[humanrebar]

> In the case of Black poverty in the US there are probably better places to look first than the issue of single parent households.

With all due respect, you have a lot to say on an empirical claim (does race matter much more than parental status with respect to poverty?) without any data to back it up.

One could argue that broken families today is part of the legacy of slavery from 150 years ago, or disagree with the sources already cited, but I don't see you making those arguments. Or citing factual sources otherwise.

> The kind of analysis you put forward can easily start looking like its saying that poverty among black people is a moral failing of black people, rather than a moral failing of society.

Yes, prejudice is a danger. Do we ignore the analysis because of the risk of bigotry? Or is there a way to phrase the issue that lets us presume good faith, have an honest discussion, and perhaps correct subtle bigotry if it becomes clear?

[Scarblac]

The end of slavery may be 150 years ago, but the end of official state mandated segregation is much more recent, like the end of the 50s, less than 60 years ago.

[andrewvc]

Casting doubt here is pointless and detracts from the discussion. If the bar for discussion on hacker news is the same as for a peer reviewed paper no one will ever be able to say anything of use here.

[humanrebar]

> If the bar for discussion on hacker news is the same as for a peer reviewed paper no one will ever be able to say anything of use here.

Agreed, but when someone posts some sources, replying with speculation isn't very useful, in my opinion.

[a_humean]

In my opinion pedantry isn't helpful for stimulating conversation. You admitted ignorance of the causes of US poverty and of US history ('As a non-American I am less than qualified to provide an answer'), suggested a very simple single parent household theory with evidence of a correlation with poverty. I merely placed your theory and evidence within a historical and ongoing context of oppression (slavery and state sponsored oppression didn't end 150 year ago).

Pretty sure that Jim Crow and Slavery aren't speculation, but are common historical facts that don't require citation, much like saying World War 2 or the Annexation of Crimea happened doesn't require citation.

The point wasn't that single parent households aren't a cause of poverty (it certainly doesn't help), but that it is far too simplistic, that it is probably more symptomatic than causal, and with a US political lens can be seen as a case of dog whistle politics (not accusing you personally of engaging in such politics, which I should have made more clear).

[humanrebar]

> You admitted ignorance of the causes of US poverty and of US history

You're confusing me with another commenter.