Baltimore: The Next Ferguson? (1 Viewer)

[KCitons]

This thread certainly has taken a turn. Me and the Octopus are moving on.

 

[James Daulton]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

You two are arguing different points.

Daulton is arguing that the percentage of black children born to unwed black mothers as opposed to the percentage of black children born to wed black mothers has increased over the past fifty years. That's undoubtedly true, and all statistics support it.

Tobias, your charts show something different. Your charts show that the average number of children per unwed black mother has decreased over the past quarter century. For instance, in 1990 the average black unwed mother had four children per capita, but now the average unwed black mother has two children per capita. That may very well be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the percentage of black children born to unwed mothers has increased.

The two points can be harmonized by this line in the article you shared, Tobias, "As you can see the drop in the birthrate for unmarried black women is mirrored by an even steeper drop among married black women." The percentage of black children born out of wedlock is increasing, in part, because the average number of children per wed black mother has declined sharper than the average number of children per unwed black mother.

I hate to do it, but...

"Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?"

I've never denied that the % has increased. I said he was wrong that the number had increased. Maybe he left out the words "percentage of" in his statement. That's possible. If so I apologize- he wasn't wrong, just a little sloppy. But what he actually did say was wrong.

WTF? Of course I was referring to the %. Why would I be referencing absolute numbers when the % is what's always stated in the media.

Jeez.

Thanks for clarifying. I apologize for the confusion, although if you were referencing "a number that's always stated in the media" I don't know why you acted as if it was an unknown. That, plus the way you worded it, is why I assumed you were asking about the actual number.

Still waiting for some examples of this "culture that encourages kids being born out of wedlock and the thug life," by the way.

What kind of examples do you want? The % of unwed births is huge and growing so how is that not culturally accepted? And doesn't the facts that so many black youths kill each other and are incarcerated also show that it's culturally accepted? I still don't understand what point you're trying to make.

I'll ask you a question. Regardless of the causes/origin, do you think there are issues in the black community that are pervasive and preventing the community from achieving everything it could?

 

[matttyl]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

Let's try % instead of absolute numbers:

% born out of wedlock, black non-hispanic

1930: 15%

1950: ~17%

1970: ~38%

1980: ~57%

1990: ~67%

2008: 72.3%

The black out-of-wedlock childbearing rate has always been somewhat higher than among whites. However, prior to the onset of the War on Poverty in 1963, the rates for both whites and blacks were comparatively low. In 1963, 3.1 percent of white children were born out of wedlock. By 2008, the number had risen to 28.6 percent. In 1963, 24.2 percent of blacks were born out of wedlock. By 2008 the number had risen to 72.3 percent

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/pdf/wm2934_bythenumbers.pdf

Tobias - But the birthrate is down ~40%!!!! (It doesn't matter that the % born out of wedlock is up 5 fold)

 

[Parrothead]

poor octopus tried to loot the sneaker store but couldn't find 8 that matched :(

 

[[icon]]

This thread certainly has taken a turn. Me and the Octopus are moving on.

Octopus, wait!

 

[Sweet J]

I don't know enough about welfare to know if it discourages marriage, sorry.

This happens to be a particular interest to me. I'm not sure why. I printed out the Moynahan articles (specifically the critiques) that you posted yesterday, but haven't had a chance to read them yet. Those articles probably will help me get a better understanding.

For what it's worth, (ironically) I think a lot of the "conservative" guys are you arguing against probably would argue that "the State is to blame for the destruction of the black family." In that, I think you agree with them.

But I think you get there in different places. They are arguing that "failed war on poverty programs" has gone a long way in destroying the (black) family structure in America." You are arguing that what has destroyed the black family is the years/decades/centuries of abuse, discrimination, and oppression.

Right now, I think both things are causal. I'm stuck on how much weight I'd attribute each. I'm really curious if the Welfare state has done more harm than good. But that's a discussion for another thread, I guess.

 

[KCitons]

This thread certainly has taken a turn. Me and the Octopus are moving on.

Octopus, wait!

 

[TobiasFunke]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

You two are arguing different points.

Daulton is arguing that the percentage of black children born to unwed black mothers as opposed to the percentage of black children born to wed black mothers has increased over the past fifty years. That's undoubtedly true, and all statistics support it.

Tobias, your charts show something different. Your charts show that the average number of children per unwed black mother has decreased over the past quarter century. For instance, in 1990 the average black unwed mother had four children per capita, but now the average unwed black mother has two children per capita. That may very well be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the percentage of black children born to unwed mothers has increased.

The two points can be harmonized by this line in the article you shared, Tobias, "As you can see the drop in the birthrate for unmarried black women is mirrored by an even steeper drop among married black women." The percentage of black children born out of wedlock is increasing, in part, because the average number of children per wed black mother has declined sharper than the average number of children per unwed black mother.

I hate to do it, but...

"Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?"

I've never denied that the % has increased. I said he was wrong that the number had increased. Maybe he left out the words "percentage of" in his statement. That's possible. If so I apologize- he wasn't wrong, just a little sloppy. But what he actually did say was wrong.

WTF? Of course I was referring to the %. Why would I be referencing absolute numbers when the % is what's always stated in the media.

Jeez.

Thanks for clarifying. I apologize for the confusion, although if you were referencing "a number that's always stated in the media" I don't know why you acted as if it was an unknown. That, plus the way you worded it, is why I assumed you were asking about the actual number.

Still waiting for some examples of this "culture that encourages kids being born out of wedlock and the thug life," by the way.

What kind of examples do you want? The % of unwed births is huge and growing so how is that not culturally accepted? And doesn't the facts that so many black youths kill each other and are incarcerated also show that it's culturally accepted? I still don't understand what point you're trying to make.

I'll ask you a question. Regardless of the causes/origin, do you think there are issues in the black community that are pervasive and preventing the community from achieving everything it could?

