Well isn't it polite to be embarrassed if you have all the money?
source: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econ...-the-survey-of-consumer-finances-20170927.htm
No. Why would it be?
Is it ok to be proud to be white?
- Thread starter rubberduck
- Start date
No. Why would it be?
Do you think "the whites" are (to any significant degree) suppressing "the others" and preventing them from doing better?Well isn't it polite to be embarrassed if you have all the money?
source: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econ...-the-survey-of-consumer-finances-20170927.htm
Does anything other than outcomes matter? Would you, for example, like "the whites" to re-distribute "their wealth" until those bar charts were all the same length? Given no other information about the groups, just the outcomes...
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 2,240
- Location
- Hampshire
I suspected you might not go in for the polite argument.
It rather starts from the premise that; whilst not directly complicit in the acts that have caused, even in the most tolerant of societies, an imbalance of wealth in favor of a specific group; it is none-the-less the case that the current generation of the aforementioned group are beneficiaries.
But aside from that, even if the advantage were deserved, humility is becoming.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 2,240
- Location
- Hampshire
I have made an assumption that the outcome is caused by unearned advantage, as opposed to inherent ability. If we differ on this assumption, then I really only have one last thing to say in our dialogue:
But "the whites" includes not just investment bankers, but hillbillies, rednecks, drug addicts, minimum wage strugglers, waitresses, janitors, people working in McDonalds.
It's really super meaningless to compare "the whites" directly with "the blacks" and come to any kind of conclusion.
It's really super meaningless to compare "the whites" directly with "the blacks" and come to any kind of conclusion.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 2,240
- Location
- Hampshire
If we lived in a complete meritocratic I'd agree with you. It is none-the-less the case however, that being borne to wealthy parents significantly improves ones life chances. History, even recent history, is littered with examples and geographies where race was the number one determiner of how your life would proceed, and the wealth that was at that point entrenched has propagated through the generations.
It is very easy to ignore unearned advantage, and wave it away, when one is the beneficiary. Quite the opposite when one is in the other corner.
But the whole conversation is a little sickening, as we discuss academically from our comfortable computer chairs. I think I'll go do some work instead.
So you want to convince everyone, including both "the whites" and "the blacks" that "the blacks" cannot become masters of their own destiny.
That "the whites" need to sacrifice "their privilege" and gift it to "the blacks". Effectively that "the blacks" need to get hand-outs from "the whites" until all are somehow equal.
So on the one hand convincing one group that they are utterly helpless and convincing another group that all they have is unearned and was gifted to them.
That seems to me to be a truly terrible thing to do. "The blacks" in that case likely give up trying, and "the whites" must necessarily feel guilty about having anything, because they didn't earn it?
Instead of making people feel helpless and victimised, how about looking at behaviours and trying to promote good behaviours whilst discouraging self-destructive ones. There's plenty of examples of self-destructive behaviours among disadvantaged groups (not "the blacks" but groups based on poverty, education levels, geographical location, culture, values, etc).
Well isn't it polite to be embarrassed if you have all the money?
source: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econ...-the-survey-of-consumer-finances-20170927.htm
Maybe you haven't seen too many of my posts before... But I make a point of trying to discredit either disengenious or foolish arguments made here by quoting people's own sources where possible......
I'll give you four facts …..
1) the median and mean net worth of whites is shown to be the highest in the tables you cite...
2) older people have a very strong tendency to have far higher net worth than younger people
https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/average-net-worth-by-age-14730772
Net Worth: Under Age 35
For American households with a head of household under the age of 35, the mean net worth in 2016 was $76,200. But the median net worth was just $11,100.
The 35 and under age group, which includes millennials and Gen Z, is burdened with the most education debt in the country. It is a major liability that is subtracted when determining net worth, and the interest rates on those debts from year to year can often mean the liability does not decrease.
Many Americans at this age and early into their careers don't have the assets older Americans do. They usually rent instead of own a home. They often don't have the salary to make investments. Without a major asset like home equity, the only asset many have is savings. That's why the median net worth for this age range is low.
Net Worth: Ages 35-44
If the head of a household is between the ages of 35-44, the mean net worth is $288,700. The median, however, is $59,800.
There are a lot of reasons so many in this range still cannot reach a net worth of six digits. This is another age group that is saddled with incredible debt related to education.
Although they may be making enough at their job to purchase a home, mortgage is a liability, and a home may need refurbishing before equity can increase in a way that would dramatically enhance a person or family's net worth. New families may have childcare costs. Credit card debt could be piling up.
Net Worth: Ages 45-54
The mean net worth for the 45-54 age range, per the Federal Reserve, is $727,500. The median net worth is $124,200.
A head of household in this age group usually has a higher salary. Perhaps they've been promoted or moved to a new company. Assets are growing. They may be increasing equity in their home, and many may be choosing to expand or begin an investment portfolio. They may even invest in real estate beyond their home.
It is recommended that people begin saving for their retirement as early as possible in their career. People who save early see the benefits decades later as their savings - and net worth as a result - increase.
Net Worth: Ages 55-65
In this age range, the mean net worth is $1,167,400. The median net worth is $187,300.
At this point in their lives, many working Americans have been putting money into retirement for a few decades, and earning interest. That number continues to rise, especially when those in their 50s begin to allocate more income toward saving for retirement.
Their children are likely grown up and moved out, which means no more childcare costs. Perhaps their investment portfolio is paying off brilliantly. At this point, it's all likely going toward one thing: retirement.
Net Worth: Ages 65-74
The 65-74 age range is a little different. The mean net worth here actually drops a bit to $1,066,000. The median net worth is higher than the other age groups: $224,100.
Why does the mean net worth go down but the median go up? Simple. The wealthiest here can actually afford to retire - so they do. No longer putting money way for retirement, they are now using it for living expenses.
Unfortunately, those that don't have a net worth in the millions often still have to work into their 70s in order to afford retirement. They continue to put money away. If they still have an investment portfolio and a house, hopefully it's still increasing in value and getting them closer and closer to a retirement goal.
Net Worth: Ages 75 and Up
Households in which the head is 75 or older have roughly the same mean net worth as the previous age range, $1,067,000. The median net worth is $264,800.
Ideally in this age range, the head of the household is retired, which is why the mean net worth is so similar to the age 65-74 range. But in the wake of economic disasters like the 2008 Great Recession, many people's savings were wiped out in the sub prime mortgage crisis. One devastating result of that is many older Americans are forced to keep working into their retirement years.
Net Worth: Under Age 35
For American households with a head of household under the age of 35, the mean net worth in 2016 was $76,200. But the median net worth was just $11,100.
The 35 and under age group, which includes millennials and Gen Z, is burdened with the most education debt in the country. It is a major liability that is subtracted when determining net worth, and the interest rates on those debts from year to year can often mean the liability does not decrease.
Many Americans at this age and early into their careers don't have the assets older Americans do. They usually rent instead of own a home. They often don't have the salary to make investments. Without a major asset like home equity, the only asset many have is savings. That's why the median net worth for this age range is low.
Net Worth: Ages 35-44
If the head of a household is between the ages of 35-44, the mean net worth is $288,700. The median, however, is $59,800.
There are a lot of reasons so many in this range still cannot reach a net worth of six digits. This is another age group that is saddled with incredible debt related to education.
Although they may be making enough at their job to purchase a home, mortgage is a liability, and a home may need refurbishing before equity can increase in a way that would dramatically enhance a person or family's net worth. New families may have childcare costs. Credit card debt could be piling up.
Net Worth: Ages 45-54
The mean net worth for the 45-54 age range, per the Federal Reserve, is $727,500. The median net worth is $124,200.
A head of household in this age group usually has a higher salary. Perhaps they've been promoted or moved to a new company. Assets are growing. They may be increasing equity in their home, and many may be choosing to expand or begin an investment portfolio. They may even invest in real estate beyond their home.
It is recommended that people begin saving for their retirement as early as possible in their career. People who save early see the benefits decades later as their savings - and net worth as a result - increase.
Net Worth: Ages 55-65
In this age range, the mean net worth is $1,167,400. The median net worth is $187,300.
At this point in their lives, many working Americans have been putting money into retirement for a few decades, and earning interest. That number continues to rise, especially when those in their 50s begin to allocate more income toward saving for retirement.
Their children are likely grown up and moved out, which means no more childcare costs. Perhaps their investment portfolio is paying off brilliantly. At this point, it's all likely going toward one thing: retirement.
Net Worth: Ages 65-74
The 65-74 age range is a little different. The mean net worth here actually drops a bit to $1,066,000. The median net worth is higher than the other age groups: $224,100.
Why does the mean net worth go down but the median go up? Simple. The wealthiest here can actually afford to retire - so they do. No longer putting money way for retirement, they are now using it for living expenses.
Unfortunately, those that don't have a net worth in the millions often still have to work into their 70s in order to afford retirement. They continue to put money away. If they still have an investment portfolio and a house, hopefully it's still increasing in value and getting them closer and closer to a retirement goal.
Net Worth: Ages 75 and Up
Households in which the head is 75 or older have roughly the same mean net worth as the previous age range, $1,067,000. The median net worth is $264,800.
Ideally in this age range, the head of the household is retired, which is why the mean net worth is so similar to the age 65-74 range. But in the wake of economic disasters like the 2008 Great Recession, many people's savings were wiped out in the sub prime mortgage crisis. One devastating result of that is many older Americans are forced to keep working into their retirement years.
3) married couples tend to be richer then singletons and being a single parent is a very good indicator or relative poverty
4) educated people tend to earn more than less educated ones
So what does your source say about education, ages, marriage rates and single parenthood rates for the groups citied?
Your own source discredits your attempt at race baiting.
Significant reasons why whites have higher net worth, on average, include because they are older, better educated, have less children as single parents and have inherited more than the other groups your source cites.
It isn't simply because they are 'white'
for under 35's the mean net worth is $76,200. But the median net worth was just $11,100.
For those aged 55-65 mean net worth is $1,167,400. The median net worth is $187,300.
51% of whites are over 55 in the US... the figure for blacks is 38%
Blacks have three times the rate of single parent households vs whites... this wasn't always the case... before the civil rights movement blacks in the US had high marriage rates
Last edited:
What's the point in desiring that "the whites" should all feel guilty about their "unearned privilege", if there is no further action to be taken or at least desired?
You think the end game is to make people feel guilty?
I somehow doubt that.
The guilt trip (attempt) is the precursor to things like "positive racism".
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 2,240
- Location
- Hampshire
Maybe you haven't seen too many of my posts before... But I make a point of trying to discredit either disengenious or foolish arguments made here by quoting people's own sources where possible......
I'll give you four facts …..
1) the median and mean net worth of whites is shown to be the highest in the tables you cite...
2) older people have a very strong tendency to have far higher net worth than younger people
https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/average-net-worth-by-age-14730772
Net Worth: Under Age 35
For American households with a head of household under the age of 35, the mean net worth in 2016 was $76,200. But the median net worth was just $11,100.
The 35 and under age group, which includes millennials and Gen Z, is burdened with the most education debt in the country. It is a major liability that is subtracted when determining net worth, and the interest rates on those debts from year to year can often mean the liability does not decrease.
Many Americans at this age and early into their careers don't have the assets older Americans do. They usually rent instead of own a home. They often don't have the salary to make investments. Without a major asset like home equity, the only asset many have is savings. That's why the median net worth for this age range is low.
Net Worth: Ages 35-44
If the head of a household is between the ages of 35-44, the mean net worth is $288,700. The median, however, is $59,800.
There are a lot of reasons so many in this range still cannot reach a net worth of six digits. This is another age group that is saddled with incredible debt related to education.
Although they may be making enough at their job to purchase a home, mortgage is a liability, and a home may need refurbishing before equity can increase in a way that would dramatically enhance a person or family's net worth. New families may have childcare costs. Credit card debt could be piling up.
Net Worth: Ages 45-54
The mean net worth for the 45-54 age range, per the Federal Reserve, is $727,500. The median net worth is $124,200.
A head of household in this age group usually has a higher salary. Perhaps they've been promoted or moved to a new company. Assets are growing. They may be increasing equity in their home, and many may be choosing to expand or begin an investment portfolio. They may even invest in real estate beyond their home.
It is recommended that people begin saving for their retirement as early as possible in their career. People who save early see the benefits decades later as their savings - and net worth as a result - increase.
Net Worth: Ages 55-65
In this age range, the mean net worth is $1,167,400. The median net worth is $187,300.
At this point in their lives, many working Americans have been putting money into retirement for a few decades, and earning interest. That number continues to rise, especially when those in their 50s begin to allocate more income toward saving for retirement.
Their children are likely grown up and moved out, which means no more childcare costs. Perhaps their investment portfolio is paying off brilliantly. At this point, it's all likely going toward one thing: retirement.
Net Worth: Ages 65-74
The 65-74 age range is a little different. The mean net worth here actually drops a bit to $1,066,000. The median net worth is higher than the other age groups: $224,100.
Why does the mean net worth go down but the median go up? Simple. The wealthiest here can actually afford to retire - so they do. No longer putting money way for retirement, they are now using it for living expenses.
Unfortunately, those that don't have a net worth in the millions often still have to work into their 70s in order to afford retirement. They continue to put money away. If they still have an investment portfolio and a house, hopefully it's still increasing in value and getting them closer and closer to a retirement goal.
Net Worth: Ages 75 and Up
Households in which the head is 75 or older have roughly the same mean net worth as the previous age range, $1,067,000. The median net worth is $264,800.
Ideally in this age range, the head of the household is retired, which is why the mean net worth is so similar to the age 65-74 range. But in the wake of economic disasters like the 2008 Great Recession, many people's savings were wiped out in the sub prime mortgage crisis. One devastating result of that is many older Americans are forced to keep working into their retirement years.
3) married couples tend to be richer then singletons and being a single parent is a very good indicator or relative poverty
4) educated people tend to earn more than less educated ones
So what does your source say about education, ages, marriage rates and single parenthood rates for the groups citied?
Your own source discredits your attempt at race baiting.
Significant reasons why whites have higher net worth, on average, include because they are older, better educated, have less children as single parents and have inherited more than the other groups your source cites.
It isn't simply because they are 'white'
for under 35's the mean net worth is $76,200. But the median net worth was just $11,100.
For those aged 55-65 mean net worth is $1,167,400. The median net worth is $187,300.
51% of whites are over 55 in the US... the figure for blacks is 38%
Blacks have three times the rate of single parent households vs whites... this wasn't always the case... before the civil rights movement blacks in the US had high marriage rates
The point I was trying to make, which I consider fully logically coherent and in no way foolish or disproved by the source I used (but don't let me stop you ad hominem or to false premise) - is that groups which have in the past benefited from the events of history are more likely to:
- Be wealthy
- Have offspring that live longer, as they can afford to feed and shelter them
- Have offspring that are better educated, as they can afford to send them to school - and to better schools in many unfortunate cases in history
- As a result of being better educated and having an easier childhood their children and children's children are then likely to also make different life choices, and this trend propagates
I'm not advocating for change, merely stating that this is the case. I'm also not stating that this is always the case, just that I believe it is a general trend.
So, as I alluded to above, I think this General Discussion community and I are coming from completely different perspectives. I think someone earlier said I felt people were helpless - talk about putting words in my mouth! I do believe in social mobility, I just don't believe it is complete, simple or perfect. I also believe there should be no bias based on skin tone, but don't pretend this is the case in society at large.
I hope that in 100 years this has all worked itself out and all children experience a constructive childhood with world class education and then are presented with opportunities that leverage their capabilities to the best advantage of mankind as a whole. All I am saying is that we don't yet live in this utopia and the events of history cast a shadow over the way the world is today.
You are welcome to your view, as are others. I will stop posting now, as the argument is futile. I believe the statistics today are, in large part, caused by the oppression of minorities in the past, you do not. There is no source that will say either way definitively with pure facts - my source was only there to show that as of today, in the wealthiest country on earth, there is a measurable imbalance that would require some explanation.
If you don't consider my explanation as valid then I would be asking yourself carefully why you think that some major groups are better educated and wealthier - if not for an easier upbringing, as in this direction I would argue lies some dangerous alternative thinking...
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 2,240
- Location
- Hampshire
Yes, this is my end game - so to speak. Not least of which because any proposed 'solution' I have seen has been disastrous in its implementation. Normally the solutions take away aspiration - and this is the only way in which social mobility can function. Polite mild embarrassment would be courteous is all I am stating - no more and no less. If you don't wish to conduct yourself in a way which I would view as courteous, then this is your prerogative.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
By "White people" you mean YOU have been conditioned to have low self-esteem?
By whom I wonder
Your 'point' followed the same either inherently flawed or disengenious thought process that people follow when they quote things like the supposed gender pay gap. ..
Which is to quote figures for two or more groups citing things like earnings or net worth , note there is a disparity and then imply or outright state that the disparity is solely or principally down to discrimination, historical injustice or systemic prejudice based on the particular group difference you have decided to quote.
You either disengeniously or unwittingly selected a statistic which is very misleading for two main reasons in my view...
1) failure to control for factor other than ethnicity in general
And
2) in particular the use of 'net worth' vs for example salary is particularly misleading. Net worth , for all races, tends to be cumulative with age... I. E there is a very strong correlation between being older and having higher net worth.
Your source show the US demographics for what they are..... I. e whites are heavily skewed to older age brackets. So even if everything else was truly equal we could still expect a quite stark net worth difference between whites and the other groups solely based on demographics alone....
I'm a minimum wage flunkey. Your claim that I have all the money is so ridiculous that it's downright delusional.
I wasn't posting that to argue my consistency. Its purpose was to re-confirm my argument (which I've been consistent on).
So what's 'irrationally prejudiced and discriminatory' about this:
You believe in biological group identity, which is simply the currently most common way to express the belief that "they're all the same". It's exactly the same idea, just dressed up in slightly more refined language.
You believe in a collection of extremely simple stereotypes that you attach to the biological group identities you believe in.
You use those stereotypes to pretend that prejudice and discrimination solely on the basis of trivial and irrelevant biological characteristics is rational.
Irrationally prejudiced and discriminatory. Also circular "reasoning" - you create stereotypes from your irrational prejudices and then use those stereotypes to "justify" the irrational prejudices you created them from.
There's nothing new or unusual about that. It's part and parcel of irrational prejudice. An irrationally prejudiced person has to believe "they're all the same" in order to be prejudiced against "them". An irrationally prejudiced person has to think in terms of extremely simple stereotypes in order to believe that "they're all the same". An irrationally prejudiced person has to devise some excuse for their irrational prejudice and the only two options are that "they" deserve inferior treatement because "they" are inherently inferior or because "they" are privileged and oppressive, yadda yadda. The two aren't mutually exclusive, obviously, and usually both are used to varying degrees. The latter is generally more effective because it promotes anger and hatred and the warm glow of doing righteous harm to the enemy and with little chance of promoting sympathy for them. When blaming the victim works, it works very well.
The point, which I knew in advance that you wouldn't be able to understand, is that "they're all the same" is a lie.
It's a downright deranged lie because it requires you to pretend that, for example, a homeless person huddled in a doorway is far more privileged than a very wealthy person living their dream life solely because the homeless person has what you consider to be the wrong amount of suntan and the wrong sex and the very wealthy person living their dream life has what you consider to be the right amount of suntan and/or the right sex.
Not only are you so irrationally prejudiced that you can't even tell one person apart from another, you're so irrationally prejudiced that you can't even tell dead people apart from living ones. For example:
You're blaming people not just for things they didn't do but for thing done by other people before they were born and by other people who are now dead. I wasn't using hyperbole above - you really are that irrationally prejudiced.
You're also applying extreme double-standards, since you refer to the same thing as being "media and cultural fear mongering" and as being pulling other people up on "some of this behaviour", depending on how much suntan the person doing it has.
EDIT: As an addition to the last point, is your intention to create ever-increasing racism? It's true that racism causes racism. So it's true that racism causes racism. In other words, just as pro-white racism causes anti-white racism, anti-white racism causes pro-white racism. Unless you believe that all "whites" are superior enough to not react the same way, you should realise that.
It's the same for all forms of irrational prejudice, of course. Sexism causes sexism, etc, etc.
Last edited:
Well that just shows you're either not reading or not understanding what I'm saying.
Because where's the stereotype , and where's the 'group identity' in this (the quote you're, supposedly, responding to):
AND when you say this in response:
I'm forced to ask again, "how does that apply to what I'm saying above?". Because I sure as **** can't see where I'm saying anyone is all the same. You'll need to spell it out.
I think because you're making a statement based on an entire group of people based on their skin colour. A statement that is not applicable to the entire group and which has very dubious grounds for statistical significance. I'm just going to repeat my post from earlier which you skipped over because it addresses what you ask quite well:
So most of your points (1 to 3) seem to be that, actually, maybe it's white people who have it tougher?!
Point 4 doesn't disagree with my position, other than only begrudgingly acknowledging the theoretical possibility that white people might, all other things being equal, have it easier.
And point 5 isn't really the same discussion.
In summary, I would contend that it doesn't address my point very well at all.