Comments on: Racial Wealth Gap Reaches Historic Levels http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/07/racial-wealth-gap-reaches-historic-levels/ Race, Class, The District. Mon, 16 Jul 2012 03:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Justin http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/07/racial-wealth-gap-reaches-historic-levels/#comment-728 Justin Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:58:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=9088#comment-728 Akira, I am not sure what a "Second-year mathematician" is supposed to mean. But if by this you mean that this is only your second year learning math, well, your comment would back that up. Yes, the absolute difference has reduced but the only people who would cite absolute difference are those who have a political ax to grind and who take a very simplistic view at math. (I  bet you support a flat tax don't you?) You say "it's all relative" and yes this is true. This is EXACTLY why people who understand statistics and math use relativistic figures like ratios. Also, aside from your math, you may want to check your reading comprehension as well. The study references income MEDIANS. "Why?" you ask. Because taking median incomes acts to negate the effects that outliers might have in skewing figures. I bring this up because you felt the need to point out that rich whites and Asians would  "skew the results here dramatically" ) Akira, I am not sure what a “Second-year mathematician” is supposed to mean. But if by this you mean that this is only your second year learning math, well, your comment would back that up.

Yes, the absolute difference has reduced but the only people who would cite absolute difference are those who have a political ax to grind and who take a very simplistic view at math. (I  bet you support a flat tax don’t you?)

You say “it’s all relative” and yes this is true. This is EXACTLY why people who understand statistics and math use relativistic figures like ratios.

Also, aside from your math, you may want to check your reading comprehension as well. The study references income MEDIANS. “Why?” you ask. Because taking median incomes acts to negate the effects that outliers might have in skewing figures. I bring this up because you felt the need to point out that rich whites and Asians would  “skew the results here dramatically” )

]]>
By: Jes1984 http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/07/racial-wealth-gap-reaches-historic-levels/#comment-727 Jes1984 Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:35:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=9088#comment-727 Everything you said is contradictory.  You present absolute differences and then you conclude by saying that is all relative.   Actually, it is relative...while whites only lost 6% of their wealth, blacks lost of 50%.  These percentages have vastly different impacts on people's lifestyles...whatever the absolute value of the difference. Everything you said is contradictory.  You present absolute differences and then you conclude by saying that is all relative.   Actually, it is relative…while whites only lost 6% of their wealth, blacks lost of 50%.  These percentages have vastly different impacts on people’s lifestyles…whatever the absolute value of the difference.

]]>
By: Akira6766 http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/07/racial-wealth-gap-reaches-historic-levels/#comment-726 Akira6766 Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:50:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=9088#comment-726 The ratio's have absolutely no meaning, if you look at the differences the gaps have actually decreased. I'm a second year mathematician, I know it "sounds" bad when it's described as 20 or 18 times bigger but it doesn't mean a damned thing. The absolute value of the "gap" has decreased, whether the ratios increased or not!  2005 gaps: White - Hispanic -> 116,633, Asian - Hispanic -> 149,744 White - Black -> 122,868, Asian - Black -> 155,979 2009 gaps: White - Hispanic -> 106,824,  Asian - Hispanic -> 71,741, White - Black -> 107,472,  Asian - Black -> 72,389 Each number is the difference between the first mentioned and the second. The difference between Asians and blacks/hispanics is dramatically lower. Lets also include the fact the richest people in the country are probably white or asian and skew the results here dramatically. It's all relative for goodness sake. ~_~ Data from: http://www.npr.org/2011/07/26/138688135/study-shows-racial-wealth-gap-grows-wider?sc=fb#commentBlock  The ratio’s have absolutely no meaning, if you look at the differences the gaps have actually decreased. I’m a second year mathematician, I know it “sounds” bad when it’s described as 20 or 18 times bigger but it doesn’t mean a damned thing. The absolute value of the “gap” has decreased, whether the ratios increased or not! 

2005 gaps:
White – Hispanic -> 116,633,
Asian – Hispanic -> 149,744
White – Black -> 122,868,
Asian – Black -> 155,979

2009 gaps:
White – Hispanic -> 106,824, 
Asian – Hispanic -> 71,741,
White – Black -> 107,472, 
Asian – Black -> 72,389

Each number is the difference between the first mentioned and the second. The difference between Asians and blacks/hispanics is dramatically lower. Lets also include the fact the richest people in the country are probably white or asian and skew the results here dramatically. It’s all relative for goodness sake. ~_~

Data from: http://www.npr.org/2011/07/26/138688135/study-shows-racial-wealth-gap-grows-wider?sc=fb#commentBlock 

]]>