Dr. Williams:

You're funny. You dazzle us with numbers but there is a really magical section where you think we aren't paying attention:

"There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor."

I see the general point you are trying to make here: that it shouldn't matter how many or in what proportion these four different segments of the population are to each other. But it does matter, if only for the sake of comparison. If the rich black population is really so insignificant, why not tell us the size of it in proportion to the poor population compared to the proportion of rich whites to poor whites. And why only give us numbers for white and black? Many families these days are mixed race so these numbers, in some ways tell us nothing. But you aren't really trying to tell us anything with these numbers except that it's not about race; you don't give us any facts that would present an alternative hypothesis (or links to a study that might.) More on this in a minute.

Either way, it is fairly common knowledge that, whatever their race, the people who are the poorest over all in the country (in terms of capital) are in the south, the area of the country of which we are speaking. Proud though they may be, more of our tax dollars flow south to fund poverty programs than north (especially when based on per capita numbers.) And this part of the country, whatever you want to say about it is largely the way that it is because of an economic system set up on the basis of racial discrimination. This isn't to say that it didn't impoverish whites too--it is to say that these areas of the country used racism to justify other forms of social inequality which kept the South from developing as an industrial economy (even if the North was complicit too) Thus, in terms of development and class, President Bush's statement is mostly correct, even if he didn't mean it to be.

As for your ridiculous arguments as to why there might be poverty, you continue by hinting that the reason blacks have been made poor is that they have a breakdown in the family structure (SURPRISE! what kind of predictable ideologue are you?) You then provide comparative numbers between now and 1954 that show a decline in wedded mothers (which evidently has no relation to poverty since you don't say what proportion of the impoverished are single mothers or how they got that way or how many of the fathers are working in prisons instead of taking all those awesome service sector jobs you mention later.)

Moreover, you only show this for blacks and you don't reference your earlier set of numbers. This isn't science: its obfuscatory propaganda. If there was a strong correlation, you would also tell us how many more of the rich black families are married (and married only once, since, lets face it, divorce kind of skews the numbers a bit and is hardly an index of healthy families) You would also tell us the correlation of these indexes in white families. You don't do any of this. You simply let this ideological fantasy retain the illusion of statistical fact, then you go on to say, "If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits." If you weren't in a position to influence bigots I would simply laugh at the paucity of evidence you produce to back up this claim. Who could predict such a thing? Based on what evidence? In which context? Is this only if the economic structure stayed the same--which, since 1960 has been completely revolutionized, our manufacturing sector decimated, the inner city abandoned, the gap between executives and workers pay rising by hundereds of percentage points in the last fifteen years alone--that economy? How could you possibly index this? No word here--just like there is no word about comparative numbers between poverty among different races. I suppose all of us could go to the statistics and try to piece it together ourselves--but you're the economist.

You keep up this charade, quoting the AEI as if it is a legitimate intellectual institurion rather than a Free Market think tank: "In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees." Don't you teach at a university? Can you imagine anything else that black males might be doing between the ages of 20-24 in 1999 that they might not have been doing in 1954? Perhaps you control for factors like people in school or in some sort of professional development program; either way, it is a bit more complicated to compare 1954 and 1999 as if they are the same economic moment. If employers were beating the bushes for employees in 1999, it was for a certain type of employee with a certain set of skills, most of which were only then being integrated into university much less high school education.

I might ask you a question about why, out of every other person in the economics department at GMU you get paid the least--even less than some of the staff (go to http://www.roblink.com/search_salary_404.html
and search for "economics") I wondered if you ever imagined this was because you are an African American, but judging from the statements above--both their content and their scholarly value--I can only conclude that it is probably just because you are a bad economist. The market doesn't lie, right?

Hey Sandrew,
Nice job of intellectualizing the whole problem with your theories. You need to wake up! the break down of the family is obvious everywhere or do you not watch TV? Or hear music? Or see advertisements?

Someone who is 21 yrs old today cannot remember what it was like 15 yrs ago. They can only see what is going on today and interpret that, that's the way life is! Only those young who are willing to listen and learn from mature adults about the past lessons of life in this country, are able to adjust to the realities of today.

Rap music is supposed to be an expression of culture. Black culture raps about things like "If you don't give a s---!, I don't give a F---!" Repeated over and over and over! You can't see that this is a dose of attitude towards life that young people think is reality.
I guess you don't think this has a negative effect on the family?