I want to know what aspects of "black culture" you think cause these things. I think there are external factors unrelated to "culture" that cause these statistics. Poverty (disparately experienced by blacks for a variety of historical reasons, read the article), discriminatory/predatory housing and lending policies (again, read the article), a misguided drug war, etc. None of these are cultural. I want you to make these same connections with respect to these "cultural" factors that you think are in play. As I said, I know very little about black culture. Educate me. What internal forces am I missing?

 

[cstu]

Still waiting for some examples of this "culture that encourages kids being born out of wedlock and the thug life," by the way.

The examples are the statistics. Black people are not alone in being downtrodden by society, but yet their culture puts the least value on education, marriage, and avoiding crime. Jews have been treated just as poorly by society yet because of their culture doesn't have these problems.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Tobias, I'm generally simpatico with many of your perspectives and the pushbutton, rote racism of this situation.

However...lets look at it this way...

Do you see any problems in black culture that are systemtic and what would you, in an understandably general term, see them to be?

I don't consider myself qualified to evaluate "black culture" in any way shape or form, so I can't tell you if there are problems with it.

What do you all consider "black culture"? Hip-hop music and the fact that some of it glorified materialism and violence? Suburban white kids can't get enough of that kind of music. Gangs? Where I live warring Hispanic gangs seem far more prevalent and inclined to violence than black gangs even though my neighborhood is home to more blacks than Hispanics.

I consider "black culture" to be the zeitgeist in enclaves of black population, be it geographic or digital. And manifest therein , what I consider a culture, are both values and traditions(cuisine, arts, language).

I work across this country, I work in many black neighborhoods and I interact with them. But I'm a white guy in my 30's so I'm a tourist in every manner.

So I don't question traditions, and in fact I enjoy and embrace many of them and I consider myself welcome when I do .

But what I do observe are values.

I take little credit for my success. Left to my devices, I don't know where or what I would be, but I had a family structure that conditioned me, often times, through discipline, to make sure I valued and continued my education. It was sometimes bitter medicine but I"m grateful for it. My family structure, I can only assume, has been my model for what I desire in a family structure. And the other thing I've learned is, to be with women who value the same. Its not easy being married and it can be frustrating to deal with kids but you are there in that moment and its beyond and bigger than you.

So I say, in general terms, for whatever the reason, the values of sustained education and family structure are not there. This is not to say there aren't places in white culture where I can see this. This phenomenon is definitely prevalent. I'm sure in equal numbers, frankly.

However, I don't see it in many other immigrant cultures who are also lower class. I have read your statistics and they offer a very perspective on the matter. But the results are the results

And frankly, I don't have answers. Because there is no means of instilling effective modeling that will make mothers and fathers tell their kids to value education and family when they themselves have not come a place where that is valued.

So maybe its not fair for me to say black culture, maybe its lower class culture.

 

[cstu]

I want to know what aspects of "black culture" you think cause these things. I think there are external factors unrelated to "culture" that cause these statistics. Poverty (disparately experienced by blacks for a variety of historical reasons, read the article), discriminatory/predatory housing and lending policies (again, read the article), a misguided drug war, etc. None of these are cultural. I want you to make these same connections with respect to these "cultural" factors that you think are in play. As I said, I know very little about black culture. Educate me. What internal forces am I missing?

The one thing parents can control is their kids going to school - yet blacks have the highest dropout rate (4x that of Asians).

Yes, I blame black parents for not valuing education.

 

[Sweet J]

Race is not real but color matters. In the heart of Jim Crow, Homer Plessy was in the front of the train riding with the whites because he looked white. He handed his ID to the conductor, the ID said he was black so they threw him off the car. - Irish labor used to be cheaper and more expendable than black labor in this country, Italians were lynched at one time here. They were Catholic. The Irish were basically a lower near slave caste in their own country, they were considered illiterate, dirty, unhealthy. The Italians were swarthy and criminal. But hey you know what they could ride in the front of the train.

I don't know if you intended it so, but this is a thoughtful post that captures very complex concepts in a succinct way. And your last sentence is particularly good.

 

[James Daulton]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

You two are arguing different points.

Daulton is arguing that the percentage of black children born to unwed black mothers as opposed to the percentage of black children born to wed black mothers has increased over the past fifty years. That's undoubtedly true, and all statistics support it.

Tobias, your charts show something different. Your charts show that the average number of children per unwed black mother has decreased over the past quarter century. For instance, in 1990 the average black unwed mother had four children per capita, but now the average unwed black mother has two children per capita. That may very well be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the percentage of black children born to unwed mothers has increased.

The two points can be harmonized by this line in the article you shared, Tobias, "As you can see the drop in the birthrate for unmarried black women is mirrored by an even steeper drop among married black women." The percentage of black children born out of wedlock is increasing, in part, because the average number of children per wed black mother has declined sharper than the average number of children per unwed black mother.

I hate to do it, but...

"Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?"

I've never denied that the % has increased. I said he was wrong that the number had increased. Maybe he left out the words "percentage of" in his statement. That's possible. If so I apologize- he wasn't wrong, just a little sloppy. But what he actually did say was wrong.

WTF? Of course I was referring to the %. Why would I be referencing absolute numbers when the % is what's always stated in the media.

Jeez.

Thanks for clarifying. I apologize for the confusion, although if you were referencing "a number that's always stated in the media" I don't know why you acted as if it was an unknown. That, plus the way you worded it, is why I assumed you were asking about the actual number.

Still waiting for some examples of this "culture that encourages kids being born out of wedlock and the thug life," by the way.

What kind of examples do you want? The % of unwed births is huge and growing so how is that not culturally accepted? And doesn't the facts that so many black youths kill each other and are incarcerated also show that it's culturally accepted? I still don't understand what point you're trying to make.

I'll ask you a question. Regardless of the causes/origin, do you think there are issues in the black community that are pervasive and preventing the community from achieving everything it could?

I want to know what aspects of "black culture" you think cause these things. I think there are external factors unrelated to "culture" that cause these statistics. Poverty (disparately experienced by blacks for a variety of historical reasons, read the article), discriminatory/predatory housing and lending policies (again, read the article), a misguided drug war, etc. None of these are cultural. I want you to make these same connections with respect to these "cultural" factors that you think are in play. As I said, I know very little about black culture. Educate me. What internal forces am I missing?

The mere acceptance of these things makes it a cultural issue. Why are you arguing semantics?

In my family, it is expected that the kids work hard in school and go to college. It has been that way for 3 generations now. It's part of my family culture.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Still waiting for some examples of this "culture that encourages kids being born out of wedlock and the thug life," by the way.

The examples are the statistics. Black people are not alone in being downtrodden by society, but yet their culture puts the least value on education, marriage, and avoiding crime. Jews have been treated just as poorly by society yet because of their culture doesn't have these problems.

A statistic is an example of culture? I don't think you know what culture means.

Also, every word of the bolded is false. Take it from a Jew.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

That's meaningless. Over 70% of all black kids born are born to unwed mothers. That's a fact and significantly higher than any other ethnicity. Are you really arguing that this is not a negative issue for the community?

I'm arguing that you don't understand the reasons why that's the case. There are a number of real, verifiable factors at work other than your unsubstantiated theory that it's "the culture's" fault (something you still haven't bothered to explain further even though I politely asked you to do so here).

Doesn't the fact that you literally could not have been any more wrong when you predicted that "if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago" suggest to you that maybe you don't have all the relevant information and perspective? If you did, why would you make a prediction about existing data that turned out to be 100% false?

What's your goal? A post a couple down show the %'s of blacks born out of wedlock and it's risen significantly over the last few decades. Just as I supposed.

My immediate goal is to get you to explain yourself regarding blaming "black culture" for certain problems, which you continue to duck even though I've now asked twice.

My broader goal is to hopefully convince one open-minded person to read the article I linked, understand the complex historical and present-day forces at work, and think critically about this stuff instead of collapsing into the tired "black people created their own problems" argument many people believe to varying degrees. I used to think some of that stuff sometimes myself, until I was directed to some more detailed historical analysis, persuasive arguments and breakdowns of data. I doubt it will be you, but maybe someone reading the thread will consider taking a deeper look.

Reading it now.

Might take me all day though!

 

[Rove!]

Still waiting for some examples of this "culture that encourages kids being born out of wedlock and the thug life," by the way.

The examples are the statistics. Black people are not alone in being downtrodden by society, but yet their culture puts the least value on education, marriage, and avoiding crime. Jews have been treated just as poorly by society yet because of their culture doesn't have these problems.

I think in many respects there is more susceptibility to the worst aspects of the white/dominant culture.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

You two are arguing different points.

Daulton is arguing that the percentage of black children born to unwed black mothers as opposed to the percentage of black children born to wed black mothers has increased over the past fifty years. That's undoubtedly true, and all statistics support it.

Tobias, your charts show something different. Your charts show that the average number of children per unwed black mother has decreased over the past quarter century. For instance, in 1990 the average black unwed mother had four children per capita, but now the average unwed black mother has two children per capita. That may very well be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the percentage of black children born to unwed mothers has increased.

The two points can be harmonized by this line in the article you shared, Tobias, "As you can see the drop in the birthrate for unmarried black women is mirrored by an even steeper drop among married black women." The percentage of black children born out of wedlock is increasing, in part, because the average number of children per wed black mother has declined sharper than the average number of children per unwed black mother.

I hate to do it, but...

"Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?"

I've never denied that the % has increased. I said he was wrong that the number had increased. Maybe he left out the words "percentage of" in his statement. That's possible. If so I apologize- he wasn't wrong, just a little sloppy. But what he actually did say was wrong.

WTF? Of course I was referring to the %. Why would I be referencing absolute numbers when the % is what's always stated in the media.

Jeez.

Thanks for clarifying. I apologize for the confusion, although if you were referencing "a number that's always stated in the media" I don't know why you acted as if it was an unknown. That, plus the way you worded it, is why I assumed you were asking about the actual number.

Still waiting for some examples of this "culture that encourages kids being born out of wedlock and the thug life," by the way.

What kind of examples do you want? The % of unwed births is huge and growing so how is that not culturally accepted? And doesn't the facts that so many black youths kill each other and are incarcerated also show that it's culturally accepted? I still don't understand what point you're trying to make.

I'll ask you a question. Regardless of the causes/origin, do you think there are issues in the black community that are pervasive and preventing the community from achieving everything it could?

I want to know what aspects of "black culture" you think cause these things. I think there are external factors unrelated to "culture" that cause these statistics. Poverty (disparately experienced by blacks for a variety of historical reasons, read the article), discriminatory/predatory housing and lending policies (again, read the article), a misguided drug war, etc. None of these are cultural. I want you to make these same connections with respect to these "cultural" factors that you think are in play. As I said, I know very little about black culture. Educate me. What internal forces am I missing?

The mere acceptance of these things makes it a cultural issue. Why are you arguing semantics?

In my family, it is expected that the kids work hard in school and go to college. It has been that way for 3 generations now. It's part of my family culture.

How do you know it's accepted? Do you speak with a lot of members of the black community on these subjects? I don't, but the few I do interact with about these subjects certainly don't accept violence and unwanted pregnancies. They encourage and value education. Isn't it possible that the variable that leads to those statistics you cite is not skin color ("black culture") but poverty?

I'm not arguing semantics. I'm asking you to explain yourself. You made the statement, can you back it up?

 

[shadrap]

Maryland has one of the most generous welfare systems in the country. A mother of two participating in the state’s seven welfare programs can receive $35,000. Yet nearly one-quarter of Baltimore’s residents live in poverty, up from 10% in 1960.

Two-thirds of the births in Baltimore are to unmarried mothers and nearly 60% of households are headed by single parents.

Baltimore’s unemployment rate was 8.4% in February. The national average is 5.5%. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, only seven states and the District of Columbia have a worse business climate than does Maryland. The city’s small businesses face the seventh-largest marginal tax rate in the nation.

Baltimore property tax rate is more than twice the rate of most of the rest of the state. Nationally, it has the ninth worst tax burden out of 50 major American cities.

