(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpewsocialtrends.org%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F07%2F2011-wealth-gaps-24.png&hash=73ed7ec90b07776eb7f9e72877084a8d5c667fc5)
http://www.citylimits.org/multimedia/382/wealth-gap-hits-record-between-whites-minorities
QuoteA report by the Pew Research Center finds that white households' average wealth is 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households - the largest such gap in 25 years when records began- and roughly twice the ratios that had prevailed between these three groups for the two decades prior to the Great Recession that ended in 2009.
Aside from being terrible results in their own right, this is bad, bad, bad for social cohesion.
Maybe "they" better get off welfare and quit haning out on the corner.
What the report doesn't say is that drop from white pipples from 2005 to 2009 was specifically all of Berkut's money.
Do these numbers include illegal wealth?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2011, 05:15:58 AM
Aside from being terrible results in their own right, this is bad, bad, bad for social cohesion.
So you're saying white people should spend more money? :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2011, 05:15:58 AM
Aside from being terrible results in their own right, this is bad, bad, bad for social cohesion.
How the fuck is this true "now" when the data is from two years ago? :huh:
This kind of "analysis" is :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ^100000
Two snapshots chosen for no scientifically valid reason does not tell us fuck-all. The more so when it is data that is old and cryptic.
How does a household make $5,000 a year? That is one third of the annual income of one person making minimum wage. The average black household has one third of a person working a minimum wage job?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fntaboo.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F08%2Fscreenshot-163.jpeg&hash=c919dabf1ef044f9cd7c486f5ae4d490133b9ff2)
Bah it is the median household....
Still.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 23, 2011, 08:17:40 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fntaboo.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F08%2Fscreenshot-163.jpeg&hash=c919dabf1ef044f9cd7c486f5ae4d490133b9ff2)
It must be nice to be rich enough to afford poker playing dogs.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 08:18:35 AM
Bah it is the median household....
Still.
Your point still stands as that means that less than half of black households are making that amount. I guess most are making 0?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2011, 05:20:40 AM
What the report doesn't say is that drop from white pipples from 2005 to 2009 was specifically all of Berkut's money.
WTF is your deal?
How did I become the sand in your vagina?
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 08:14:32 AM
How does a household make $5,000 a year? That is one third of the annual income of one person making minimum wage. The average black household has one third of a person working a minimum wage job?
This is net worth, not income.
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2011, 08:29:15 AM
This is net worth, not income.
Ah so really it is a measure of home ownership versus debt for lower and middle classes. I guess this means that over half of Latinos and Blacks rent.
I suspect this is more to do with negative equity caused by the real estate bubble burst than with people actually becoming poorer as a result of drop in income.
I am guessing that gap is almost entirely explained by home ownership rate differences?
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 08:33:37 AM
I am guessing that gap is almost entirely explained by home ownership rate differences?
I am not sure if this is the case. After all net worth should deduct any mortgage, so two families with a similar income and similar costs of living, one renting and one owning a home, should not have a vastly different net worth.
A mortgage becomes a pitiful sum after 15 years of payment though, for many people this is how they slowly build their net worth, it is why many people in the 40+ age bracket are better off than their gross incomes might imply.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2011, 08:40:48 AM
A mortgage becomes a pitiful sum after 15 years of payment though, for many people this is how they slowly build their net worth, it is why many people in the 40+ age bracket are better off than their gross incomes might imply.
Exactly. A mortgage means that you are building wealth. Median wealth for a white family is only ~100k$, that really isn't that much. I bet most of that is the equity in their home.
I don't think you can reach any valid conlclusion based on the information presented. Medians are generally better than averages, but they can be misleading in their own right if different groups follow different distributions. We also have no measure of how negative net worth can get normally, without it becoming a disaster, so we don't know how serious that 2/3 median drop for Hispanics is.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2011, 08:40:48 AM
A mortgage becomes a pitiful sum after 15 years of payment though, for many people this is how they slowly build their net worth, it is why many people in the 40+ age bracket are better off than their gross incomes might imply.
