Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-14-2008, 08:43 AM
 
746 posts, read 841,010 times
Reputation: 135

Advertisements

Why are blacks used as the stereotypical symbol of poverty in the US? This is a touchy subject, but something i've always wanted to know and hear reasons as to why. I also have six additional questions? The reason i quesiton the use is the following.

1. Why do liberals champion poor black over poor whites?
2. How do poor whites feel as a forgotten group?
3. Is this done to maintain some sort of imaginary status quo?
4. Is anyone informed of this information?
5. If this is true why are blacks defacto scapegoats for welfare?
6. Is this the reason the news perfers to use percentages of pop as opposed to total raw numbers?

All total Families Below Poverty Level
1.Whites 53%
2. Blacks 26%
3. Other 22%

Even when you combine 2+3 whites are still the majority of poor people

Individuals Below Poverty Level
1.Whites 55%
2. Blacks 24%
3. Other 21%

Even when you combine 2+3 whites are still the majority of poor people

United States
Families below poverty level 6,620,945
Individuals below poverty level 33,899,812
Work Force Population 138,820,935

Blacks (alone -non hispanic)
Families below poverty level 1,777,105 26% of poor families
Individuals below poverty level 8,146,146 24% of poor individuals
Labor Force Population 14,905,895 10% of labor force
Total Pop 34,658,190


Whites (alone -non hispanic)
Families below poverty level 3,548,532 53% of poor families
Individuals below poverty level 18,847,674 55% of poor individuals
Work Force 108,079,326 77% of labor force
Total Pop 211,460,626


Link
United States - Select a Race, Ethnic, or Ancestry Group - American FactFinder=

 
Old 01-14-2008, 08:48 AM
 
8,425 posts, read 12,142,733 times
Reputation: 4882
Jesse Jackson said all of this in his run for the presidency in 1984. Few folks listened.
 
Old 01-14-2008, 08:59 AM
 
607 posts, read 920,930 times
Reputation: 144
Didn't you end up proving the opposite point though? The numbers show that even though whites make up 77% of the labor force, they only make up 53% of poor families, and while blacks make up only 10% of the labor force, they make up a disproportionate 26% of poor families. Therefore, blacks are more likely to be poor.
 
Old 01-14-2008, 09:23 AM
 
746 posts, read 841,010 times
Reputation: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplecow1 View Post
Didn't you end up proving the opposite point though? The numbers show that even though whites make up 77% of the labor force, they only make up 53% of poor families, and while blacks make up only 10% of the labor force, they make up a disproportionate 26% of poor families. Therefore, blacks are more likely to be poor.

Purplecow you make the obvious point that the news makes and I do not disagree with you, but poverty needs to be looked at in raw numbers. Look at it this way. Assume you pay 1.00 for every race on welfare.

1. 55 cents of every dollar you pay goes to a poor white family
2. 24 cents of every dollar you pay goes to a poor black family

Do you see why raw numbers matter when it comes to who's costing Americans more?

I agree blacks are disproportionately poor in relation to thier population in the US, but they are not the majority of poor people in this country and that was the original question asked? If in total numbers they are not the majority poor in this country why are they labled as the portrait of poverty?

Exmaple opposites
Asians are disproportionately upper middle class. They are only 3% of the pop but 4.4% of upper middle class families yet we don't use them as the defacto symbol of Affluent do we?

We use whites, because they have the most total numbers of Rich and Affluent people the only time this changes is when we deal with poverty.
 
Old 01-14-2008, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
2,290 posts, read 5,533,500 times
Reputation: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplecow1 View Post
Didn't you end up proving the opposite point though? The numbers show that even though whites make up 77% of the labor force, they only make up 53% of poor families, and while blacks make up only 10% of the labor force, they make up a disproportionate 26% of poor families. Therefore, blacks are more likely to be poor.
I think YOU ended up supporting the OP's underlying premise.

Black Americans are regularly criticized and condemned for not considering ourselves Americans first, and for not touting America's goodness. Yet when the opportunity arises to address a problem like poverty, way too many [non-Black] folks prefer not to see it as an American problem, but as a Black problem--as indicated by your rebuttal.
 
Old 01-14-2008, 09:39 AM
 
746 posts, read 841,010 times
Reputation: 135
Yes, back fist very true.

I've always been a bit "supicious" of politicans that champion the plight of 8 million poor black people to get votes when they could easily win if they just openly addressed those 18 million poor white votes. It has never really made sene to me.

To be more blunt the reason i sought out such information is I've realized thorugh talking with most people that don't understand what disproportionate means they seem to think that blacks are the majority of poor people in raw numbers and refuse to even aknowlege the poor white pink elephant sitting in the room. This sort of stemmed as well from a previous board in which one poster felt disgusted by affluent blacks lack of interest in poor blacks, but was unware (or pretending to be) this existed amongst whites.
 
Old 01-14-2008, 09:53 AM
 
419 posts, read 2,016,068 times
Reputation: 386
The poor side of town with alot of crime and social problems is usually the area with the highest number of African Americans.
 
Old 01-14-2008, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
2,290 posts, read 5,533,500 times
Reputation: 800
Therefore what ... ?
 
Old 01-14-2008, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Boise
2,684 posts, read 6,870,151 times
Reputation: 1018
Quote:
Originally Posted by truthhurts View Post
Yes, back fist very true.

I've always been a bit "supicious" of politicans that champion the plight of 8 million poor black people to get votes when they could easily win if they just openly addressed those 18 million poor white votes. It has never really made sene to me.
John Edwards is appealing to poor whites, and he's probably done better than those who only pabder to poor blacks.
 
Old 01-14-2008, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,702,293 times
Reputation: 36642
The statistics in the opening remarks have carefully excluded the fact that 70% of the people in the US are white, so whites are under-represented in any class in which whites comprise less than 70%. Which makes it a very deceptive and disingenuous and dishonest representation, and therefore not worthy of any other comment. It's like saying there is more poverty in America than Somalia, because there are 30-million poor people in the US and only 7-million poor people in Somalia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:47 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top