Do African Americans have an overall lower economic status due to their own choices or is it a fundamental flaw in the system?
It's a cultural issue caused (in part) by past social constructs.
There is no significant cultural differences that explain the vast disparity which exists . Sorry but culture isn't an excuse
Also, entertaining your argument, where does culture come from. Does it exist In a vacuum?
Of course there is a cultural difference. Ever heard of black kids being called out for "acting white"?
And where does this black identity come from? Genetics
Researchers have shown that this "gangster love" is based in stigmatization and labeling. It's the victims taking on the label they have been given by society, as a coping mechanism
Researchers have shown ... what a joke. That's identity isn't thrust on anyone. People are free to identify how they choose.
And genetics have little or nothing to do with it. It's culture.
"People are free to identify how they choose. "
Actually every expert will claim you to be false. Talk to me when you actually study this
And again. Where does culture come from?
Tell you when I study this? I get it, you're in college being spoon fed liberal propaganda masquerading as academics. Because the "experts" will tell me that people are oppressed by the system.
Let me add an author to your reading list: John McWhorter. Careful, he'll deconstruct a lot of the myths you love. At least he'll provide an opposing point of view!
Both. It is by their choice that they rely on a system that keeps them trapped in the cycle of poverty. By continuing to overwhelmingly support democrats and the welfare state, they are trusting that a failed system will help them.
Then explain why in Europe where welfare in more generous there is MORE economic mobility, instead of less like you say.
You have been disproven
I need a specific example to refute your point. Give me a country that you want us to model after.
Developed European countries
How do you relate welfare/social spending with economic mobility? There are many factors that influence that statistic. It is not intellectually honest to correlate economic mobility with welfare alone. European countries have a much smaller population. Their economies are smaller, and their populations are less diverse. And not to mention, most European countries are having spending and budget problems that lead to austerity cuts.
I will have a discussion about American policies, but it makes no sense to point to "European countries". They're not even comparable.
"How do you relate welfare/social spending with economic mobility? "
More social safety nets and investment in capital creates economic growth
"There are many factors that influence that statistic. It is not intellectually honest to correlate economic mobility with welfare alone."
If you look at it from a global scale, when government invests more in its people (Europe) they have more opportunity than countries that invest little in its people (African countries)
"European countries have a much smaller population. Their economies are smaller, and their populations are less diverse".
Many Us states are smaller than European countries. Your statement doesn't make any sense. Also, race is a social construct, not a genetic difference
"And not to mention, most European countries are having spending and budget problems that lead to austerity cuts."
So does the US, your point is?
"I will have a discussion about American policies, but it makes no sense to point to "European countries". They're not even comparable."
Yes they are, you can even look at Canada
My point is you cherry pick statistics from European countries that support your opinion while ignoring the very bad things in these countries.
Lets talk about one country. Not all "Developed European countries". One country.
Denmark, Norway. Sweden, Germany, France,
None of these countries back your claim, but instead support mine
Pick one. Find the statistics, and I'll discuss it with you. I'm not going to talk about Europe as a whole. Why is this so hard? If you want to debate an actual policy from one of those countries, fine, but it is not possible to debate them in general terms.
Don't argue facts with liberals. They will dismiss anything that doesn't help their point.
Again, I have provided data from the economic policy institute supporting my point. Also data shows that blue states have more economic mobility than red states. You have yet to make an argument or support your baseless claims
But please I'd love to hear your argument on how there is less economic mobility in European countries (Norway, Sweden, Germany, Denmark) than the US. Drive the data I have presented because all you have done is complain I haven't given a specific country, when I have cited every country
Also, data shows there is more economic mobility in blue states than red states
"My point is you cherry pick statistics from European countries that support your opinion while ignoring the very bad things in these countries. "
Please, show me your statistics. I have provided several sources backing my claim and disproving you while you fall to provide anything
Greece and Spain are doing great, eh?
Hate to burst your liberal bubble.
I have read that study and it is not a reliable source since it's from a conservative blog rather based on data. It focuses on income and nothing else
And yes Greece is what happens when a government doesn't tax effectively, showing the need for tax enforcement. Spain was actually making SURPLUSES before the crisis, as their current crisis is largely based from Greece
Not to mention states in the south have lower quality of life and less economic mobility and education, contrary to the northeastern, which is more like Europe with a better standard of living
Yes, throw out all of the evidence that doesn't agree with your view, then claim that you are "just following tinge evidence". Nice. Gov't social programs don't lead to prosperity.
