Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 139 posts

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#71

Post by mc32 »

btilly wrote: post #69
Snargorf wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, wealth inequality in the West was higher before World War One. They called it the 'gilded age' for a reason. It only got a lot more equal because WW1, the Depression, and WW2 combined destroyed most of the stuff the rich people had. Only recently has wealth inequality re-approached pre-WW1 levels. Source: Piketty.

It only got a lot more equal because WW1, the Depression, and WW2 combined destroyed most of the stuff the rich people had. Don't forget 92% marginal tax rates on income over $1 million/year. That was slashed to 72% under JFK. But regional inequality only took took off after it was slashed to 50% then to 28% by Reagan. Today the rich have lower tax rates than average Americans.

Was that 92% ever an effective rate of consequence? What kind of receipts did the treasury capture? Not that I'd be against that for the 2016 equiv in USD.

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#72

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #67
jamiequint wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did he edit his comment? He's obviously failing at reading comprehension, but I don't see how his comment is a political rant in any way. He's (incorrectly) pointing out Vox's bias in the way they present data. Personally, I also don't trust anything on Vox after they posted this debacle of statistics last year: http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-sta... which attempted to make a point on why gun…

It isn't just a question of that one comment. Even so, the amount of name-calling and froth in there qualifies it for rant status in my book. YMMV of course. I would hate to think that too, and we try our best to apply the rules evenly across political divides. Comments need to be civil and substantive; this one was neither, and our tolerance for someone breaking the guidelines goes down as the pattern of breaking th…

[deleted]

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#73

Post by benaiah »

dang wrote: post #67
jamiequint wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did he edit his comment? He's obviously failing at reading comprehension, but I don't see how his comment is a political rant in any way. He's (incorrectly) pointing out Vox's bias in the way they present data. Personally, I also don't trust anything on Vox after they posted this debacle of statistics last year: http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-sta... which attempted to make a point on why gun…

It isn't just a question of that one comment. Even so, the amount of name-calling and froth in there qualifies it for rant status in my book. YMMV of course. I would hate to think that too, and we try our best to apply the rules evenly across political divides. Comments need to be civil and substantive; this one was neither, and our tolerance for someone breaking the guidelines goes down as the pattern of breaking th…

Reading his previous comments, and considering the brief age of the account and the consistency of tone in the previous comments, I agree with your decision - I think people forget that the mods here are quite approachable and upfront when it comes to bans and ways to move forward from them.

Thanks dang, you’ve tangibly improved my opinion of both the comments here and their moderation since you’ve come on board.

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#74

Post by Snargorf »

btilly wrote: post #69
Snargorf wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, wealth inequality in the West was higher before World War One. They called it the 'gilded age' for a reason. It only got a lot more equal because WW1, the Depression, and WW2 combined destroyed most of the stuff the rich people had. Only recently has wealth inequality re-approached pre-WW1 levels. Source: Piketty.

It only got a lot more equal because WW1, the Depression, and WW2 combined destroyed most of the stuff the rich people had. Don't forget 92% marginal tax rates on income over $1 million/year. That was slashed to 72% under JFK. But regional inequality only took took off after it was slashed to 50% then to 28% by Reagan. Today the rich have lower tax rates than average Americans.

Those rates were basically fiction. All they led to (and the only reason they could be levied) was a huge system of fake on-paper money-losing schemes. People would arrange all sorts of business ventures and other schemes to appear to be losing money, and thus reduce their taxes.

The actual tax receipts as a percentage of income were very close to what they are today.

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#75

Post by hx87 »

benbenolson wrote: post #21
hx87 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a take-my-money-and-leave-me-alone libertarian who values time and mental effort much more than money, I would love to replace the existing hodgepodge of a welfare system in the US with UBI + single payer health insurance.

I'm the same as you, except that I'm still not convinced yet. The more that I see this idea being pushed, the more I'm convinced that people are going to want to add this to the list of the many government handouts, not replace them.

