Well, you got me interested in reading more of the sources I found and I see that the one I gave above is an opinion piece trying to refute the reasons for Affirmative Action.
Since you have to make a jump from Aff Action to the exact topic of this thread, let me just say here that the reasons relating to how Affirmative Action is intended to reach a point where it is no longer needed bear on why there’s a race income gap. Aff Action just hasn’t gotten there quite yet, and the historical factors for it still influence the picture today.
Another potential factor for the fact that even controlling for income and education Blacks tend to invest less … a higher income Black couple is statistically more likely to have extended family that is not doing as well rather than to be from an extended family all of whom were given the opportunities of higher education and job advancements. I don’t think I am out of bounds to state that culturally helping out extended family is a cultural value strong in many portions of Black American society and after helping extended family that needs help there is a bit less to put away in the retirement funds.
In terms of the b-w intergenerational income mobility this is largely explained by cognitive skills in adolescence. Hispanic test scores also lag whites and Asians, so that explanation also applies for that disparity too?
They still do :rolleyes: back at cha. If you want to consider them aberrant and take them out, do, but so long as they’re kept in the data’s median, mean and mode will be different than with them in.
If Debopam Bhattacharya & Bhashkar Mazumderare right and cognitive skills in adolescence explain a large portion of the discrepancy in intergenerational income mobility, then it doesn’t matter whether Hispanics are white or not. You can look at their academic outcomes - they lag Europeans and Asians by quite a way, even controlling for parental income and education.
Incidentally, as usual, the pseudo-scientific crap depends on missing the point of the paper they claim supports that crap, in the paper he cites the authors report that access to health care and better early environment and support show the potential for policy to address the sharp black–white differences in upward mobility highlighted in their paper, point being that economical and environmental factors are still there. And they point at other research to show that, like this one:
What a surprise, this is example #239 of “race realist” pseudo scientists that cherry pick scientific papers that do not really deal with what they claim.
Given that sample sizes were about 500 each the odds of any of those 442 getting in the survey were pretty low. And given that the mean incomes were 107K for Blacks and 119K for Whites (medians 82K and 94K respectively) it is clear that the rare extreme outliers were not in the sample.
George Sanchez has a book, “Becoming Mexican American” that helps explain at least some of this. In his book, he finds that many Mexican Americans in East Los Angeles in early twentieth century L.A. owned their own homes - rather than rent like many urban residents. Many families often built their own homes on tiny plots. Unfortunately, these properties gained little value and were not very marketable, as they were substandard or “improvised” homes in a devalued area, so families did not gain much equity - whereas other parts of Los Angeles saw ordinary orange farmers become millionaires in property booms during the early twentieth century. Residential segregation takes a huge toll.
I don’t think you are using standard definitions of median and mode.
Adding billionaires to a survey would simply push the numbers down by the number of people that were interviewed.
10Billion
8Billion
…
$37,211
$37,026
$36,982
$36,901
$36,871
If you had 2 billionaires with 999 people surveyed - removing them wouldn’t change things much - you would move down 2 whopping places in the list. In reality - if the survey is large - it wouldn’t change things at all - as people tend to report in round numbers - and when you get down that far to the median - you will most likely be looking at duplicates.
A mode wouldn’t change things at all - no matter how you did it - unless they are reporting people with billion dollar networths - and multiple ones happen to have the exact same networth.
Obviously, the genotypic g gaps can largely explain the income ones. But the net worth gaps look to be an order of magnitude larger than the income ones. The relation can’t simply be direct.