Plenty of reasons for that. Jacking up welfare isn't suddenly going to make everyone prosperous. By hat logic things got much better after 2008 when a record number of people went on food stamps. What a great accomplishment! I'm curious as to how you measure quality of life and social mobility.
The source you cited comes from a right wing think thank. The data I have provided is non Partisan. I can cite data from the huffington post, but instead I rely on data from reputable institutions
Non-partisan views that say socialism is so great ...
Perfectly non-biased, I'm sure.
93 out of the 100 counties are red counties
Also red states take more from the federal government than blue states
We're paying for republicans welfare
I'm all for cutting taxes and Federal programs. Let's starve the red states! Agreed?
Do you see what the failed policies of red states lead to. Poverty, which is why blue states have more economic mobility and why it's easier to achieve the American Dream in Europe
You've been pounding this red/blue state thing for months; but it's a correlation that is not causal. Capitalism and Wall Street made New York prosperous, not massive gov't regulation. And states just aren't all red/blue. There's diversity.
"Capitalism and Wall Street made New York prosperous, not massive gov't regulation. And states just aren't all red/blue. There's diversity."
So state must have less government regulation in the south. Why haven't they prospered. Also NYC isn't the only area in the NE. It shows that the failed policies of the republicans has lead to higher poverty and less education. Also again, if you look at it from a global scale, states with a more active government which invests in its people are far better off than states with little government
The global correlation isn't that good. You think it is because you count countries with no functional gov't as "conservative". But conservatives don't want anarchy, so stop talking about Somalia. Want to see how gov't control leads to prosperity? How about North Korea, Cuba, USSR, China? How are those stats looking now?
"North Korea, Cuba, USSR, China"
No one is talking about government control, but government investment and fair regulation. States which spend more on their people are overall better. Compare Europe and Africa, which do you prefer?
In fact, we've had this conversation almost word-for-word before. How's Louisiana doing? No poverty in New Orleans, right?
The communist countries have the largest and most extensive "safety net". By your logic they should be thriving. Again, stop talking about African countries where very little effective gov't exists. Save those examples for anarchists.
And let's bring the topic back to the original question: Blacks disproportionately consume the public service "welfare" dollars. So they should be more socially mobile, right?
McWhorter argues that welfare, over generations, has impeded social mobility.
"McWhorter argues that welfare, over generations, has impeded social mobility."
There is 0 data supporting that. But data shows that Europe and blue states have more economic mobility
"The communist countries have the largest and most extensive "safety net". By your logic they should be thriving"
No one is taking about communists
And other from Somalia. African countries do have government, they just can't afford the social services European countries have. What about Latin America, they spend little on their people. They should be thriving
Again, there is "zero data" because you reject arguments and data from conservatives. Read McWhorter's books and broaden your mind.
Fine, Latin America. How's Venezuela doing?
"Again, there is "zero data" because you reject arguments and data from conservatives. Read McWhorter's books and broaden your mind"
Europe has more welfare and has more economic mobility, less income inequality and many countries have higher standard of living than the US
No one is arguing for communism, but rather democratic socialism, which has proven versus successful in Scandinavia
You keep parroting that refrain, then you reject data that contradicts it. It's not black and white.
And again, the data comes from a biased source. No, Norway has a much higher standard of living than Alabama.
Do you also agree than Norway has a higher standard of living than Alabama?
Here's another point of view that contradicts what you keep saying again and again. Feel free to reject it because it's from a conservative, then you can keep saying that "all the data" support you. Or you can read it and broaden your mind.
Give me a break. Do people choose to be born poor and wish to be discriminated against?
When you look at the economic disparity, there's no other explanation than the system. There should not be that amount of inequality between two groups with no genetic difference.
Their culture. Why do Asian Americans do better than whites? Why do Hindus do better than Christians?
Because they are immigrants. The immigration process involves allowing a select few to the Us, and easy Asian immigrants are more likely to be well educated professionals. But if you think it's biological that Indians are more educated, then why are 33% of Indians in India illiterate
Hindu Americans and Asian Americans (as a group) have a great working ethics. It has nothing yo do with genetics. It's mostly cultural.
"Hindu Americans and Asian Americans (as a group) have a great working ethics"
Because they are offspring of IMMIGRANTS that were qualified enough to come to the states
What about Asians that have been in the US for generations? Do they regress in their achievements towards the mean? Or do they keep pursing their cultural work ethic?
"What about Asians that have been in the US for generations"
Again, immigration, America takes only qualified immigrants. Data also shows that Asian Americans have more access to better schools than whites.
Also the Jews are very successful in the US, but living in Europe where they have been oppressed, they lived in slums and were poorly educated. So no, culture is not an argument
So how do you explain their success?