Jump to content





Photo
* * * * - 6 votes

Obama pulls a Bill Cosby


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
440 replies to this topic

#349 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,959
  • Reputation: 3,472
HUDDLER

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:40 AM

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....dfs/foc121e.pdf



#350 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,959
  • Reputation: 3,472
HUDDLER

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:42 AM

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. 

 

 

 



#351 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 20,088
  • Reputation: 14,961
MFCEO

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:48 AM

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....dfs/foc121e.pdf

 

Interesting read, thanks!



#352 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 20,088
  • Reputation: 14,961
MFCEO

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:51 AM

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



#353 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,959
  • Reputation: 3,472
HUDDLER

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:55 AM

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

Yeah

#354 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,155
  • Reputation: 2,343
HUDDLER

Posted 24 May 2013 - 12:40 PM

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



#355 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,155
  • Reputation: 2,343
HUDDLER

Posted 24 May 2013 - 12:41 PM

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



#356 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,155
  • Reputation: 2,343
HUDDLER

Posted 24 May 2013 - 12:46 PM

 

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: http://www.carolinah...19#entry2240725

 

Godspin's Quote: http://www.carolinah...osby/?p=2241273

 

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

 



#357 Chimera

Chimera

    Not Bant

  • Joined: 11-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,035
  • Reputation: 2,874
HUDDLER

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:00 PM

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/...e-state-crime-0

#358 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,959
  • Reputation: 3,472
HUDDLER

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:08 PM

 

 

 

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: http://www.carolinah...19#entry2240725

 

Godspin's Quote: http://www.carolinah...osby/?p=2241273

 

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.



#359 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • Joined: 24-April 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,561
  • Reputation: 3,628
HUDDLER

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:11 PM

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.

#360 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,155
  • Reputation: 2,343
HUDDLER

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:27 PM

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.