I'm okay with that, as long as the proportion of welfare distributed through UBI, as opposed to traditional welfare programs, goes up over time.

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#76

Post by ausjke »

Why blacks are not doing well?

Because they were from Africa, but new immigrants from Africa came to US earn a pretty decent life quickly than those have been here centuries ago.

Because they're minority, but other minorities such as the Jews and Asians are working hard and earning a decent life here.

Because of less chance to get education, but you have affirmative action that you can get into decent college at a huge discount as far as scores go. Also so many financial support for economically disadvantaged families.

Because of unfair tax system, election system... those seem not the key reason to me too.

I might be missing something else.

I think it's probably more of a culture thing, that favors education, hard working, loyal to family, etc. Without that, the civil rights law or various diversity initiatives can only help that much. The black community needs to address that gradually and it's the only way to fix the "poor neighborhood" for good.

In where I live, the elected democratic officers decided to bridge the poor community with "rich" community by building government-sponsored condos right next to or in the middle of up-middle-class communities,the result is that people move out and the house price drops, does not look like a right fix to me.

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#77

Post by dang »

zo1 wrote: post #50
dang wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've banned this account. Single-purpose accounts are not allowed on HN, especially when their single purpose is to post political rants. If you want to participate on HN in good faith, respecting the rules about civil, substantive discourse, you're welcome to email us at hn@ycombinator.com.

How do you know he doesn't intend on coming back tomorrow to post on another discussion?

We can't know that. Is there something you think we should do differently?

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#78

Post by H0n3sty »

ausjke wrote: post #76

Why blacks are not doing well? Because they were from Africa, but new immigrants from Africa came to US earn a pretty decent life quickly than those have been here centuries ago. Because they're minority, but other minorities such as the Jews and Asians are working hard and earning a decent life here. Because of less chance to get education, but you have affirmative action that you can get into decent college at a hu…

~11 million unauthorized immigrants as of 2014 (1)

Black labor participation rate at ~60% (2)

Black population in US at ~45M (3)

45M * (1 - 60%) = 18M

(1): http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-abou...

(2): http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/01/black-labor-force-pa...

(3): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_Unit...

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#80

Post by Timothee »

lacker wrote: post #55

Hmm, wait a moment. 59% of white kids moved up. 43% of white kids moved down. Even accounting for rounding, there's no way to get those numbers. It's even worse in other places: 25% of black kids had parents who grew up in the bottom two levels and moved up at least one. 78% of black kids had parents who grew up in the top three levels and moved down at least one. Those two groups should sum to less than 100%, certai…

That infographic and the text that goes with it could be made much clearer but your interpretation is not how it should be read. (as far as I can tell)

For one thing, as ASpring mentioned, the text about white kids were shortened, with the implication that the same sentence structure as for the black kids should be used. I'm assuming it was done to make the drawing easier to read (i.e. less text) but it certainly added confusion.

I.e. it reads "25% of black kids had parents who grew up in the bottom two levels and moved up at least one" and it should read "59% of white kids had parents who grew up in the bottom two levels and moved up at least one" instead of just "59% of white kids moved up".

As for "Those two groups should sum to less than 100%, certainly not 103%.", this is incorrect: the 25% refers to the kids who had parents in the bottom two levels, while the 78% refers to kids who had parents in the top three levels. Those are separate groups. (same for the number with white kids)

So, if you look at kids coming from the 40% poorest (unclear if it's overall or amongst white/black people), from 1955 to 1970, only 25% of the black kids moved up while 59% of the white kids moved up.

And if you look at kids coming from the 60% wealthiest, 78% of black kids moved down while 43% of white kids moved down.

In other words, poor black kids are more likely to grow up and stay poor than poor white kids. Rich black kids are more likely to grow up and become poorer than their parents than rich white kids.

To simplify a bit (not 100% accurate with the available data but close): regardless of poverty level when growing up, only 22 to 25% of black kids moved up (or stayed the same), while 57 to 59% of white kids did.

Post reply on HN