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.
Not true. Many of those men are looked at but a number of them are running around like the others due to a sense of entitlement. Many of them feel because they are educated and make a decent salary, they should have their selection of women. A number of them are out here making babies outside of marriage as well. They are living the bachelor’s life because they want to... Settling down is not something they are about for awhile because they want to sample everything. They will have a set of decent women who are looking for a spouse and chose to take advantage of them. And they may have a baby or two out of wedlock before even considering marriage.
Not true for some, but it's true for others. There are indeed some rolling stone types in the Black population. There are also Black men who do hop from woman to woman. There are also Black men who could never find that woman they wanted and just gave up.
I look at it like this. The presence of players and freaks doesn't negate the presence of those choosing the wrong man.
Again, your numbers were more recent but they did have higher poverty rates than black children in during the time in my article.
No, they didn't. You're still conflating 'percentage of a whole' with 'rate of occurrence within a specific group.' They're not the same and therefore aren't comparable. Do you really not understand that? Serious question.
For example, can you identify which group, A or B, has a higher rate of 'characteristic Z' given the following data?
Group A, while being 70% of the total population, is 45% of all those who have characteristic Z.
Group B, while being 15% of the total population, is 35% of all those who have characteristic Z.
No, they didn't. You're still conflating 'percentage of a whole' with 'rate of occurrence within a specific group.' They're not the same and therefore aren't comparable. Do you really not understand that? Serious question.
For example, can you identify which group, A or B, has a higher rate of 'characteristic Z' given the following data?
Group A, while being 70% of the total population, is 45% of all those who have characteristic Z.
Group B, while being 15% of the total population, is 35% of all those who have characteristic Z.
This article is using an alternative measure than the official, which for some reason caused the rate to show higher for every group except blacks, which caused it to measure lower than the official. Maybe that is where the confusion is coming from.
Using the official measurements, hispanic poverty rates have never been above blacks.
It’s not the article. The statistics come from the U.S. census, which is the official. It states that the U.S. census simply used a wider range of factors.
No, they didn't. You're still conflating 'percentage of a whole' with 'rate of occurrence within a specific group.' They're not the same and therefore aren't comparable. Do you really not understand that? Serious question.
For example, can you identify which group, A or B, has a higher rate of 'characteristic Z' given the following data?
Group A, while being 70% of the total population, is 45% of all those who have characteristic Z.
Group B, while being 15% of the total population, is 35% of all those who have characteristic Z.
The article was using rates and it was straight from the U.S. census. I guess you refuse to read it. No problem.
Not true for some, but it's true for others. There are indeed some rolling stone types in the Black population. There are also Black men who do hop from woman to woman. There are also Black men who could never find that woman they wanted and just gave up.
I look at it like this. The presence of players and freaks doesn't negate the presence of those choosing the wrong man.
That isn't the statistic for childhood poverty. This entire thread is about kids (see the thread title), and I've been specifically posting on and providing links for unwed births, single-parent households, and childhood poverty rates. They're all correspondingly correlated.
Not for childhood poverty. Kids are the topic of the thread.
As Jencam pointed out, in the article I posted the U.S. census used a broader range of factors. Without doing so you are correct. If you use that broader range of factors, I am correct. Here is information for childhood poverty with the broader factors.
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.
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.
