But proportionately that's not necessarily the case. Absolute numbers are not applicable. You need to look at the proportions. The reason you have more poor whites is that there are more whites period. But as a percentage of their ethnic group there are fewer poor whites than poor blacks.
As I mentioned in our analysis of the NORC dataset the correlation between race and SES was over .5. That means that when analyzing the effects of poverty you cannot look at poverty alone, you have to include race as a factor in your analysis. The NORC dataset I'm referring to is a huge study - it followed about 30,000 children in several different cohorts throughout the school system for their entire time in school. Ethnicity, SES, academic achievement, and about 40 or 50 other variables were repeatedly assessed throughout the study. With this size of a sample its a fairly good estimate of what happens in the general population. larry On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:41:40 -0500, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By percentage, yes. But not by absolute numbers. > > There are more poor whites than poor of any other race. (Aren't there?) > > > Jerry Johnson > Web Developer > Dolan Media Company > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/27/05 10:18PM >>> > the problem is that you cannot untangle race from SES. In the US if > you're poor you're more likely to be black or other minority group > than white. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:145102 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
