6 ms·

Since white people suffer proportionately less from poverty than nonwhite people, they do tend to live longer, and in better health, which is conducive to polit

• rajin444 3y ago
  Why would the authors say otherwise? Additionally, why is it framed in a way that makes it seem like white people having more of an impact is a bad thing? 10 years ago if you'd told me articles like this were coming I'd have laughed. How did misconstruing the truth to further the "white people bad" notion become not just acceptable but popular? And it doesn't even stop there - the article implies that more diversity (i.e less white people) is an ontological good. How does this stuff even get published?
  • coding123 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • nathan_compton 3y ago
      Sorry, this isn't "critical race theory." Like how is making observations about the demographics associated with old age and voting "critical race theory?"
      • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > this isn't "critical race theory." Like how is making observations about the demographics associated with old age and voting "critical race theory? You're correct, it's not. But there's a trend of shoehorning race into everything, and I think that's what the comment to which you're responding refers. The underlying study never mentioned race. By proxying SES with race, the article recapitulates the racial determinism that is, if not at the core, then a necessary consequence of CRT.
  • majormajor 3y ago
    > Additionally, why is it framed in a way that makes it seem like white people having more of an impact is a bad thing? I don't really see this framing. I see an examination of "are older voters more conservative" "is that a change or is it other factors" that then briefly veers into predominant political leanings by race (in a sloppy, only-looking-at-two-races way), but not a lot of harsh judgemental terms there. More descriptive. If indeed "some races have less political influence because they die earlier because they're poor" is true, though, and then you factor in "why are they poor" for some of those races and find some nasty answers... why wouldn't that be bad?
  • lazyasciiart 3y ago
    Probably, if you make the comparison the authors make, you get the numbers they got. If you compare five different groups instead of the two groups they used, then what a shock, the order of the five doesn’t match the order of the original 2. Why would the commenter have made the comparison they do, if they wanted to consider the matter in good faith?
    • nathan_compton 3y ago
      Because the article is specifically about disparities between black and white americans, not between white and "all non-white" americans.
      • lazyasciiart 3y ago
        I’m not sure how that motivates someone to say “look, Asians live longer” and act like they have somehow caught the authors in a lie?
        • nathan_compton 3y ago
          I think we agree here and I misunderstood your original comment. I think the comment listing life expcetancies for various ethnic groups is disingenuous.
          • deleted 3y ago
            [deleted]
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
    • rayiner 3y ago
      Except in this case adding the other races as additional data points changes how you view the black-white comparison. For example, native Americans live almost as long as whites, but are as poor as blacks. And Hispanics are closer to blacks than whites in income, but live much longer than whites.
  • nathan_compton 3y ago
    Sorry, but your whole post is rhetoric. 1. more diversity doesn't equal "less white people." It means less white people proportionally, of course. But if your view is really "all people are the same" than it doesn't even matter whether there or more or less white people. Reading between the lines you seem to be suggesting that you, at least, think "more white people" is good. Just come out and say it, if that is your belief. No need to beat around the bush. 2. You don't have to be a genius to get the idea here: even if you imagine that white people are 100% not racist, wealthier white people may simply not have similar political priorities to poorer black people (your parent comment is also disingenuous to indicate asians and hispanics have longer lifespans, since this article is primarily about poorer black people). If it is the case that poorer black people die earlier then it stands to reason that their political interests are less served. No one has to be racist or "bad" for this to be the case. And, in a society which purports to want equal representation for all people, a systematic difference in literal years of life is a reasonable barrier to wish to overcome insofar as it affects voting. 3. this "stuff" gets published because differences (in for example, health outcomes) between black and white americans are profound and are directly correlated with segregation and political disenfranchisement. You might be some kind of weirdo who somehow believes society is 100% equal and everything black americans suffer is "their fault" but that view is, at the very least insufficiently universal that its pure and disingenuous rhetoric to assert it as if it is obvious and true. There is a shit-ton of research on this in public health: https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/report/key-data-on-health-and-health-care-by-race-and-ethnicity/ https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/report/k... As to the fact (indicated by the parent comment) that one's ethnic identity affects different ethnicities differently, well "no shit Sherlock." It is asinine to collapse the discussion about how race operates in our society to "white people" and "non-white people" and this article does not do that and does not even gesture in that direction.
    • mecsred 3y ago
      Regards to the last paragraph, did you miss the part where the quote parent opens with is directly from the article, and explicitly makes that distinction? If your going to write an essay for everyone to read, at least try not to end it with evidence you didn't process the original post...
  • treeman79 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • cafeoh 3y ago
    > Additionally, why is it framed in a way that makes it seem like white people having more of an impact is a bad thing? Is it really? This is definitely not the point of the article, which talk about the bias that people grow more conservative when that is at least partially explained by a survivor bias. You decide to read this as "white people bad", when the article simply highlights some democratic bias that isn't talked about that often, and I think your reaction says more about your own obsidional way of thinking than the author's. > And it doesn't even stop there - the article implies that more diversity (i.e less white people) is an ontological good. How does this stuff even get published? Can you please for the love of god point to me where in this article it's said that more diversity is an ontological good? Are we reading a different article altogether?
  • klipt 3y ago
    There's also a gender lifespan gap that's even bigger than the black-white racial lifespan gap. E.g. black women live longer than white men on average. Consequently, more than half of elderly voters are women.
  • commandlinefan 3y ago
    > 10 years ago if you'd told me articles like this were coming I'd have laughed People were predicting this _thirty_ years ago and yes, they were laughed at.
