Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Black Family in 1965 and Today

Poor black neighborhoods are not the unassisted creation of poor black people, but largely the malignant result of factors beyond their control.

The breakdown of the black family is a sensitive topic, though it's not new and it's not in dispute. President Barack Obama, who grew up with an absent father, often urges black men to be responsible parents.

Nor is there any doubt that African-American children would be better off living with their married parents. Kids who grow up in households headed by a single mother are far more likely than others to be poor, quit school, get pregnant as teens and end up in jail.

But these facts were once inflammatory. Fifty years ago next month, a Labor Department official named Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a paper titled, "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action," which argued that "a tangle of pathology" afflicting black communities had emerged because "the Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling." His key fact: Nearly one-fourth of black babies were born to unwed mothers.

He was accused of blaming the victim, but he was onto something important. Today, Moynihan, later a liberal Democratic senator, is invoked by conservatives to explain why African-Americans' progress has been so slow.

Jason Riley, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, claims that "family structure offers a much more plausible explanation of these outcomes than does residual white racism." Fox News host Bill O'Reilly is more blunt. "The reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black precincts is the disintegration of the African-American family," he said last year. "White people don't force black people to have babies out of wedlock."

They're right, up to a point. It's far from optimal for 72 percent of black children to be born out of wedlock. Social ills would diminish if there were more stable, two-parent black households.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it's incomplete. Worse, it's often used to gloss over intractable realities that continue to hinder black progress.

It's true that whites don't force blacks to have children out of wedlock. But it's wrong to suggest that whites bear no responsibility. Poverty is often the result of lack of access to good jobs or any jobs, and discrimination by employers didn't stop in 1965—and hasn't stopped yet.

The impact of drug laws, and the harsher treatment black men get from the criminal justice system, means that many have records that scare employers away. But research indicates that white applicants with criminal records are more likely to get interviews than blacks without criminal records.

A lot of the well-paid blue-collar jobs once abundant in cities have vanished. Moynihan lamented that unemployment had long been much higher for black men than for whites, and the gap is bigger today.

Without decent jobs, these men are not likely to be able to find wives or support families. They are not likely to get married or stay married. If family breakdown causes poverty, poverty also causes family breakdown.

African-Americans often find it hard to leave blighted neighborhoods. They can find themselves steered away from white communities by real estate agents or rejected by landlords. The Urban Institute reports a fact that ought to shock: "The average high-income black person lives in a neighborhood with a higher poverty rate than the average low-income white person" (my emphasis).

The concentration of poverty in inner cities means many black children are exposed daily to crime and violence. Their turbulent environment makes it harder for them to acquire habits of discipline and self-restraint.

It's tempting to blame African-American social ills on the modern welfare state, which allegedly breeds idleness. But most poor black households are poor despite having at least one adult who works. The welfare reform of the 1990s, which induced many recipients to take jobs, didn't reverse the decline of marriage.

Poor black neighborhoods are not the unassisted creation of poor black people, but largely the malignant result of factors beyond their control. These places generate a vicious cycle of poverty and dysfunction that mires children in desperate conditions. Then we wonder why many of these kids end up unemployed, addicted to drugs, behind bars or murdered.

Moynihan's report contained a passage that conservatives rarely quote: "Three centuries of injustice have brought about deep-seated structural distortions in the life of the Negro American. ... The cycle can be broken only if these distortions are set right." He would be sorry to learn that we have yet to set them right, and that his insights are used to rationalize our failure.

Photo Credit: Dnf-style

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Richard McCargar||

    The impact of Johnson's Great Society programs was to incentivize behavior detrimental to black families.

    Without those programs, there could not now be over 70% of black children born into single-parent families because there would be no way for them to survive.

  • jay_dubya||

    The great society (which I am no fan of btw) didnt create the drug war.

  • RRiver||

    No, that was the doings of 'Tricky Dick' Nixon, who hated people with long hair that did drugs, because they were against the 'war' in Vietnam.

  • Suicidy||

    To be fair, hippies suck. In any Galaxy.

  • Jaybirdmojo||

    To be perfectly honest, I think that the great society *DID* create the drug war.

    If I'm not paying your welfare, why in the hell should I care about whether you toke up?

    If I'm paying your rent, buying your food, paying your heating bill, and you don't even have a job despite the fact that I had to piss in a cup to get mine??? YOU SURE AS HELL AIN'T GONNA BE SPENDING YOUR DAY STONED!!!!

    "But it's none of your business."
    "It became my business when I started paying your bills."

  • Heedless||

    Dunno about this. The War On Drigs is just Prohibition: The Sewuel, and prohibition came well before the wellfare state. People are busybodies.

  • Mike M.||

    Sometimes I think they did it on purpose.

  • WTF||


    “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

    —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Tony is going to stop by saying that the great society stabilized poverty. Not that all the billions upon billions did anything to alleviate it, just that it was stabilized despite the fact that it was decreasing prior to the implementation of the great vote buying scheme.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Keepem' down on the Progressive plantation. Seriously, that is the whole point of the WoP, Great Society, etc.

  • ||

    " Moynihan lamented that unemployment had long been much higher for black men than for whites, and the gap is bigger today."

    Caused by a 1-2 punch of government help.

    1. Minimum wage laws.

    2. Shitty government schools in poor neighborhoods which ensure that few if any graduates will be worth the minimum wage after high school.

    Honestly, if you set out with the goal of raising black unemployment, it'd be hard to do better then those two.

  • SDN||

    And let's not forget the hypocrites at Reason's favorite thing: Let's open the borders wide so that we can import lots of low skill workers that directly compete for jobs when we no longer have a mass labor economy.

  • Homple||

    Heretic. It is well known that open borders increase employment opportunities. It works as described in a Powerpoint presentation from a Reason staff meeting.

    Large influx of unskilled people

    ?

    Full employment.

  • BDub||

    Let me fill in that"?" for you.
    2. Immigrants start small businesses at a higher rate than do non-immigrants.

    www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs396tot.pdf

  • Tvashtar||

    Oh come on. Yes, legal immigrants start more businesses.

    Why? Because there is a high threshold in terms of education, investment and earning power in order to immigrate. Legally.

    But for illegals there is no threshold. They are poor, uneducated and unskilled. And they're arrivng by the millions at the same time automation is about to utterly shred demand for unskilled labor.

    But they will qualify for services such as healthcare and education, so the costs will be the same as the legals, if not higher.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Why do we no longer have a mass labor economy?

  • ||

    China.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Robots mostly then China.

  • DesigNate||

    You would think that if this was happening en masse like you assert, poor Americans (be they white, black, brown or whatever) would take a page from the illegals book and just pretend to be undocumented to get those low paying jobs.

    What's that? Maybe they aren't really coming over and "terkin r jerbs"?

  • Sam Haysom||

    This is the dumbest thing that has ever been posted on Reason. That puts it in the top ten dumbest things ever said.

    The advantages in hiring undocumented workers is not some magical alchemy produced by lacking documents, it derives the lack of legal protections and hence opportunity for using deportation as a cudgel to intimidate your employees. That's what makes illegals so attractive as workers. They have no recourse if the boss wants to stiff them on wages, sexually assult them, or otherwise harm his employees. So naturally if you show up posing as an undocumented worker but with white or black skin and a non-foreign accent it's not going to work. T

    This leaves aside the simple issue that even if they were willing to do that an pretend to be undocumented the never ending flow of labor drives down the price of labor simply by flooding the market with supply. But I know I know just when it comes to labor supply and demand doesn't apply.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Because he can. Because they aren't that productive and can be replaced wirh a new batch tommorrow. That's what an unlimited supply of low skill labor does. It makes humans into easily replaceable tools. We aren't talking about a senior law partner stiffing the newly minted Yalie here. Bus boy basically grow on trees.

  • Sam Haysom||

    The next "desperate" batch of illegals. It's strange how these illegals can both do the jobs we won't do and be super selective about the jobs they take. One has to give.

    And it doesn't even require active malice on the parrt of the employeer to generate this adverse selection of undocumented. Maybe I'm just a builder with faulty equipment. I mean that saw probally won't hurt anybody this time but if it does it sure would be great if the person who gets hurt can be easily intimidated into keeping quiet. In order for that to wrok he has to be illegal. Bad things happen even in well run businesses. it's human nature to want to be able to intimidate those harmed by the accidents rather than pay out big settlements to legal employees.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I think you're overlooking the externality that is Bus Boy Trees, Count.

  • sarcasmic||

    Bus boy basically grow on trees.

    Good ones don't. I'd hire an illegal before a high schooler any day because I know the illegal will work three times a hard.

  • Garagefather||

    Well at least you explained part of the reason for the historically large youth unemployment rate if nothing else.

    Desperate and obedient illegal immigrants and the overblown minimum wage. A double whammy for our unemployed yoof.

    At least the Yoofs will have their parents to hang out with all day soon. Go Obamnesty!

  • sarcasmic||

    Anyone who calls Mexicans lazy has never worked with any.

    The advantage of hiring illegal immigrants is that they work hard.

    It's that simple.

  • Sam Haysom||

    No it isn't. I live in Texaa lazy Mexicans are just as plentiful as lazy whites and blacks.

  • sarcasmic||

    I worked in restaurants in Colorado for several years, and most of the Mexicans worked circles around their American counterparts.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    No, no. Sam's on a role. I want to hear more about these Bus Boy Trees.

  • Sam Haysom||

    I should have known better than to use an idiom around autistic libetarians that's my bad.

  • waffles||

    Yeah get with the program fucking normie.

  • DesigNate||

    There's no way that my comment could even break the top 100 when people like Tony and shrike (never mind drive-by progtards or conservitards) post here, but thanks for the laugh.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    The fact that the guy who said that is the same guy who came up with Bus Boy Trees should give you pause, DN.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'd like to find a Bus Girl Tree. Some of them are kinda cute!

  • WTF||

  • Sam Haysom||

    I love your autistic inability to comprehend idiom. It's delightful.

  • DesigNate||

    Herr derr her.

  • Sam Haysom||

    I love your autistic inability to comprehend idiom. It's delightful.

  • sarcasmic||

    I love your autistic inability to comprehend a joke. It's delightful.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    And technically, sarc, it was more straight up ridicule than a joke. So he might have me there.

  • sarcasmic||

    it was more straight up ridicule than a joke

    Like I said, a joke. At his expense.

  • waffles||

    I love your aspie internet slapfights.

  • vizzual||

    The fact that the guy who said that is the same guy who came up with Bus Boy Trees

    You came up with "Bus Boy Trees".

    I don't really know why, it's not clever or funny, and endlessly repeating it as a misrepresentation of what he said just makes you look like an asshole.

    He said "bus boys basically grow on trees" which you, as a supposedly professional writer, shouldn't be misrepresenting as "Bus Boy Trees", unless of course, your aim is to look like an asshole.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Bus Boy Trees! Bus Boy Trees! Dancin' with vizzual through the Bus Boy Trees!
    (Come on, everybody -- you know the tune!)
    Bus Boy Trees!...

  • DesigNate||

    If Bus Boy's grow on trees, that would imply that there was such a thing as Buy Boy Trees.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Ah. But let's be honest, DN. He did say "basically".
    So there could be Bus Boy Shrubs, too.

  • vizzual||

    If Bus Boy's grow on trees, that would imply that there was such a thing as Buy Boy Trees.

    Which is probably why CN came up with it.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I see what you did there, viz. You sly devil. (wink, wink!)

  • Garagefather||

    Conservitards just doesn't have the same ring to it as progtards. There is the Republipuke and Repulitard but they just don't roll of the tongue either. I think you should go with Decepticons. It has a better ring to it and even kids will know they are evil without having to explain it to them.

    While we are coming up with pet names, how about we use the term Reasontarians to describe progressives pretending to be Libertarians.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    That's the way to prosperity. Shrink the labor pool. Maybe Washington should offer free abortions like they hand out food stamps and farm subsidies.

    That would shrink the labor pool and make jobs for everyone.

  • CatoTheElder||

    It's a 1-2-3 punch.

    3. Astronomical marginal income taxes on people as they rise out of poverty to economic independence.

    Imagine that if one earn $1 over x% of poverty line, she loses a $1000 benefit. Effective marginal income tax rate for that benefit is 100000%.

    This happens with subsidized housing, food assistance, school feeding programs, childcare assistance, Medicaid, ObamaCare subsidies, college financial aid, etc. Each poses a huge hurdle to those who would prefer to be independent. EIT credits, on the other hand, have a reasonable phase-out that avoids this problem.

  • Real American||

    Voting 90% Democrat doesn't help either.

  • Cloudbuster||

    TL;DR: Chapman blames whitey.

    Blacks aren't smart enough to effectively manage their own lives, so when blacks fail, en mass it's whitey's fault for not paternally managing them well enough. Oh, wait, Chapman doesn't say that. It's just the logical conclusion.

  • DesigNate||

    Well, to be fair, it is at least partially the fault of one group of whitey's. I'll give you a dollar if you can guess who that group is.

    (I'm not really going to give you a dollar.)

  • Bramblyspam||

    Uh... it's the fault of whiteys who promise to give away money and then don't follow through?

  • WTF||

    Jews? Is it the JOOOS!?

  • SusanM||

    The Dukes?

  • WTF||

    + $1 bet

  • J Mann||

    They did hire Eddie Murphy, even if it was for questionable motives.

  • Jimbo||

    Hitler and his minions?

  • Jimbo||

    Wait, I meant Mr. Hilter and his minions.

  • WTF||

    I don't like the sound of them there boncentration bamps.

  • DesigNate||

    I'm sorry, the answer we were looking for was Canadians. Yes, Canadians was the correct answer.

    Do try again next time.

  • Diggs||

    Unless you have a severe physical or mental impairment, anyone of any race can escape poverty. Schools not good enough? Go to the library and learn more things on your own. Being raised by a single mom? Help her out. Lack of jobs in the neighborhood? Move.
    In a world where people like Ben Carson, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice exist, there is no racial excuse to be poor. None. And people like Steve Chapman, who continue to claim that poverty is a byproduct of race, make it easier for people to continue to claim it's their race that keeps them poor, when in fact it's their own fault.

  • David Wall||

    I was a hiring manager for many years in urban St. Louis.

    You are being simplistic here. The schools suck, their are not low level entry jobs available to start to learn a skill because of minimum wage laws, and most kids here do not have a father to teach them about work, responsibility and other needed virtues.

    It is really sad to see these kids come in looking for work who could barely spell their name. They had no previous experience and they often had a criminal record usually involving drugs. All of which kept them ineligible for the jobs we were hiring for. These jobs were entry level manufacturing jobs--jobs that previous generations of poor, AA people in St. Louis readily filled. I know, because our all of our older employees were that demographic. The change is dramatic and it is not just because the jobs are more technical and requirement different degrees. It is a combination of bad law and bad effects the laws have on the population.

  • David Wall||

    *...The schools suck, and there are no low level...*

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Denver has one of the most awesome organizations i have ever heard of (not government realted at all to my knowledge, it is funded by local startups and businesses). It is called YouthBiz. It takes inner city (yeah I know Denver barely has an inner city) kids and helps them learn about and become entrepreneurs.

  • Homple||

    "...and they often had a criminal record usually involving drugs."

    Whitey made them take those drugs?

    I know, I know war on drugs bad and drugs are ok. So hire them despite their record.

  • Calidissident||

    Studies show that black people actually use drugs less often than white people do, but are far more likely to be arrested, charged, and convicted for drug crimes (and on average get longer sentences even when all else is equal).

    Also, I want to note that 95% of the time I've seen someone say or use the term "whitey" it's been a white conservative who thinks that's how black people talk. I've lived for four years in a low-income urban neighborhood with a large black population, and I've never once heard anyone say that word.

  • WTF||

    I think people here are generally using it sarcastically.

  • Homple||

    Always sarcastically in my case anyway.

  • Calidissident||

    Sure, but I don't really see the point of it. At least to me, it just makes the person using it look stupid more so than exposing how ridiculous the other side's argument is.

  • Garagefather||

    While we realize whitey is perhaps a tired old pejorative, there isn't any new term to use because only whites are racist so blacks had no need to make up something fresh to disparage us with.

    Or have they? Dun Dun DAAAAAAA!

    If you know something you must tell us! We are operating in ignorance and decrepitude.

  • retiredfire||

    So, they refer to caucasians in glowing terms?
    Didn't think so.

  • Pulseguy||

    I think your enlightened attitude is great David. Seriously. And, of course because you saw through the systemic racism that caused this then for sure you hired them anyway, right? You gave them that one step required to move them onwards and upwards? Correct?

    Cuz if you didn't....why not? Could it be because they were young thugs you couldn't trust to sweep a floor?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    It takes an exceptional person to "escape" a really crappy childhood. It does happen, but it's certainly not as simple as Diggs seems to think.
    The same thing happens to white Appalachian children. I'm fortunate that my grandfather had the ambition to do the "Readin', Writin' and Route 23" thing and get out of eastern Kentucky coal country when my mother was a child. A lot of folks did the same, but a lot didn't. And then the Great Society came along and helped keep my distant cousins mired in poverty.
    My mother always said that government "help" was the worst thing that ever happened to her kin.

  • Pulseguy||

    Not exceptional. It happens all the time.

    I lived in 18 different places by the time I was 18. My family was homeless twice for months at a time. I live in a beautiful waterfront home, drive a Porsche etc., now. I"m not exceptional. But, I didn't get into drugs and alcohol. That is all it takes.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Ah. So everyone without a waterfront home and a Porche is a drunk or druggie. I did not know that.

  • DesigNate||

    Are you also married to Morgan Fairchild and an accomplished weight lifter?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    OH. MY. GOD. Dunphy is baaaack!

  • Zeb||

    No, race has nothing to do with it. But growing up poor and with poor education makes it hard. Some people are highly motivated like that. But many are not. And you can't really blame them in a lot of cases.

  • Pulseguy||

    Yeah, you can.

    Do you want a nice home? Work for it! It isn't harder for a poor person than it is for a rich person's kid.

    Actually, I think it is easier if you are raised poor.

  • Calidissident||

    You've got to be trolling at this point.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah dude. And all we have to do to stop rape is teach boys not to rape.

    If it were easier if you were raised poor, then we would see a lot fewer families who have been poor for many generations. People are poor to a large extent because they are bad decision makers. When you have had several generations of that, it is going to be harder to grow up to be a fully self-actualizing person. With some exceptions, you learn that stuff from your parents.
    We are all victims of circumstance to some extent. I'm as much of an individualist as anyone, but you can't just deny that the environment we grow up in has a huge effect on our habits and motivation.

  • David Wall||

    American is much more discriminatory against AA and other minorities now than it was in 1965.

    Minimum wage laws were first instituted to keep blacks from competing with union workers. The reasons have changed, but the effects are still the same. Minimum wage laws are institutionalized discrimination.

    Another type of institutionalized discrimination not discussed here is the deleterious effects of EEOC law and specifically LBJ's Executive Order 11246. These laws essentially make it unlawful for companies to use performance-based testing (IQ, aptitude, basic skills) systems to hire employees--they invariable have some level of adverse impact. In response, companies almost universally made college degree requirements for many entry level jobs requiring skills. The degree was the only benchmark of intelligence and skill and aptitude left to companies. But the requirement for a college degree is extremely discriminatory against poorer people--much more so than the performance tests. Many minorities simply cannot afford to take 4 years off with reduced or no salary or the tuition, housing, etc. in order to gain a BS degree.

    IIRC MLK Jr. often fought for the use of cognitive entrance and other performance tests by employers. They were much less discriminatory than face to face interviews which were often used in his time to specifically discriminate against blacks.

  • Pulseguy||

    There is no racism anymore David. Seriously...do you even know a racist?

    There hasn't been for 20 years.

    If a person reacts to someone being a thug, they will react negatively. Whether it is a white skin-head (relatively rare), or a young black thug (not nearly so rare). Calling people racists those who choose not to invite a thug into their business is stupid.

    Your previous post implied exactly you didn't hire these young thugs. Are you a racist? Or, were you just being reasonable?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    There is no racism anymore David. Seriously...do you even know a racist?


    This is fascinating. No, really. I think this is something that calls for further study.

  • Pulseguy||

    I'm a Canadian. I do business in the States. I've spent three years, maybe four now, asking everyone down there two questions:

    1. Is racism a big deal down here?

    Huge! Everyone agrees. The US is really racist.

    2. Do you know anyone who is racist?

    Well, it turns out nobody I've asked this question to even knows a racist. A couple said 'no, I don't', then said 'yeah, I do'. I asked 'over 75'. Yes, every time. People always had a reason why they don't know anyone who is racist. 'I'm from California, we're chill here.' 'Dude! I'm from NY. We're all way past that.' Everyone agrees it is somewhere else, not where they are. Everyone agreed it was in the South. Until I met a guy from Alabama. He said the south got over racism way faster than anyone has given it credit for, and said he doesn't know any racists, but he knows for a fact Arizona and Chicago is full of racists.

    There is no racism and there hasn't been for 20 years.

    And, what tiny amounts of racism exist are meaningless. It is a snarky comment here and there. Which is ubiquitous and impossible to be rid of.

  • Calidissident||

    Really, you ask everyone you meet here those questions? That's a bit ... strange.

    Oh and totally scientific.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I've spent three years, maybe four now


    Wow. No wonder you're such an expert.

  • rocks||

    You almost make it seem as if the whole thing is just another mechanism to divide and separate people...

  • sariya.amber||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha­ I do......

    www.wixjob.com

  • The Last American Hero||

    Maybe you could teach your skills to poor, urban blacks. Sounds like they could use the money.

  • PBR Streetgang||

    ^ I lol'd

  • Dweebston||

    What is the takeway from this supposed to be? Black underachievement is a pervasive problem even in the face of extensive well-intentioned interventions, so the solution is to spill ever more ink on fruitless self-flagellation? If there's an analogue to the ever-lurking Trotskyist saboteurs that bedeviled Soviet planning, it's the racism canard as an excuse to elide decades of ruinous economic meddling.

  • David Wall||

    Hopefully, the take away is to become active and vocal in helping to change bad laws: welfare eligibility, minimum wage law, regulation and credential laws, EEOC, etc.: all of which are discriminatory against someone in the society, but most often poor minorities.

  • Dweebston||

    Not if Chapman leads the charge. Even if racism is as or more prevalent today than it was in an era marked by the passage of the CRA, racial integration, forced busing, and the assassination of a hugely celebrated civil rights advocate, then the racist's biggest ally is the ubiquitous nanny state.

  • WTF||

    Aaaand...any attempt to change those laws will be demagogued as being RACIST and HATEZ BLACK PEEPUL!!! And then liberals and blacks will continue to vote overwhelmingly for those very policies and regulations.

  • Rhywun||

    Then we wonder why many of these kids end up unemployed, addicted to drugs, behind bars or murdered.

    Oh FFS... blame everything except the parent(s).

  • DesigNate||

    It's hard to blame the parents when they aren't there.

  • Homple||

    The parents are to be blamed for not "being there".

  • DesigNate||

    I was saying that tongue-in-cheek.

  • Homple||

    I ought to have caught that one.

  • Zeb||

    Parents are probably the biggest factor in a child's success. But the parents come from somewhere too. Why are the parents as messed up as they are?

  • WTF||

    Why are the parents as messed up as they are?

    Whitey, of course.

  • Mr. Anderson||

    Because they can be, if they're irresponsible and the woman gets pregnant young the father can walk and the mother can just apply to get a check. With fewer negative consequences people do riskier things.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    ...if they're irresponsible and the woman gets pregnant young the father can walk and the mother can just apply to get a check.

    And said fathers aren't going to be seen as less socially desirable. If a guy doing that is still going to get lots and lots of girls putting out for him, why would other guys opt to settle down and play the boring guy.

  • Nikkodemus||

    The best part is, as a guy you're actually seen as LESS desirable if you do the right thing. My kids mom decided a few years ago to up and disappear, so I'm a single dad. Whenever that subject came up on a date, guess what happened next? Women without kids can turn and run just as fast as men, but single dads are not nearly as highly regarded in my experience.

  • Tony||

    Ah, so we should make life even harder for those kids. That'll set them straight.

  • Zeb||

    Regardless of the real world effects.

    Attempts at making life easier for these kids have made these problems worse. Do you really not see that people will do more of something if you pay them to do it? DO you really think that multi-generational poverty is just fine as long as everyone gets a check from the government?

  • Tony||

    The point of government checks is to eliminate poverty. I trust people to make their own choices regardless of where their income comes from. I don't believe in using government to force people to behave according to a certain work ethic. I do believe that government should to some degree ensure that the children of poor parents do not inherit all of their disadvantages.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I don't believe in using government to force people to behave according to a certain work ethic.


    Except, of course, for those paying for the government.

  • Zeb||

    The point of government checks is to eliminate poverty.

    And that has been a complete failure. Or are we just about to eliminate poverty? Maybe in 1965 you could be forgiven for thinking that might work. But after 50 years it should be clear that an awful lot of the people getting government checks aren't getting out of poverty. And welfare seems to ensure that children do inherit their parents disadvantages. Good intentions count for jack shit.

    I don't believe in using government to force people to behave according to a certain work ethic.

    Who is suggesting that? I just want fewer incentives to have a lousy work ethic.

  • Dat_Truth_Hurts||

    "The concentration of poverty in inner cities means many black children are exposed daily to crime and violence. Their turbulent environment makes it harder for them to acquire habits of discipline and self-restraint."

    Perhaps you have cause and effect backwards?

    How does being poor cause one to rape? What level of education does one need to know he or she shouldn't rob, rape and/or murder? I would have remembered the day in school where the teacher said something like "Rape and murder are bad, m'kay?"

    Perhaps the schools are bad because they're filled with bad students? No amount of money is going to fix that, as we've seen failed attempt at spending our way to racial equality in schools. Not that we shouldn't help students trapped get out of failing schools, but the reason the alternate schools do well is because they're being filled with students that want to learn, with parents that care.

  • Zeb||

    It's more of a feedback loop than simple cause and effect. Outside of very controlled conditions, cause and effect are never that simple.

  • Mencken Sense||

    The black family of 1965 didn't have to compete with a unchecked flood of immigrants pushing them out of low-skill, low-wage jobs...

  • Sean Bannion||

    Very true. They also didn't have to deal with welfare policies that made it far more financially attractive to not work and have still more kids you couldn't afford.

  • The Last American Hero||

    or robots. The amount of labor required to build a modern automobile is about 40% of what is was in 1960. Even if we built our cars here like we used to, there still wouldn't be a return to some "Golden Age of Union Labor". My grandfather worked in a tool and die shop for most of his career. The 5 or 7 guys on his crew have been replaced by one guy with some CNC lathes.

  • Sean Bannion||

    CNC machinist isn't a low-skill job either. It's a double-whammy for the AA community. Fewer jobs, and the ones that are left require more skills.

    The kind of skills you DON'T get in lousy public schools.

  • Dweebston||

    Let's not blame modern machining for dislocating huge swaths of the labor force (not to suggest you are, but it's a common misconception on the left).

    The blame rests, alongside social welfare and employment policies, on intransigent union-friendly politics.

  • The Last American Hero||

    I'm not blaming tech, but my point is that even if you deported illegals/severely restricted immigration many of those jobs that required nothing more than a good work ethic just aren't there any more. The fact that the modern worker has to be more skilled than grandpa did is all the more reason for government to get out of the way and stop breeding a culture of dependency.

  • Puddin' Stick||

    Actually, yes, they did. The modern immigration system dates to 1965. Before then, there were quotas on immigration from European and Asian countries… but there were no restrictions on Mexican immigration. The changes made in 1965 and subsequently were to reduce Mexican immigration.

  • Mencken Sense||

    "In 1970, fewer than 1 million Mexican immigrants lived in the U.S. By 2000, that number had grown to 9.8 million, and by 2007 it reached a peak of 12.5 million"

    http://www.pewhispanic.org/201.....ed-states/

  • Citizen Nothing||

    You should probably change your handle to WilliamJenningsBryanSense, for the sake of honesty.

  • Puddin' Stick||

    Before 1965, there were no restrictions on Mexican immigration, so Mexicans sojourned in the US instead of immigrating. Even when the US put caps on immigration in the 1920s, those caps did not apply to Mexicans.

    The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 put the first restrictions on Mexican migration and instead of sojourned, they stayed as immigrants. Even then, under the Texas Proviso, "illegal" immigration from Mexico was de facto legal until it was repealed in 1986.

    So while we may have more Mexican immigrants in 2007 than in 1970, Mexican workers in the US wasn't "checked" until 1965 nominally and in 1986 with force of law. You'll note that that's when Mexican migration began to take off — before then Mexicans came here to work and went back to Mexico (an estimated 5M from 1943 until the INA of 1965 — something the Pew Hispanic link isn't tracking). Now that it's hard to cross, they come to the US and stay.

  • kbolino||

    Not that this changes the gist of what you are saying, but there was a major push to dispel (mostly Mexican) migrant workers without documentation in the mid-1950s called Operation Wetback which likely gave a temporary "boost" to domestic employment at the expense of higher prices.

  • Zeb||

    Um, what? The southern border is far more tightly controlled than in 1965. Where do you get this shit? Unchecked?

  • Mencken Sense||

    So we have stopped illegal immigration?

  • Puddin' Stick||

    We stopped it before 1965…

  • Zeb||

    No. There is a difference between unchecked and completely eliminated.

    As others have pointed out, there weren't many restrictions on immigration from Mexico before 1965. What we have done since then is create illegal immigration. The fact that more Mexicans live in the US now than did then probably has more to do with the borders being more tightly controlled. When you can freely cross the border, there is less incentive to permanently migrate.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Just because you don't like foreigners doesn't mean that you should be able to make stuff up.

  • ||

    Is there anything that this guy isn't going to do by executive action in the next 2 years?

    Obama gun control by executive action

    He's completely out of control and no one will even try to stop him. Congress seems like a bunch of neutered little sheep.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Chill out. Shriek assured us yesterday that he's the most libertarian president of modern times.

  • DesigNate||

    No. Fucking. Way.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, that's fair. Obama is totally free to do anything he wants, without restraint. He's living the anarchist dream.

  • ||

    I predicted that this guy was going to go completely ape shit, but I was wrong about the timing. Instead of doing it early on in his 2nd term, he waited until he got most of the Democrats in congress unemployed.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm mildly surprised that the party and the media aren't repudiating him completely, given the damage he's doing to their causes and to their power base.

  • ||

    The progs are getting what they have said they want all along, a leader with no limits on his power.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Which precedent they're very likely handing to a Republican president, with the rest of the government and most of the states also sharing his political party.

    I really don't get people acting this much against their own self-interest.

  • WTF||

    It's okay, because rest assured, the media will rediscover the limits to executive power once there is a republican in the White House. The one good thing about a republican president is the media will actually hold him accountable.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm sure their credibility will remain fully intact when they start acting like government has limits again.

  • WTF||

    I'm sure their credibility will remain fully intact when they start acting like government has limits again.

    I will bet the vast majority of people won't even notice. Most people aren't like us, they mostly know what they hear from the major media, and aren't interested in digging any deeper.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Brass FMJ @ bulk ammo is still about 35 cents a round for 1000 rounds. Pretty much been stable at that price for a year. I just purchased 2000 rounds.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    brass case that is

  • Mike M.||

    In most countries in the world, this scumbag would already have proclaimed himself dictator for life by now.

  • ||

    He still has almost 2 years to do that.

  • Puddin' Stick||

    Get ready for a Second Amendment challenge...

  • ||

    It doesn't matter, he'll just ignore the courts. He's already doing it with his amnesty plan. And it doesn't matter if you support the plan for the illegal immigrants or not, the guy is completely lawless at this point, this is pretty damn scary stuff when an American president starts acting like this.

  • WTF||

    And congress is too fucking chicken to impeach him, because they don't want to appear racist. The left was right, we weren't ready for a black president, just not for the reasons they assumed.

  • ||

    And they have their next secret weapon all ready to come out of the game. A female who is now licking her blood stained fangs in anticipation of all that unconstrained power. And anyone who opposes will be a misogynist woman hating rapist wannabe.

    Get ready for more wars and a 2nd round of full out war on the middle class. Not to mention a doubling down on the WOD.

  • WTF||

    And anyone who opposes will be a misogynist woman hating rapist wannabe.

    I don't know, it will be pretty tough for the Hildebeast to run that game given her history of defending her rapist husband as well as being caught on tape cackling about getting off a child rapist.

  • PACW||

    I would like to believe you are correct. . . . . except if it isn't Hillary it will be Elizabeth Warren. Also, Obama got reelected.

  • The Last American Hero||

    And she will be soundly defeated after 6 months of commercials showing shit blowing up side by side with her asking what difference it makes.

    Followed up by yet another remake of the 3 am phone call commercial shown side by side with some Benghazi footage.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    other calibers like popular deer hunting .308 bullet could be banned because they also are used in AR-15s, some of which can be turned into pistol-style guns

    Dammit, I've only got less that a hundred rounds of .308. I don't want to have to pay panic prices.

  • JWatts||

    Why all of the subtle conservative bashing in the article? Outside of the drug war, most of the policies that are contributing to this are distinctly leftwing policies.

    Oh never mind, it's Steve Chapman. I guess the only reason that the bashing was subtle is due to him not actually being able to directly justify bashing conservatives.

  • Puddin' Stick||

    I did notice that the article left out the role played by the US government's housing projects in the 1940's to today...

  • DesigNate||

    Why all of the subtle conservative bashing in the article? Outside of the drug war...

    Cause liberals haven't controlled both chambers and the white house since the drug war was started, duh.

  • HighOnCraic||

    I love how they always blame the fathers when everybody claims to need him like a fish needs a bicycle.

  • Zeb||

    Huh?

  • Zeb||

    Nor is there any doubt that African-American children would be better off living with their married parents.

    Well, in general, maybe. Some family situations are not good for the children.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Threads like these make me wonder if Bo's obsession with the Great H&R SoConz Threat really is that crazy.

  • Zeb||

    Probably not a crazy idea. But a little crazy in its execution.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    But a little crazy in its execution.


    Well, you got a point, there.

  • Jordan||

    Yeah, the bigots come out of the woodwork for articles like this.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    For the most part, I don't see any regulars spewing the nonsense here. These topics really bring the wing nuts out of the woodwork. Where they come from I have no idea.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    They got an alert on WingnutList

  • grrizzly||

    I just noticed that it was linked by Instapundit even before it appeared on H&R.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Mystery solved

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    I'm guessing Real Clear Politics

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Poverty is often the result of lack of access to good jobs or any jobs, and discrimination by employers didn't stop in 1965—and hasn't stopped yet.

    This is a pretty silly argument. I think it's fair to say that, if discrimination by employers didn't stop in 1965, it certainly hasn't worsened. Yet the trend for the stability of the black family has run counter to what that would predict, if you accept Chapman's argument.

  • Jordan||

    Jobs are still relatively scarce in black communities because of high crime, largely the result of the War on Drugs. Regulatory costs play a significant role too, of course.

  • Mr. Anderson||

    All of these things apply to all races, you might as well say it's the fault of Earth's gravity that white people can't jump.

  • Jordan||

    The War on Drugs has not ravaged white communities to nearly the extent it has black communities, although you certainly do find white communities with these same characteristics. Black communities already suffered from a lack of capital when the Drug War came along, although their situation had been steadily improving.

  • PBR Streetgang||

    You got a better explanation smart guy?

  • Mr. Anderson||

    Yes, I do. Though I didn't invent it. There has always been subcultures prone to violence, and crime, and who shun education. This is true of all races from rednecks to the black ghettos. But in the last 50 years it became racist to criticize black people who subscribe to this culture. This is not true of of your white rednecks who face criticism, and fewer subsidies to maintain being idiots. People just generally don't give a fuck about helping white people that are proud to be uneducated remain idiots, therefore they are incentivized to not be a part of that subculture.

    So we pour money into the ghettos and celebrate those people who think studying is "white" which has had the effect of growing this subculture. All of this inner city ghetto culture deserves criticism, they should rightfully be called idiots and shunned so people aspire to leave just as we do for other races which celebrate being stupid and uneducated as some badge of honor. Instead, as a black person your'e some sort of sellout if you don't don't homage to this stupidity and start acting "white."

    This culture people are calling black is not black, it never has been. It's an invention of great society and PC idiocy by rewarding people who become single parents, and aspire to be idiots and then calling that lifestyle authentically black. There is black culture outside of the ghetto lifestyle. It's just that we have chosen to pander to the lowest common denominator and grow that section.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    He specifically said "better."

  • Bill Dalasio||

    All reasonable explanations for the problem. But, good luck tying that to white racism.

  • Calidissident||

    The War on Drugs isn't exactly enforced in a racially-neutral way. Also, regulatory costs harm people without much capital the most, who are and have been disproportionately black.

  • kbolino||

    The War on Drugs isn't exactly enforced in a racially-neutral way.

    I think this actually has more to do with the relative urbanization of blacks vs whites than intentional racial bias. As we have seen, the most abusive and least accountable police are in the cities. Blacks are disproportionately urbanized vs whites, and so a larger proportion of them live under more abusive police forces. Also, I think being in an urban setting makes getting away with certain activities more difficult. The anonymity of urban life swings both ways; the neighbor who doesn't know you from Adam has less compunction about reporting your drug use or firearm possession.

    It's hard to find good information on this though because the only studies that seem to talk about urbanization of blacks have, shall we say, a significant political bias to them.

  • ||

    Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail

    ----------------------WWW.NETJOB80.COM

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Blaming no problems on racism is just as idiotic as is blaming every problem on racism.

  • Mr. Anderson||

    Well we don't pick the cause by throwing darts at a board. If racism is the problem then show some evidence. Surely you have the off the charts proof of how the US became more racist in the last 60 years? Otherwise no, it's not idiotic to blame relevant causes with evidence and ignore irrelevant ones.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    What the hell are you jabbering about?
    Less racism, yes -- no racism, no.
    I think statistics easily show some evidence that the War on Drugs is largely being fought on racial lines -- indeed, it was probably set up to impact blacks more than whites.
    And if you don't think there's a big problem with institutional racism in many big city police forces, well -- I assume you've been living in Latvia for the last 40 years. But I hear the nightlife in Riga is bitchin'. So you got that goin' for you.

  • Mr. Anderson||

    So basically if racism could be a cause it must be the cause. If you chart racism, and say black children raised with no father do they correlate? No. One didn't cause the other. Why don't we say the success of Asians is because white people love them so much, if for blacks it's that whites hate them, why not.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    So basically if racism could be a cause it must be the cause.


    Yes. That's exactly what I said. Exactly.

  • Dweebston||

    If there is a persistent problem with racism, and I see no reason to think there isn't, then the issues brought up in the comments here may as well be tools wielded by the latent racists of our society. Taking those tools away is not a suggestion that racism no longer factors in social society, but unlike kvetching about ill-will between people, it may actually remedy legal and economic imbalances.

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    +200 years worth of votes

  • Irish||

    There are several problems with this article.

    1. The problem with bringing up racism as a cause of the dissolution of black families is that black families were FAR stronger and more cohesive in 1960 than they are today. Do you think that black families are poorer or more discriminated against today than in 1955? If not, then how can you blame poverty and racism when those problems were worse back when black families were stronger?

    2. A large portion of the problem with modern inner city communities stems from the people they've elected and the policies they've supported. When people in Detroit support policies that destroy Detroit, isn't it kind of dumb to blame the political class, given that Detroiters actively supported and elected that political class? Or are African-Americans in no way responsible for the people who represent their own communities - in which case you're essentially denying them agency and claiming that they're just mindless puppets dancing to the white man's strings. Which would be kind of racist, wouldn't it?

    Also:

    "African-Americans often find it hard to leave blighted neighborhoods. They can find themselves steered away from white communities by real estate agents or rejected by landlords."

    If rich black people are being rejected by racist landlords, could you at least provide a citation for that fact, rather than just claiming it as true without evidence?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    When people in America support policies that destroy America, isn't it kind of dumb to blame the political class, given that Americans actively supported and elected that political class?

    So what the fuck are all you people belly-achin' for?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Nice attempt at trivializing Irish's argument, but I don't think the fact that some of the most adamant opposition to changing the policies in question would come from the AA community is something you should just gloss over.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I don't think the fact that some of the most adamant opposition to changing the policies in question would come from the white community is something you should just gloss over.

    So what the fuck are all you people belly-achin' for?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Since that's not what I argued, you'd best not smoke around that strawman. You're likely to get burnt.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Since that's not what I argued


    Let's review the tape, shall we?
    Ah, you said "AA," I said "white." So the difference is like night and day! Objection noted!

  • Homple||

    For those much younger than 65 or so, it has been injection molded into every head by the media, education system and entertainment industry that any bad outcomes for dark skinned people are the fault of paleface racism.

    To keep a job with any media, education or entertainment outfit that thinks of itself as enlightened, it is necessary to keep up the molding.

    Hence, we get articles like this one.

  • Calidissident||

    "1. The problem with bringing up racism as a cause of the dissolution of black families is that black families were FAR stronger and more cohesive in 1960 than they are today. Do you think that black families are poorer or more discriminated against today than in 1955? If not, then how can you blame poverty and racism when those problems were worse back when black families were stronger?"

    That's a fair point, but one can't pretend that the social or cultural situation today is the same now as it was back then. Out-of-wedlock births have risen for every group since then, and I don't think it's surprising that that phenomenon is concentrated disproportionately among people in poverty (who are disproportionately black). The War on Drugs and incarceration rates have skyrocketed, crime increased in the 60s and 70s (though it's declined since then), all of these things are significant difference from the situation 50-60 years ago.

    Also, that logic can go both ways. Poverty and racism don't, by themselves create a breakdown in family structure, as evident by data from that time period, but at the same time, it also shows that a cohesive family unit isn't necessarily a cure for poverty.

  • kbolino||

    Basically you are saying "poverty is bad, mmkay" without really defining what "poverty" is or what it is exactly that makes it "bad".

    None of the relative poverty of today compares to the absolute poverty of most blacks in slavery. Somebody who can't afford a bigger television has nothing in common with a starving and dehydrated slave left to die on a sugar plantation.

    Yet the families of slaves were stronger, despite literally being torn apart by slaveowners and the government, than they are today. Malnutrition, illiteracy, dismal hygiene, all of these things were rampant in the black slave community and were genuinely forced upon them by other people. Yet when slavery ended, the slaves emerged with a strong spirit and indeed an outright entrepreneurial one (at least, where such entrepreneurship was permitted).

    What we are seeing today can only be explained by complacency and/or dependence, not this bullshit modern "poverty". If people were truly destitute could and frequently did better themselves, then the factors determining why people like to stay in the relative comfort of modern "poverty" must differ.

  • Mr. Anderson||

    If you subsidize something you get more of it. We subsidized single parents, we got more. After that all you need to do is look at the predictable effects of children in single parent homes to explain everything.

  • ||

    I think Sowell has the best take.

    Thomas Sowell Dismantles Egalitarianism

  • ||

    Woefully inadequate Chapman. I don't think anything said was incorrect, but as others have mentioned, you left out
    - Schools without choice
    - Regulatory burden of employers
    - Minimum Wage laws
    - incentives to stay unwed

    I don't know or care if these are the main reasons that blacks are poorer than whites, but if you don't fix this, then racists saying it's a fundamentally racial thing is complete horseshit.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Excellent comment Joshua. I'd add

    - Welfare for more single mother babies creates more of them
    - Welfare for not working creates more of the poorer dependent class
    - Government pro-union laws doesn't let lower wage workers compete for government contracts
    - High taxation leads to less production and fewer jobs
    - Drug laws that result in unemployable drug offenders

    I agree racism is BS. If we're so racist, then firms that aren't will be able to employ blacks at lower wages and gain market share at the expense of racist firms. And really, how racist can we be if we elected a black president?

  • Bubba Jones||

    "white applicants with criminal records are more likely to get interviews than blacks without criminal records"

    I have never done a background check *before* the interview.

  • WTF||

    Yeah, there's an awful lot of "citation needed" for Chapman's assertions.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    "The average high-income black person lives in a neighborhood with a higher poverty rate than the average low-income white person"

    So much to discuss in this article. I would have made a good Saturday piece. I'll just point out that from my experience living in poor black communities that there is also a certain amount of self-selection involved in the demographic make up of neighborhoods. There are plenty of black people no more interested in living near white people and/or moving away from their relatives than and racist white hillbillies. That is not a complete answer to why, but it is significant enough that it deserves to be mentioned.

  • ATXChappy||

    "It's tempting to blame African-American social ills on the modern welfare state, which allegedly breeds idleness. But most poor black households are poor despite having at least one adult who works."

    I personally believe that the welfare state plays a pretty big roll in the decline of 2 parent households of any color. Not because it "breeds idleness", but because it incentivises single parent households. Single parent households receive more benefits than two parent households. So, is it any wonder that people structure their lives to take advantage of benefits they might not qualify for if they get married?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    but because it incentivises single parent households.

    I think there's a lot of truth to this. You wind up having a culture where a guy who knocks a girl up and runs isn't seen as a douche and doesn't find himself unable to ever get laid. Not surprisingly, other guys decide that isn't a bad course of action.

  • CatoTheElder||

    A successful marriage and child-rearing also requires substantial self-discipline and short-term altruism. It pays off in the long run, but it's hard work. When the state offers incentives that make dissolution attractive, it indemnifies failure. The US welfare state suffers the same problem that government insurance schemes do: moral hazard.

  • ||

    Like a cinnamon roll, or just a regular dinner roll? Or a Jelly Roll like Morton?

  • sarcasmic||

    It doesn't help that one in three black men have done time and one in eight have a felony record. In my opinion the war on drug users has done more to hurt black families than welfare.

  • ATXChappy||

    Agreed. But, it seems like Chapman has completely dismissed the welfare component. Which I think is a mistake. Incentives, especially financial incentives are very powerful.

  • Calidissident||

    I'm not sure if Chapman meant to completely dismiss it (he may have, which in that case I would disagree with him), but I think the larger point of the article was just to argue against the notion that that is the sole, dominant cause of social and economic problems in the black community, as a lot of people on the right make it out to be.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Simply put the question "which of these things is causing distress in black communities?" is basically "Yes."

  • sarcasmic||

    I agree that subsidizing single moms isn't helping any, but sending dads to prison creates families led by single moms.

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Yeah, it's an evil triforce of crappy schools, welfare and WOD. Crappy schools, along with family structures that aren't conducive to learning, ensure adults without the skills to make it in the modern workforce. Welfare is structured to incentivize single parent households and not provide for men in the equation (besides like food stamps and Medicaid) And the WOD putting men in prison with a criminal record and the risk of being hardened, just for doing what they need to to provide for themselves. Min wage less and occupational licensing also don't help.

  • kbolino||

    I think people often underestimate the effect of regulation in inner cities. It is almost impossible to open a business in the inner city without serious connections or money to throw around. All of those regulations that played a part in driving "white flight" decades ago haven't gone away. In fact, many of them have been added to. Also, the taxes are horrendous. For many people who can't really or don't want to leave the city, it is far easier to work outside the official economy, but that is less stable and far more prone to violent encounters with one gang or another (including the police).

  • Tony||

    What makes black people more susceptible to these incentives than white people?

  • Calidissident||

    I think the fact that black people are generally poorer to begin with, and have always been in this country, makes those incentives more attractive. If you're already middle or upper class, the incentive isn't really there compared to if you're already poor.

    Note that, as I said above, I agree that it's an overly simplistic explanation that doesn't capture a lot of other factors at play.

  • sarcasmic||

    No one made that argument.

  • ATXChappy||

    Have you not heard about the War on Drugs?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I'm a bit afraid of what will happen if Tony and the WingNutList crowd start to have a go. It could be like the matter/antimatter of derp.

  • ||

    The welfare state is bad enough, but the astronomical effective marginal tax rate that goes along with it is toxic to growth in the affected community.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    There is definitely a feedback loop at play, where the criminalizing and unemployment of black men leads to more welfare, feeds single parent homes, and reinforces the environment that breeds more criminals and unemployment and so forth. There are a lot of other contributing factors to this cycle, such as destructive economic policies, but I agree that the drug war is a huge problem that needs to be addressed to make any meaningful impact on this issue.

  • sarcasmic||

    There is definitely a feedback loop at play

    Yeah, it's a bit of a chicken/egg argument.

  • Tony||

    Not really. Let's say the chicken is slavery and the egg is a permanent racial underclass. The chicken came first.

  • sarcasmic||

    WHOOSH!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Yeah, but what if the egg is slavery? What then, eh?

  • sarcasmic||

    The subject was the decline of the black familiy a century after the end of slavery, dumbass.

  • Tony||

    Then the chicken is Ronald Reagan.

  • sarcasmic||

    And the egg is on your face.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Heh, heh. That was quite the elaborate set up, sarc. Good job.

  • sarcasmic||

    CN, I wish it was on purpose. He's just that daft.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I wish it was on purpose


    Second rule of comedy: Never admit it wasn't on purpose.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Timing.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Ask me what the first rule of comedy is.

  • sarcasmic||

    That rule applies to most anything.

  • kbolino||

    Then the chicken is Ronald Reagan.

    The really sinister thing about Reagan is that he was so powerful, he went back in time and set the trends in motion before he ever became President!

  • DesigNate||

    Of course Tony will completely ignore the roll liberals have had in perpetuating that decline and then proceed to call us all racist teabaggers.

  • sarcasmic||

    Of course Tony will completely ignore the roll liberals have had in perpetuating that decline and then proceed to call us all racist teabaggers.

    That's because we are racist. You see, saying that blacks should lift themselves up by their own bootstraps is racist. People who celebrate equality understand that blacks need a helping white hand to get anywhere in life.

  • Tony||

    But those are racist teabagging nonsense stories you guys tell yourselves so you don't actually have to think about the problem--just blame liberals as usual.

  • ||

    This whole comment thread is raccciisst

  • Tak Kak||

    This article is strange, perhaps it's a deliberate Rorschach test.

    "The average high-income black person lives in a neighborhood with a higher poverty rate than the average low-income white person".

    Just reads like black Americans in-general commit more crime than white Americans. Is that not true?

    "Without decent jobs, these men are not likely to be able to find wives or support families. They are not likely to get married or stay married. If family breakdown causes poverty, poverty also causes family breakdown."

    But still have children?

    "Moynihan's report contained a passage that conservatives rarely quote: "Three centuries of injustice have brought about deep-seated structural distortions in the life of the Negro American. ... The cycle can be broken only if these distortions are set right." He would be sorry to learn that we have yet to set them right, and that his insights are used to rationalize our failure."

    This just made me laugh. MLK Jr. railed on furiously about the disintegration of the black family and their poor work ethic... as did Booker T Washington...

    It looks like these aren't so much distortions but the norm.

  • Zeb||

    Centuries of injustice can do a lot of distorting. And "the norm" is not fixed or static.

  • Tak Kak||

    The Norm not being fixed or static makes it awfully difficult to talk about "distortions" at all, let alone blame it (even only in-part) on centuries of injustice.

  • Erudition||

    And yet we are able to perceive that it was indeed centuries of injustice...

  • Tak Kak||

    Blaming "injustice" is a constant if there ever was one.

  • Erudition||

    How much of it is blame vs acknowledgement?

  • Tak Kak||

    They're pretty much the same thing in this context at least. If you blame something you've obviously acknowledged it.

  • Erudition||

    Blame has a connotation that the acknowledgement is undue.

  • Tak Kak||

    Maybe in your head, but not in plain text.

  • Erudition||

    In context of your injustice in quotes, it is in plain text.

  • Tak Kak||

    Golly, you don't read plain text "in context", that's the point, to take things literally to avoid making (false) inferences.

  • kbolino||

    It is amazing how centuries of injustice can cause greater harm the farther we move away from them.

    The reality is that the injustices today are far more sinister and far less obvious than the ones of the past. And all of them have been spearheaded by the false nobility of good intentions.

  • Tak Kak||

    Eh, there's no way to measure justice but I doubt many would agree that the bonehead moves of today (regardless of intention) are really *more* sinister than Jim Crow or outright slavery.

  • kbolino||

    Then why has the situation gotten worse?

    You are giving away the farm because you think good intentions trump bad outcomes.

  • Tak Kak||

    You're clearly delusional, as I'm the one on probably racist grounds here saying it's by-and-large black American's own doing (or undoing) at this point.

    Yes, the welfare state, the war on drugs, and even racist sentiments do incredible amounts of damage but those still fall short - again see MLK or BTW.

  • kbolino||

    You can only assign responsibility in proportion to the measure of control a person has. After your fifth attempt at starting a business gets shut down by the city planning commission, or the health department, or some other bureaucracy, are you the sole person to blame for your dwindling entrepreneurial spirit?

    If you're not excusing these things because of stated intentions, then you're excusing them out of inconvenience to your premise. Either people respond to incentives, in which case the incentive-makers are to be held to account, or else people don't respond to incentives, in which case the incentive-makers should be removed.

  • Tak Kak||

    "You can only assign responsibility in proportion to the measure of control a person has."

    Indeed. I use the same line, black Americans aren't anywhere near slavery anymore, so they are very much responsible for themselves.

    "After your fifth attempt at starting a business gets shut down by the city planning commission, or the health department, or some other bureaucracy, are you the sole person to blame for your dwindling entrepreneurial spirit?"

    Do yo really buy this argument? Making an analogy from one individual to an entire multi-generation group?

    If so, do you also not blame him when he say, kills the city planner, or to the less extreme, just leaves his children?

    "Either people respond to incentives, in which case the incentive-makers are to be held to account, or else people don't respond to incentives, in which case the incentive-makers should be removed."

    The premise is simple, black Americans response to incentives has been very different than the rest of Americans. Even controlling for material conditions doesn't explain it.

    So, please, remove the incentive-makers, It will make things better for everyone, no doubt. In fact, shut down as much of the government as you'd like, you're pushing against an open door here.

    However, you'll still see a noticeable difference in behavior.

  • kbolino||

    If so, do you also not blame him when he say, kills the city planner

    Honestly, I'm don't think I'd blame anyone for offing a city planner, but I'm not sure what it would accomplish. They'd just put someone else as bad or worse in to replace the dead guy.

    or to the less extreme, just leaves his children

    Of course not. But we're talking about societies here, right? When you eliminate the consequences of abandoning children, then unsurprisingly children get abandoned.

    Do yo really buy this argument? Making an analogy from one individual to an entire multi-generation group?

    I never said it was meant to be extrapolated as the universal experience of every black person. But how many business leaders exist in a healthy community anyway? It doesn't take a lot of stifling to have a ripple effect.

    The premise is simple, black Americans response to incentives has been very different than the rest of Americans. Even controlling for material conditions doesn't explain it.

    According to what "material conditions"? And what is your explanation, anyway?

    However, you'll still see a noticeable difference in behavior.

    Isn't that the point?

  • kbolino||

    Indeed. I use the same line, black Americans aren't anywhere near slavery anymore, so they are very much responsible for themselves.

    Slavery is an easy target. People can get worked up into a lot of bluster over slavery. Do-gooders can swell their chests full of righteous indignation over slavery.

    But slavery didn't do to the black spirit in a dozen generations what black leaders and academics did to it in just one. The programs of today are indeed far more sinister, as is every form of socialism, because they teach the individual not to be responsible.

    It is not just the indoctrination, it is the constant and often violent reminders administered by the people with power. It is the unrealized cognitive dissonance between the lofty words and the dirty reality. It is the ultimate victory of collectivism over the individual.

  • Tak Kak||

    "Of course not. But we're talking about societies here, right? When you eliminate the consequences of abandoning children, then unsurprisingly children get abandoned."

    Again, who's arguing against this?

    The question is why do blacks abandon at such different (and higher) rates. The line eventually gets back to blacks themselves.

    "According to what "material conditions"?

    Huh? That line makes no sense.

    "And what is your explanation, anyway?"

    Blacks simply have always been different culturally, really don't know why. The state exacerbates this difference, but it didn't create it. Thaddeus Russel illustrated this well in his book.

  • kbolino||

    I don't accept statistical causality. If there exists a black person who does not fit the stereotypes (and there are many), then being black is not the cause.

    So yeah, sure, every black man who abandons his children is responsible for his actions. That doesn't explain jack shit. Pointing out that the rates are different between whites and blacks doesn't prove there some mystical "difference" between whites and blacks that transcends rationality.

  • Tak Kak||

    Pointing out that the rates are different between whites and blacks doesn't prove there some mystical "difference" between whites and blacks that transcends rationality."

    You should call your cult the rationalists.

    There are group differences, most people don't have any trouble accepting that obvious fact. Thinking we're all the mystical thing here.

  • kbolino||

    Truly, this has been a pointless discussion.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Centuries of injustice can do a lot of distorting.

    Probably true. The thing is that it's fair to insist the burden of proof is on those suggesting that those centuries of injustice would have an increasing, rather than decreasing, effect as those injustices are remedied.

  • DarkHelmet||

    I remember when Chapman was a libertarian. Guy have a stroke or something?

  • Canaille||

    Listen to this SJW silliness:

    "The impact of drug laws, and the harsher treatment black men get from the criminal justice system, means that many have records that scare employers away."

    Really, black people aren't responsible for their actions if they commit a crime and end up in prison? Is this a libertarian position?

  • Calidissident||

    Well, libertarians don't think drug crimes should be crimes to begin with. Also, even for legitimate crimes, one doesn't have to think it's ok to commit them to point out and criticize disparities in treatment, and the effects that can have.

  • Zeb||

    That's just plain justice. Drug laws are a huge injustice.

    Everyone is responsible for their actions. That doesn't mean that giving someone a criminal record for drug possession is not entirely immoral. To a libertarian, things that don't harm someone else are not really crimes. So fuck off.

  • DesigNate||

    If they end up in prison because of unjust laws, it is the libertarian position that they shouldn't be there and that the laws shouldn't exist.

    But you're probably one of those "Law and Order" trolls who thinks that if it's the law you shouldn't break it cause it's the law.

  • Tony||

    Great piece. Haven't begun reading the comments, but I'm pretty sure its rather pristine logic will be lost on most of the regulars.

  • WTF||

    That's cute, 'Tony' pretends he understands logic.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Even cuter, he pretends to understand the regulars.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Although this crowd IS the regulars in the fevered imaginations of Tony and the Plug, I reckon.

  • Tony||

    I just don't think the 5 level-headed libertarians don't get to claim the privilege of being the regulars when there are 50 racist nutjobs who spend just as much time commenting.

  • Tony||

    Subtract one "don't."

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Fuck that. I'm a libertarian, which automatically means I get to say that only those who agree with me completely are libertarians. It's in the contract.

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    No, add one don't, between who and spend. Seriously, with how much time you spend here I'd think you'd know regulars from one offs, if you were a real person and not a collection of OFA trolls...

  • sarcasmic||

    Tony is not here to learn. He's here to correct us and edumucate us on what we really think. He doesn't need to read what we write to know what we think. He gets that from The Daily Show and MSNBC.

  • ||

    Occipital face area?
    Orthopedic Foundation for Animals?

  • WTF||

    See what I mean?

  • geraldinejnoga||

    my neighbor's step-aunt makes $85 every hour on the laptop . She has been without work for five months but last month her payment was $17746 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check out the post right here........

    ➜➜➜➜➜ www.netpay20.com

  • Erudition||

    This article is spot-on. It's a two-way street. Neither side is allowed to pretend it's all the other's fault. At the same time, you can't pretend that centuries of action have no present effect, especially when we can effectively measure biases in factors of basic social mobility such as whether your potential employer is going to throw your resume away based on your name, whether your doctor has real conversations with you about your lifestyle, whether your real estate agent will steer your decisions, or whether your bank will give you a loan.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    That's crazy talk!

  • kbolino||

    At the same time, you can't pretend that centuries of action have no present effect

    But apparently centuries of action have greater effects in the present the farther back in the past they are!

    How the fuck can slavery be more relevant to a black man in 2015 than it was to a black man in 1965 or 1925?

  • Erudition||

    It isn't, but that is not to say that it has NO effect on present circumstances. The same with Jim Crow.

    It's as if you've broken a man's fishing pole, and then pretend malnourishment was his own doing.

  • kbolino||

    WTF? Do you want to respond to what was actually said?

  • Erudition||

    I did.

    Q: "How the fuck can slavery be more relevant to a black man in 2015 than it was to a black man in 1965 or 1925?"

    A: "It isn't, but..."

  • kbolino||

    Your "but ..." has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    Nobody said Jim Crow didn't have an effect when it was the law. But it isn't the law, and hasn't been for a long time. How can it possibly be having a stronger effect from beyond the grave than it did when it was alive?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except the discussion is in regard to the worsening of the situation with regard to the black family. I'm sure Jim Crow or slavery may have had an effect. But, if so, that effect should have been there in, as kbolino says, in 1965 or 1925 more than today. The situation, as we move away from the time of slavery and segregation, should be improving, rather than deteriorating if those are the causes.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    At the same time, you can't pretend that centuries of action have no present effect

    Again, though, to realistically ascribe it to centureies of racism, you have to explain why that effect seems to have gotten worse, even as that racism is reduced.

  • Erudition||

    This article does a good job of bringing up things like disparate sentencing, and real estate influence. It's institutionalized from interpersonal biases of gatekeepers, to laws with disparate impact. You really think the state wanted a rising and politically conscious group to just continue unabated?

  • kbolino||

    This article does a good job of bringing up things like disparate sentencing, and real estate influence. It's institutionalized from interpersonal biases of gatekeepers, to laws with disparate impact.

    Except that none of these things have really gotten worse since the 1960s, relatively speaking. Do you really think it was easier for a black man to buy a house in a white neighborhood in the 1960s than today? Do you really think a black man got a fairer shake from the justice system vs a white counterpart in the 1960s than today?

    You really think the state wanted a rising and politically conscious group to just continue unabated?

    Now you're getting somewhere. Of course, what you kind of fail to notice is that it is more of a collusion between the state, prominent leaders, academics, and ultimately the voters. Since the 1960s, basically every major city has had one-party rule. Cities with majority black populations have mostly black council members and mayors. Generally speaking, there isn't a lot of friction in most cities between "what the people (claim to) want" and what the government gives them.

    So why has it all panned out this way?

  • simschad68||

    Start working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
    ................ www.Work4Hour.Com

  • AlmightyJB||

    So. I mean nobody truely gives a shit about you but you and maybe your family and a few close friends. What keeps people up at night is their own problems not yours. So whatever the government does or doesn't do and whatever white people do or don't do doesn't change the fact that things aren't going to get better for you unless you make them better. Nothing Steve Chapman says or thinks is going to fix you life. So understand nobody gives a shit about you and do what you need to do. That's the best advice I have.

  • Garagefather||

    Is this plagiarism or did Reason adequately reword a thousand other articles on the subject that read exactly the same way? Are they just reminding us of the same screed or do they actually think they are telling us something we haven't already heard over and over and over again? (beating a dead horse seems to be the theme lately at Reason)

    How about an article that explains how it really isn't whitey's fault for problem A, B, or C. That would be new. I suppose whitely is so evil that there just isn't anything good to talk about.

    You could follow the same grievance blueprint if you ever found something worth defending whitey over. Explain the conventional wisdom of the cause, claim the obvious reasons for the problem are false and misunderstood due to racial bias and that there are really deeper, uncontrollable, and most importantly EXTERNAL forces causing the problems so we can in no way be held responsible or be expected to change our ways to change our lives, and then end with an emotional platitude about social justice while simultaneously avoiding any uncomfortable prescriptions to solve the problem that would undermine previously stated claims.

    Rinse and repeat until clean.

  • Erudition||

    "if you ever found something worth defending whitey over."
    Perhaps in 2050.

  • Garagefather||

    Do I have to wait so long.

    Damn it! Can we expedite Obamnesty please? I can't wait to be a victim for a change.

    Being the scape goat sucks!

  • Erudition||

    You'll need to elect someone that will wax poetic about the "great white plight" and be believable.

  • PD Quig||

    It's much easier to wallow in misery and serve as electoral pawns for the Dems. It's the same 'thought process' that leads so many dumb-assed kids to think that they actually have a chance to be the next NBA star, Al Sharpton, rap star, or lottery winner. If they only wear their pants low enough, smoke enough weed, speak in an unintelligible-enough dialect, and thoroughly reject anything that would make them look 'white,' they will eventually get to a place where all their people's dreams all come true.

    Just keep voting Dem and denying your cultural pathologies. Things are bound to get better.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    What are the relevant factors that cross racial lines in communities that suffer from intergenerational poverty?

    Black communities aren't the only communities mired by the cycle of poverty where children are poor because their parents were poor. What are the constants between Chicago inner city black neighborhoods (for instance) and poor communities in Appalachia?

    Why are we insisting on looking at black poverty as something altogether different than white poverty?

  • AlmightyJB||

    And actually poverty rate disparity for race disappears when you factor for single parenthood. It impacts whites the same way.

  • PD Quig||

  • Tony||

    It's not, but the fact that blacks are poorer on average is itself a problem worth studying, and the causes of that problem are explored in this piece.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "But it's wrong to suggest that whites bear no responsibility."

    The primary direct responsibility belongs to people who support government rewarding women to have children they can't afford to support themselves, and then punishing women who have men with resources in their lives.

    Secondary responsibility goes to people who support government limiting police protection to minority communities, trapping their children in government schools that destroy their futures, then sending a high percentage of them to jail in the war on drug users.

  • Basil||

    Chapman talks about the whites' responsibility in all this while virtually ignoring the role of GOVERNMENT. GOVERNMENT wrote and enforced those drug laws. GOVERNMENT set those prison sentences. GOVERNMENT built all those ghettos called "projects." GOVERNMENT allows in all the illegal aliens that compete heavily for the blue collar jobs many blacks need. GOVERNMENT is now instituting a policy of "benign neglect" towards blacks, because the future, growing Hispanic vote is more important.

  • Erudition||

    When does elected representation come into play?

  • joeboise||

    And the illegal alien's children fail to thrive and suck up social costs as well. Like African Americans they are ghettoized and will likely have the same downward trajectory.

  • joeboise||

    Give black families moving assistance. Once they are out of the bad culture and bad schools they will have upward mobility and assimilate with the wider culture. I'm curious if anyone is studying the thousands who left New Orleans and whether they are improving their lives.

  • BambiB||

    It's not just the black women who don't seem to feel the need for fathers for their children. 53% of Hispanics and 29% of whites make this same mistake. What makes this disintegration of the family possible is easy access to government money. With the passage of the 19th Amendment, women began to vote, and what they voted for was to replace husbands with Uncle Sam. 85 years of suckling at the government teat has generated most of the $18 trillion debt we currently face,

    The solution (as much as there can be a single solution) is to end welfare. It's no accident that prior to the 20th century, women worked hard to secure a reliable mate. Without a bread-winner, she and her children would be subject to penury. Government handouts have eliminated much of the motivation for women to work at a relationship. With a sperm sample and income from Uncle Sam, they can be mothers and raise children... just not the kind of children anyone wants in their neighborhood.

    Ironically, the path that women have chosen is ultimately a loser. No state can sustain the sort of rampant welfare spending women demand indefinitely. It WILL end. When it does, it will be like 40 million women losing their husbands all at once.

  • Bill E||

    Lots of garbage in the article, lots.
    The decline of blue collar jobs is caused by white people? Job discrimination? Every place of employment where I have worked over the last four decades would simply fall all over themselves to hire a qualified black man. Even more so a qualified black woman. Qualified being the key. It is my clear impression that a black man with education and basic business skills is HIGHLY sought after these days, and will quickly advance in most corporate environments. The fact that such employees are rare is NOT caused by white people! Perhaps the practice of disparaging education and achievement in much of the black culture has a bit of responsibility? Don't want to "act white" at any cost. Which goes hand in hand with the glorification of thug life, with the tats and clothes and attitude that goes with it. THAT really helps with employment!
    And, I simply do not buy this nonsense of high income Blacks being trapped in bad neighborhoods. Real Estate agents steer in one direction, and that is toward closing the sale. If a black family has the money and/or credit, there will be NO barriers!
    This is an article for Mother Jones, not Reason.

  • CGeary44||

    1. "Without decent jobs, these men are not likely to be able to find wives or support families. They are not likely to get married or stay married." And yet they're obviously able to find women who are willing to have (seemingly birth control-less) sex with them. That sure seems like a personal decision on the part of both the man and the woman--society certainly isn't forcing unprotected sex on them. And the author sure doesn't seem to have much respect for the ability or willingness of black folks to stick with their families through adversity, financial or otherwise.

    2. "'The average high-income black person lives in a neighborhood with a higher poverty rate than the average low-income white person' (my emphasis)." Is he seriously suggesting that high-income black people are being compelled to live in high poverty areas by duplicitous real estate agents? Maybe they're just choosing to live in "black areas," which tend to be relatively higher poverty areas? Lots of folks, black and white, feel more comfortable, and have a tough time breaking ties with, where they grew up.

  • Coach Panto||

    The generous read on Chapman's appeasement is that yes, there are structural constraints on black success. Those constraints include the failed Drug War, gladiator academy prison culture, the shitty public schools, welfare incentive to single motherhood, and gang pathology that incentivizes kids to join gangs or take a beatdown every day.
    Notice that 4 out of 5 of those are government programs? The state is breeding feral aggressors with no skills in entrepreneurship, complex problem solving, contract negotiation, or customer service. The govt is breeding ideological warriors and warlords who believe whitey is the main cause of their plight. And to that point, I agree with Chapman... the 1965 welfare legislation, along with the other aggravating govt programs of schools, prisons, and drug bans,...a white-legislated dystopic death-spiral system of gilded cage statist programs is the root cause of modern black ferality. Only repealing welfare and freeing schools and ending the drug war can reverse the pathology.

  • samuraijacksonvna||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha­ I do......

    www.wixjob.com

  • jmrathbun||

    I wonder if a Libertarian solution might not be best: replace the whole welfare apparatus with a system of income support payments so poor people can take ownership of their lives. It's a bit Darwinian, and probably not politically feasible since it would throw millions of bureaucrats out of work and then we'd have to train them to do something useful... but hey, a fellow can dream? Oh, and decriminalizing drug use would help some, as would a general relaxation of regulation and licensing so poor people could start a business without a lawyer's advice. I expect plenty of minority-owned businesses would be happy to hire friends and neighbors if they didn't need a labor lawyer to tell them how. Maybe paternalism is a little bit guilty?

  • JackieB||

    Excellent! I never thought of it like that. We need some relaxation of regulation so that more people can be entrepreneurs in the black community.

    JackieB

  • Floccina||

    Jason Riley, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, claims that "family structure offers a much more plausible explanation of these outcomes than does residual white racism."

    If their poor family structure and or discrimination is such a problem for black Americans how is it that they dominate the most desired jobs in the USA, professional and NCAA football and basketball?
    Let's face it different people have different desires and values. Most blacks do fine in the USA.

  • Ide Clair||

    How do you explain the fact that in the 1950s, 17% of African-American children lived in a home with only a mother, and now that number is greater than 50%.
    *In 1965, only eight percent of childbirths in the Black community occurred out-of-wedlock, and now it's 72%.
    *The number of African-American women married and living with their spouse was 53% in 1950. By 2010, it had dropped to 25%.
    What has changed, other than liberal/progressive policies that have made the inner city black family more dependent than ever on welfare and less motivated to succeed?

  • JackieB||

    Thank you, Steve Chapman, for this insightful article. I intend to use portions of this article, giving the author due credit of course, for what I believe is a balanced piece of literature.

    JackieB

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online