SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3194)11/23/2000 7:00:05 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6710
 
Re: ghettoes. The way I read this report by the Brookings Institution, one reason Hispanics and blacks are concentrated in urban areas is because there are better social programs available. Very interesting report, available in its entirety via PDF.

>>Unfinished Business:
Why Cities Matter to Welfare Reform
by Katherine Allen and Maria Kirby
Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy
July 2000

Abstract

This report tracks welfare caseloads in the 89 counties that contain the 100
largest U.S. cities. It finds that, over the last five years, welfare caseloads have
become predominantly urban. In 1994, when national welfare rolls hit a historic
high, 48 percent of welfare recipients lived in the 89 counties. By contrast, in
1999, these counties were home to 58 percent of the nation's welfare
recipients. The fact that families on welfare are concentrated in urban areas has
important implications for the success or failure of welfare reform.

Key Findings

The bulk of America's welfare families now live in urban areas, which has
important implications for the success or failure of welfare reform. This survey
analyzes welfare caseloads in the 89 urban counties that contain the 100
largest U.S. cities between 1994 and 1999. The main findings are:
While urban welfare caseloads are declining rapidly, they are
shrinking more slowly than national caseloads. Between 1994 and 1999,
the urban counties' welfare caseloads dropped by 40.6 percent, while the
national caseload dropped by 51.5 percent, a difference of more than 10
percent-age points.
Urban areas' share of families on welfare has grown. While the 89 urban
counties contained roughly one third (32.6 percent) of the total U.S. population,
their share of the national welfare caseload grew from 47.5 per-cent in 1994 to
58.1 percent in 1999.
Many urban counties are shouldering vastly more of their state's
welfare cases than their share of the state's total population. Fifty-four
counties out of 88, or 61 percent, have more than their "fair share" of their
state's caseload relative to their share of the total state population, while 34
counties, or 39 percent, have an equivalent or smaller share of the state
caseload than of the total population.
In 1999, ten states accounted for nearly 70 percent of national welfare
cases, up significantly from 42.5 percent in 1994. The bulk of the national
welfare population can be found in: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. These ten
states contained 53 percent of the overall national population in 1999.
In 1999, ten urban counties contained nearly one third (32.7 percent) of
the entire nation's welfare cases, up from less than a quarter (24.0
percent) in 1994. The ten counties are: Los Angeles County, New York City,
Cook County (Chicago), Philadelphia County, San Bernadino County, Wayne
County (Detroit), San Diego County, Sacramento County, Fresno County, and
Cuyahoga County (Cleveland). These counties contained only 12.2 percent of
the overall national population in 1999.
Since 1996, the overall racial com-position of the welfare caseload in
20 of the largest urban counties has changed only slightly. The proportion
of the caseload that was black increased by 0.6 percentage points between
1996 and 1999, the proportion Hispanic increased by 2.7 percentage points,
while the proportion white decreased by 3.3 percentage points, and the
percentage "other" remained stable.<<

brook.edu

If you want to be non-PC, let's do it. Let't talk about race, poverty, and welfare.

Naturally, the politicians representing the ghetto constituency are going to be pro-active about getting more welfare and more social programs. Similarly, the politicians representing the tax-payers are going to be pro-active about cutting taxes. There are competing interests involved in cutting up the pie. With the welfare users becoming concentrated in a few urban areas, the social distance between them and the welfare payers has widened, which contributes to the polarization of our society.

My radical friend in Eugene, who, like me, is from Baton Rouge and grew up during Jim Crow segregation, has expressed the radical thought that one reason Oregon is such a great place to live is that there aren't many people on welfare. He also says that when he first moved to Eugene, there were so few black people that he knew all of them. Now the non-white population is mostly Asian, and they work very hard. You live in Oregon. Have you ever lived in a city that was majority black? I have, New Orleans. The crime rate, the illiteracy rate, the illegitimacy rate, all staggering. Likewise, the Bronx, Watts, Southeast DC.

Why? Jim Crow segretation ended in 1968. That's 32 years ago. Why are these ghettoes getting more concentrated?

Why do we still need Affirmative Action? When are the races going to compete on a level playing field? Ever? Will blacks and Hispanics always need extra points to compete? If not, why do they continue to demand them?

The reasons for the differences between the haves and have nots in our society are many, and we can agree that one reason is education, and another reason is advantage and another reason is opportunity.

How do you teach children who grew up in dysfunctional households to function? How do you teach them not to engage in sex at an early age? How do you teach them not to steal? How do you teach them not to use drugs?

In 1997, 50 percent of young black men in the District of Columbia are either incarcerated, on probation, on parole, on bond, or being sought with an arrest warrant. Nation wide it was one in three.

Why?

ndsn.org

Why did most blacks think OJ was innocent while most whites thought he was guilty?

I don't know the answers, that's why I am asking.

But I think there is something seriously wrong when 95% of blacks vote Democrat. Something seriously wrong with the Republican party, maybe. Something seriously wrong with America, definitely. There should not be this racial polarization. It's not healthy.

This is a can of worms, but you opened it.

I'll tell you what I think. I think that minorities that are able to, move out of the ghetto and live ordinary lives. The others sit around and feel sorry for themselves and blame others. I am part Chippewa and when I visited a reservation for the first time, in Minnesota, in September, I went to a museum on the reservation, and was horrified at the whining display of self-pity. My great grandmother and her sisters all went to school, got jobs, worked hard, got married, and integrated themselves into the dominant culture.

The ones that tried to live the old way were no worse off before the white man came, it was just the contrast that made them feel poor, it seems to me. I never thought being an Indian was something to whine about. I was shocked.

If you aren't willing to work your ass off, don't bitch about being poor.