Live data from Hacker News

The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

vox.com

11–20 of 139 posts

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#11

This article is the biggest bunch of rubbish that I have read in months. It takes bias to whole new levels. People are starting to realize that "studies" are almost always biased in the first place and should not be trusted. Secondly, look at some of the examples used: A comparison is made between: > 25% of black kids had parents who grew up in the bottom two levels* and moved up at least one. and > 59% of white kids…

This is the problem with quoting studies and not understanding what the stats actually mean with their relation to each other. It happens a lot with the studies themselves, also, but is pretty prevalent in pundit style presentations.

I'll give an interesting example from my twitter feed: "State records show that [Mr. X](1) claimed that his combined income in 1978 and 1979 was negative $3.8 million, allowing him to pay no taxes. A few years earlier, he had told the NYT he was worth more than $200 million."

This is combining two factual statements with the intent to link them when the linkage is actually not there. People pay taxes on income not net worth(2). You spotted a stat that is closer, but actually still not directly comparable without further information and fixing the wording to indicate the same action in the same way.

This doesn't even add the cases where studies have different basic facts about the observed and people trying to tie them together in problematic ways.

Their starting wall example is also pretty foolish given the actual destruction of vibrant black neighborhoods in urban renewal projects starting with 1949 and the Housing Act. Why build a wall when you can take the land?

1) yeah yeah, we all know who the quote is about, but I have no wish to argue with BOTH sides again. 1800 here we come.

2) well, ok, there are some specific stuff, but its not really relevant to the setup.

Also, yes, the graphics are horrible to the point of having a minecraft / 8-bit fetish is getting in the way of actually indicating what the information is.

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#12
I can dig it.

Living in a bad neighborhood exposes you to an in-ideal living atmosphere. The people you are around influence you in many ways and one of those ways is the wrong way --not because people in the neighborhood want bad things for their brethren --but because their way of life and expectations impinge on the growth of the new young people in the neighborhood with respect to the wider society.

Also, it's worth noting that widening inequality is a global phenomenon but not only between people but amongst nations. The inequality between let's say Mexico and Finland was different back in 1910 and what it is now. The inequality between poor and rich in the US was also less in the US back in the early 1900s.

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#13
post #2

"Another popular left-wing idea is a universal basic income" UBI is not only supported by left-wingers.

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.

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#14
post #10
post #5

This looks like a pretty substantive article with an unfortunately infantilized presentation. Let's try to stick to the important content if we can.

I didn't get very far in the article. Having so many cartoons is like having a commercial break every 20 seconds.

I wouldn't mind if the cartoons were on the side. The chunking in this presentation is absolutely horrible. No ability to continue reading

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#15

This article is the biggest bunch of rubbish that I have read in months. It takes bias to whole new levels. People are starting to realize that "studies" are almost always biased in the first place and should not be trusted. Secondly, look at some of the examples used: A comparison is made between: > 25% of black kids had parents who grew up in the bottom two levels* and moved up at least one. and > 59% of white kids…

> Notice any difference here?

It's called an ellipsis. Here's the source:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpew...

"Figure 3 shows the prevalence of upward and downward economic mobility among blacks and whites, focusing on upward mobility from the bottom of the distribution (that is, among children raised in the lowest two quintiles of the income distribution) . . . Whereas 59 percent of whites raised in the lowest two quintiles are upwardly mobile from one generation to the next, only 25 percent of blacks experience upward mobility."

You are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. Please remove or edit your blatantly false statement.

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#16

This article is the biggest bunch of rubbish that I have read in months. It takes bias to whole new levels. People are starting to realize that "studies" are almost always biased in the first place and should not be trusted. Secondly, look at some of the examples used: A comparison is made between: > 25% of black kids had parents who grew up in the bottom two levels* and moved up at least one. and > 59% of white kids…

This is the problem with quoting studies and not understanding what the stats actually mean with their relation to each other. It happens a lot with the studies themselves, also, but is pretty prevalent in pundit style presentations. I'll give an interesting example from my twitter feed: "State records show that [Mr. X](1) claimed that his combined income in 1978 and 1979 was negative $3.8 million, allowing him to pa…

Please with draw your incorrect aspersions.

Your example is not the same as the OP article, that faithfully reproduces the source data at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpew...

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#17

This article is the biggest bunch of rubbish that I have read in months. It takes bias to whole new levels. People are starting to realize that "studies" are almost always biased in the first place and should not be trusted. Secondly, look at some of the examples used: A comparison is made between: > 25% of black kids had parents who grew up in the bottom two levels* and moved up at least one. and > 59% of white kids…

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.

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#18

This article is the biggest bunch of rubbish that I have read in months. It takes bias to whole new levels. People are starting to realize that "studies" are almost always biased in the first place and should not be trusted. Secondly, look at some of the examples used: A comparison is made between: > 25% of black kids had parents who grew up in the bottom two levels* and moved up at least one. and > 59% of white kids…

Here's the original study: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpew...

