This is incorrect because white people have the same amount of mobility, and actually the argument is white people presumably have more, so you should see a steady decrease in poverty rates for white people. How we know this is, the trends follow each other. When white poverty increases, black poverty increases, and vice versa. The trends would not follow each other. If race was a significant factor, or even a moderate factor, you would see a slow and steady increase in black poverty, and decrease in black wealth. I guess you can argue racism is still prevalent, but just not real impactful.

In order to believe race was a factor, we'd have to believe we have made zero progress in racism for the past 50 years, as poverty is largely unchanged in both racial groups. The trend rate is in lock step with each other over the past 50 years.

And the stat I posted earlier about incarcerations for blacks decreasing, while whites are increasing, debunks that.

Agreed.

This is just simply not correct. If race is not a factor then that would mean that the chance of any family chosen at random from the group of families in poverty would be equally likely to escape from poverty as any other. Similarly the chance of any family chosen at random from the group of families just above the poverty would be equally likely to be fall into poverty as any other. The result of this behaviour would be a trend in the demographics of those in poverty moving towards the demographics of the population as a whole.

It's not necessarily the most intuitive thing to grasp because when we think of something being "equal" that leads to thinking that would mean things remain stable/unchanging and I wasn't entirely sure myself so I ended up coding a very basic simulation to convince myself that it is true. You can take a look here if you want (just hit run at the top and it will print a bunch of stuff as it simulates).

Essentially I created a simple population that is a rough approximation of white/black demographics in the US and then every tick a random person in poverty moves out of poverty and a random person out of poverty falls into poverty. It's not exactly a sophisticated model but it does clearly show that if all people have equal chance to escape from/fall into poverty then we would expect the demographics of those in poverty to approach the demographics of the population as a whole.

Not all poverty is the same. For instance, the poverty folks in Mississippi experience is different than the poverty those in L.A. experience, and there are distinct variables within those swaths of impoverished. Your argument is based on ignoring every other variable except race. Further, teenage pregnancy may the significant issue in one family, and criminal activity in another, and those have different aspects to them as well, that make it even more complex. So, plucking two random people, with the only variable being race, you are going to get wildly unpredictable results, if not controlling for other variables. Like, what if one of the random people has a parent with a disability, and the other doesn't. The probability of the person who grew up with a parent without a disability moving up the ecnomic ladder is higher than the other, irrespective of race. However, you would never know a parent's disability was relevant, since you never controlled for it.

Which is all entirely irrelevant in the overall picture unless those other factors are themselves influenced by race. It boils down to the simple observation that we would see a different pattern in poverty rates if race was not still a relevant factor, be it directly or indirectly.

Your logic is circular.


Again, this is circular logic.

Meanwhile, this guy believes that black poverty is caused by black people being born into poverty, which is caused by black people being born into poverty.

It's not at all circular logic. I'll lay it out as obviously as I can.

Claim:

Assumption from claim:

The chance of a person chosen at random from the group in poverty getting out of poverty is independent of race. Similarly the chance of a person chosen at random from the group not in poverty falling into poverty is independent of race.

Testing the claim:

A basic model of population is created to roughly approximate the current demographics of the US as they pertain to white and black racial groups and relative rates of poverty. Holding total poverty rate static, simulate this population over a period of time where at each time interval a single person is chosen at random to move out of poverty and a single person is chosen at random to move into poverty. Measure the relative rates of poverty in the racial groups over time.

Prediction from claim:

The proportion of white people in poverty and proportion of black people in poverty remain roughly constant.

Results:

https://repl.it/repls/RemoteSimpleStructures

The proportion of people in poverty in each racial group does not remain constant and instead slowly approaches the proportions of the racial groups in the population as a whole.

Conclusion:

The results do not match the prediction therefore we must conclude that the original claim is incorrect and the trend of poverty rates in different racial groups remaining static relative to each other is not evidence that race is not a factor in maintaining existing poverty rates.