Yeah, my mom's only income is her Social Security check, which is a good bit less than what my take-home pay is, but she owns her own home free and clear (the mortgage was paid off 35 years ago), so her housing costs are effectively zero, while mine take up a fair portion of my income. She's able to have basically the same standard of living that I do on a lower income.
OTOH, that also shows the danger of using net worth as the only factor in someone's wealth. My mom's net worth is probably about $10,000 without includinng her house; with her house it probably was around $135,000 6 years ago and about $85,000 now. But nothing has really changed; yes, her house is worth less because of the falling real estate market, but she had no intent of selling it anyway, so from her POV, her net worth was about $10K both then and now.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2011, 08:40:48 AM
A mortgage becomes a pitiful sum after 15 years of payment though, for many people this is how they slowly build their net worth, it is why many people in the 40+ age bracket are better off than their gross incomes might imply.
Shouldn't mortgage payments be greater than rent payments, though? If so, after the same 15 years, the renting family should have more savings, presumedly.
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2011, 09:44:01 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2011, 08:40:48 AM
A mortgage becomes a pitiful sum after 15 years of payment though, for many people this is how they slowly build their net worth, it is why many people in the 40+ age bracket are better off than their gross incomes might imply.
Shouldn't mortgage payments be greater than rent payments, though? If so, after the same 15 years, the renting family should have more savings, presumedly.
It depends.
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2011, 09:44:01 AM
Shouldn't mortgage payments be greater than rent payments, though? If so, after the same 15 years, the renting family should have more savings, presumedly.
If that was true how would you make any money renting out your place?
I pay less on my mortgage than I did for my rent and it is a bigger place. But there are other costs to owning like having to fix stuff yourself.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 09:45:22 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2011, 09:44:01 AM
Shouldn't mortgage payments be greater than rent payments, though? If so, after the same 15 years, the renting family should have more savings, presumedly.
If that was true how would you make any money renting out your place?
I pay less on my mortgage than I did for my rent and it is a bigger place. But there are other costs to owning like having to fix stuff yourself.
Conversely, if it wasn't true, why would anyone rent?
I don't think under normal circumstances, you should make enough on renting out a place to pay off your mortgage - otherwise you would effectively be getting your property for free, only with a time delay, which makes no sense.
Edit: I saw your correction about the additional costs. Yeah, count these in too. If you do, an owner with a mortgage should spend more money on his property than a tenant - which means the tenant should get extra cash to increase his net worth. :huh:
Presumedly, under normal circumstances, the cash that the tenant gets to keep, if invested, should yield similar, if not better, results than the real property owner - if this was not the case, then everyone would invest into nothing but real property.
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2011, 09:48:28 AM
Conversely, if it wasn't true, why would anyone rent?
Because owning ties to one location and owning is a pain.
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2011, 09:48:28 AM
Presumedly, under normal circumstances, the cash that the tenant gets to keep, if invested, should yield similar, if not better, results than the real property owner - if this was not the case, then everyone would invest into nothing but real property.
Well the numbers in the US show that renters are NOT doing this they spend their money. And almost everybody in the middle and lower classes net worth IS in their real estate property.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 09:53:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2011, 09:48:28 AM
Conversely, if it wasn't true, why would anyone rent?
Because owning ties to one location and owning is a pain.
Ok so by renting you get better mobility - which should translate into better profit.
The bottom line is this - assuming economical behavior of market actors, two families starting with equal capital, one of which one buys a real property with a mortgage and another one rents, should (subject to fluctuations of the market and relative profitability of real estate vs. other forms of investment) at the end of any period have broadly equal net worth.
So, you can't explain the vast differences shown in the study by home ownership vs. renting, unless the renters either earn less or waste their extra money (that they do not invest in real property) on shit, or both.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 09:54:56 AM
And almost everybody in the middle and lower classes net worth IS in their real estate property.