More than a quarter of Baltimore students fail to graduate from high school. Yet Baltimore ranks #4 among major cities in per-pupil expenditures, spending about 52% above the national average.

Baltimore has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, yet is the fifth most deadly city in America.

I guess some perspective on Baltimore, especially regarding taxes & spending in the city.

 

[RCon]

The conservative attitude toward black problems in the inner city (let them clean up their own mess, they need to take responsibility, I'm sick of hearing about racism, I support the police) tends to dominate over the liberal attitude (we are all partly responsible, racism is a huge historical and current factor, the police are often part of the problem, we need to work together to find solutions) by about 10-1 in these threads.

If you count by number of posts, yeah probably. However, not by number of posters. The "conservative" ones just tend to repeat themselves more often.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

That's meaningless. Over 70% of all black kids born are born to unwed mothers. That's a fact and significantly higher than any other ethnicity. Are you really arguing that this is not a negative issue for the community?

I'm arguing that you don't understand the reasons why that's the case. There are a number of real, verifiable factors at work other than your unsubstantiated theory that it's "the culture's" fault (something you still haven't bothered to explain further even though I politely asked you to do so here).

Doesn't the fact that you literally could not have been any more wrong when you predicted that "if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago" suggest to you that maybe you don't have all the relevant information and perspective? If you did, why would you make a prediction about existing data that turned out to be 100% false?

What's your goal? A post a couple down show the %'s of blacks born out of wedlock and it's risen significantly over the last few decades. Just as I supposed.

My immediate goal is to get you to explain yourself regarding blaming "black culture" for certain problems, which you continue to duck even though I've now asked twice.

My broader goal is to hopefully convince one open-minded person to read the article I linked, understand the complex historical and present-day forces at work, and think critically about this stuff instead of collapsing into the tired "black people created their own problems" argument many people believe to varying degrees. I used to think some of that stuff sometimes myself, until I was directed to some more detailed historical analysis, persuasive arguments and breakdowns of data. I doubt it will be you, but maybe someone reading the thread will consider taking a deeper look.

Reading it now.

Might take me all day though!

Cool. You can read it in bits and pieces, it's long as hell. And the title is kind of off-putting. But it's well done and worth some time IMO.

I've always obviously been left-leaning and sympathetic to the plight of minorities of course, but part of me also asked a lot of the same questions you see in this thread. Why haven't black people been able to overcome historical discrimination in the way other minorities have? Segregation ended many generations ago! We even have affirmative action now! All the usual stuff. It took reading that article for me to really grasp the enormous differences between the black experience in America and the experiences of other racial/ethnic minorities, even those subjected to discrimination at some point.

 

[cstu]

Minority students are more likely to be economically disadvantaged, as can be seen in Table 1, a factor likely to have an impact on educational attainment. To assess the role of poverty on group differences in the drop out probability, we add our measure of students coming from an economically disadvantaged family, shown as Model 2. The estimates clearly illustrate the influence of poverty on both the dropout probability and differences between minority and white students.

A student who is economically disadvantaged is approximately 12 percentage points more likely to drop out of school than other students.

Our estimate also show that, other factors constant, Hispanic students are approximately 7 percentage point more likely than white students to drop out of school, while African-American students are roughly 8 percentage points less likely to complete high school.

These results imply that our simple poverty measure explains almost 1/2 of the Hispanic-white dropout probability difference and more than 1/3 of the black-white disparity.

PDF Link

Dropout rate of students receiving free lunch:

Asian: 17.7%

White: 17.8%

Black: 29.4%

Hispanic: 40.8% (not controlled for English proficiency)

 

[matttyl]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

You two are arguing different points.

Daulton is arguing that the percentage of black children born to unwed black mothers as opposed to the percentage of black children born to wed black mothers has increased over the past fifty years. That's undoubtedly true, and all statistics support it.

Tobias, your charts show something different. Your charts show that the average number of children per unwed black mother has decreased over the past quarter century. For instance, in 1990 the average black unwed mother had four children per capita, but now the average unwed black mother has two children per capita. That may very well be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the percentage of black children born to unwed mothers has increased.

The two points can be harmonized by this line in the article you shared, Tobias, "As you can see the drop in the birthrate for unmarried black women is mirrored by an even steeper drop among married black women." The percentage of black children born out of wedlock is increasing, in part, because the average number of children per wed black mother has declined sharper than the average number of children per unwed black mother.

I hate to do it, but...

"Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?"

I've never denied that the % has increased. I said he was wrong that the number had increased. Maybe he left out the words "percentage of" in his statement. That's possible. If so I apologize- he wasn't wrong, just a little sloppy. But what he actually did say was wrong.

No, he wasn't, and I'll use your own numbers to prove it to you.

~50 years ago the total black population in the US was ~20m. At that time, according to your chart (and my eyesight) the birthrate for that population was about 88 per thousand (and rising sharply). So we've got 1.76m births from that population per year. With me so far? Then, according to post #1580 above (not sure how to link it, but you can find it) and assuming straight line growth of the increase in out of wedlock birth % from 1950-1970, you have an out of wedlock % of 32.75. So 32.75% of 1.76M is 576,400 black children born out of wedlock ~50 years ago.

So today (2010, so I can use numbers from your chart and population totals), the total black population in the US is about ~42m (same chart as above). According to your chart, the birth rate in 2009 was ~52 per thousand, or 2.18m births. Good? Again according to post #1580 the out of wedlock birth % (in 2008, mind you) was 72.3%. Multiply them, and you get 1.58m.

Or roughly 3x as many. Again, he wasn't wrong by any stretch of the imagination or number jumping you want to do.

 

[humpback]

I agree with this, but what's the impetus to continue the practice today? The blueprint showing that successful children start with two parent families is everywhere. What are non-blacks supposed to do about it?

That's a good, and much harder, question. My thoughts as someone who isn't a social scientist and doesn't really know the answer: (1) Increase access to contraceptives, and (2) stop adopting such an adversarial us-vs-them approach to problems that apply to a specific group of people, and not painting with such a broad brush about the entire black community.