This isn't definitive proof that race is a factor but it is definitive proof that your argument regarding the poverty rate trends following each other is not valid evidence in favour of that position. Feel free to point out what part of this process is in any way circular.

Very nice.

We're controlling for race.

If we change the control and the results change we have to assume the control influences the results.

Eg. If you give 1,000 people a placebo and 1,000 people an active drug and the results are different the drug is shown to have an effect.

Now you both are conflating existence for extent, which always happens in these discussions. You think by proving existence, it proves a significant extent. You guys start arguing against the extent and manipulate the conversation to proving existence. I can prove being born to a disabled parent has more of an impact than race, I can prove being born to an addict has more of an impact than race, I can prove being born to a parent in prison has more of an impact than race, I can prove being born in Mississippi has more of an impact than race, I can prove being born to a single parent has more of an impact than race...and this list can go on for many more. I can prove being born to a highschool drop out has more of an impact than race. If a black person is not born into any, or any combination of those, the likelihood of them not being poor is statistically similar to a white person.

It's not manipulating the conversation, the control is measuring the extent of influence.

Existence is already agreed upon by all of us. The extent is in question. Right ?

Willd's computation has several flaws.

One, Black people are more likely to have a disability, and that leads to a higher likelihood of being in poverty. This would not be seen in his results, so the impact of a disability is attributed to racism, or race being a factor, since the real world outcome is more blacks in poverty.

How do you square that with your earlier claim that both races have equal mobility?

Also, why do you think black people are more likely to be disabled?

They don't have equal mobility, but it's has very little to do with race.

I don't know why things like Glaucoma impacts blacks more.

A bit more on disabilities:


Obesity and smoking may have something to do with it.

Then why the hell did you say

I'm not explaining that to you, because it's obvious why, to anyone with a decent ability to comprehend context. And FFS, why do I bother with your questions, becasue you constantly do this deceptive ****.

Sure seems like multiple people took you at your word there, so if you meant something else, your context wasn't so obvious. I also don't really understand stand how asking you about things you wrote is somehow "deception" when there is nothing that is either covert or misleading about seeking clarification.

You made a very specific claim and I was countering that specific claim. To wit:

This is very explicitly a claim that that the trends following each other is evidence that race is not a significant factor. My model was obviously incredibly simplistic but the one thing it absolutely does show beyond any doubt is that this specific claim is inaccurate.

As for the stuff about disabilities, that is exactly what I was referring to when I said "unless those other factors are themselves influenced by race". I made it very clear that my model didn't prove that racism specifically was a factor in poverty rates, just that the trend we see is demonstrably not what would be expected if race had no impact.

No it does not. Your model is using race in the place of racial bias, and pretending it's the same thing. I'll admit that I'm not articulating my criticism well, but your model only proves a disportation exist as result of x, with x being undefined, and if X did not exist, all things would be equal. You are trying to say x= racial bias, but x actually is an innumerable amount of variables that impact the various groups differently, and only one of those variables is racial bias.

No, I'm not making a claim about racial bias, I'm making a claim about race. I am not claiming that it says anything at all about why race seems to be a factor, just that the trends we see are not what would be expected if it isn't.

Race is a categorization. But, you are claiming it's a factor.

Say I have two colors of M&M's. Yellow and Blue. Let's say the blue one melts quicker. Your argument would be blue is a factor in that, when in reality it is likely the chemical composition of the dye, not the color. The color is irrelevant, unless the sun affects the blue one differently. Your model does not distinguish between the two, but portend's it's proof the sun does, which is possible, but your model does not prove that. Your model proves there is something causing the blue one to melt quicker, and you are concluding it has to be something to do with the color.

The logic you are using is the same logic white extremist use to try and prove there is something intrinsically wrong with black people. You are not doing it on purpose, but race can't be a factor. Racial bias can. Racism can. All of which are extrinsic, and race can be a factor in those, but you are not categorizing extrinsic variables, you are categorizing race.

Discussion with itshot is like trying to juggle mashed potatoes

It's more like juggling interconnected spiderwebs, with the juggler getting tangled up.