Figure 3 shows that 25% of black kids who had parents in the bottom two quintiles moved up at least one quintile, while 59% of white kids who had parents in the bottom two quintiles moved up at least one quintile.

The comparison is perfectly valid. Vox is guilty of both incorrect and imprecise wording here, but not deception.

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the problem with quoting studies and not understanding what the stats actually mean with their relation to each other. It happens a lot with the studies themselves, also, but is pretty prevalent in pundit style presentations. I'll give an interesting example from my twitter feed: "State records show that [Mr. X](1) claimed that his combined income in 1978 and 1979 was negative $3.8 million, allowing him to pa…

Please with draw your incorrect aspersions. Your example is not the same as the OP article, that faithfully reproduces the source data at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpew...

PoorBloke123 gave a fine example that I expanded on with an explanation of what typically happens. I then gave a recent example of the same thing one step farther. I don't really have time or any want to read the source other than to comment that I have always enjoyed the fact they know how to use their graphic art department properly. Since, its an urban study, my only real concern is people using it to prove things about rural areas which is the 3rd in line after the first two I expanded upon.

[edit - from the I really should be doing something else department] If you based all the data from figure 3 you miss quite a few quotes about "Overall, because of the uncertainty in the estimates, the patterns do not provide a precise answer as to whether neighborhood poverty plays a substantial role in explaining black-white gaps in upward and downward mobility, nor do they attempt to account for other factors that could be driving the results. The next set of analyses address these issues.". If I were writing a summary I would have started with the ending and worked backwards because the earlier stuff is about building their case.

Given that the following figures have a lot of comments about not enough study and lack of statistical significance quoting the earlier stuff without coaching it the same language is pretty poor reporting and lessens the conclusions and build-up that Pew was very methodological about. Pew did a really fine job of answering holes with further points on the way to their conclusions. It will be interesting to see who rebuts (there is always one) and with what reasoning.

In fact, taking the study and showing someone to compare it to the article would give an actually fine comparison between a well thought out and sober, easy to understand report and a 8-bit wonder with a shallow an uneven understanding of the source material.

Re: The effects of living in a poor neighborhood

#20
A highly one-sided presentation. Let me point out some issues: it makes major hay of Moving to Opportunity, but MTO is a notorious failure - it increased crime rates in targeted areas, and showed no improvements on anything until the cited Chetty paper managed to torture out of the data, just recently, improvements in only 1 subgroup on only a handful of metrics (which, aside from Vox misstating the Chetty results by implying it was all MTO participants, rather than one post hoc subgroup, contradicts the later experiment: the claimed effects do not remotely overlap); non-randomized moves are heavily confounded by upward mobility and human capital; many other studies like Swedish lottery studies and the land lottery natural experiment show that exogenous shocks of wealth do not produce meaningful improvements in things like health anywhere remotely close to the observed correlations of wealth/health; genetically informed family designs which account for heritability by looking at siblings differentially exposed or by looking at relatives tend to find that most 'poor neighborhood' effects are driven by genetic confounds; specific versions of the 'poor neighborhood' hypothesis tend to go down in flames when rigorously tested (most recently, the claim that schizophrenia is caused by bad neighborhoods, which everyone was sure about; polygenic scores for schizophrenia show that it is the other way around - schizophrenics and those vulnerable to schizophrenia drift to poor neighborhoods); in genetics studies, the correlation between wealthy parents and one's own SES turns out to be entirely genetically mediated; the parent/child IQ thing is differential regression to the mean; and so on. Many of the claims made in OP are naively causal and are guaranteed to be overestimated based simply on not including genetic relatedness. These are just the recent contrary studies I happen to remember offhand.

When you look at especially the recent genetic studies using polygenic scores from the GWASes to test environmental claims (eg Mendelian randomization), it's becoming increasingly clear: the slate is not blank and the sociology emperor has no clothes. I don't even know... what can be done about sociology? It is 2016 and every time I see a newspaper article or editorial invoking sociological results, it's totally wrong, and the sociologists quoted seem 100% committed to ignoring all the contrary evidence that not all differences are 100% due to environments. I mean... can you imagine seeing Vox cite a recent paper like "The Genetics of Success: How Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms Associated With Educational Attainment Relate to Life-Course Development" http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/05/26/095679761664... or a newspaper article on it (which didn't quote some scientists arguing that genetics research should be defunded or that the research is irrelevant)? That would be nice - society needs to come to grips with the confirmation of behavioral genetics. But it doesn't seem like it will happen anytime soon. It's all terribly frustrating.

Anyway, I didn't mean to rant or try to write an in depth carefully cited rebuttal, but I just wanted to say: it is not as simple as 'poor people are poor and unhealthy because of racism and poverty', and there is lots of high-quality evidence of this which tends to go undiscussed in liberal media outlets, so pieces like this are closer to advocacy than research popularization.

Post reply on HN