I just don't think anything will be solved if we can't first admit that there are a bunch of complicated causes of the problem, instead of simply staying at arm's length and saying "fix it!" Just my two cents.

Sadly, this is why I'm not overly optimistic that any real progress is being made. In a way, it's similar to politics- there is plenty of blame to go around, but each side would rather point the finger at the other than admit that they have things to fix themselves.

 

[matttyl]

I've never denied that the % has increased. I said he was wrong that the number had increased. Maybe he left out the words "percentage of" in his statement. That's possible. If so I apologize- he wasn't wrong, just a little sloppy. But what he actually did say was wrong.

WTF? Of course I was referring to the %. Why would I be referencing absolute numbers when the % is what's always stated in the media.

Jeez.

No, you were correct either way.

 

[matttyl]

I don't know enough about welfare to know if it discourages marriage, sorry.

As I understand it in basic terms - it's FAR easier for a single mother to obtain it.

 

[Joe Summer]

Today's Orioles game will be closed to the public. The entire stadium will be empty.

Actually, I think they might let in one guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqWIXFLeeiI

 

[Hang 10]

For a generation Liberals have told black people that the system is rigged and that nothing is their fault. They've told them that the state can fix things and make their lives better. Isn't Baltimore proof that this doesn't work?

I won't deny that if you're born into poverty you got dealt a ####ty hand in life but I would never tell someone they never had a chance. You can sit around and wait forever for the utopia politicians have promised you or you can actually be proactive and work toward a better life. There's too many rags to riches stories in this country to count. People building empires from nothing. You want something more than you have right now, go make it happen.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

You two are arguing different points.

Daulton is arguing that the percentage of black children born to unwed black mothers as opposed to the percentage of black children born to wed black mothers has increased over the past fifty years. That's undoubtedly true, and all statistics support it.

Tobias, your charts show something different. Your charts show that the average number of children per unwed black mother has decreased over the past quarter century. For instance, in 1990 the average black unwed mother had four children per capita, but now the average unwed black mother has two children per capita. That may very well be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the percentage of black children born to unwed mothers has increased.

The two points can be harmonized by this line in the article you shared, Tobias, "As you can see the drop in the birthrate for unmarried black women is mirrored by an even steeper drop among married black women." The percentage of black children born out of wedlock is increasing, in part, because the average number of children per wed black mother has declined sharper than the average number of children per unwed black mother.

I hate to do it, but...

"Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?"

I've never denied that the % has increased. I said he was wrong that the number had increased. Maybe he left out the words "percentage of" in his statement. That's possible. If so I apologize- he wasn't wrong, just a little sloppy. But what he actually did say was wrong.

No, he wasn't, and I'll use your own numbers to prove it to you.

~50 years ago the total black population in the US was ~20m. At that time, according to your chart (and my eyesight) the birthrate for that population was about 88 per thousand (and rising sharply). So we've got 1.76m births from that population per year. With me so far? Then, according to post #1580 above (not sure how to link it, but you can find it) and assuming straight line growth of the increase in out of wedlock birth % from 1950-1970, you have an out of wedlock % of 32.75. So 32.75% of 1.76M is 576,400 black children born out of wedlock ~50 years ago.

So today (2010, so I can use numbers from your chart and population totals), the total black population in the US is about ~42m (same chart as above). According to your chart, the birth rate in 2009 was ~52 per thousand, or 2.18m births. Good? Again according to post #1580 the out of wedlock birth % (in 2008, mind you) was 72.3%. Multiply them, and you get 1.58m.

Or roughly 3x as many. Again, he wasn't wrong by any stretch of the imagination or number jumping you want to do.

I don't know that your calculations are correct, but I see your underlying point. I read "birth rates" into "more births" because it seemed like common sense even though it actually wasn't there, just as he left out "percentage of" even though he intended to say it. You're absolutely right. I apologize, James.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I'm going back to the, if you keep making excuses for people you are not helping them help themselves. Black and white guilt people need to stop looking back and start looking forward or these issues will always be a problem.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Today's Orioles game will be closed to the public. The entire stadium will be empty.Actually, I think they might let in one guy:

So it'll be like a Rays game then.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

You two are arguing different points.

Daulton is arguing that the percentage of black children born to unwed black mothers as opposed to the percentage of black children born to wed black mothers has increased over the past fifty years. That's undoubtedly true, and all statistics support it.

Tobias, your charts show something different. Your charts show that the average number of children per unwed black mother has decreased over the past quarter century. For instance, in 1990 the average black unwed mother had four children per capita, but now the average unwed black mother has two children per capita. That may very well be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the percentage of black children born to unwed mothers has increased.

The two points can be harmonized by this line in the article you shared, Tobias, "As you can see the drop in the birthrate for unmarried black women is mirrored by an even steeper drop among married black women." The percentage of black children born out of wedlock is increasing, in part, because the average number of children per wed black mother has declined sharper than the average number of children per unwed black mother.

I hate to do it, but...

"Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?"

I've never denied that the % has increased. I said he was wrong that the number had increased. Maybe he left out the words "percentage of" in his statement. That's possible. If so I apologize- he wasn't wrong, just a little sloppy. But what he actually did say was wrong.

No, he wasn't, and I'll use your own numbers to prove it to you.

~50 years ago the total black population in the US was ~20m. At that time, according to your chart (and my eyesight) the birthrate for that population was about 88 per thousand (and rising sharply). So we've got 1.76m births from that population per year. With me so far? Then, according to post #1580 above (not sure how to link it, but you can find it) and assuming straight line growth of the increase in out of wedlock birth % from 1950-1970, you have an out of wedlock % of 32.75. So 32.75% of 1.76M is 576,400 black children born out of wedlock ~50 years ago.

So today (2010, so I can use numbers from your chart and population totals), the total black population in the US is about ~42m (same chart as above). According to your chart, the birth rate in 2009 was ~52 per thousand, or 2.18m births. Good? Again according to post #1580 the out of wedlock birth % (in 2008, mind you) was 72.3%. Multiply them, and you get 1.58m.

