4 ms·

You continue to shift terms, so it makes it more difficult to pin you down. My math is pretty solid - socio-economic classes are defined by values in intervals

You continue to shift terms, so it makes it more difficult to pin you down. My math is pretty solid - socio-economic classes are defined by values in intervals. So guessing the average income for each race would be guessing what interval? It would be guessing middle class for each race! Remember, you stated the proposition that, 'race is a good class indicator' - thus, we don't care about variance in the interval called middle class... That is why I explicitly removed it from my analysis - if the only information(class-related) you get from a person's skin color is that they are middle-class, then you have effectively received no information. Certainly you can't be suggesting that those in the middle-class are more likely to commit crimes - can you be?

natrius 17y ago
First of all, socioeconomic classes are artificial constructs. There's no reason to believe that there are large discontinuities in the probabilities of certain behaviors as income increases, though that is likely the case around poverty level. From the census document you linked to, here are average household incomes by race: Asian: $86,185 White, non-Hispanic: $74,102 Hispanic: $51,572 Black: $46,533 If you don't think there are substantial differences there, then we're not going to agree on anything.
- najirama 17y ago
  [Edit: Moved up a node to reflect the actual reply] 1. Socio-econonic classes are artificial constructs - so what? The point is that race is demonstrably unable to map the set of 'people' to the set of 'classes.' 2. If you are not able to accurately quote the figures from the pdf I linked to prior, then what is the likelyhood you even read it? The ACTUAL median incomes can be found on pages 6-7: Asian: $65,637 White, non-Hispanic: $55,530 Average: $50,000 Black: $34,218 The differences fall in the interval known as middle-class as I said before - so for the purposes of this discussion, they are not substantial.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- natrius 17y ago
  Settle down. I got the mean incomes from the table on pages 29-34, which a CTRL-F would've shown you. I chose the mean incomes because we were discussing how far off you'd be if you guessed a random person's income. Mean incomes would be the most accurate in that case. Median incomes are a perfectly fine metric as well. The "set of classes" means nothing. If you're trying to predict someone's behavior, distinguishing someone who makes $59,999 from someone who makes $60,000 makes no sense. If it helps, pretend I said "socioeconomic status" every time I said "class". They're interchangeable to me, though the latter indeed implies discrete groups. With that said, if you think living on $55,530 is anything like living on $34,218, you're just wrong. How can multiplying one's income by 1.6 not have a massive effect on their life? That's ignoring the decreasing marginal utility of a dollar as incomes rise. The poverty threshold for a family of four is $22,025. Black households have a "surplus" income of $12,193. White households have a surplus income of $33,505. The average white family will find itself in a situation where theft is attractive far less often than the average black family. "Not substantial"? Consider my mind boggled.
  - najirama 17y ago
    [Edit: spelling mistakes] Based on your response, you do not even understand the terms I've been using. 'Set of classes,' means everything per this discussion - as the discussion has been premised on the statement you made (that skin color is an indicator of class). So when you say things like...: "If you're trying to predict someone's behavior, distinguishing someone who makes $59,999 from someone who makes $60,000 makes no sense." ..You suggest that you either do not understand my argument, or, you do not understand what has been meant by the word "class" in this discussion. So I'll say it again; Classes are defined by an interval on the set of natural numbers. This isn't a discussion about guessing incomes with any greater precision than those provided to us by said classes. The data provided to us by the census bureau document is the average. Note that the "households" in the census include BOTH family and non-family households. So, when you say things like...: "The poverty threshold for a family of four is $22,025. Black households have a "surplus" income of $12,193. White households have a surplus income of $33,505." ...You hint that you didn't quite understand that the average provided was calculated including single-households as well as non-single households with kids. So your whole reply is a bit of a straw-man... ...But it isn't even really a good one. We are talking about race as a predictor so let us control for income and work backwards. Imagine two families, one black, the other white, both living with an income of $34,218, both with four children. Is it then your contention that the Black family is still more likely to produce a thief? If so, I do consider your mind boggled.

natrius 17y ago

First of all, socioeconomic classes are artificial constructs. There's no reason to believe that there are large discontinuities in the probabilities of certain behaviors as income increases, though that is likely the case around poverty level. From the census document you linked to, here are average household incomes by race: Asian: $86,185 White, non-Hispanic: $74,102 Hispanic: $51,572 Black: $46,533 If you don't think there are substantial differences there, then we're not going to agree on anything.

najirama 17y ago
[Edit: Moved up a node to reflect the actual reply] 1. Socio-econonic classes are artificial constructs - so what? The point is that race is demonstrably unable to map the set of 'people' to the set of 'classes.' 2. If you are not able to accurately quote the figures from the pdf I linked to prior, then what is the likelyhood you even read it? The ACTUAL median incomes can be found on pages 6-7: Asian: $65,637 White, non-Hispanic: $55,530 Average: $50,000 Black: $34,218 The differences fall in the interval known as middle-class as I said before - so for the purposes of this discussion, they are not substantial.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

natrius 17y ago
Settle down. I got the mean incomes from the table on pages 29-34, which a CTRL-F would've shown you. I chose the mean incomes because we were discussing how far off you'd be if you guessed a random person's income. Mean incomes would be the most accurate in that case. Median incomes are a perfectly fine metric as well. The "set of classes" means nothing. If you're trying to predict someone's behavior, distinguishing someone who makes $59,999 from someone who makes $60,000 makes no sense. If it helps, pretend I said "socioeconomic status" every time I said "class". They're interchangeable to me, though the latter indeed implies discrete groups. With that said, if you think living on $55,530 is anything like living on $34,218, you're just wrong. How can multiplying one's income by 1.6 not have a massive effect on their life? That's ignoring the decreasing marginal utility of a dollar as incomes rise. The poverty threshold for a family of four is $22,025. Black households have a "surplus" income of $12,193. White households have a surplus income of $33,505. The average white family will find itself in a situation where theft is attractive far less often than the average black family. "Not substantial"? Consider my mind boggled.
- najirama 17y ago
  [Edit: spelling mistakes] Based on your response, you do not even understand the terms I've been using. 'Set of classes,' means everything per this discussion - as the discussion has been premised on the statement you made (that skin color is an indicator of class). So when you say things like...: "If you're trying to predict someone's behavior, distinguishing someone who makes $59,999 from someone who makes $60,000 makes no sense." ..You suggest that you either do not understand my argument, or, you do not understand what has been meant by the word "class" in this discussion. So I'll say it again; Classes are defined by an interval on the set of natural numbers. This isn't a discussion about guessing incomes with any greater precision than those provided to us by said classes. The data provided to us by the census bureau document is the average. Note that the "households" in the census include BOTH family and non-family households. So, when you say things like...: "The poverty threshold for a family of four is $22,025. Black households have a "surplus" income of $12,193. White households have a surplus income of $33,505." ...You hint that you didn't quite understand that the average provided was calculated including single-households as well as non-single households with kids. So your whole reply is a bit of a straw-man... ...But it isn't even really a good one. We are talking about race as a predictor so let us control for income and work backwards. Imagine two families, one black, the other white, both living with an income of $34,218, both with four children. Is it then your contention that the Black family is still more likely to produce a thief? If so, I do consider your mind boggled.