Up, obviously, which is my point. When an entire subgroup is in poverty then gains some rights they will only have one direction to go.
You may want to go look at the numbers. In terms of unemployment and stable intact families, blacks are far worse of now. There are 2 separate issues here, civil rights and economic parity. They aren’t the same thing. While racism has waned and blacks have gained much in terms of civil rights, many other components of black society have crumbled.
Can you provide the numbers?
This is what I see on BLS
I don’t follow how the decline of intact families relates to “the war on poverty” either?
Edit: It looks to me like labor participation is up too.
You don’t see how paying women to stay single might effect marriage rates?
Look at marriage rates, incarceration rates, rates of kids raised with a mom and a dad, racial segregation of schools.
Black unemployment was actually lower than whites up until the mid 50s right about the time the civil rights movement started. Since then, the black family has fallen apart. What do you think caused this collapse then?
If your comparing pre and post slavery sure, but that’s not what we are talking about. For the most part, the black unemployment and poverty rate has been stagnant since the 60’s. Not to mention the hugely important to the left racial wealth gap with whites, has only grown in that time. So is that because everyone is more racist now? Or is there something else driving it? Why were they on their way up and then flat lined after the great society? (Actually the slide began during the New Deal but not as starkly.)
Never said it or implied it.
I never said that they had MORE opportunity, nor did I imply it. However, no one gets out of poverty when they are handed checks to stay in poverty. Again, go back to Psychology 101, an action that is rewarded is often repeated. Finally, it was the democratic party under LBJ that began “The Great War on Poverty” which in fact rewarded those who stayed home and moreover stayed home and had children!
As I said 52 years after the great war on poverty we have more people in poverty than every before. So obviously that didn’t work. Perhaps we should try a form of “workfare”.
We pay women to stay single?
Gladly, but I don’t have the time to go digging for it. I’d like to see it, though, and your explanation as to how it relates to the war on poverty.
Do you have anything backing this? The BSL data I looked at earlier stopped at 72 as far as I could tell and employment has done nothing; except, go up.
I’ve no idea that’s why I was asking you to clarify your position. I don’t like government handouts so I’ve got no real dog in this fight. I’m just curious how you arrived at your conclusion.
Yes, we pay women to stay single. This incentives single motherhood for women in addition to removing moral obligations for mento provide.
I don’t feel like researching for you right now. It’s a matter of record. I was answering a question posed by another member.
I honestly don’t know what to tell you if you can’t even see the relevance of government programs like welfare on the function of poor households. 2 major things have happened since the 50s when employment plummeted and dads started fashionably abandoning their kids, civil rights, and the war on poverty. I reject the notion that civil rights caused it because there is no logical link. However, incentivizing poverty and single parent households logically might have something to do with it.
In what way(s)?
This is the best I can find:
That’s Pew research using BSL data. If you have anything better I’d love to read it.
This is why internet discussions are inherently difficult. I said, “I don’t follow how the decline of intact families relates to “the war on poverty” either?” That was in refernce to your post:
I was asking for clarification as to why you think that. I’m aware of the roll welfare programs can play in regards to poor households. I’m not disputing that.
I’m actually not disputing anything. I’m asking for clarification.
Only 2 major things. How about the war on drugs, which you alluded to earlier when you mentioned the incarceration rate? How about our economic shift from manufacturing to service? How about the great recession? We could probably name a dozen major things that would effect black employment rates.
As an aside, I’ve never understood why people, in general, have this need to distill an issue down to a very specific root cause. That’s just not how life works.
Does the war on poverty play a role in perpetual poverty, yes, of course it does. Is it the only factor, no. I’m not even convinced it’s the primary factor.
Edit: Added the chart
Welfare’s marriage penalty for starters?
You are aware the chart you posted backs up my initial post that unemployment is worse for blacks now, right? Additionally from your own article: “The black-white unemployment gap appears to have emerged in the 1940s, according to a 1999 analysis of Census data”. I’ll aknowlege, your article says I’m off by a few years when the gap started.
Yes it is complicated. While numbers are less reliable going back to the forties unemployment for blacks was probably lower than or equal to whites up until around the 50s. And also to be clear, racism (and the ability to pay blacks less, est.) may have actually contributed to narrowing the employment gap which isn’t necessarily a good thing.
The war on drugs also largely came later than the war on poverty and after the racial trends had already at least started. However, I don’t think I ever said the war on poverty was the exclusive thing driving it. I only even specifically mentioned the war on poverty later and wouldn’t be opposed to lumping in the war on poverty and drugs here. I would agree that the war on drugs compounded an existing issue. But many of the racial disparity struggles we see now started with the war on poverty.
1 Like
Yes; however, as you can see, unemployment is up for whites as well. In fact, the two groups practically mirror each other so the question for me becomes why has black unemployment remained higher than white unemployment while trending essentially the same since at least 1954?
At any rate, I never made a claim as to whether or not employment was better or worse for blacks. I asked you to explain why you think the way you do.
This here is the part I’d like to read about, but I can’t find anything related to it. If you happen to have anything I’d greatly appreciate it.
DD, so we’re clear, I’m looking to learn more about the topic not to argue.
I agree this is a problem for low-income American’s, but I don’t follow why you think this specifically incentivizes women to remain single?
Uh, the government gives women on welfare a 10 to 20 percent bonus if they will go get divorced or not get married. I’m genuinely baffled how you do see that as an incentive. They give them money to remain single. That’s the definition of incentive.
Only women benefit from this?
No, and? Though if they take care of the kids and such, they benefit the most. But I fail to see the relevance.
So it incentives low-income people to remain single not specifically women. Thanks for the clarification.
You specified women as the beneficiary under the marriage penalty, but it is gender neutral.
Well, I never meant to say only women benefited (though it’s largely tilted in their favor). I even already mentioned the “benefit” of dads being able to walk away and not have their kids starve thus freeing them from moral obligations. What it does, and all I meant to convey, is help break up poor families and leads to an explosion in the number of single moms. Both of which are terrible for the long term economics of the moms and the kids.
I appreciate the clarification.
I’ll either write somebody in or not vote in this election.