(05-14-2015 09:16 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:14 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  and for Atlanta, it mentions "metro Atlanta" so you will have a pretty diverse mix of city officials.

If it's a diverse mix, it ain't Republicans.

Cobb County is a GOP stronghold and has a decent black population. Henry County is in a similar position as well. I think Atlanta's success is that ultimately the party lines don't have that much sway. Instead it's more important on whether or not whoever is elected can work with business partners to ensure the jobs, community investment and the tax base exist to fund the social programs.

It was Democratic Mayors that led the effort for the modern Hartsfield Atlanta Airport, fixed the sewers and to get rid of all the housing projects in Metro Atlanta. All of which sparked the gentrification of downtown and the resultant 'backyard' of the Georgia Aquarium, New World of Coke, the College Football Hall of Fame and Civil Rights Museum. It's the Atlanta Way.

(05-14-2015 10:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Yet all of them are in the top 15 for African-Americans.... whereas the largest cities in California are in the bottom... which certainly implies that there is something about the States. MAYBE it's as simple as a state that lets the cities run themselves and 'be different' versus one that tries to make all the cities run themselves the same way? Having lived and worked as an adult in both... I think there is lots of truth in that.

so basically, what you are talking about, is states being run in a more conservative viewpoint, that wants less government control over the lower level government systems?


hmm..... interesting.

(05-14-2015 10:30 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Yet all of them are in the top 15 for African-Americans.... whereas the largest cities in California are in the bottom... which certainly implies that there is something about the States. MAYBE it's as simple as a state that lets the cities run themselves and 'be different' versus one that tries to make all the cities run themselves the same way? Having lived and worked as an adult in both... I think there is lots of truth in that.

so basically, what you are talking about, is states being run in a more conservative viewpoint, that wants less government control over the lower level government systems?


hmm..... interesting.

Essentially... Though I think there is value in looking at the political spectrum differently... as you have described it.

Conservative and liberal can have multiple and even conflicting meanings. I prefer to look at it as control and less control.

Both Reps and Dems want control... just with different agendas... both convinced that their agenda is 'less' controlling.... but only because it reflects their own values... which means that they are willing participants. Each ignores that they are being controlled because the 'ship' is moving in the direction they want to go...

For the moment

(05-14-2015 09:25 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Ha!! "Metro Atlanta"..... is comprised of 29 counties! Nice try on claiming how Kasim Reed is leading the charge!

To be fair, Georgia counties were predicated on being a days ride by horseback from the courthouse. Thus our counties are kinda small. I think we actually have about 70 too many.

very well said

Can't be true. The South is full of racist, white-loving, KKK-member shitlords. There's no way blacks are doing better down here.

(05-14-2015 10:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:49 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I don't disagree. I knew San Fran would come near the bottom because they don't even really want black people there.

In fairness, they don't want poor people there. They don't care about your race as long as you are wealthy. It's why they want to raise the min wage because it would force out even more people and 'poor' businesses or those that cater to less wealthy people based on price.

Quote:OT...I had a conversation with a friend who thinks that a American liberal paradise is leaps and bounds above a GOP paradise. My theory is that they'd look remarkably similar. One will be in a suburb and one would be in a city, but on the surface they would seem very much the same.

It's why many argue that the political spectrum is a circle not a line.

(05-14-2015 09:56 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I know where the cities are. The states however influence the economy of their cities very differently however. I live in a big state here in Texas where the economy of the largest cities differ greatly.

Yet all of them are in the top 15 for African-Americans.... whereas the largest cities in California are in the bottom... which certainly implies that there is something about the States. MAYBE it's as simple as a state that lets the cities run themselves and 'be different' versus one that tries to make all the cities run themselves the same way? Having lived and worked as an adult in both... I think there is lots of truth in that.

Who knows. My initial guess however would be that California has significantly less blacks than Georgia or Texas so the numbers would be somewhat skewed.

(05-14-2015 11:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Who knows. My initial guess however would be that California has significantly less blacks than Georgia or Texas so the numbers would be somewhat skewed.

Aren't the rankings prepared on a per capita basis? If so, then how would this affect them?

(05-14-2015 12:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 11:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Who knows. My initial guess however would be that California has significantly less blacks than Georgia or Texas so the numbers would be somewhat skewed.

Aren't the rankings prepared on a per capita basis? If so, then how would this affect them?

Per capita income can be a useful indicator when it includes a large number of people, like that of a country, but when applied to smaller groups of people, it can be problematic. When per capita income is cited, it doesn't usually account for or remove extreme values of income like those found in households without employed persons or those with incomes in the highest percentiles. These extreme values can make the overall date appear higher or lower than it actually is. As a result, per capita income is often an unreliable indicator of the average person's income.

