Opinion I've been saying it starts at home.

[DizzyKronic]

How about absent fathers as the result of savage over policing since the day they were freed? I have no idea how absent fathers are linked to the "welfare state" especially considering how pathetic the social safety net is in the States.

Better schools would be good.

You can blame police history for a good portion of the "bad attitude".

Man, you would have hated MLK.

I think MLK would hate the younger generation of today. So much progression since his time yet some act like they have it worse, or that no change has been made. The generation of entitlement and super victims.

 

[panamaican]

The out-of-wedlock birth rate among blacks in 1940 was about 11%; today, it is 75%. Black female-headed households were just 18% of households in 1950, as opposed to about 68% today. In fact, from 1890 to 1940, the black marriage rate was slightly higher than that of whites. Even during slavery, when marriage was forbidden, most black children lived in biological two-parent families. In New York City, in 1925, 85% of black households were two-parent households. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were two-parent households.

I happen to always disagree when anyone brings up this stat. Not with the stats, those are true, but with their implications. People say that the black rate is up but the rate is up for everyone. Not just in the U.S. but worldwide. And by similar rates. For example, the white out-of-wedlock birth rate was around 3% in the 1940s. The current rate is almost 30%. It's almost a 10x increase. Comparatively, the increase in black America is 6-7x, depending on which stats you're looking at.

Whenever anyone tries to paint these things as "black" things while ignoring that they reflect national or global trends, it's a pretty good sign that they're going to miss the actual causes and actual solutions for the problem they think they're solving. If everyone's out-of-wedlock birthrates are going up, then there's a societal level problem, not a black problem. And trying to solve the black version of the problem is pointless because black America isn't large enough to affect societal level problems.

As uncomfortable as it might be for some people to say because of the desire to "fix" black America, here's the real question: Why are white out-of-wedlock birthrates up almost 1000%?

Address that problem and you address the problem at a national level.

 

[Pressure Project]

I happen to always disagree when anyone brings up this stat. Not with the stats, those are true, but with their implications. People say that the black rate is up but the rate is up for everyone. Not just in the U.S. but worldwide. And by similar rates. For example, the white out-of-wedlock birth rate was around 3% in the 1940s. The current rate is almost 30%. It's almost a 10x increase. Comparatively, the increase in black America is 6-7x, depending on which stats you're looking at.

Whenever anyone tries to paint these things as "black" things while ignoring that they reflect national or global trends, it's a pretty good sign that they're going to miss the actual causes and actual solutions for the problem they think they're solving. If everyone's out-of-wedlock birthrates are going up, then there's a societal level problem, not a black problem. And trying to solve the black version of the problem is pointless because black America isn't large enough to affect societal level problems.

As uncomfortable as it might be for some people to say because of the desire to "fix" black America, here's the real question: Why are white out-of-wedlock birthrates up almost 1000%?

Address that problem and you address the problem at a national level.

“out of wedlock” doesn’t necessarily mean absent fathers.

I also ain’t buying those stats on whites. I can’t think of a single white person that I know or any of my kids friends that don’t have their dad in their life.

The only people I know that didn’t grow up with dad’s in their home were due to divorce - not being born out of wedlock.

I would definitely agree with a 1000% in DIVORCE since the 40’s or 50’s though, leading to broken homes which really are destructive.

While my experience doesn’t prove anything I don’t think I live in some kind of bubble - Lower middle class working white guy with 4 kids.

 

[panamaican]

“out of wedlock” doesn’t necessarily mean absent fathers.

I also ain’t buying those stats on whites. I can’t think of a single white person that I know or any of my kids friends that don’t have their dad in their life.

The only people I know that didn’t grow up with dad’s in their home were due to divorce - not being born out of wedlock.

I would definitely agree with a 1000% in DIVORCE since the 40’s or 50’s though, leading to broken homes which really are destructive.

While my experience doesn’t prove anything I don’t think I live in some kind of bubble - Lower middle class working white guy with 4 kids.

You don't have to buy the stats. You can look them up. But you're also demonstrating the very issue that I was speaking to.

When people comment about the black out-of-wedlock birthrate, people immediately jump to discussing what they think is the cause and possible solutions. I point out the corresponding increase in white out-of-wedlock birthrates and your response is to downplay the problem. Your explanation is as applicable to the black out-of-wedlock birthrate as the white. "Out of wedlock" doesn't mean absent fathers. Because if someone looked at the stats, they would find that statement is born out in the black community as well, out of wedlock births but still present fathers.

And with all due respect, you probably do live in a bubble. We all do to some extent.

 

[salamander]

Let's say you have two groups that commit crimes at relatively similar rates, which is what most studies indicate.

You police one group less, so you reveal less crime within that group, and the people within that group is proven to be treated less severely by the system so in the end it returns less incarcerations.

The other group is policed far more aggressively and while police actions return similar per capita instances of crime in the the end crime is found far more often in that group. That group is also prosecuted more aggressively and is less likely to be able to afford as good a defense so in the end it returns more incarcerations.

The numbers returned by these actions indicate there is more crime in one of the groups and so that policing of that group escalates. It's a feedback loop.

And a perfect example of systemic racism.

It's why stop and frisk was hated so much. If you stopped white people as often as you stopped black people you would have revealed just as much crime, although you would have been a lot less likely to prosecute, because they're white.

Fucking hypocrite.

 

[salamander]

How about absent fathers as the result of savage over policing since the day they were freed? I have no idea how absent fathers are linked to the "welfare state" especially considering how pathetic the social safety net is in the States.

Better schools would be good.

You can blame police history for a good portion of the "bad attitude".

Man, you would have hated MLK.

lol

 

[salamander]

No, I'm tired of playing this stupid game with people who think black people are just bad. The causes never matter, all that matters is "fuck black people". The only acceptable solution is "imprison or execute black people".

*Despite the immensity of my dislike towards you I'm going to try (extremely hard) to speak to you as an actual human instead of a Devil from now on...*

...or advocate on their behalf solely using the language of disempowerment to empower talking points that are invariably harmful to the cohort?

...unless maybe you honestly see the rates of abortion among blacks in the states comparative everyone else, as a cure for their travails in their current cultural epoch as opposed to a symptom?

 

[avenue94]

I think MLK would hate the younger generation of today. So much progression since his time yet some act like they have it worse, or that no change has been made. The generation of entitlement and super victims.

Are you familiar with MLK's work toward the end of his life?

 

[KeithHackneyballpunch]

lol

white savior leftists are so fucking cringe. Lol @ that post

 

[alexdlrg]

I happen to always disagree when anyone brings up this stat. Not with the stats, those are true, but with their implications. People say that the black rate is up but the rate is up for everyone. Not just in the U.S. but worldwide. And by similar rates. For example, the white out-of-wedlock birth rate was around 3% in the 1940s. The current rate is almost 30%. It's almost a 10x increase. Comparatively, the increase in black America is 6-7x, depending on which stats you're looking at.

Whenever anyone tries to paint these things as "black" things while ignoring that they reflect national or global trends, it's a pretty good sign that they're going to miss the actual causes and actual solutions for the problem they think they're solving. If everyone's out-of-wedlock birthrates are going up, then there's a societal level problem, not a black problem. And trying to solve the black version of the problem is pointless because black America isn't large enough to affect societal level problems.

As uncomfortable as it might be for some people to say because of the desire to "fix" black America, here's the real question: Why are white out-of-wedlock birthrates up almost 1000%?

Address that problem and you address the problem at a national level.

I'm not a statistician, but I see some obvious holes in your logic, and I think if you stop to think about it you'll agree.

Let's start by extrapolating the trends into the future. What do you think might happen in the next 30 years? Would it be possible for the percentage of white babies born to unwed white women to double? Would it be possible for the percentage of black babies born to unwed black women to double? If it's possible for one of those stats to double, but not the other, then using ratios to infer something about the strength of the underlying trend is obviously flawed, but that's exactly what you've done.

When dealing with trends within a population (such as the percentage of people getting an illness), it's common to use logistic growth models. These can be modeled with variations of the following function:

f(t) = C / ( 1 + p*e^(-rt) )
Where C is the carrying capacity, p relates to the population size at time 0, and r relates to the growth rate. This results in an "S" shaped curve where the observed rate of growth (derivative of the function, not "r" in the function definition) necessarily diminishes as the population approaches its capacity.

If you want to compare changes in sub-population statistics over time, you may want to consider whether there is evidence that each sub-population group has different carrying capacities, why that might be, and what forces might change the carrying capacity over time. Similarly, you would want to consider whether the sub-population groups appear to have different underlying growth rates ("r" in the model above), and what might have impacted that rate over time.

 

[panamaican]

I'm not a statistician, but I see some obvious holes in your logic, and I think if you stop to think about it you'll agree.

Let's start by extrapolating the trends into the future. What do you think might happen in the next 30 years? Would it be possible for the percentage of white babies born to unwed white women to double? Would it be possible for the percentage of black babies born to unwed black women to double? If it's possible for one of those stats to double, but not the other, then using ratios to infer something about the strength of the underlying trend is obviously flawed, but that's exactly what you've done.

When dealing with trends within a population (such as the percentage of people getting an illness), it's common to use logistic growth models. These can be modeled with variations of the following function:

f(t) = C / ( 1 + p*e^(-rt) )
Where C is the carrying capacity, p relates to the population size at time 0, and r relates to the growth rate. This results in an "S" shaped curve where the observed rate of growth (derivative of the function, not "r" in the function definition) necessarily diminishes as the population approaches its capacity.

If you want to compare changes in sub-population statistics over time, you may want to consider whether there is evidence that each sub-population group has different carrying capacities, why that might be, and what forces might change the carrying capacity over time. Similarly, you would want to consider whether the sub-population groups appear to have different underlying growth rates ("r" in the model above), and what might have impacted that rate over time.

I already thought of that before my post but it is irrelevant. Not because your point about statistics is untrue but because I'm not comparing the rate of change to make a claim that one rate of change is better or worse than the other.

I'm pointing that there's significant change in all groups. A 10-fold increase is massive, regardless of the change in anyone else. But I could have posted the change in Hispanic numbers and there would be a similar increase. The change in black numbers is significant. However, even the Asian numbers have doubled since the 1970s.

Which is the point -- it's significant change in every group. Which indicates a national/societal level issue.

 

[So Fresh]

I think MLK would hate the younger generation of today. So much progression since his time yet some act like they have it worse, or that no change has been made. The generation of entitlement and super victims.

Tell me more about what you think MLK would’ve thought right now.

 

[panamaican]

Tell me more about what you think MLK would’ve thought right now.

It's always hilarious because 99% of the people who make that claim have never read anything by MLK, studied his philosophies, etc. They know nothing beyond the "I have a dream" speech which they mischaracterize anyway. MLK was close to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Shirley Chisholm, etc. Yet the people with the "MLK would disagree..." positions somehow also disagree with the people that MLK spent his life in agreement with. They disagree with everyone MLK agreed with yet still think that they know what MLK would agree/disagree with.

It's just ego of the highest order. Such a level of "I know best" that they will retcon Historical Figures into agreeing with them.

 

[alexdlrg]

I already thought of that before my post but it is irrelevant. Not because your point about statistics is untrue but because I'm not comparing the rate of change to make a claim that one rate of change is better or worse than the other.

People say that the black rate is up but the rate is up for everyone. Not just in the U.S. but worldwide. And by similar rates.

I happen to always disagree when anyone brings up this stat. Not with the stats, those are true, but with their implications.

If everyone's out-of-wedlock birthrates are going up, then there's a societal level problem, not a black problem.

You've made an assessment that the rates of change are "similar" and you've claimed that the "implication" of this similarity is that there's "not a black problem." However, the basis of your reasoning is so simplistic and at odds with population growth characteristics that your conclusion does not follow. Two things can be true at once. There can be a national/societal level issue and there can simultaneously be another issue that leads to a greater impact of a particular sub-population.

 

[machidafan99]

reminds me of that vid of a little kid running wild in a Dave & Busters climbing everywhere

 

[panamaican]

You've made an assessment that the rates of change are "similar" and you've claimed that the "implication" of this similarity is that there's "not a black problem." However, the basis of your reasoning is so simplistic and at odds with population growth characteristics that your conclusion does not follow. Two things can be true at once. There can be a national/societal level issue and there can simultaneously be another issue that leads to a greater impact of a particular sub-population.

Two things could be true but there's nothing here that indicates that those 2 things are true. There's evidence of a national/societal level issue. There's nothing that indicates that there are different causations for the black, Asian, Hispanic, white sub-populations. In fact when the out-of-wedlock birthrate took a decline a few years ago, all sub-populations simultaneously experienced that decline.

Every group saw an multi-fold increase in the same stat over the same time period. Every group saw a decline in that stat at the same time. That's a pretty good indicator that those groups are responding to the same causal factors.

But I'll flesh out the elements here, starting with 2 questions, to be answered separately.

1) What is causing the 10x increase in white out-of-wedlock birthrates?
2) What has caused the doubling of Asian out-of-wedlock birthrates since the 1970s (can't go earlier since there isn't any data I can find)?

I'm not ignoring the black or Hispanic elements here but before I turn to that, I'd like to read your response to those 2 elements.

 

[DizzyKronic]

It's always hilarious because 99% of the people who make that claim have never read anything by MLK, studied his philosophies, etc. They know nothing beyond the "I have a dream" speech which they mischaracterize anyway. MLK was close to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Shirley Chisholm, etc. Yet the people with the "MLK would disagree..." positions somehow also disagree with the people that MLK spent his life in agreement with. They disagree with everyone MLK agreed with yet still think that they know what MLK would agree/disagree with.

It's just ego of the highest order. Such a level of "I know best" that they will retcon Historical Figures into agreeing with them.

So you’re telling me MLK would be in agreement with the “safe spaces” on campuses and all the other divisive shit going on right now? I thought he fought to end segregation.

 

[panamaican]

So you’re telling me MLK would be in agreement with the “safe spaces” on campuses and all the other divisive shit going on right now? I thought he fought to end segregation.

I'm telling you that you have no idea what he would be in agreement with.

I'm pretty sure that he would disagree with your implied conflation of "safe spaces" with "segregation". Because the segregation that MLK was facing and addressing was racial segregation. He would also probably disagree with your characterization of "divisive" because 90% of what he was doing in his era was divisive and is the same thing that people today are fighting for. He pushed for a revolution of American values. He massively supported social welfare programs, especially for black Americans. He wanted more legal, political and social power for black Americans.

He was widely disliked both in the North and the South when his messaging moved past the obvious elements of racial segregation in the South into nationwide social policy. The same type of things that are being argued about in modern America.

But as I said, most of the people who like to claim they know what MLK would have stood for don't know anything about what he stood for or fought for beyond a few lines in the "I have a dream" speech which they end up mischaracterizing anyway.

 

[alexdlrg]

Two things could be true but there's nothing here that indicates that those 2 things are true.

Except of course for the drastically different rates of babies being born out of wedlock in various sub-populations. Now, when properly understood and with appropriate variables controlled for, this may be explained by similar societal-level issues, but you have done nothing to demonstrate that case. Instead, you made a mathematically based argument to support your desired conclusion, and your argument was so poor that it offended me as an engineer.

I see this all the time with politicians and wannabe internet experts: they observe a trend, and keep taking derivatives until they get one that fits their desired narrative. We've all heard about lies, damned lies, and statistics, and there certainly needs to be a check on the misapplication of mathematics in politics and social sciences. That's what brought me back into this thread. I care more about the correct application of math and understanding its implications than I do about the issue at hand, so I don't care to answer your questions. I am here to challenge you to support your assertions with mathematically sound reasoning, rather than flailing about with innumerate theories, and then lying about what you've done. I'm also here to make sure that other readers of this thread understand how misguided your insights (so far) have been on this particular topic.

 

[Zazen]

Tell me more about what you think MLK would’ve thought right now.

It’s crazy how much conservatives and even liberals have white washed that man. If he was alive today he’d definitely be getting called a communist 100%. His economic views were far to the left of people at that time and even now. Hell, he advocated for wealth redistribution. People quote one or two sentences from his famous speech and that’s where it ends for most people. Our schools have done such an awful job at teaching us about him.