[jerf]

Yes, if you slice the stats fine enough you can eventually find some statement of apparent interest, but it comes from your stat slicing, not anything useful. You name the race and I'll find a location in the world where they have poverty rates in excess of some other race. It's not useful information.

This is why it's so important to first formulate a question, then consult the stats; examining the stats for questions is actually very dangerous, you'll always find something, but not necessarily something important. Particularly when you start moving the goalposts when the stats didn't say what you wanted them to say.

[Anechoic]

Particularly when you start moving the goalposts when the stats didn't say what you wanted them to say.

I'm taking issue with your statement "if chinese, Indians and Koreans do well" and the implication that these groups are doing well. First there is the definition of "do well" which I'm taking to mean "performing as well as the majority (white) demographics." And then you next have to look at the statistics you want to compare.

Income is one relevant stat, but not the only one. There are others like poverty, upward mobility, lifespan, incarceration, addition and so on. Yes, Asians in the aggregate have higher median incomes than whites even, but to look at that one stat and then say "okay, no problems, we're done here" is not helpful.

But mine is clearly the minority opinion here. Such is life.

[jerf]

'I'm taking issue with your statement "if chinese, Indians and Koreans do well"'

Check the author lines a bit more carefully, please.

"And then you next have to look at the statistics you want to compare."

Actually, you provided the stats, I didn't look for anything. The stats you provided failed to make the point you wanted them to make. Then I simply reacted to your moving of the goalposts.

The problem is that you're basically correct that you can't just look at one stat, so you don't understand why I'm not just agreeing with you, but my problem is that your point is vacuous without spending a lot more time on it. There is a sea of statistics out there and you can slice whatever result you want out of them. It takes a lot more work to actually establish causation or even real-world significance of such things, which you're not doing.

If everybody's being discriminated against, and I can bend the stats to show everybody's got some sort of disadvantage somewhere, then it isn't obvious that anybody is. More work is needed than merely citing the stats showing the particular localized problems. Nobody gets life handed to them on a silver platter as a result of their race. (Those that do get life handed to them on a silver platter get it by other means, primarily rich parents, which dominates the race concern.)