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8301472_differe...apita.html

(05-14-2015 12:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Per capita income can be a useful indicator when it includes a large number of people, like that of a country, but when applied to smaller groups of people, it can be problematic.

Los Angeles, Population 3.9mm 9.6% Black roughly 350k
Houston, Population 2.2mm 23.7% Black Roughly 500k
San Antonio, Population 1.4mm 6.9% black Roughly 75k
Dallas Population 1.25mm 25% Black Roughly 300k
Austin Population 885k 8.1% black Roughly 70k
San Francisco Population 837k 6.1% Black roughly 50k
Oakland Population 400k 28% Black Roughly 120k.


San Antonio, Austin, Houston and Dallas all in a virtual tie in the top 15.

San Francisco-Oakland is 48th and LA is 40th.

Given the wide range of population and concentration differences in the Texas cities, and some reasonable approximations of similar cities in California, it seems odd that some sort of 'random chance' would be so consistent.

It doesn't seem to matter if the numbers are small or large or the concentrations high or low. Texas consistently does better.

There certainly are some reasons, and it isn't PURELY politics... but the laws of small and large numbers don't seem to have much to do with them.

Noticing that many of the worst performing areas have high concentrations of blacks, but not of hispanics, while Dallas, Houston and especially San Antonio do... LA certainly is more ethnically diverse than the Bay area.... and while still not good, certainly better.... PERHAPS it is by focusing on the problems of MINORITIES as a whole... as opposed to merely focusing on traditional solutions for one minority that things get better? Thus the focus is on opportunity for all, as opposed to merely rectifying past injustices? Purely a speculation.

(05-14-2015 01:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 12:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Per capita income can be a useful indicator when it includes a large number of people, like that of a country, but when applied to smaller groups of people, it can be problematic.

Los Angeles, Population 3.9mm 9.6% Black roughly 350k
Houston, Population 2.2mm 23.7% Black Roughly 500k
San Antonio, Population 1.4mm 6.9% black Roughly 75k
Dallas Population 1.25mm 25% Black Roughly 300k
Austin Population 885k 8.1% black Roughly 70k
San Francisco Population 837k 6.1% Black roughly 50k
Oakland Population 400k 28% Black Roughly 120k.


San Antonio, Austin, Houston and Dallas all in a virtual tie in the top 15.

San Francisco-Oakland is 48th and LA is 40th.

Given the wide range of population and concentration differences in the Texas cities, and some reasonable approximations of similar cities in California, it seems odd that some sort of 'random chance' would be so consistent.

It doesn't seem to matter if the numbers are small or large or the concentrations high or low. Texas consistently does better.

There certainly are some reasons, and it isn't PURELY politics... but the laws of small and large numbers don't seem to have much to do with them.

Noticing that many of the worst performing areas have high concentrations of blacks, but not of hispanics, while Dallas, Houston and especially San Antonio do... LA certainly is more ethnically diverse than the Bay area.... and while still not good, certainly better.... PERHAPS it is by focusing on the problems of MINORITIES as a whole... as opposed to merely focusing on traditional solutions for one minority that things get better? Thus the focus is on opportunity for all, as opposed to merely rectifying past injustices? Purely a speculation.

But that isn't the only factor when comparing these cities with seemingly similar populations. The geographic nature of the cities also skew the numbers. Texas is rich in natural resources such as oil where as California's economy is centered around technology and farming. The income levels of those jobs must also be taken into consideration. Personally, I think liberal or conservative leadership has very little impact on these factors.

(05-14-2015 01:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 01:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 12:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Per capita income can be a useful indicator when it includes a large number of people, like that of a country, but when applied to smaller groups of people, it can be problematic.

Los Angeles, Population 3.9mm 9.6% Black roughly 350k
Houston, Population 2.2mm 23.7% Black Roughly 500k
San Antonio, Population 1.4mm 6.9% black Roughly 75k
Dallas Population 1.25mm 25% Black Roughly 300k
Austin Population 885k 8.1% black Roughly 70k
San Francisco Population 837k 6.1% Black roughly 50k
Oakland Population 400k 28% Black Roughly 120k.


San Antonio, Austin, Houston and Dallas all in a virtual tie in the top 15.

San Francisco-Oakland is 48th and LA is 40th.

Given the wide range of population and concentration differences in the Texas cities, and some reasonable approximations of similar cities in California, it seems odd that some sort of 'random chance' would be so consistent.

It doesn't seem to matter if the numbers are small or large or the concentrations high or low. Texas consistently does better.

There certainly are some reasons, and it isn't PURELY politics... but the laws of small and large numbers don't seem to have much to do with them.

Noticing that many of the worst performing areas have high concentrations of blacks, but not of hispanics, while Dallas, Houston and especially San Antonio do... LA certainly is more ethnically diverse than the Bay area.... and while still not good, certainly better.... PERHAPS it is by focusing on the problems of MINORITIES as a whole... as opposed to merely focusing on traditional solutions for one minority that things get better? Thus the focus is on opportunity for all, as opposed to merely rectifying past injustices? Purely a speculation.

But that isn't the only factor when comparing these cities with seemingly similar populations. The geographic nature of the cities also skew the numbers. Texas is rich in natural resources such as oil where as California's economy is centered around technology and farming. The income levels of those jobs must also be taken into consideration. Personally, I think liberal or conservative leadership has very little impact on these factors.

While i agree Texas has the natural resources like oil which has certainly helped the state. Northern Texas is known as the silicone prairie. I be the number of tech companies in the silicone prairie is similar to silicone valley.

(05-14-2015 08:23 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  "Blacks’ real median household income ticked up to $34,598 in 2013, roughly 59% that of whites’, a ratio that has also not varied much since the Census Bureau began tracking this data in 1967."

But muh Great Society!!!!

What was it before 1967?

(05-14-2015 08:57 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:40 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Big cities where they make up a large portion of local government?

Is that true of Raleigh, Charlotte, San Antonio, Miami, or Orlando?

No.

Article should be re-titled "where there are lots of black people".

(05-14-2015 01:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But that isn't the only factor when comparing these cities with seemingly similar populations. The geographic nature of the cities also skew the numbers. Texas is rich in natural resources such as oil where as California's economy is centered around technology and farming. The income levels of those jobs must also be taken into consideration. Personally, I think liberal or conservative leadership has very little impact on these factors.

Cali is big in oil and gas as well... The port of LA and SF/Oakland are bigger than Houston.... plus they have more military. Texas is also big in Farming... just ask Texas A&M. You're saying there is more money in Texas than in California? The facts aren't on your side there either.

GDP for Cali in feb 2015 was 2.3byn and Texas is 1.6byn
From 2005-2009, Cali was 1.6-1.9 trillion while Texas was 980byn to 1.3 tril
Even on a per capita basis, where census estimates for 7/14 were 27mm vs 39mm
they are about the same.

According to the USDA, http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/st...09iT18C0x0

in Cali... per capita income is 48,434 77,000 farms averaging 328 acres
in Texas... per capita income is 43,862 250,000 farms averaging 523 acres

Now there are lots of ways to look at all of this, but the idea that Cali is big into farming but Texas isn't is just not correct.

But the bigger question is, what does the source of the industry that have to do with how well black people do? Are you saying that black people do well in Oil in Texas but not in Cali, and in the farming and technology in Texas, but not the farming and technology in Cali?

I specifically chose Texas and Cali because they are so similar in many ways.... and so different in others.

(05-14-2015 11:28 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Can't be true. The South is full of racist, white-loving, KKK-member shitlords. There's no way blacks are doing better down here.

You must admire their tenacity.

Reminds me of.

@ 2:45 - 2:58

(05-14-2015 02:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 01:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But that isn't the only factor when comparing these cities with seemingly similar populations. The geographic nature of the cities also skew the numbers. Texas is rich in natural resources such as oil where as California's economy is centered around technology and farming. The income levels of those jobs must also be taken into consideration. Personally, I think liberal or conservative leadership has very little impact on these factors.

Cali is big in oil and gas as well... The port of LA and SF/Oakland are bigger than Houston.... plus they have more military. Texas is also big in Farming... just ask Texas A&M. You're saying there is more money in Texas than in California? The facts aren't on your side there either.

GDP for Cali in feb 2015 was 2.3byn and Texas is 1.6byn
From 2005-2009, Cali was 1.6-1.9 trillion while Texas was 980byn to 1.3 tril
Even on a per capita basis, where census estimates for 7/14 were 27mm vs 39mm
they are about the same.

According to the USDA, http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/st...09iT18C0x0

in Cali... per capita income is 48,434 77,000 farms averaging 328 acres
in Texas... per capita income is 43,862 250,000 farms averaging 523 acres

Now there are lots of ways to look at all of this, but the idea that Cali is big into farming but Texas isn't is just not correct.

But the bigger question is, what does the source of the industry that have to do with how well black people do? Are you saying that black people do well in Oil in Texas but not in Cali, and in the farming and technology in Texas, but not the farming and technology in Cali?

I specifically chose Texas and Cali because they are so similar in many ways.... and so different in others.

I didn't say there was more money here or there. I said the geographic make up of each state makes their economies different and therefore like comparing apples and oranges. In Texas, you could work in oil and make good money without much education. I don't think you could do the same in the silicone valley.