Which is pretty terrible, if you think about it. One shouldn't have all their eggs in one basket.
Of course, net worth is not a very good measure of wealth in itself. It rarely accounts for income streams, whether fully guaranteed like pensions, or reasonably guaranteed like career income.
The renters almost certainly earn less.
Buying is generally more long term advnatageous than renting, which is why most people who can buy do so. But to get a mortgage* you need a decent income, steady job, and good credit. Something many lower income households do not have, hence their lower net wealth.
*At least in theory, Barney Frank not withstanding.
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2011, 10:01:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 09:54:56 AM
And almost everybody in the middle and lower classes net worth IS in their real estate property.
Which is pretty terrible, if you think about it. One shouldn't have all their eggs in one basket.
Of course, net worth is not a very good measure of wealth in itself. It rarely accounts for income streams, whether fully guaranteed like pensions, or reasonably guaranteed like career income.
Indeed. And while "whites have 18 times the net median wealth as blacks!" makes for some juicy headlines, the reality is that the much bigger story is not that one group of median income people have a lot more as a multiple of another, it is that neither group has much of anything compared to the people with real net worth. $100k net worth is nothing, really. It won't protect you from anything, and won't make any significant difference to you compared to $20k net worth. It is just an indicator that you are middle class instead of lower class.
The real story is that even the middle class lost a significant chunk of their net worth, while the upper class...did they lose any to speak of?
It's quite possible that, say, 60% of whites own a property and only 40% of black people. If that was the case then selecting the 50th centile for net worth would be a great way of grossly exaggerating racial differences in wealth.
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2011, 09:57:03 AM
Ok so by renting you get better mobility - which should translate into better profit.
Not sure what "profit" means here. Higher wage? Possibly.
QuoteThe bottom line is this - assuming economical behavior of market actors, two families starting with equal capital, one of which one buys a real property with a mortgage and another one rents, should (subject to fluctuations of the market and relative profitability of real estate vs. other forms of investment) at the end of any period have broadly equal net worth.
Not at all true. The home buyer is going to increase net worth more than the renter, all other things being equal, because total cost to rent > total cost to own (else no one would rent out properties). The reason why people rent rather than buy is because of the high transaction cost to buy and sell a house. Unless you know that you will be in a location for long enough to recoup those costs in increased home sales value, you rent.
QuoteSo, you can't explain the vast differences shown in the study by home ownership vs. renting,
So, actually, you can.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2011, 10:18:57 AM
It's quite possible that, say, 60% of whites own a property and only 40% of black people. If that was the case then selecting the 50th centile for net worth would be a great way of grossly exaggerating racial differences in wealth.
Surely nobody would ever do such a thing!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2011, 05:15:58 AM
QuoteA report by the Pew Research Center finds that white households' average wealth is 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households - the largest such gap in 25 years when records began- and roughly twice the ratios that had prevailed between these three groups for the two decades prior to the Great Recession that ended in 2009.
Aside from being terrible results in their own right, this is bad, bad, bad for social cohesion.
Wait what? The text you quoted claims that the average white family has 20 times the value of an average black family but that is not what the graph is showing. These are the median families. Meh.
No wonder I was initially confused.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 10:27:27 AM
Wait what? The text you quoted claims that the average white family has 20 times the value of an average black family but that is not what the graph is showing. These are the median families. Meh.
No wonder I was initially confused.
He doesn't even provide a link, so I am questioning the validity of this whole thing. If you google his quote, the only hit is his post.
That Pew research stinks.
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 10:01:57 AM
The renters almost certainly earn less.
Buying is generally more long term advnatageous than renting, which is why most people who can buy do so. But to get a mortgage* you need a decent income, steady job, and good credit. Something many lower income households do not have, hence their lower net wealth.
*At least in theory, Barney Frank not withstanding.
