Comments on: Race and the Economic Downturn

By: Public Perceptions of the State of the Economy And More « Welcome to the Doctor's Office

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:05:18 +0000

[...] and job loss, differences in optimism about the future, unemployment by race/sex/education, occupation, median earnings, and race, and the geography of job [...]

By: Joblessness and the Intersection of Class and Race » Sociological Images

Joblessness and the Intersection of Class and Race » Sociological Images — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:10:09 +0000

[...] more detailed data on this phenomenon, see our posts on race and the economic downturn, the intersection of race and criminal record, and education and unemployment. Leave a [...]

By: Wednesday Round Up #89 « Neuroanthropology

Wednesday Round Up #89 « Neuroanthropology — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:06:01 +0000

[...] @ Sociological Images, Race and the Economic Downturn Great graphics and good discussion of the effects of the financial predicament for diverse groups [...]

By: Kelly

Kelly — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:36:13 +0000

Immigrant workers, undocumented or otherwise, unless they’ve been trafficked and held in virtual slavery, don’t just produce, ‘taking’ jobs, they also consume, creating them. If anything, the economic cost is the low wages they’re forced to take to stay under the radar, reducing their ability to consume, not the work they ‘take’ from legal and citizen workers.

By: opminded

opminded — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:38:33 +0000

If you don’t think 12 million undocumented workers in the US puts upward pressure on Black unemployment then you either don’t know math or your are a liar.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:29:27 +0000

But that 9.2 isn’t the lowest point on the Black graph, it’s just 1998 which was labelled for everybody for some reason, and holding a set square against the screen, I can see the latest two low points on the Black line (approx 2000 and 2007) fall below the white 9.1 in 1983.
Which is not to say that the inequality isn’t ridiculous, just the labelling was misleading.

(why was 1998 labelled? I’m Australian and was still in school then, so I’d have no idea if there was a major event in the US economy worth labelling in that year.)

By: Philip Cohen

Philip Cohen — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:09:03 +0000

That is “gender” breakdown, which is not a tender affair (sorry).

By: Philip Cohen

Philip Cohen — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:03:30 +0000

The tender breakdown is important in the employment numbers. In the current recession, Black women have lost almost twice as many jobs as a share of population than White women. I show this with today’s employment report here: http://www.familyinequality.com.

By: shale

shale — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:25:31 +0000

“So as we see, Whites are disproportionately employed in management and professional occupations, while relatively few are employed in the service industry, whereas both African Americans and Latinos are significantly more likely to be employed in services. ”

That is not what it is saying. It is saying that white people constitute a disproportionate share of management positions, and black people a disproportionate share of the lowest job bracket (which is interesting). But, depending on how many people are in each category, a majority of white people could still be employed in the lower categories, (which as far as I know, happens to be the case) and very many black people could be in higher categories (which is less the case, but still possible given the incompleteness of the information). The lower graphs mostly just re-iterate the first point. There are a few really f**king rich white people that screw these graphs up.

(More interestingly, as far as I know, there is plenty of inequality across races (among other things) within job categories.)

By: Bagelsan

Bagelsan — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:19:09 +0000

Hey, Evan, opminded has every right to be pissed off that my econ-major friend from college (blue-eyed, blonde-haired, and European) stayed in the US for a little bit after her visa ran out until she could find a job!

…I mean, that’s totally who opminded meant, right? ;p

By: Evan

Evan — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:13:22 +0000

We created that “problem” for ourselves, by deciding that we need to protect ourselves from the Asian, Mexican and other non christian protestant people coming to enjoy the same life our ancestors chose to immigrate for.

Not including most black americans of course, whose ancestors were dragged here.

The very idea that there are “foreigners” who somehow cause problems for we regular people who have some sort of birth right to be here is just plain racist. no gray area there.

Had native americans criminalized immigration, however, maybe they would still be in power, complaining about the english and their drag on the dental industry.

Sorry for the harsh words, but I think it’s time to start being honest with ourselves about the world we have created here.

By: opminded

opminded — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:59:46 +0000

12 million undocumented foreign workers only makes this all worse.

By: Luey

Luey — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:34:04 +0000

OHHHHHH. Yes, that makes much more sense.

By: Gwen

Gwen — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:31:22 +0000

No, he’s pointing out that the HIGHEST level of unemployment shown for whites (9.1%) is lower than the LOWEST level for Blacks (9.2%) during this time period.

By: Luey

Luey — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:27:25 +0000

Am I reading the graph incorrectly? I don’t see that at all – I see a white and Latino curve that echoes the black curve, just at a consistently lower level.

For example, look at the three years with highest rates of white unemployment: ~1975, ~1983, and now. Then look at the three years with highest rates of black unemployment: ~1975, ~1983, and now.

What I notice is not that whites experience lower rates of unemployment at the same time that blacks experience higher rates of unemployment, but that the white curve is more level overall. Whites don’t seem to experience the same ups and downs based on economic whims that other races suffer.