. fucked around with this message at 06:42 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:Well, before we go down another bad derail (not saying your post was bad, just that this thread has some bad juju): quote:2. The model minority myth neglects history and the role of selective immigration of Asian Americans. The 1965 Immigration Act significantly changed the demography of Asian Americans in the U.S. today. In particular, the Act allowed a greater number of educationally and economically successful Asian American professionals who could "contribute" to the American society (Takaki, 1993). Like many other Americans, academic success of Asian American students was correlated with income and educational levels of their parents. was basically what I was referring to.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:No, being a successful business person pretty much requires that you understand the world and how it works. If you don't get it right consistently you fail. Being good at running/doing a business or a profession just proves you're good at running/doing that particular business or profession. It doesn't automagically grant you any sort of special or advanced understanding of the world or for that matter any other subject or profession.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Got a link handy? Sorry, missed this earlier. http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/04/segregation-now/359813/ EDIT: Ah, I see someone posted it and he failed to respond. How surprising! Badger of Basra fucked around with this message at 08:49 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Being good at running/doing a business or a profession just proves you're good at running/doing that particular business or profession. It doesn't automagically grant you any sort of special or advanced understanding of the world or for that matter any other subject or profession. For proof just google for any theoretical physics professor saying anything about the economy. Being incredibly talented in a field doesn't broaden your perspective, it narrows it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
:
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 11:04 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:No, I'm saying post equal rights amendment unless the school is actually discriminating against minorities its not segregation and that blacks attending black majority schools are just self segregating themselves. So mortgage redlining, racist city planning, and "neighborhood schools" = Self Segregation. Gotcha. Kind of reminds me of Self Deportation...
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:For proof just google for any theoretical physics professor saying anything about the economy. Being incredibly talented in a field doesn't broaden your perspective, it narrows it. Wow, this thread went places. I've worked with entrepreneurs and business owners and I found them in general much more thoughtful on economic issues than people on average. Maybe it's different here because Chile is such a small country and policy has such an outsized effect on business, or because finance in particular requires people to stay informed on economic issues. I suspect, rather, that we're valuing different things as knowledge and perspective. D&D as a body of posters is intensely ideological. Most posters here have perspectives, one way or another, derived from media and punditry that we all acknowledge is terrible, some posters have academic knowledge filtered through other commentators ("I read a blog that referenced a paper, etc"), a few actually slog through some academic literature, but all of it gets stripped of context and content until it supports the dominant D&D narrative (Capitalism BAD, white people BAD, etc). Very seldom can we even agree what the relevant facts of a matter are, or that an argument has been settled and should be abandoned (example: the fringe critiques of neoclassical economics that constantly resurface despite being debunked repeatedly). Maybe Ardennes is right and it's a lot of sour grapes on my part. The treatment of Piketty is a good example, though, to my mind. Piketty is much more equivocal and humble about his research and conclusions than anyone here in this thread has been. His strongest claim is that by the end of the century, maybe, possibly, but possibly not, we can't know, the capital / income ratio will revert to its very long run ratio (which is higher than it is now, and much higher than in the anomalous post-war period). He doesn't predict crisis or collapse. He clearly has some strong beliefs about social justice but those are separate from his actual academic contribution.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
Yes it is sour grapes that people won't agree with you when you try to claim some kind of superiority of position because you aren't ideological (hint everyone is ideological you moron).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:55
|
|