Or roughly 3x as many. Again, he wasn't wrong by any stretch of the imagination or number jumping you want to do.

Thank you.

I was going to type out your exact point that Daulton is correct based on total numbers as well, but I was too busy at work and, quite frankly, I thought it would fall on deaf ears.

 

[James Daulton]

Today's Orioles game will be closed to the public. The entire stadium will be empty. Actually, I think they might let in one guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqWIXFLeeiI

I live close to Baltimore and the social and financial impact to the city is going to be massive. Just the curfew alone this week is really hurting bars and restaurants hard. Imagine how few conventions will come to the city (already a pretty difficult sell). Prior to this, I really thought that Baltimore got a bad rap in general from a national perspective. Prior to these events I would have told you it was a really interesting city and pretty safe. Now obviously this reputation has been reinforced with recent events. I think it will the city decades to recover from this.

 

[James Daulton]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

You two are arguing different points.

Daulton is arguing that the percentage of black children born to unwed black mothers as opposed to the percentage of black children born to wed black mothers has increased over the past fifty years. That's undoubtedly true, and all statistics support it.

Tobias, your charts show something different. Your charts show that the average number of children per unwed black mother has decreased over the past quarter century. For instance, in 1990 the average black unwed mother had four children per capita, but now the average unwed black mother has two children per capita. That may very well be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the percentage of black children born to unwed mothers has increased.

The two points can be harmonized by this line in the article you shared, Tobias, "As you can see the drop in the birthrate for unmarried black women is mirrored by an even steeper drop among married black women." The percentage of black children born out of wedlock is increasing, in part, because the average number of children per wed black mother has declined sharper than the average number of children per unwed black mother.

I hate to do it, but...

"Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?"

I've never denied that the % has increased. I said he was wrong that the number had increased. Maybe he left out the words "percentage of" in his statement. That's possible. If so I apologize- he wasn't wrong, just a little sloppy. But what he actually did say was wrong.

No, he wasn't, and I'll use your own numbers to prove it to you.

~50 years ago the total black population in the US was ~20m. At that time, according to your chart (and my eyesight) the birthrate for that population was about 88 per thousand (and rising sharply). So we've got 1.76m births from that population per year. With me so far? Then, according to post #1580 above (not sure how to link it, but you can find it) and assuming straight line growth of the increase in out of wedlock birth % from 1950-1970, you have an out of wedlock % of 32.75. So 32.75% of 1.76M is 576,400 black children born out of wedlock ~50 years ago.

So today (2010, so I can use numbers from your chart and population totals), the total black population in the US is about ~42m (same chart as above). According to your chart, the birth rate in 2009 was ~52 per thousand, or 2.18m births. Good? Again according to post #1580 the out of wedlock birth % (in 2008, mind you) was 72.3%. Multiply them, and you get 1.58m.

Or roughly 3x as many. Again, he wasn't wrong by any stretch of the imagination or number jumping you want to do.

I don't know that your calculations are correct, but I see your underlying point. I read "birth rates" into "more births" because it seemed like common sense even though it actually wasn't there, just as he left out "percentage of" even though he intended to say it. You're absolutely right. I apologize, James.

No need Tobias. I'm very left leaning too and I really only want what's best for our country and all of it's citizens. We are a stronger country when everyone contributes and succeeds.

 

[MattFancy]

Today's Orioles game will be closed to the public. The entire stadium will be empty. Actually, I think they might let in one guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqWIXFLeeiI

I live close to Baltimore and the social and financial impact to the city is going to be massive. Just the curfew alone this week is really hurting bars and restaurants hard. Imagine how few conventions will come to the city (already a pretty difficult sell). Prior to this, I really thought that Baltimore got a bad rap in general from a national perspective. Prior to these events I would have told you it was a really interesting city and pretty safe. Now obviously this reputation has been reinforced with recent events. I think it will the city decades to recover from this.

Agreed. I lived in/around the Baltimore area for 7 1/2 years. Never encountered any problems in all my time there. But now, I can't say I'm rushing to get back there. Love the Orioles, but I'm in no hurry to get up to OPACY to watch a game.

 

[Sweet J]

I don't know enough about welfare to know if it discourages marriage, sorry.

As I understand it in basic terms - it's FAR easier for a single mother to obtain it.

Right. Also my statement would be more accurate if I said: "Welfare takes away a disincentive to being a single parent" (i.e., starving), rather than saying "Welfare gives an incentive to having kids out of wedlock."

I don't think that women/girls are saying: "I want to have children so I can get welfare benefits!"

Rather, maybe the existence of Welfare means they less likely to say: "We HAVE to use birth control because if I get pregnant my baby will starve (or I have to marry you to keep my baby from starving)."

 

[Sweet J]

Today's Orioles game will be closed to the public. The entire stadium will be empty. Actually, I think they might let in one guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqWIXFLeeiI

I love that guy so hard.

 

[Hang 10]

I'm going back to the, if you keep making excuses for people you are not helping them help themselves. Black and white guilt people need to stop looking back and start looking forward or these issues will always be a problem.

Exactly.

I also agree that it starts with the moms and the dads. If you are raising a kid in a environment like Baltimore would you tell them that this is as good as it gets? Would you tell them that the police are the enemy? How about you tell them that you're better than this. Tell them that they need to work harder than other people because of where they're starting from. What mind set is going to get better results?

 

[General Tso]

I see a lot of talk about the family breakdown. Some have styributed it to slavery, and that would seem to make sense at first blush. Thst is the root cause I thought of as well to explain it. But it's not the case. The black family unit didn't collapse in the 1870's, the 1900's, or even the 1930's. The precipitous collapse happened in the1960's and continues up to this day.

Once again:

1965 - 25%

2015 - 70%.

 

[tom22406]

Wish we had more parents like Toya Graham.

http://wgntv.com/2015/04/29/baltimore-mom-of-the-year-speaks-out-after-smacking-rioting-son/

 

[TobiasFunke]

Today's Orioles game will be closed to the public. The entire stadium will be empty. Actually, I think they might let in one guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqWIXFLeeiI

I live close to Baltimore and the social and financial impact to the city is going to be massive. Just the curfew alone this week is really hurting bars and restaurants hard. Imagine how few conventions will come to the city (already a pretty difficult sell). Prior to this, I really thought that Baltimore got a bad rap in general from a national perspective. Prior to these events I would have told you it was a really interesting city and pretty safe. Now obviously this reputation has been reinforced with recent events. I think it will the city decades to recover from this.

Agreed. I lived in/around the Baltimore area for 7 1/2 years. Never encountered any problems in all my time there. But now, I can't say I'm rushing to get back there. Love the Orioles, but I'm in no hurry to get up to OPACY to watch a game.

Crazy that they didn't even ask the Nats (who are on the road until next week) to host this game and the weekend series because the ownership groups hate each other so much. The place would have been absolutely packed with screaming Orioles fans and probably a few non-Oriole DC people who just wanted to support the city. Instead they get a game at an empty stadium and three on the road.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I'm going back to the, if you keep making excuses for people you are not helping them help themselves. Black and white guilt people need to stop looking back and start looking forward or these issues will always be a problem.

Exactly.

I also agree that it starts with the moms and the dads. If you are raising a kid in a environment like Baltimore would you tell them that this is as good as it gets? Would you tell them that the police are the enemy? How about you tell them that you're better than this. Tell them that they need to work harder than other people because of where they're starting from. What mind set is going to get better results?

Tell them you have better tools and opportunities than we had and strive to be better than us. Every parent of every color should be encouraging their children to be their best and to not settle for anything less.

 

[MattFancy]

Today's Orioles game will be closed to the public. The entire stadium will be empty. Actually, I think they might let in one guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqWIXFLeeiI

I live close to Baltimore and the social and financial impact to the city is going to be massive. Just the curfew alone this week is really hurting bars and restaurants hard. Imagine how few conventions will come to the city (already a pretty difficult sell). Prior to this, I really thought that Baltimore got a bad rap in general from a national perspective. Prior to these events I would have told you it was a really interesting city and pretty safe. Now obviously this reputation has been reinforced with recent events. I think it will the city decades to recover from this.

Agreed. I lived in/around the Baltimore area for 7 1/2 years. Never encountered any problems in all my time there. But now, I can't say I'm rushing to get back there. Love the Orioles, but I'm in no hurry to get up to OPACY to watch a game.

Crazy that they didn't even ask the Nats (who are on the road until next week) to host this game and the weekend series because the ownership groups hate each other so much. The place would have been absolutely packed with screaming Orioles fans and probably a few non-Oriole DC people who just wanted to support the city. Instead they get a game at an empty stadium and three on the road.

I thought I read that they considered Nats Park, but Angelos wanted to have home games. Though, I'm sure the MASN dispute had something to do with it as well.

 

[matttyl]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

You two are arguing different points.

Daulton is arguing that the percentage of black children born to unwed black mothers as opposed to the percentage of black children born to wed black mothers has increased over the past fifty years. That's undoubtedly true, and all statistics support it.

Tobias, your charts show something different. Your charts show that the average number of children per unwed black mother has decreased over the past quarter century. For instance, in 1990 the average black unwed mother had four children per capita, but now the average unwed black mother has two children per capita. That may very well be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the percentage of black children born to unwed mothers has increased.

The two points can be harmonized by this line in the article you shared, Tobias, "As you can see the drop in the birthrate for unmarried black women is mirrored by an even steeper drop among married black women." The percentage of black children born out of wedlock is increasing, in part, because the average number of children per wed black mother has declined sharper than the average number of children per unwed black mother.

I hate to do it, but...

"Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?"

I've never denied that the % has increased. I said he was wrong that the number had increased. Maybe he left out the words "percentage of" in his statement. That's possible. If so I apologize- he wasn't wrong, just a little sloppy. But what he actually did say was wrong.

No, he wasn't, and I'll use your own numbers to prove it to you.

~50 years ago the total black population in the US was ~20m. At that time, according to your chart (and my eyesight) the birthrate for that population was about 88 per thousand (and rising sharply). So we've got 1.76m births from that population per year. With me so far? Then, according to post #1580 above (not sure how to link it, but you can find it) and assuming straight line growth of the increase in out of wedlock birth % from 1950-1970, you have an out of wedlock % of 32.75. So 32.75% of 1.76M is 576,400 black children born out of wedlock ~50 years ago.

So today (2010, so I can use numbers from your chart and population totals), the total black population in the US is about ~42m (same chart as above). According to your chart, the birth rate in 2009 was ~52 per thousand, or 2.18m births. Good? Again according to post #1580 the out of wedlock birth % (in 2008, mind you) was 72.3%. Multiply them, and you get 1.58m.

Or roughly 3x as many. Again, he wasn't wrong by any stretch of the imagination or number jumping you want to do.

I don't know that your calculations are correct, but I see your underlying point. I read "birth rates" into "more births" because it seemed like common sense even though it actually wasn't there, just as he left out "percentage of" even though he intended to say it. You're absolutely right. I apologize, James.

Moreover, if you go back another 25 years prior (75 years ago, 1940) you have a population of 12.9m. While your chart doesn't go back that far, lets just assume 65 births per 1k (seems reasonable from your chart, but I'll do two other calculations as well - one higher and one lower). 838,500 births that year - 16% out of wedlock or ~134,160 black children born out of wedlock in 1940. Roughly a 12 fold increase in 75 years. I picked 75 years ago as that's right at the half way point going backwards to the end of the Civil War.

Had the birthrate at that time been 100 (very high) you'd have 1.29m births that year, and ~200k of them would have been out of wedlock. Had the birthrate at that time been 50 (very low) you'd have 645k births, and just over 100k of them would have been out of wedlock. Either way we're looking at a 7-15 fold increase in 75 years. Lots of things can be blamed on it, but I don't think that slavery/history if one of them - as both the sheer number and % was far lower during the history you'd like to blame this on.

