INEQUALITY PART TWO

One issue that has been discussed in this blog is "our" responsibility to our poor citizens. And, in case of the disproportionately poor African American kids, to right past wrongs as much as we can. Not because we are humanitarians, empathetic, or whatever, but because we think it will make our country stronger. It just might also help us live up to the ideals of "equality" (i.e., "colorblindness") pushed by Lincoln and Dr. King and achieve a state of diminished discrimination that can help us with future issues.

Mostly, we should HATE to see a group of children suffer (disproportionately), or grow up in an environment that lacks the hope of going to college, joining NASA, or becoming the President. This blog is all about our children, which should be our primary concern.

Our world is not perfect (or our country for that matter) and this is okay. Our suffering is probably an important element of our existence, growth. [After all, the world might be "bland" if we all had the perfect life; and if we all had the perfect life, then would any of us have the perfect live? Don't we need our differences to experience meaning? Maybe it is only through our differences that we can experience our compassion, empathy, or spirituality? A topic for another day. . .]

That being said, when the poverty rate of African American children is 3 TIMES the rate of White-American children then something HAS to been done to give these kids more opportunities.

Things will not get better overnight, but we should make some effort to see improvement in the living standards of all our kids each year. If we are a compassionate society, then the welfare of all our young citizens must be a priority (and balanced with our goal to be an economic power -- which I think drives our border policy and directly benefits the rich, top 1% at the expense of many poor kids).


2005 Census on poverty:

". . . Poverty rates remained statistically unchanged for Blacks (24.9 percent) and Hispanics (21.8 percent) between 2004 and 2005. The poverty rate decreased for non-Hispanic Whites (8.3 percent in 2005, down from 8.7 percent in 2004). . ."

These (nation wide) numbers jumped out at me; specifically that the African American number is greater than the Latino number. If illegal immigration is really benefiting African American kids, families, then I would have thought that these numbers should have been reversed; not to mention that a large portion of Latinos are new immigrants with low paying jobs.

Maybe we should only consider the Southern States? In California, we have several factors that seem to be negatively impacting African American kids -- including poor schools, too many Mexican drugs, increasing health care costs, high unemployment rates & crime levels, and reduced UC admits to name a few. Nonetheless, the African American (nation wide) numbers seem to be improving, which is good news.

As I have discussed before, I do wonder how many "well" paying jobs (such as construction jobs here in California) are going to illegal immigrants, and what percentage of these jobs are complying with the relevant tax, social security, and accounting laws. I know (first hand) that in California some companies are illegally characterizing their immigrant employees as "independent contractors." [I think the numbers of all of the Southern States would need to be looked at separately to get a better understanding of the differential for all of the associated "II" issues.]

Here are the stats per race. Notice that in 1990, the population of Latinos in the USA was 21 million and the poverty rate was 28 percent. In 2005, the population was 43 million and the poverty rate was 22 percent. These numbers include the illegal immigrants of around 12 million with low paying jobs; but the poverty rate improved 6 percent? Confusing? Interesting?

In 1990, the population of African Americans in the USA was 31 million and the poverty rate was 32 percent. Wow! In 2005, the population was 37 million and the poverty rate was 25 percent. An improvement of 7 percent (with much thanks to Clinton's administration). This is good!

P.S. What is the deal with the Census and their "White" and "White, Not Hispanic"? Basically, the Census includes Latinos in the White American numbers and at times separates them. Very confusing!

Here are the historical rates for non-citizens. Interesting.


More stuff . . .


According to the UCs:

In 1997, 1400 (or 3.8%) of the admits were African American. For Latinos (and Chicanos) the numbers were 5500 (or 14.3%).

I know that the UCs consider illegal immigrants to be residents for admission purposes as long as they have lived in the State for a few years, etc. Not sure when the law passed though (around '97 or later?). I think this law has had a real negative impact on African American admissions at the end of the day. This is especially true when you consider the "top 4 percent" policy of the UCs enacted in 2000/2001. The African American numbers have been reducing as they now have to compete with local illegal immigrants for spots. I consider this an issue, but not everyone does and that is okay.

In 2006, 1900 (or 3.4%) of the admits were African American. For Latinos (and Chicanos) the admits were 6000 (or 16%).

In 2006, 1100 (or 3%) of the "accepts" were African American. Only 1100 in State African Americans accept! Wow! At UCLA, the number was around 300! This is low. [In 1997 the percent was 3.8 percent. The percent has reduced by 26%!!! Am I the only one that thinks this is a problem?] For Latinos (and Chicanos) the "accepts" were 9700 (or 17.6%).

Again, I wonder if illegal immigration is really benefiting African American kids living in California? This is still a work in progress.


Here are some more (nation wide) stats:

". . . In 2000, 79 percent of African Americans age 25 and over had completed at least high school [--] a record high. Among those ages 25 to 29, however, a much higher percentage of African Americans had attained at least a high school diploma (86 percent). . ."

". . . The 1999 poverty rate for African Americans, 23.6 percent, was the lowest ever measured by the Census Bureau, and about 700,000 fewer African Americans were poor in 1999 (8.4 million) than in 1998 (9.1 million). . ."

". . . The 1999 median income for African American households, $27,910, was the highest ever recorded. . ."

These each sound good.


Some more:

". . . In 2000, there were 8.7 million African American families. About two-thirds of blacks and non-Hispanic whites lived in family households, but only 48 percent of black households were married couple households, compared with 83 percent for non-Hispanic whites. . .

Twelve percent of African Americans lived in households of five or more, compared with eight percent of non-Hispanic whites and 23 percent of other minorities. . .

Blacks were slightly more like[ly] than whites and more likely than other minorities to live alone; 28 percent of blacks and 27 percent of non-Hispanic whites lived alone, compared with 16 percent of other minorities in 2000. . ."

". . . Seventeen million blacks were in the labor force in November 2001, representing about 11.7 percent of the American civil labor force. Blacks 20 years and older have slightly lower labor force participation rates than whites (65% versus 67%). African American women have the highest labor force participation rate for women of any racial group: 66 versus 60 percent for whites. . ."

". . . In 2000, the median income for blacks, $30,439, was the highest ever recorded, and the 22 percent poverty rate was the lowest ever recorded by the Census Bureau. African Americans were slightly more likely than Hispanics to live in poverty, yet lagged far behind the 7.5 percent rate for non-Hispanic Whites. . ."


During Clinton:

". . . The African-American unemployment rate has fallen from an average of 14.2 percent in 1992 to an average of 7.7 percent in 2000 – the lowest rate on record. . ."