Ok, so saying that the wealth differences are due to home ownership rates is a bit disingenious. It's like saying that flying in a private jet makes you richer than flying economy class. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2011, 10:53:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 10:01:57 AM
The renters almost certainly earn less.
Buying is generally more long term advnatageous than renting, which is why most people who can buy do so. But to get a mortgage* you need a decent income, steady job, and good credit. Something many lower income households do not have, hence their lower net wealth.
*At least in theory, Barney Frank not withstanding.
Ok, so saying that the wealth differences are due to home ownership rates is a bit disingenious. It's like saying that flying in a private jet makes you richer than flying economy class. ;)
Saved for posterity.
lol posterity
There are the other reasons people rent. Not having to be responsible for maintenance and upkeep, maintaining geographical mobility, living in a place like a major urban center where renting is more convenient, not having property taxes. You pay a premium for that stuff. If you buy, all costs are yours.
Renters still get to kill trespassers at will?
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2011, 11:07:13 AM
lol posterity
"Why we should put ourselves out of our way to do anything for posterity, for what has posterity ever done for us?"
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2011, 09:57:03 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 09:53:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2011, 09:48:28 AM
Conversely, if it wasn't true, why would anyone rent?
Because owning ties to one location and owning is a pain.
Ok so by renting you get better mobility - which should translate into better profit.
The bottom line is this - assuming economical behavior of market actors, two families starting with equal capital, one of which one buys a real property with a mortgage and another one rents, should (subject to fluctuations of the market and relative profitability of real estate vs. other forms of investment) at the end of any period have broadly equal net worth.
So, you can't explain the vast differences shown in the study by home ownership vs. renting, unless the renters either earn less or waste their extra money (that they do not invest in real property) on shit, or both.
A mortgage acts as a sort of forced savings. In theory, one could rent for less and put the cash into other investments - but the reality for the average person is that they do not save nearly as much if they are not required to.
This, as much as anything, explains why a mortgage works to build wealth. There is nothing whatsoever stopping someone from setting up an automatic investment paying 40% of their income into equities each and every month or whatever - but very few do that. I do, to an extent - I make automatic monthly withdrawals into savings as well as paying a mortgage.
Quote from: Pat on August 23, 2011, 12:06:50 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2011, 11:07:13 AM
lol posterity
"Why we should put ourselves out of our way to do anything for posterity, for what has posterity ever done for us?"
I think he meant posterity means "arse". :P
Nah, I was just impressed that you both made a valid point, and also came up with a fitting analogy to reinforce it. Therefore, I had to save it. Who knows how many years will pass before you make a post like that again?
Here's a question. How far skewed does the rental market have to be before paying the rent and saving/investing as well is a better plan to get to the point where you have enough money to pay off a property and live rent free over getting a mortgage and paying all that interest and taxes over the same period?
Assuming you can get a decent return on your cash savings.
http://insights.truliablog.com/vis/rent-vs-buy-q3/
These don't take into account the opportunity costs but I think it does taxes. I assume the biggest drawback of buying is the massive interest you pay. But you can't live nowhere, so the rent eats up the same. Unless you live in your parents' basement I guess.
Buying also comes with maintenance costs.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 23, 2011, 02:50:57 PM
Here's a question. How far skewed does the rental market have to be before paying the rent and saving/investing as well is a better plan to get to the point where you have enough money to pay off a property and live rent free over getting a mortgage and paying all that interest and taxes over the same period?
Assuming you can get a decent return on your cash savings.
http://insights.truliablog.com/vis/rent-vs-buy-q3/
These don't take into account the opportunity costs but I think it does taxes. I assume the biggest drawback of buying is the massive interest you pay. But you can't live nowhere, so the rent eats up the same. Unless you live in your parents' basement I guess.
Well said.
I feel really sorry for the black guy who is 20 times poorer then I am.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2011, 03:46:21 PM
I feel really sorry for the black guy who is 20 times poorer then I am.
:lol:
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2011, 11:21:56 AM
Renters still get to kill trespassers at will?
