Median net worth for single black women: $5

[Kimstu]

@Todderbob

Being poor constitutes a serious disadvantage for the poorer groups, did you really need a study to tell you that?

If you think that having lower net wealth (i.e., being poorer) does indeed constitute a serious disadvantage, then why did you say the following just a couple posts ago?

@Todderbob

First, let me point out that measuring based on Net Worth is silly because having a net worth of $0 can actually put someone in a better position, both financially and in happiness than having a net worth of $30,000.

First you say that it’s silly to compare net worth of different groups because net worth isn’t necessarily an indicator of financial or life-quality advantage. Then you turn around and say that it’s obvious that net worth is an indicator of advantage. Which do you mean?

@Todderbob

we don’t – or shouldn’t – target ethnicities to “uplift” their wealth, we should target poor people.

Sure, but if poverty correlates strongly with racial category, it seems like common sense to examine the correlation and see what the differences are between racial groups. After all, there are different cultural factors affecting different groups, and cultural factors have an impact on the success of “uplift” programs.

@Todderbob

Also, as for my “specialized” scenario, I’d wager it’s not as specialized as you might think.

Do you have a cite for how frequently it occurs? Because it’s clearly not the norm for higher-income people to have lower net worth than lower-income people. We see that from the data in the study, which shows that (with the exception of women 18-35) higher-income racial groups have higher median net worth than corresponding lower-income groups.

[Todderbob]

@Kimstu

If you think that having lower net wealth (i.e., being poorer) does indeed constitute a serious disadvantage, then why did you say the following just a couple posts ago?

I said being poor, not having a low net wealth, was a disadvantage.

@Kimstu

First you say that it’s silly to compare net worth of different groups because net worth isn’t necessarily an indicator of financial or life-quality advantage. Then you turn around and say that it’s obvious that net worth is an indicator of advantage. Which do you mean?

Net Worth isn’t an indicator, it’s a distraction. Especially median, in my opinion. Median income very rarely accurately reflects ‘average’ in the sense of the word it’s typically used (which is normally mean or mode).

Specifically, I mean that having less disposable income is a disadvantage, regardless of your net worth.

@Kimstu

Sure, but if poverty correlates strongly with racial category, it seems like common sense to examine the correlation and see what the differences are between racial groups. After all, there are different cultural factors affecting different groups, and cultural factors have an impact on the success of “uplift” programs.

I don’t think that “cultural factors” need to be targeted in the way you apparently do. The culture, at least part of the culture, that leads to situations like this is simple: Irresponsibility.

Train people to have protected sex, rather than unprotected, provide the pill at discounted rates, or even free, to those who can’t afford it. Encourage familial structures of a more traditional nature (Mother, Father, Children) via taxation incentives and invest in youth and community reclaimation projects, and it’s my firm belief that the problem you’re thinking of targeting simply evaporates.

We are more a product of our environment than anything else. If you want to talk about culture, that’s one thing, but you’re not – You’re talking about race. Are you telling me that a Southern Louisiana Baptist single black woman from the swamp is culturally comparable to a Detroit born and bred single black woman from the “projects”?

@Kimstu

Do you have a cite for how frequently it occurs? Because it’s clearly not the norm for higher-income people to have lower net worth than lower-income people. We see that from the data in the study, which shows that (with the exception of women 18-35) higher-income racial groups have higher median net worth than corresponding lower-income groups.

Frankly, I didn’t look at the study’s numbers, I skipped all of that after I saw the methodology used (what, at least I’m honest about it) to get the “average”.

[even_sven]

Here is something to think about.

Maybe having children out of wedlock isn’t that bad.

After all, millions of women are choosing to do that, despite some pretty intense disincentives. Despite knowing that it will have a huge adverse effect on family income, people still have kids when they are not in a favorable financial position.

Why? I’m not sure. But it happens.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll stick to it: people are not stupid. People do not make the choices they make for no reason. In general, people do what they feel is right at the time. They may be wrong. They may be short-sighted. But in general, people do what they think is the best thing to do.

So to address singe parenthood, we need to address the underlaying cause. Why are people making this choice? We might also consider something kind of shocking- we might try to make the effects of this choice less harmful. We do this in other situations. For example, going to university directly out of college often means taking on huge amounts of debt. Because of this, we offer low-interest loans to students. It’d take some imagine, but maybe there are things that we can do as a society to make things a little easier for single mothers.

[Kimstu]

@Todderbob

Net Worth isn’t an indicator, it’s a distraction.

From what? Are you claiming that we should study poverty by focusing exclusively on income and ignore net worth entirely as a mere “distraction”? That seems foolish. Why shouldn’t we take into account all the available data?

@Todderbob

Median income very rarely accurately reflects ‘average’ in the sense of the word it’s typically used (which is normally mean or mode).

Why should median be expected to accurately reflect mean or mode? I don’t think there’s any confusion about the term “median” here in this thread, and there’s certainly none in the study: the median net worth for some group is lower than the net worth of half the individuals in the group and higher than the net worth of the other half.

The median as an indicator is certainly in some ways more useful than the mean is, in the sense of being closer to the typical experience of members of the group, since the mean can be skewed by a small number of very high or very low values.

@Todderbob

I don’t think that “cultural factors” need to be targeted in the way you apparently do. The culture, at least part of the culture, that leads to situations like this is simple: Irresponsibility.

Train people to have protected sex, rather than unprotected, provide the pill at discounted rates, or even free, to those who can’t afford it. Encourage familial structures of a more traditional nature (Mother, Father, Children) via taxation incentives and invest in youth and community reclaimation projects, and it’s my firm belief that the problem you’re thinking of targeting simply evaporates.

We are more a product of our environment than anything else. If you want to talk about culture, that’s one thing, but you’re not – You’re talking about race.

But as I said, race and culture overlap to some extent. All the remediation measures you’re proposing here target behaviors and social structure that are strongly influenced by culture. So cultural factors help determine how effective those measures will be.

For instance, the likelihood of a low-income single woman’s getting pregnant differs according to various cultural factors, including her racial background. So the importance and the difficulty of “training people to have protected sex”, as you put it, would differ likewise.

While I agree it would be a bad idea to make socioeconomic policy based only on racial categories, it doesn’t seem reasonable to dismiss race as completely irrelevant.

@even sven

Maybe having children out of wedlock isn’t that bad.

After all, millions of women are choosing to do that, despite some pretty intense disincentives. Despite knowing that it will have a huge adverse effect on family income, people still have kids when they are not in a favorable financial position.

Why? I’m not sure. But it happens.

Well for one thing, as the study notes, many lower-income black women spend a much higher proportion of their incomes on helping friends and family members than other groups of people do. To some extent, this might be what’s sometimes called a “heart equity” investment: instead of saving up your money for yourself, you spend it in taking care of the people around you, and later when you need help, those people take care of you. The custom seems to act as a sort of local social safety net.

And by that reasoning, having kids when you’re young and poor is a somewhat better strategy than it might seem, since although you’re spending all your income caring for your kids, the idea is that when you’re older they’ll spend to care for you.

[ShibbOleth]

I don’t think Ms Lui helps her case with an unsupportable assertion and an essential call for support which will probably get labeled as socialism:

“If wealth was based on hard work, African-Americans would be the wealthiest people in our nation,” she said. "It’s not about behavior. It’s about government policies. Who does the government help and who is it not helping?

“Our government knows how to build wealth for people. They’ve done it for others and they can do it for all of us. They need to focus some attention on women of color. Look at the situation and see what we need.”

It’s about social behaviors. If every kid born in America started with the same opportunities, but the child isn’t raised and educated in a situation that reinforces fiscally responsible behaviors, you’re still going to end up with the same picture after a while. It is absolutely about behavior, although probably not about the behavior she’s thinking about.

[Rand_Rover]

To build on the comments above about income and net worth–most people’s most valuable asset is their ability to work (I know mine is). If someone has a skill worth $50k a year, and they can work for another 30 years, that’s a lot like owning an annuity paying that amount (with adjustments for potential to lose the ability to work and expected periods of unemployment). You can determine the value of that annuity simply using the NPV function in excel. But studies such as the one quoted in the OP typically don’t take such assets into account.

Also, I suppose that if such assets were taken into account, then certain liabilities should also be taken into account, such as the cost to raise a kid to 18, etc.

The larger point is that “net worth” is not some objectively measurable personal attribute like height or weight–the measurer must decide what to include or exclude.

[Shodan]

@even sven

Maybe having children out of wedlock isn’t that bad.

Maybe smoking cigarettes isn’t so bad, and we should be focusing on ways to treat lung cancer so that being a smoker is easier.

Regards,
Shodan

[DCnDC]

@Shodan

Maybe smoking cigarettes isn’t so bad, and we should be focusing on ways to treat lung cancer so that being a smoker is easier.

I got $5 on that!

[StusBlues]

@Rand_Rover

Well, someone’s gotta be at the bottom of the pile. If it weren’t single black women, it would be someone else, and then we could have a thread speculating about the reasons why they are on the bottom.

I guess I just see the results of this study as a statistical artifact (i.e., that’s just how the numbers shake out) and not really worthy of thinking a whole lot about.

This is probably the most elegant summation of objectivist social conscience I have ever read. Thank you.

[LonghornDave]

@Rand_Rover

To build on the comments above about income and net worth–most people’s most valuable asset is their ability to work (I know mine is). If someone has a skill worth $50k a year, and they can work for another 30 years, that’s a lot like owning an annuity paying that amount (with adjustments for potential to lose the ability to work and expected periods of unemployment). You can determine the value of that annuity simply using the NPV function in excel. But studies such as the one quoted in the OP typically don’t take such assets into account.

That would be an intangible asset.

@Rand_Rover

The larger point is that “net worth” is not some objectively measurable personal attribute like height or weight–the measurer must decide what to include or exclude.

Actually it is an objectively measurable attribute like height or weight. You simply value the tangible assets and liabilities as of a certain date. Or are you saying that height isn’t objectively measurable either since it doesn’t take into account your future growing or shrinking potential?

[dre2xl]

@Rand_Rover

Well, someone’s gotta be at the bottom of the pile. If it weren’t single black women, it would be someone else, and then we could have a thread speculating about the reasons why they are on the bottom.

I guess I just see the results of this study as a statistical artifact (i.e., that’s just how the numbers shake out) and not really worthy of thinking a whole lot about.

You do a much better job of promoting socialism than all the liberals in the GD combined. :mad:

[Malthus]

Would it be correct to say that net worth is something like a surrogate marker for financial health?

[elucidator]

@dre2xl

You do a much better job of promoting socialism than all the liberals in the GD combined. :mad:

You had to tell him! Couldn’t just keep your big mouth shut!

[LonghornDave]

@Todderbob

First, let me point out that measuring based on Net Worth is silly because having a net worth of $0 can actually put someone in a better position, both financially and in happiness than having a net worth of $30,000.

Measuring by net worth is by no means silly. Maybe you should say that measuring solely by net worth doesn’t provide a complete picture and can be misleading in certain cases. Measuring by income also doesn’t provide anywhere close to a complete picture. Warren Buffet’s salary is $100,000. Obviously judging him by his income doesn’t make much sense.

@Todderbob

Person A: has no job, owns a house in the slums and collects welfare. Their house is valued at a whopping $30,000.

Person B: has a job making $120,000/yr, a mortgage (for $320,000) on a $300,000 house, a new Accord for himself (which is valued at $20,000, but he has $24,000 in payments) and a new [insert girly sports car] for the wife (which he also owes 2,000 more than true value on the car).
Who would you say is better off? Person A, or Person B? Before we broke the stats down, Person A looked a whole lot better, but Person B is actually far better off (at least, as long as they keep their job) all around, even considering the fact that Person B has as much negative equity as Person A has Positive.

The problem with your example is that Person B is really only well off if they are young and just starting their career. I mean if they are 70 years old then they are pretty screwed; if they are 25 then they are in fine shape. The valuable thing about using net worth is that it demonstrates what a person has accumulated during their career. Further, it is highly useful in determining how well a person can handle an emergency. As you said, if Person B loses their job then they are pretty screwed with no liquidity and a mountain of debt.

[md2000]

“Five bucks - same as in town…”

The trouble with statistics is they don’t necessarily tell the whole story - the average person, for example, has one breast and one testicle.

If the major asset that is being measured is essentially retirement savings and house equity, then of course lower clas single women who have to spend all their money raising their child(ren) will not build up much. Add in the whole early pregnancy-dropuout-poor income trap, and their chances get worse. Few will have an opportunity to buy a house, even in the lax credit market 3 years ago.

the other problem is that US tax code encourages people to mortgage what housing assets they have instead of paying it down; so the asset-to-debt level of even well-off middle class people is likely to be poor.

Net worth is a measure of fiscal prudence, but not necessarily of lifestyle. As pointed out, a well-off high-income but heavily leveraged person is living a much better lifestyle than a poor person, though they may have a worse net worth. What they ARE, is more precariously positioned when it comes to problems like layoffs and recessions.

I’m thinking about income/debt ratios, (not net) assets to income ratios, disposable income, or anything as a good indicator of how to measure “well off”. Whatever measure you use, low income single mothers are likely to be near the bottom of the heap.

Why do they do it then? If you look ahead and see nothing for yourself except decades as a welfare mom or burger flipper, no matter how hard you work, where’s the incentive to abstain and wait? At least you’ll have your kids that nobody can take from you. Once you have them, the government gives you all kinds of financial support that wouldn’t be there otherwise.

[Rand_Rover]

@StusBlues

This is probably the most elegant summation of objectivist social conscience I have ever read. Thank you.

I care about equality of opportunity and don’t give a shit about equality of outcome (except to the extent that unequal outcomes show a possibility of unequal opportunity that merits further analysis). If that means I have no “social conscience” IYHO, then I’m OK with that.

[Rand_Rover]

@dre2xl

You do a much better job of promoting socialism than all the liberals in the GD combined. :mad:

:rolleyes:

The opposite is also true. I think they all do a really good job of showing the merits of my way of thinking.

[LonghornDave]

@Todderbob

Especially median, in my opinion. Median income very rarely accurately reflects ‘average’ in the sense of the word it’s typically used (which is normally mean or mode).

You seriously think that the statistical mode would be a better average than median? I’m thinking that the mode would probably be incredibly meaningless in a sample of people’s net worth. How many repeat values are there even going to be? You might not get a single repeat net worth in a sample of 1,000. Also, the mean can be significantly impacted by outliers. Which would you say is the most appropriate average to look at in this sample of people’s net worths?

	($25)
	($24)
	($23)
	($22)
	($21)
	($20)
	($19)
	($18)
	($17)
	($16)
	($15)
	($14)
	$1,000 
	$1,000 
	$1,000,000 

Mean	$66,784 
Median	($18)
Mode	$1,000 

[Algher]

I would love to have the exact same stats with income as well, and an educational breakdown.

I was at negative wealth for awhile while I was paying off a private university. I had a small 401k, great income, an apartment (no value), and old cars (minimal blue book). I did not buy a house until I was 31.

18 - negative (university years, racking up debt like a fiend)
19 - negative (university years, racking up debt like a fiend)
20 - negative (university years, racking up debt like a fiend)
21 - negative (university years, racking up debt like a fiend)
22 - negative (university years, racking up debt like a fiend)
23 - negative - First job, small 401k, student debt
24 - negative - First job, small 401k, student debt
25 - negative - First job, small 401k, student debt, had a kid!
26 - negative - First job, small 401k, student debt
27 - positive - new job, growing 401k, nice stock market, undergrad paid off

After 27 I have been climbing in net worth. Dumped it all into a house in 2000, and have remained there. Never have borrowed for a car. I do have $50k in debt for an MBA, but that is counterbalanced thanks to growing equity in my home.

I would guess that our single black women with kids have minimal education (based on published averages), rent rather than own a home (stereotyping based on inner city - happy to be proven wrong), might have a car with payments, and due to poor work opportunities do not have a 401k plan. All of this adds up to a hand-to-mouth existence with no opportunity to build wealth.

I have an idea - lets make it real easy for them to borrow to buy a home so that they can build equity and get wealth!

Real issue is lack of education, lack of job opportunities, and the need to care for a child means that they never get off the treadmill of just living to be able to save and build. Better job training opportunities tied in with child care can help these women (and others) move ahead in their lives. This has to be tied in with better education on how much your life can go to hell when you have a kid without two parents to help pay for and raise it.

[BrainGlutton]

@Rand_Rover

Well, someone’s gotta be at the bottom of the pile. If it weren’t single black women, it would be someone else, and then we could have a thread speculating about the reasons why they are on the bottom.

I guess I just see the results of this study as a statistical artifact (i.e., that’s just how the numbers shake out) and not really worthy of thinking a whole lot about.

It would be worth thinking a whole lot about no matter who were on the bottom of the pile. The shape and composition of the pile is one of the most important facts about American society. (The shape and composition of the pile is analyzed graphically, BTW, in The American Profile Poster, a copy of which should be on the wall of every American-history classroom and every social-studies classroom in every school in America.)