Bush Tells Blacks, 'I'm Here to Ask for Your Vote' - Page 7

Undertoad · 07-27-2004, 01:01 PM

I thought this was important so I went to the US Census Bureau table on mean income over time against race to get mean incomes for whites and blacks from 1948-2001 (in fixed 2001 dollars). Then I created a graph of it.

Conclusion: there is still a very large gap in income. However, percentage-wise, blacks ARE catching up. White income was about 100% higher than black income in 1948 and now is about 30% higher.

I also learned, in browsing around the tables at the census bureau, that in 2001 white women and black women's mean income was about the SAME. !!!

Troubleshooter · 07-27-2004, 01:30 PM

Rather illuminating.

Thanks for the extra effort. Graphs can be a bitch.

Happy Monkey · 07-27-2004, 01:32 PM

(Fixed 2001 dollars means adjusted for inflation, right?)

Wierd. An almost fixed difference of $7500 the whole way down. I wonder what accounts for something that constant.

Troubleshooter · 07-27-2004, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

(Fixed 2001 dollars means adjusted for inflation, right?)

Wierd. An almost fixed difference of $7500 the whole way down. I wonder what accounts for something that constant.

Correlation can be hard to find sometimes. The trick is to avoid attribution, or spurious correlation, under those conditions.

And I agree, weird.

Beestie · 07-27-2004, 01:43 PM

Those lines just seem too similar to me. Every wave and crest. I can't bring myselft to believe that blacks were doing that well relative to whites pre 1950. The $7,500 gap today seems believable but in 1950? That's almost laughable. Not questioning UT's work but the data itself.

Happy Monkey · 07-27-2004, 01:48 PM

You don't think they were making half salary on average, pre 1950? There were (and still are) a lot of poor whites to balance out the rich elites, and the number is mean salary, not average, so the robber barrons don't throw the number off too much.

lookout123 · 07-27-2004, 01:53 PM

thanks for that effort UT. good job.

Undertoad · 07-27-2004, 01:57 PM

It is adjusted for inflation, so the real numbers in 1950 were more like $2000 vs $1000.

DanaC · 07-27-2004, 02:51 PM

Yeah, thanks for that UT that's very interesting

07-27-2004, 01:30 PM	#92
Troubleshooter The urban Jane Goodall Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 3,012	Rather illuminating. Thanks for the extra effort. Graphs can be a bitch. __________________ I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

07-27-2004, 01:32 PM	#93
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	(Fixed 2001 dollars means adjusted for inflation, right?) Wierd. An almost fixed difference of $7500 the whole way down. I wonder what accounts for something that constant. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

07-27-2004, 01:43 PM	#95
Beestie -◊\|≡·∙■·∙≡\|◊- Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Parts unknown. Posts: 4,081	Those lines just seem too similar to me. Every wave and crest. I can't bring myselft to believe that blacks were doing that well relative to whites pre 1950. The $7,500 gap today seems believable but in 1950? That's almost laughable. Not questioning UT's work but the data itself. __________________ ♠ ♥ ♣ ♦

07-27-2004, 01:48 PM	#96
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	You don't think they were making half salary on average, pre 1950? There were (and still are) a lot of poor whites to balance out the rich elites, and the number is mean salary, not average, so the robber barrons don't throw the number off too much. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

07-27-2004, 01:53 PM	#97
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	thanks for that effort UT. good job. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

07-27-2004, 01:01 PM	#91
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	I thought this was important so I went to the US Census Bureau table on mean income over time against race to get mean incomes for whites and blacks from 1948-2001 (in fixed 2001 dollars). Then I created a graph of it. Conclusion: there is still a very large gap in income. However, percentage-wise, blacks ARE catching up. White income was about 100% higher than black income in 1948 and now is about 30% higher. I also learned, in browsing around the tables at the census bureau, that in 2001 white women and black women's mean income was about the SAME. !!!

07-27-2004, 01:57 PM	#98
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	It is adjusted for inflation, so the real numbers in 1950 were more like $2000 vs $1000.

07-27-2004, 02:51 PM	#99
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Yeah, thanks for that UT that's very interesting

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)