Yes.
From what I've seen when I've looked at buying, a straight out mortgage is almost always significantly less than rent.
But....
Renting:
- You pay rent.
- Easy to move. (being in the military, rather important).
Buying:
- You pay mortgage (cheaper).
- You pay for all that maintenance crap.
- Property taxes (we love those in Amerika), and in some places, those are a huge deal.
- Immobile (unless you want to deal with the ass pain of either selling/moving/landlording).
Until I figure I'll be stuck somewhere for awhile, renting seems the wiser choice.
QuoteEasy to move. (being in the military, rather important).
I never did get the point of chair force officers buying houses in my area. They are gone in 1-2years and they got stuck with a house they couldn't sell.
I will give you chair force props for being the best people to rent to I ever had.
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2011, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2011, 05:20:40 AM
What the report doesn't say is that drop from white pipples from 2005 to 2009 was specifically all of Berkut's money.
WTF is your deal?
How did I become the sand in your vagina?
Because you make it so easy sometimes. :P
Quote from: grumbler on August 23, 2011, 10:36:18 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2011, 10:27:27 AM
Wait what? The text you quoted claims that the average white family has 20 times the value of an average black family but that is not what the graph is showing. These are the median families. Meh.
No wonder I was initially confused.
He doesn't even provide a link, so I am questioning the validity of this whole thing. If you google his quote, the only hit is his post.
My mistake
Here's where the graph is from. I forget where I got that blurb.
http://www.citylimits.org/multimedia/382/wealth-gap-hits-record-between-whites-minorities
Where the hell is my $113,000?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 10:30:19 PM
Where the hell is my $113,000?
The most productive members of society have it. Sorry. :(
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2011, 10:31:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 10:30:19 PM
Where the hell is my $113,000?
The most productive members of society have it. Sorry. :(
They won't let me be productive.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 10:40:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2011, 10:31:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 10:30:19 PM
Where the hell is my $113,000?
The most productive members of society have it. Sorry. :(
They won't let me be productive.
"They" in this case being you many negative moral, mental, and emotional traits.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 23, 2011, 10:18:57 AM
It's quite possible that, say, 60% of whites own a property and only 40% of black people. If that was the case then selecting the 50th centile for net worth would be a great way of grossly exaggerating racial differences in wealth.
I'd guess that it's closer to 80% and 20%.
Quote from: dps on August 23, 2011, 11:30:02 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 10:40:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2011, 10:31:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 10:30:19 PM
Where the hell is my $113,000?
The most productive members of society have it. Sorry. :(
They won't let me be productive.
"They" in this case being you many negative moral, mental, and emotional traits.
I reject your attempt to set up a circle of judgment.
Quote from: dps on August 23, 2011, 11:30:02 PM
"They" in this case being you many negative moral, mental, and emotional traits.
I think the "they", in this case is the bar association. They don't let just anyone practice law. At least in this country. You know, I tried to warn Ide about this when he said he was going to law school. I said, "Ide, you aren't going to be a lawyer. They have laws against things like that". And he respond "Fuck you, you goddamn psycho". See, if had listened to me, he good be doing something useful.
That's not true. I'd have said "God damned." I question the authenticity of your story.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 11:47:43 PM
That's not true. I'd have said "God damned." I question the authenticity of your story.
You don't remember me telling you this?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2011, 11:50:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 11:47:43 PM
That's not true. I'd have said "God damned." I question the authenticity of your story.
You don't remember me telling you this?
Nope.
In any event, I'm not prohibited by any law from bar membership. I chose not to join the SC Bar, because I don't want to live here anymore, and because I soured on the prospect of attorney practice, although at some point, somewhere else, I may seek bar admission. You don't remember me telling you that? Because that wasn't three years ago, that was last week.
I know all!
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 10:40:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2011, 10:31:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 10:30:19 PM
Where the hell is my $113,000?
The most productive members of society have it. Sorry. :(
They won't let me be productive.
Being that you've been applying for Federal jobs, obviously you have no serious intention of being productive. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 24, 2011, 01:23:56 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 10:40:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2011, 10:31:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 10:30:19 PM
Where the hell is my $113,000?
The most productive members of society have it. Sorry. :(
They won't let me be productive.
Being that you've been applying for Federal jobs, obviously you have no serious intention of being productive. :P
Only the State has a right to utilize my labor value.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2011, 11:44:35 PM
I think the "they", in this case is the bar association. They don't let just anyone practice law.
They need some trustbustin'.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 24, 2011, 01:25:14 AM
Only the State has a right to utilize my labor value.
I've heard you wait tables beautifully. You could go back to that, stick with your strengths.
How come hispanics make more than blacks when blacks have been living in the States forever while hispanics are recent inmigrants largely descriminated upon, including by blacks?
Quote from: Siege on August 24, 2011, 06:55:42 PM
How come hispanics make more than blacks when blacks have been living in the States forever while hispanics are recent inmigrants largely descriminated upon, including by blacks?
How come you could be naturalized as an American citizen and still be ignorant enough to think Hispanics in the US are just "recent immigrants?"
Quote from: grumbler on August 24, 2011, 07:04:43 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 24, 2011, 06:55:42 PM
How come hispanics make more than blacks when blacks have been living in the States forever while hispanics are recent inmigrants largely descriminated upon, including by blacks?
How come you could be naturalized as an American citizen and still be ignorant enough to think Hispanics in the US are just "recent immigrants?"
Are you saying Hispanics are no better than Niggers?
Aren`t rural areas mostly white?
This could perhaps explain the size of the gap a bit- urban folk tend more towards renting whilst people in the country own.
Quote from: Tyr on August 24, 2011, 07:53:21 PM
Aren`t rural areas mostly white?
Speaking for South Carolina, no.
Quote from: grumbler on August 24, 2011, 07:04:43 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 24, 2011, 06:55:42 PM
How come hispanics make more than blacks when blacks have been living in the States forever while hispanics are recent inmigrants largely descriminated upon, including by blacks?
How come you could be naturalized as an American citizen and still be ignorant enough to think Hispanics in the US are just "recent immigrants?"
I'm guessing our very liberal naturalization laws.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 24, 2011, 08:01:55 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 24, 2011, 07:53:21 PM
Aren`t rural areas mostly white?
Speaking for South Carolina, no.
Of course in Canada, the answer is very much yes. Or, at least, white and native.
To answer Tyr more completely - immigration over the past 40-50 years has been almost entirely to urban areas. So our rural areas tend to mirror the racial mixture of 40-50 years ago.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 10:04:35 PM
immigration over the past 40-50 years has been almost entirely to urban areas.
You are never going to settle Nunavut that way!
I lost 2/3rds of my wealth a couple of years ago. My household also got 50% smaller.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2011, 10:04:35 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 24, 2011, 08:01:55 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 24, 2011, 07:53:21 PM
Aren`t rural areas mostly white?
Speaking for South Carolina, no.
Of course in Canada, the answer is very much yes. Or, at least, white and native.
Well, no kidding. :lol:
I guess it does depend on what he means by mostly. Taken as a whole, South Carolina's rural areas are probably "mostly" white, in that the white rural population exceeds 50%.
Quote from: grumbler on August 24, 2011, 07:04:43 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 24, 2011, 06:55:42 PM
How come hispanics make more than blacks when blacks have been living in the States forever while hispanics are recent inmigrants largely descriminated upon, including by blacks?
How come you could be naturalized as an American citizen and still be ignorant enough to think Hispanics in the US are just "recent immigrants?"
Quite a few of them are.
Quote from: PDH on August 24, 2011, 10:28:39 PM
I lost 2/3rds of my wealth a couple of years ago. My household also got 50% smaller.
Yeah, those younger women tend to be less porky :cool: