Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Zod

Obama pulls a Bill Cosby

441 posts in this topic

The question is this, forget race.

 

What happened in 1960 that caused the marriage rates of poorer americans to plummet. Whatever the answer, it effected black families disproportionately because more of their population was poor (probably due to racism/oppression/lack of opportunity). The poverty and oppression did not cause marriage rates to plummet, because those things were greater in the previous 70 years when marriage rates were higher. But something happened that was a catalyst. When added to the poverty it created an effect of a greater likelihood of single parenthood in poor people.

 

So it must have been something else that when added with poverty had a great effect on marriage rates. This is a societal question, not a racial one.

 

What happened in or around 1960 that made marriage rates free fall? Thats the real question.

 

chart_10_SocialMarriage.png

 

 

Here's a University of Wisconsin paper written by an assistant director of the Equal Opportunity division of the Rockefeller Foundation, that attempts to answer this question. The author posits that it's directly correlated towards the disproportionate urbanization of the black population and  the disproportionate amounts of marriagable men versus that of women, in the black community.

 

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc121e.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The paper was actually written almost 30 years ago, but his conclusion echoes pretty true. Last few sentences:

 

Serious family-formation problems among blacks began to emerge after World War 11, 

when black urbanization surpassed that of whites. I have 
speculated that the unprecedented economic uncertainty 
experienced by both upper-class and lower-class blacks over 
the last few decades is at the core of the family-formation 
problems of both groups. And because both groups function 
in the same marriage market, I believe the shortage of mar- 
riageable men relative to women and the hedging of bets by 
both men and women will likely contribute to a spiraling of 
family-formation problems over the near future. It is 
unlikely that these problems can be easily reversed, and they 
are likely to get worse without significant changes in eco- 
nomic circumstances. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a University of Wisconsin paper written by an assistant director of the Equal Opportunity division of the Rockefeller Foundation, that attempts to answer this question. The author posits that it's directly correlated towards the disproportionate urbanization of the black population and  the disproportionate amounts of marriagable men versus that of women, in the black community.

 

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc121e.pdf

 

Interesting read, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is he defining "urbanized"? More likely to live in a city?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is he defining "urbanized"? More likely to live in a city?

Yeah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Native Americans didn't sell their own to the highest bidder. Very distinct dif in the two.

 

Oh no, of course not, they just killed each other for money/power/whatever from white men.  Super huge difference.

 

edit: and what the fug I know you're just being dumb but damn it what does that have to do with this poo lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is this, forget race.

 

What happened in 1960 that caused the marriage rates of poorer americans to plummet. Whatever the answer, it effected black families disproportionately because more of their population was poor (probably due to racism/oppression/lack of opportunity). The poverty and oppression did not cause marriage rates to plummet, because those things were greater in the previous 70 years when marriage rates were higher. But something happened that was a catalyst. When added to the poverty it created an effect of a greater likelihood of single parenthood in poor people.

 

So it must have been something else that when added with poverty had a great effect on marriage rates. This is a societal question, not a racial one.

 

What happened in or around 1960 that made marriage rates free fall? Thats the real question.

 

chart_10_SocialMarriage.png

 

maybe:

US_incarceration_timeline.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The paper was actually written almost 30 years ago, but his conclusion echoes pretty true. Last few sentences:

 

Serious family-formation problems among blacks began to emerge after World War 11, 

when black urbanization surpassed that of whites. I have 
speculated that the unprecedented economic uncertainty 
experienced by both upper-class and lower-class blacks over 
the last few decades is at the core of the family-formation 
problems of both groups. And because both groups function 
in the same marriage market, I believe the shortage of mar- 
riageable men relative to women and the hedging of bets by 
both men and women will likely contribute to a spiraling of 
family-formation problems over the near future. It is 
unlikely that these problems can be easily reversed, and they 
are likely to get worse without significant changes in eco- 
nomic circumstances. 

 

 

Interesting read, thanks!

 

 

Not to be rude, but Zod, you realize you just said "interesting read" to the very paper you posted earlier in this thread?

 

And the very quote Floppin just pasted was the quote Godspin pasted a couple pages ago?

Zod's post of the article: 

 

Godspin's Quote:

 

Edit: tbh, threads like this make me wonder how the Tinderbox would go if we were all forced to post anonymously :P

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is this, forget race.

What happened in 1960 that caused the marriage rates of poorer americans to plummet. Whatever the answer, it effected black families disproportionately because more of their population was poor (probably due to racism/oppression/lack of opportunity). The poverty and oppression did not cause marriage rates to plummet, because those things were greater in the previous 70 years when marriage rates were higher. But something happened that was a catalyst. When added to the poverty it created an effect of a greater likelihood of single parenthood in poor people.

So it must have been something else that when added with poverty had a great effect on marriage rates. This is a societal question, not a racial one.

What happened in or around 1960 that made marriage rates free fall? Thats the real question.

chart_10_SocialMarriage.png

one factor, possibly:

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

The welfare culture tells the man he is not a necessary part of the family. They are in effect cuckolded by the state. Their role of father and breadwinner is supplanted by the welfare check.

http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/relationship-between-welfare-state-crime-0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Not to be rude, but Zod, you realize you just said "interesting read" to the very paper you posted earlier in this thread?

 

And the very quote Floppin just pasted was the quote Godspin pasted a couple pages ago?

Zod's post of the article: 

 

Godspin's Quote:

 

Edit: tbh, threads like this make me wonder how the Tinderbox would go if we were all forced to post anonymously :P

 

 

 

Heh, I didn't read the whole thread - I kind of just jumped back into it here on the last two pages after skipping the entire middle.  That doesn't, however, make this anymore hilarious. It looks like Zod may have been guilty of not reading the paper, that he quoted from, in its entirety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no, of course not, they just killed each other for money/power/whatever from white men. Super huge difference.

edit: and what the fug I know you're just being dumb but damn it what does that have to do with this poo lol

No. He really thinks he makes a good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, I didn't read the whole thread - I kind of just jumped back into it here on the last two pages after skipping the entire middle.  That doesn't, however, make this anymore hilarious. It looks like Zod may have been guilty of not reading the paper, that he quoted from, in its entirety.

 

Nah, what you did is really understandable.  I do it all the time.  What you found was relevant to the discussion, this thread is long, so easier just to post it and see if people have come across it yet if you come back to the thread after a few days.  I just found the situation amusing given the nature of this thread, etc... sorry if it seemed like me calling you out at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites