4 ms·
> pretty high 100 years ago irrelevant: there are no hard numbers for that and that's not the timeframe the article is discussing (since the 90s)
by quantumofmalice 8y ago
> pretty high 100 years ago
irrelevant: there are no hard numbers for that and that's not the timeframe the article is discussing (since the 90s)
- ticviking 8y agoWhy on earth would that be irrelavant? Also I'm quite sure the numbers are there, maybe not as crisp as you like, but one could make some reasonable estimates based on immigration records from ellis island and the census through those periods.
- watwut 8y agoIt is irrelevant, because comparison was not done with literacy of people 100 years ago. Which would also be 1918 which is first world was and results back then were likely to he affected by that big time. And it was also time of racial segregation which would affect a lot too.