Worse to be born poor in Allegheny vs neighboring counties? (Pittsburgh: 2015, violent crime)

[UKyank]

Maybe someone better than I can analyze out the why on this chart:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...abt=0002&abg=1

[bluecarebear]

BS. A child grows up in Clarion County and will make 12 percent more? Where are those people working?

[erieguy]

Pretty tough to disprove a couple "long time" Harvard economists. Doubt they attended PPS or have ties to da burgh so I can understand questioning their findings.

[szug-bot]

I honestly think easy ACCESS to recreational and educational opportunities, and whether a child is exposed to it and guided into it by parents or role models, helps makes up for economic disadvantage. It's not a popular notion, but that is what I think. And access is greater due to the county's more numerous playing fields/skating rinks, more comprehensive bus service, the university presence, and countless events that are available to the public - children's festivals, drum circles, chamber music, etc. etc. etc.

But I had been a poor child, but never a parent OF one - so I'm sure my maybe cream puff perspective will be counterargued!

[eschaton]

I think the answer is pretty easy/obvious here. A poor child in Allegheny County is probably as likely as not to be black, whereas in the outer counties they are overwhelmingly more likely to be white.

There's been lots of studies, after all, that show your chances of making it out of poverty if you are poor and black are way, way less than if you're a poor white.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think the answer is pretty easy/obvious here. A poor child in Allegheny County is probably as likely as not to be black, whereas in the outer counties they are overwhelmingly more likely to be white.

There's been lots of studies, after all, that show your chances of making it out of poverty if you are poor and black are way, way less than if you're a poor white.

The real question is why. Is there something the government can do? Why aren't the government based programs like affirmative action helping to even out the statistics? Is this more about Pittsburgh and the continued fallout from the collapse of industry in the past generation, which may have affected blacks more?

[szug-bot]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think the answer is pretty easy/obvious here. A poor child in Allegheny County is probably as likely as not to be black, whereas in the outer counties they are overwhelmingly more likely to be white.

There's been lots of studies, after all, that show your chances of making it out of poverty if you are poor and black are way, way less than if you're a poor white.

I don't understand what answer is evident, or what is obvious. Most poor Allegheny County kids are black, outside the County, white. So?

[NatureLovinMom]

From the link given:
Across the country, the researchers found five factors associated with strong upward mobility: less segregation by income and race, lower levels of income inequality, better schools, lower rates of violent crime, and a larger share of two-parent households. In general, the effects of place are sharper for boys than for girls, and for lower-income children than for rich.

So it seems they are trying to gently say:

Alleg. has at least one, or more, or all, of the reverse of those scenarios occuring: MORE income/race segregation, GREATER income inequality (which makes sense in urban areas where there's major CEOs), and HIGHER crime (which is probably due to population density in urban areas and leads kids to a life of crime faster, or distracts from their studies...), and a LOWER share of two-parent households.

What's interesting is why BUTLER is so very much higher...
Forsyth County where I happen to be moving my family out of (to Canonsburg) is one of the worst in the nation. It also happens to be one of the worst in the nation for childhood food insecurity too

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

I don't understand what answer is evident, or what is obvious. Most poor Allegheny County kids are black, outside the County, white. So?

Income mobility for poor blacks is lower than poor whites nationwide. Ergo, anywhere where the poor population is disproportionately black will show lower income mobility.

The (computer generated) NY Times article is awful though, because it presumes that a poor kid from Allegheny County will, by definition, have better outcomes if they move to Butler County. It's confusing correlation with causation.

[theta_sigma]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Income mobility for poor blacks is lower than poor whites nationwide. Ergo, anywhere where the poor population is disproportionately black will show lower income mobility.

The (computer generated) NY Times article is awful though, because it presumes that a poor kid from Allegheny County will, by definition, have better outcomes if they move to Butler County. It's confusing correlation with causation.

This is exactly what I was coming in to say. Correlation=/= causation. It isn't being in Allegheny county that causes the majority of these effects, it's being black anywhere in the country. It just happens that poor people in Allegheny county are much more likely to be black than in butler or clarion countries.

As to the why? Racism. Fixing poverty costs a lot of public money and many studies have shown that people are much less likely to support programs that they perceive as mostly benefiting people of other races and cultures. If the public perception of the face of poverty were white (add it was during the depression) we'd have a new new deal by now.