Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

SecretMethod70 · 11-01-2005, 12:29 PM

Seaver, holding people responsible for their OWN actions isn't racist, obviously - I said that believing blacks are inherently less capable of success is racist, and it is. But, the fact is minorities fail a LOT more than white's in public education, and they are much more significantly members of failing schools. Now, either minorities have some inherent trait that makes them fail more or it is the result of structural inequalities - the statistics and research leave little room for placing the blame squarely on personal responsibility. In 2003, the poverty threshold for a household of 4 was $18,850. Ignoring the fact that it's ludicrous to expect $18,850 to adequately house, clothe, and feed a family of four, with thresholds like that 8.2% of whites were considered to live in poverty in 2003. By contrast, 24.4% of blacks were living in poverty. Either that shows blacks inherently make poor choices, or there is something else creating and sustaining these inequalities.

I commend you for your success. Really. But it's unreasonable to expect every child born in poverty to be exceptional - it's much more reasonable to expect them to be normal. There's a reason people who do what you say you are doing are held on a pedestal: it's because they are the exception and not the rule. Normal people have a much more difficult time lifting themselves out of situations like that.

Now, you say that it's a lofty and ideal goal to seek equal opportunities. To a certain extent I don't disagree. You're right in that it will never be the case. However, it's silly to not minimalize the problem and do what we can to fix it. In 1969, less than 3% of children lived in poverty. In 1993, around 20% of children lived in poverty. In 2003, it was about 17%. Even more interestingly, the percentage of black children living in poverty in 2003 was 34% in contrast with about 10% of white children living in poverty. You're not going to tell me the rise was unavoidable and is unfixable - at the very least across racial lines.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding the "only way 'true' equality in education would occur." I think you're implying that seeking more equality in education would put more people in poverty, but I'm not sure where you get that idea. Bringing this response closer to the original thread topic, between 1979 and 2000, the bottom fifth of wage earners saw a meager 9% increase in AFTER-TAX income ($1,100) compared to a 255% rate of inflation (the equivalent of $100 in 1979 is $254.99 in 2000). By contrast, the top 1% of wage earners saw a 201% increase in AFTER-TAX income between 1979 and 2000 ($576,400). Neither has kept up with inflation, but the top 1% has seen 20x more increase than the bottom fifth relative to their respective 1979 wages. Looking at the raw numbers, the average income of a wage earner in the top 1% has increased 524x that of the average in the bottom fifth. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the poor are getting richer along with the rest. Oh, and lest you think I'm finding these increases through statistical manipulations of some sort, these are directly from your very own government's Congressional Budget Office.

EDIT: Just read your later post admitting being wrong about the poor, consider this a broader supplement to that then.

11-01-2005, 12:29 PM	#78 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Seaver, holding people responsible for their OWN actions isn't racist, obviously - I said that believing blacks are inherently less capable of success is racist, and it is. But, the fact is minorities fail a LOT more than white's in public education, and they are much more significantly members of failing schools. Now, either minorities have some inherent trait that makes them fail more or it is the result of structural inequalities - the statistics and research leave little room for placing the blame squarely on personal responsibility. In 2003, the poverty threshold for a household of 4 was $18,850. Ignoring the fact that it's ludicrous to expect $18,850 to adequately house, clothe, and feed a family of four, with thresholds like that 8.2% of whites were considered to live in poverty in 2003. By contrast, 24.4% of blacks were living in poverty. Either that shows blacks inherently make poor choices, or there is something else creating and sustaining these inequalities. I commend you for your success. Really. But it's unreasonable to expect every child born in poverty to be exceptional - it's much more reasonable to expect them to be normal. There's a reason people who do what you say you are doing are held on a pedestal: it's because they are the exception and not the rule. Normal people have a much more difficult time lifting themselves out of situations like that. Now, you say that it's a lofty and ideal goal to seek equal opportunities. To a certain extent I don't disagree. You're right in that it will never be the case. However, it's silly to not minimalize the problem and do what we can to fix it. In 1969, less than 3% of children lived in poverty. In 1993, around 20% of children lived in poverty. In 2003, it was about 17%. Even more interestingly, the percentage of black children living in poverty in 2003 was 34% in contrast with about 10% of white children living in poverty. You're not going to tell me the rise was unavoidable and is unfixable - at the very least across racial lines. To be honest, I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding the "only way 'true' equality in education would occur." I think you're implying that seeking more equality in education would put more people in poverty, but I'm not sure where you get that idea. Bringing this response closer to the original thread topic, between 1979 and 2000, the bottom fifth of wage earners saw a meager 9% increase in *AFTER-TAX* income ($1,100) compared to a 255% rate of inflation (the equivalent of $100 in 1979 is $254.99 in 2000). By contrast, the top 1% of wage earners saw a 201% increase in *AFTER-TAX* income between 1979 and 2000 ($576,400). Neither has kept up with inflation, but the top 1% has seen 20x more increase than the bottom fifth relative to their respective 1979 wages. Looking at the raw numbers, the average income of a wage earner in the top 1% has increased 524x that of the average in the bottom fifth. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the poor are getting richer along with the rest. Oh, and lest you think I'm finding these increases through statistical manipulations of some sort, these are directly from your very own government's Congressional Budget Office. EDIT: Just read your later post admitting being wrong about the poor, consider this a broader supplement to that then. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 11-01-2005 at 12:50 PM..