 

[[icon]]

I see a lot of talk about the family breakdown. Some have styributed it to slavery, and that would seem to make sense at first blush. Thst is the root cause I thought of as well to explain it. But it's not the case. The black family unit didn't collapse in the 1870's, the 1900's, or even the 1930's. The precipitous collapse happened in the1960's and continues up to this day.

Once again:

1965 - 25%

2015 - 70%.

pretty damning statistics.

What was the decline among white or hispanic families during that time?

 

[General Tso]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

Tobias - I love you bro - but I can't believe you made me lose 15 minutes of my life reading that article.First of all, it's not a report or a study. It is a guy throwing #### against the wall and seeing what sticks. In his own words, "I figured I'd go through the numbers again, fool around with some spreadsheets and try to get in touch with my inner Derek Thompson."

His conclusion is that there is a higher percentage of black children born out of wedlock because the number of unmarried women has grown a lot. Really? How on earth did he figure that one out.

The article is complete crap and really shouldn't even be discussed seriously in here.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

You two are arguing different points.

Daulton is arguing that the percentage of black children born to unwed black mothers as opposed to the percentage of black children born to wed black mothers has increased over the past fifty years. That's undoubtedly true, and all statistics support it.

Tobias, your charts show something different. Your charts show that the average number of children per unwed black mother has decreased over the past quarter century. For instance, in 1990 the average black unwed mother had four children per capita, but now the average unwed black mother has two children per capita. That may very well be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the percentage of black children born to unwed mothers has increased.

The two points can be harmonized by this line in the article you shared, Tobias, "As you can see the drop in the birthrate for unmarried black women is mirrored by an even steeper drop among married black women." The percentage of black children born out of wedlock is increasing, in part, because the average number of children per wed black mother has declined sharper than the average number of children per unwed black mother.

I hate to do it, but...

"Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?"

I've never denied that the % has increased. I said he was wrong that the number had increased. Maybe he left out the words "percentage of" in his statement. That's possible. If so I apologize- he wasn't wrong, just a little sloppy. But what he actually did say was wrong.

No, he wasn't, and I'll use your own numbers to prove it to you.

~50 years ago the total black population in the US was ~20m. At that time, according to your chart (and my eyesight) the birthrate for that population was about 88 per thousand (and rising sharply). So we've got 1.76m births from that population per year. With me so far? Then, according to post #1580 above (not sure how to link it, but you can find it) and assuming straight line growth of the increase in out of wedlock birth % from 1950-1970, you have an out of wedlock % of 32.75. So 32.75% of 1.76M is 576,400 black children born out of wedlock ~50 years ago.

So today (2010, so I can use numbers from your chart and population totals), the total black population in the US is about ~42m (same chart as above). According to your chart, the birth rate in 2009 was ~52 per thousand, or 2.18m births. Good? Again according to post #1580 the out of wedlock birth % (in 2008, mind you) was 72.3%. Multiply them, and you get 1.58m.

Or roughly 3x as many. Again, he wasn't wrong by any stretch of the imagination or number jumping you want to do.

I don't know that your calculations are correct, but I see your underlying point. I read "birth rates" into "more births" because it seemed like common sense even though it actually wasn't there, just as he left out "percentage of" even though he intended to say it. You're absolutely right. I apologize, James.

Moreover, if you go back another 25 years prior (75 years ago, 1940) you have a population of 12.9m. While your chart doesn't go back that far, lets just assume 65 births per 1k (seems reasonable from your chart, but I'll do two other calculations as well - one higher and one lower). 838,500 births that year - 16% out of wedlock or ~134,160 black children born out of wedlock in 1940. Roughly a 12 fold increase in 75 years. I picked 75 years ago as that's right at the half way point going backwards to the end of the Civil War.

Had the birthrate at that time been 100 (very high) you'd have 1.29m births that year, and ~200k of them would have been out of wedlock. Had the birthrate at that time been 50 (very low) you'd have 645k births, and just over 100k of them would have been out of wedlock. Either way were looking at a 7-15 fold increase in 75 years. Lots of things can be blamed on it, but I don't think that slavery/history if one of them - as both the sheer number and % was far lower during the history you'd like to blame this on.

Where did try to blame out of wedlock birth rates on history? That makes no sense.

 

[RCon]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

Either:

- I'm reading the chart wrong.

- You're reading the chart wrong.

- I don't understand what statistic you're trying to convey.

What does the chart show, exactly?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Pretty sure the Public Enemy song "can't trust it" is about the plight of Irish immigrants.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

Either:

- I'm reading the chart wrong.

- You're reading the chart wrong.

- I don't understand what statistic you're trying to convey.

What does the chart show, exactly?

We went through this already. I interpreted the bolded to mean "rates of black kids being born to unwed mothers," which wasn't exactly what was said, and I apologized for the mistake.

 

[matttyl]

Moreover, if you go back another 25 years prior (75 years ago, 1940) you have a population of 12.9m. While your chart doesn't go back that far, lets just assume 65 births per 1k (seems reasonable from your chart, but I'll do two other calculations as well - one higher and one lower). 838,500 births that year - 16% out of wedlock or ~134,160 black children born out of wedlock in 1940. Roughly a 12 fold increase in 75 years. I picked 75 years ago as that's right at the half way point going backwards to the end of the Civil War.

Had the birthrate at that time been 100 (very high) you'd have 1.29m births that year, and ~200k of them would have been out of wedlock. Had the birthrate at that time been 50 (very low) you'd have 645k births, and just over 100k of them would have been out of wedlock. Either way were looking at a 7-15 fold increase in 75 years. Lots of things can be blamed on it, but I don't think that slavery/history if one of them - as both the sheer number and % was far lower during the history you'd like to blame this on.

Where did try to blame out of wedlock birth rates on history? That makes no sense.

Here, here, here, and here (that was was yours, and not to put words in your mouth - you were likely defending far more than just the out of wedlock births brought up by The Big Guy's questions - but the heading of the article is "Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy.").

Those posts are literally what started the whole "I bet there were more ....50 years ago" conversation that we're still having here.