Black Wolf Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 http://www.prisonplanet.com/study-finds-me...women-at-5.html The almighty social scientists declared that black women, on average, make $5 a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 The almighty social scientists declared that black women, on average, make $5 a year.They were talking about wealth, not income. Imagine, for instance, that for every dollar of assets held by a "single black woman" that same woman or some other "singe black woman" had a dollar of debt, then the net assets of the group would be zero. (Not that I know anything about this study to know if it is right or wrong; but, the statistic is at least more plausible than if they'd spoken about income.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wolf Posted March 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 Well, it definitely doesn't seem like they were trying to talk about "wealth", in the sense of equity. In the very same article, they talk about how "White" women make $48,000/year on average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 Well, it definitely doesn't seem like they were trying to talk about "wealth", in the sense of equity. In the very same article, they talk about how "White" women make $48,000/year on average. I can't access the full article but it seems possible they are switching between income and equity to confuse the terms. Since income can't be negative, it would not be possible to have a yearly income at that level in the US. Perhaps they are adding in europe and africa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 It is a meaningless statistic. Since most recipients of preferential treatment while receiving loans from banks are treated preferentially specifically because the government is indirectly subsidizing the loans (meaning they are never expected to pay them back, the government does that for them), and single black women are already considered a disadvantaged group by the government and given preferential treatment, their debt is not really real debt. It's only on paper, if at all (I'm sure most bankers just look at it as form of taxation). So, their median wealth is the sum of whatever those single black women who would be considered rich by the government have minus their debt, and what those who are considered poor have, without their debt subtracted (since they won't be paying it back, thus not making their net worth a negative sum, or any less than what they do actually have access to (house, car, or even just a welfare check for $200 they haven't spent yet), divided by the total number of black women. That's obviously not $5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blinky Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 It's obviously a stupid article without precise information, however it should be noted that they talk about median not arithmetic mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anuse10 Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 aequalsa's argument makes sense. The population of black women in Africa and other parts of the world are larger than in US and as they have a lower wealth, the over median wealth would be even out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 This was about the US only. The full study report is here. It is really a lousy, politically-slanted, racist report which does not answer the moist basic questions someone might have. for me, the first question that comes to mind is: what does the median obscure. For instance, they say that 46% of single-black women have zero to negative wealth (i.e. they owe more than they own). The obvious next step would be to break this group down by certain factors (e.g. education, type of job, marital history and so on). Note that the zero net wealth figure for single-Hispanic women was almost identical (45%). So, it would make sense to break this group down by the same factors (e.g. education, type of job, etc.). This might show what factors are highly correlated. For instance, we might find that single women who have a high school degree or less and who have children are poor. Shocking! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anuse10 Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 Okay, so the statistics are being measured only in the US. My question is, on page 6 of the report, the discrepancy of wealth between single white woman and black woman is so large - 41,500 and 100. If the measurement is based on a set of correlated factors and the figure of black woman wealth is biased, why there is such a difference between the two numbers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 If the measurement is based on a set of correlated factors and the figure of black woman wealth is biased, why there is such a difference between the two numbers?A good study would answer that question. As far as I can tell, the figures are for White women and Black women, not "White women adjusted for other differences". Therefore, the figures don't provide a good break down, other than the one the researchers chose: i.e. race. We know that race -- in the U.S. -- is correlated with other factors, which are likely to affect income levels. For example, according to the Census Bureau, females with a high-school and equivalent qualification earned about $22K per year, while those with a bachelor's degree earned about $40K a year. Next, we'd need to know if the black and hispanic women in the survey had significantly lower educational qualifications than the white women. Similarly, being a single mother is very difficult, and coupled with lower education is almost a guarantee of poverty. Therefore, we'd have to ask if the black and hispanic women in the survey had a significantly higher incidence of being single mothers, and if the single mothers among them had significantly more young children when compared to the single white women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 If the measurement is based on a set of correlated factors and the figure of black woman wealth is biased, why there is such a difference between the two numbers?A good study would answer that question. As far as I can tell, the figures are for White women and Black women, not "White women adjusted for other differences". Therefore, the figures don't provide a good break down, other than the one the researchers chose: i.e. race. We know that race -- in the U.S. -- is correlated with other factors, which are likely to affect income levels. For example, according to the Census Bureau, females with a high-school and equivalent qualification earned about $22K per year, while those with a bachelor's degree earned about $40K a year. Next, we'd need to know if the black and hispanic women in the survey had significantly lower educational qualifications than the white women. Similarly, being a single mother is very difficult, and coupled with lower education is almost a guarantee of poverty. Therefore, we'd have to ask if the black and hispanic women in the survey had a significantly higher incidence of being single mothers, and if the single mothers among them had significantly more young children when compared to the single white women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anuse10 Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 We know that race -- in the U.S. -- is correlated with other factors, which are likely to affect income levels. Thank you for clearing my doubt. That sounds more logical to me now. It would be better for the author to pinpoint that factors such as education level and number of children need to be taken care of contributes to the income level of a woman, as opposed to just race. Is it justifiable to conclude that black women have a low income because in general, they receive lower education and perhaps having more children, if relevant surveys are carried out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.