  • rayiner 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • selimthegrim 3y ago
      [flagged]
    • l3mure 3y ago
      [flagged]
  • SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
    I don't fully understand why this happens, but it's pretty common to see people say "nonwhite" when they clearly mean "black". The author goes on to quote statistics for black people age 18-64, so that has to be what he had in mind.
    • rayiner 3y ago
      > I don't fully understand why this happens, but it's pretty common to see people say "nonwhite" when they clearly mean "black". Americans’ conception of race really only has white and black. They don’t know much about other races, so they project their mental conceptions about black people onto other races. This is obvious when you see “people of color” applied in ways that really only make sense if you’re talking about black people. But also consider affirmative action. Hispanics as a group have similar economic status to blacks as a group, because many are recent migrants from poor countries. But while blacks have much lower economic mobility than whites in the same income level, Hispanics have similar economic mobility to similarly situated whites. So the logic for preferring a black person over a white person with similar economic level doesn’t apply to Hispanics. But people never think about that, because they conceptualize Hispanics as a “kind of black person.”
• next_xibalba 3y ago
  FYI, “Hispanic/latino” includes a large number people who identify as white. As defined by the Census, these are not mutually exclusive categories.
  • simplify 3y ago
    FYI, "Hispanic/latino" don't identify as white, but they are labeled as such by outsiders for political motivations.
    • majormajor 3y ago
      > FYI, "Hispanic/latino" don't identify as white It seems much more accurate to say "people identifying as Hispanic/Latino also identify as white with varying frequency and in varying ways over time and it's complicated also by people of non-white+Hispanic origin." Much more discussion here: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/upshot/more-hispanics-declaring-themselves-white.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/upshot/more-hispanics-dec... , https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/should-latinos-be-considered-a-race https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/should-latinos-...
    • seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      There are white Mexicans, black Mexicans, and Indian/mixed Mexicans. I’m not sure if you would consider any of them to be Hispanic/Latino, but the ethnic groups exist in Mexico (and other Latin American countries surely), so isn’t it weird that they are collapsed into one ethnicity in the United States? Maybe some weird aspect of immigration physics I’m not considering? See: - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Mexicans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Mexicans - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Mexicans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Mexicans - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizos_in_Mexico https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizos_in_Mexico
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    • smt88 3y ago
• majormajor 3y ago
  Average wouldn't be the relevant calculation here. The study linked in this article is paywalled, but from the the excerpted paragraphs, seems much more grounded and compelling than the quote you pull, and doesn't make a poor -> racial jump.
• vitus 3y ago
  Interesting supplemental reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_paradox Apparently, Hispanic / Latino populations in the US consistently have comparable or even better health outcomes than non-Hispanic whites despite having lower income / education.
  • throwaway33381 3y ago
    I remember reading it having to do with diet. But as trends such as "super foods" grow and the obesity epidemic expands into south america, these trends likely aren't going to last. As staple foods in latin american countries see the price of their foods increase. And the shifting diets towards unhealthy alternatives that are priced cheaper than said goods.
    • netsharc 3y ago
      I'd hypotize that it's got to do with social networks (the real life one), Latin Americans seem to have closer-knit family and friends, and social bonds have been shown to be very helpful for longevity. But it's just my hunch without concrete numbers (in regards to e.g. percentage of old people reporting being lonely, classified by race)
  • maerF0x0 3y ago
    I mean, every hispanic person I know personally has a very large supportive community/family life. I'm sure that correlates with health outcomes. Nearly every wealthy white person I know is chronically lonely, also anti-correlated. Just my experience though, not real stats.
    • rayiner 3y ago
      [flagged]
• JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  The paper doesn't contain the word "white." This is New York Magazine editorializing.
• Retric 3y ago
  That’s more theoretical than directly relevant here. Asian’s are projected to live longer, but currently under represented in elderly populations in the US due to high levels of immigration over the last few decades.
  • chimeracoder 3y ago
    > Asian’s are projected to live longer, but currently under represented in elderly populations in the US due to high levels of immigration over the last few decades. And specifically: disproportionately likely to have immigrated to the US when already over the age of 65, to join a family member who is already a US citizen and employed at a well-paying job due to explicit visa requirements. Raw life expectancy doesn't mean a whole lot when you're drawing samples from dramatically different populations that have already been subject to heavily confounding filters.
• 8note 3y ago
  Isn't this missing a multiplier for population amount? What's the total number of voters difference at say, age 77
• throwaway892238 3y ago
  What's that thing they say about averages being misleading? I think it was that averages are misleading.
• rayiner 3y ago
  I had to remind my kid about this Asian privilege the other day when she was complaining about someone being a “white man.” Note that the white life expectancy is close to that of native Americans.
• 6510 3y ago
  Solution is simple, Black people will have to vote at 16, Asians will have to wait until they are 24.3, Natives 18.4, Hispanics 23 and last but not least White people at 19.6. Unless they are woman of course, then they have to wait an extra 6 years. Religious people an extra 6.48 years. When they get married people don't get to vote for 2.4 years. For example, a married Asian Buddist woman 24.3+6+6.48+2.4 = 39.18 is the corrected for inflation voting age. We can further refine the formula to account for the expectancy per region, get some of that creative gerrymandering going on. Should be fun!
  • martindbp 3y ago
    Funny, but I think capping the voting age at 67 or so would be a simpler "solution"