Okay now that you got me started Mr.Sandrew3,

How about the latest positive black movie that will surely uplift the black culture, "Get Rich or Die Trying" with that lovely entertainer "50 Cents". At least he has labeled the proper value of his contribution to society. Have you never seen his videos? Near naked women acting like whores in a whore house while he gets his choice of any of them. This is a great cultural experience! Just the perfect part of Black culture that teenagers need to learn about. Of course it is Black Rap that has brought us such new standards like "HO" and "Biotch". Gee these sound a lot like "Whore" and "Bitch". Do you wonder if they mean the same thing? How dense are you with all your intellectualness?

It's a family breakdown that only gets worse because instead of putting more government money into welfare programs, we don't put put it where it belongs. Such as censorship of such crap! You think this is what Washington and Lincoln wanted for the children of America? Those children become the future and if we allow the future to be worth "50 Cents", then guess where America is headed? Certainly not up!

Now don't try and tell me that he is a small example of the Black Music culture or Black Society. If he is than why is he being paid millions of dollars and people are buying his CD's and movies? Some producer seems to think it is very profitable and apparently it is because it keeps selling and they keep making money! But do they care about the deterioration of the family? Especially the Black family?

So you want another example? Snoop Dogg! Oh yeah that famous new part of the family culture that he has contributed to, "Girls Gone Wild". I guess you have never watched that either? Of course the government says they only have to place warning signals about "Adult Content" and not suitable for anyone under 18 yrs of age. So can I assume that the government approves of this "Pornographic Free Speech" for adults? That kind of liberal thinking is what the Democrats use against the Bush Administration. If the current administration says you must only do this then are they guilty for allowing everything else?

Then the next thing is, I suppose you are going to call me a racist? Well considering that I just spent the past weekend with a black family traveling by air, staying in the same hotel and sharing the same rental car while I helped their son with his recruiting plans for college sports, and he is one of many whom I have helped, I don't think you have a case to support that idea. Incidentally, while driving in that car with this black family, whenever her son put on any music if it had ANY negative words in it she shut it off! This is where the strength of the family is and it is also where it can breakdown.

So when will people of your intelligence start to support the correct solution instead of throwing counterproductive theories about numbers that don't lie. You can add all the stats you want but it still comes down to human nature and the nuturing of the heart and soul of each man and woman in society. When will government money be truly spent on this? Oh I guess that can't happen because we are too busy trying to make selfish Gay people happy with marriage. Another counter productive message that is going through the media.

Does the truth hurt? Corrective surgery does and what we need in the America is some major corrective surgery of the heart. Oh but I guess Jesus is not the answer either? If you don't want to hear the truth now then you can hear it from Him later, probably when it's too late!

Dr. Williams,
It is (to use Jeffersonian terms) self-evident that marriage will aid in the improvement of the African-American (Black, Negro, or whatever the current label is) race in America. It is obvious that if parents take an interest in their child's welfare, then the children will most likely do better in life and will earn more money than children raised upon welfare and whose mother does not take an interest in the child's welfare. Only a moron or an ideologue cannot or will not understand this.

Sanders3,
All of which brings me to your ideology. I actually looked up the site that you gave in your "response." Without a doubt, you are an ideologue trying to pass yourself off as a thoughtful individual. First, you attempt to malign Dr. Williams's figures by asking "...which evidently has no relation to poverty since you don't say what proportion of the impoverished are single mothers or how they got that way or how many of the fathers are working in prisons..." You just made the Professor's point. How did they get that way? That was before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the other civil rights legislation. That was before welfare. That was before the modern "ghetto culture (rap, hip-hop, etc)." And the African-American population was in more families than now. In the 1950s, blacks were discriminated against. Now, there is some questions about how much discrimination they suffer... and from whom. Many do not take advantage of the opportunities that they have. (So do some whites...I've seen both.) But what kind of chance do they have if their mothers and fathers are not married? And you want to question the self-evident? What kind of cold-hearted ideologue are you? Don't you want the African-American community to succeed? Don't you want African-American children to have every advantage possible? How will blaming African-American problems on white discrimination solve any problems? Your ilk has done so for forty to fifty years and nothing has been done to improve the black community by the so-called civil rights leaders. Take Jesse Jackson. After all his rhetoric, what does he do? He adds to the bastard population and defends violent thugs in Illinois. And he does not even want those thugs expelled from school. And you do not want to admit the obvious?

As for your assumption that Dr. Williams gets paid less than others in his department, I fail to see how you can prove your point. You have failed to show if Dr. Williams has more/less seniority, teaches more/fewer classes, or whether those paid more are of the other two races than Dr. Williams. Are the figures for the same amount of time? If we rank all of the employees, are all the blacks at the bottom of the pay scale for their positions? What about their publications? You (and your website) do not answer these questions.

Try again. We have your number. We know where your ideological sympathies lie.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: