The Effect Of Race On Poverty

The Effect Of Race On PovertyRacism has existed throughout human history, and it continues to represent rigorousingful problems for some great deal in the joined States today. Racism is the belief that ones endure is primarily, the determining factor that reflects human traits and capacity. Racist ideology generally supports the premise that a special(prenominal) race is either superior or inferior to a nonher, and that a persons social and moral traits argon predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. The distinction of racial differences, gives way to the belief of an inherent superiority of a particular race(s), while simultaneously ordering other races in a hierarchy. Institutional racial discrimination causes large numbers of individuals, who are deemed inferior, to be denied even basic rights or benefits befitting mankind. Conversely, the group that is deemed superior has, historically, been elevated to positions that allow them to enjoy preferential treatment over the so called inferior group(s). Why do people from one social group oppress and discriminate against people from other social groups and why is it so difficult to eliminate? The purpose of this look at considers if racial discrimination continues to represent a significant problem for African Americans and other ethnic minorities in the U.S. Some race theorist feel compelled to assert the rather pessimistic view that racism is permanent, and even the use of politics and policy will not curtail the development of racial distinction and antagonisms. Racial in equating has become an enduring, deeply regimented specifys of knowing and organizing the social world, and thus it is un belike to be completely eliminated. The dispirited experience in the United States has enriched the fabric of American history and society in a myriad of ways, many of which have solitary(prenominal) recently been recognized. However, the overarching theme of Black and other minority gr oup experience has been one of misery, exploitation, inequality, and discrimination. It is to this end, that those who wish to understand the minority experience in America take in the following question Are minorities making progress in the United States?Recent battles regarding civil rights and race discrimination in the United States were fought on cardinal fronts legal, and the publics perception of race. Legal fronts consisted of lawsuits and amended legislation prompted institutions such as schools, banks, and government agencies to lessen race discrimination. Brown vs. the board of preparation, the civil rights act of 1964/65, and other subsequent battles brought race discrimination to the attention of the American public. The former front involves the publics perception of race. Henry and Sears (2002) argue that public sentiment concerning African Americans is governed by a psychological blend of negative feelings and conservative values, particularly the belief that Afri can Americans violate cherished American values. The perception of African Americans is rooted in an abstract clay of early learned moral values and ideas that typically view them as social misfits.Racial conflict has plagued the United States from its inception, in particular it has been primarily driven by racial prejudice of African-American (Allport, 1979). While overt forms of racial discrimination, such as Jim crow segregation has all been eliminated in the United States, and whites opinions regarding racial issues have become more(prenominal)(prenominal) liberal nevertheless, racial discrimination remains a significant difficulty for many ethnic minority groups to contend with in the United States. Moreover, recent enquiry shows that racism has evolved from these overt forms of Jim Crow segregation (older belief systems which incorporated social distance amid the races). One form of research has developed around the basic idea that new forms of racism has taken root in A merica, is the symbolic racism theory (Sears, 1988). According to Kender and Sears (1981) symbolic racism is commonly described as a coherent belief system which supports concepts that, racial discrimination is no longer a valid point of debate for African Americans, and that their disadvantage stems from personal irresponsibility, and thus their continual demand for equal treatment is not valid.Proponents of liberal optimism, on the other hand, contend that viable solutions to our nations race problems are possible. Robert parks (1950) clearly articulate mark concepts of a race relation cycle. Parks argues that race relations develop in a quartet cycle stage contact, conflict, accommodation, and assimilation. The first stage occurs when two or more several(predicate) races of people come together, and they are obliged to interact with each other. Competing for unique resources, they fall into conflict, which eventually gives way to accommodation, where a stable but antagonist social order fosters a social hierarchy. Finally, Parks asserts that accommodation is attained when different races assimilate through a process of cultural and physical merging. The end result of such a merger is the development of one homogenous race, where variant supersedes race as the primary focal point of social distinction. Parks ascertain that race relations ever pass through the previously make four stages, and that the present location of particular race of people, offers strong evidence to suggest not only their past but also the future caterpillar track that a particular race of people will encounter.Our society, like many others throughout the world, is organized by powerful dynamics that are oft rattling difficult to interrupt. Privilege is a predictable precursor for such things as race distinction, because the privileged group must distinguish itself from other groups. Distinctions based on race may not always be carried out with malicious intent, however, to suggest that the effects of such characterizations are inconsequential, definitely deserves examination. But, how are we to understand the realities that two produce such distinctions and the ensuing consequences that they invariably produce? Do we view them as purely accidental, or as oddities that simply seem to happen? Or is race, in fact, reflective of designed dynamics that are sown into the very fabric of our society?III. RESEARCH HYPOTHESISDoes race affect income equality? In theory, income does affect the quality of life, in terms of having resources to insure ones success. The concept of income train should demonstrate rather racism remains a significant barrier for the economic advancement of African Americans and other minorities in the U.S. The issues here that are under consideration do not dispute the fact that the position of African Americans and other minorities has changed in the last generation rather it is the less traceable issue of whether these changes can be summed-up as measurable advancement of economic equality, and consequently an improvement in the quality of life of minorities in the United States. The social economic status of Caucasians (the comparison group), African Americans, and other minorities African Americans and other minorities will be compared to discovery which group, on average, has a entireness family income below 25, 000 dollars. The context of relative total family income level of, individuals in a particular race, demonstrates to what degree, if any, racial equality has been achieved by considering which group is more potential to receive in scantiness.IV. DATA AND VARIABLESIn order to empirically examine rather race remains a significant barrier for the equality of ethnic minorities in the United States, this researcher uses General Social Services (GSS) info. The GSS were designed as part of a data dispersion project in 1972. The GSS replicated questionnaire items and wording in order to facilitate ti me trend studies. This data collection includes a cumulative file that merges all data collected as part of the General Social Services Surveys from 1972 to 2004. The 2004 survey was composed of permanent questions that appeared on two out of every three surveys and a small number of occasional questions that occurred in a single study.The DEPENDENT VARIABLEIncome LevelA comparative level of income between Caucasians (the comparison group), African Americans and other ethnic minorities over time will demonstrate rather racism remains a central hindrance to the advancement of minorities in the United States. That is, I guesswork that Caucasians will show a high mean income from that of minorities and, therefore, a lowered propensity for having a total family income of 25,000 dollars or less. If racial equality is present between races, then, we can expect to see a somewhat uniform distribution of income between the different ethnic groups, and an average number of people in differe nt races, living in poverty. However, if we see a significant difference between mean incomes of different ethnic groups, then, we assume that there is no real equality. The continuous variable income was converted to a dichotomous variable (because of a skewed distribution of income) where if respondents total family income is 25,000 or less, then they are considered to live in poverty conversely, if the respondents total family income was above 25,000 dollars per year, then they are coded as not being in poverty.Income level is measured by the GSS variable (VAR INCOME). Respondents were asked, In which of these groups did your total family income, from all sources, fall last year before taxes that is? A fifteen point response category was used to capture respondents answers under $1,000 $ gramme to 1,999 $2,000 to 2,999 $3,000 to 3,999 $4,000 to 4,999 5,000 to 5,999 $6,000 to 6,999 $7,000 to 7,999 $8,000 to 8,999 $9,000 to 9,999 $10,000 to 14,999 $15,000 to 19,999 $20,000 to 24,00 0 $25,000 or over refused dont know, no answer not applicable. The variable INCOME was converted into a dichotomous variable 1) 1= living in poverty (income $25,000 or less) 2) 0= not living in poverty (income above $25,000).THE KEY INDEPENDENT VARIABLERaceThe mere distinction of individuals by race invariably gives way to the belief that slight biological differences between certain groups of people predetermines the worth, intelligence, value, and other aspects of a persons being. As a consequence, race distinction, is typically followed by the governance of preset stereotypes regarding a particular group of people, and the creation of a racial hierarchy. Distinction by race has been the catalyst, throughout mans history, for wars as well as hate-crimes, and it has caused much(prenominal) human suffering not only in the U.S., but indeed, throughout the entire world. It is this authors hypothesis that race continues to plague minorities in the U.S.Race is measured by the GSS vari able (VAR rush). Respondents were asked, What race do you consider yourself? Respondents were asked to select their appropriate race from a three-point scale White, Black, or other (specify). The key independent variable RACE was dichotomized as follows 1) Black or not, and 2) opposite race or not.THE INDENENDENT VARIABLESThe independent variables in this study are Age, Sex, Education, religion, political affiliation, and years of education and training.AgeIt is my hypothesis that the working age of an individual will be positively correlated with a higher(prenominal) mean income. That is, when people begin to work they will often start at the low end of the pay scale in their respective occupations. However, as they gain more experience on the job, their worth to their employer increases, and thus they can demand higher incomes.Age is measured by the GSS variable (VAR AGE). Respondents were asked to indicate their age by selection from the approximate eight point survival catego ry. The categories are listed as follows 10-19 years of age (y.o.a.), 20-29 (y.o.a.), 30-39 (y.o.a.), 40-49 (y.o.a.), 50-59 (y.o.a.), 60-69 (y.o.a), 70-79 (y.o.a), 80 or over, and No answer/dont know.REMARKSRespondents age Data has been recoded into actual age in cols. 92 and 93. take up Appendix D, and Appendix E. Age distribution, for the detailed response. The distribution for the first digit, col. 92 is given below. See Appendix N for changes.SEXNot only is income level stratified along racial dement ions, but, also by sexuality. Traditionally, the U.S. has always exercised patriarchal domination, and, as such men have characteristically held more prestigious conflict positions that typically pay more. Therefore, I hypothesize that the mean income of men will be higher than that of women.Gender is measured the GSS variable (VAR SEX). Code respondents sex, theywere asked to indicate their gender by using the following two point responsecategory Male, Female Male=1, female=2.Ed ucation LevelI hypothesize that higher individual levels of education will be positively correlatedwith higher a mean income. Individuals who have higher levels of education will bemore valuable to their employers because of special training, job skills, andknowledge allows them to perform specialized tasks.Education is measured by the GSS variable (VAR DEGREE). Respondents wereasked,What is your highest level of education? Respondents were asked to select their appropriate education level from a six-point scale which is listed as follows 1) Less than high school, 2) High school, 3) Associate/ junior college, 4) Bachelors, 5) Graduate, and 6) Dont know.Religion Raised withI hypothesize those individuals who were raise in families that regularly attended religious services as children will have a stronger work ethic, than those who did not, consequently, those individuals who were raised with religion will possess a higher mean income than those respondents who were not raised in a family that attended religious services.Religion is measured by using the GSS variable (VAR RELIG16). Respondents were asked, In what religion were you raised? Respondents were asked to select the religion they were raised in by making a selection from the following five-point choice selection category Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, none, other (specify religion, and/or church denomination. The variable RELIGION was dichotomized as follows 1) Jewish or not, 2) Catholic or not, 3) Protestant or not 4) former(a) religion or not, and None or not raised with any religion, is the comparison group.Political AffiliationI hypothesize those respondents who are republicans (who typically hold moretraditional values) will be more positively correlated with higher mean income levelsthan those of other political affiliations.Political affiliation is measured using the GSS Variable (VAR PARDYID). Respondents were asked, Generally speaking do you usually think of yourself as Republican, Democrat, Independent, or what? The variable PARDYID was dicothomised as follows 1) Democrat or not 2) Independent or not 3) otherwise political troupe or not.Hypothesis 1 Is there any significant gap in the income of African Americans and other minorities compared to those of Caucasians in the United States, and what ethnic minorities are more likely to live under the poverty level? If we find that a particular ethnic group is more likely to live in poverty compared to Whites, then, one might conclude that racism continues to remain a significant obstacle for the economic advancement of the aforementioned minority groups. In addition to race, this study will also consider the impact of age, gender, religion, political affiliation, educational attainment, and the number of years spent obtaining formal education and training, with respect to relative income and those who live in poverty. Poverty is defined as the total family income level of respondents that falls at or under 25,000 annually .V. THE FINDINGSFrequency Distribution of the D.V. and the Key I.V.The main hypothesis of this stem singles out the dependent variable as total family annual income (VAR INCOME), this continuous variable was converted into a dichotomous variable 1) respondents whose total family income was 25,000 dollars or less are considered to be in poverty, and they were coded as 1 and 2) those respondents whose total family income is above 25,000 dollars were coded as 0and they are considered not in poverty. There was a total of 2,812 respondents.1, 764 respondents (71.1%) reported that their total family income was $25,000 or more (not in poverty), and 718 (28.9%) reported that their total family was income was below $25,000 (in poverty), and 330 (11.7%) respondents showed missing data for this question.The Key Independent VariableRaceThe key independent variable for this study is race (VAR RACE), and this nominal variable was dichotomized as follows 1) Black or not, 2) Other race or not (Whi te is the comparison group). The absolute oftenness distribution for Black or not is as follows there was a total of 2,812 respondents in this study, 377 of whom (13.4%) reported that they were Black, 2,482 respondents indicated that they were not Black, and 333 respondents failed to answer the question. The frequency distribution for Other race or not is as follows 2812 respondents took part in the survey, and 201 persons reported that their race was Other (7, 1%), and 2,611 respondents reported that their race was not Other.Chart 1Chart 2Calculate Univariate Statistics.The dependent variable INCOME was converted to a dichotomous variable (in poverty or not) and it has a frequency of 2482, a mean of 0.2893, and a normal exit of 0.45352. Most respondents in the survey had incomes that were 25,000 or more (not in poverty).The key independent variable RACE was dichotomized as follows Black or not, and Other race or not (Whites are the comparison group). The frequency for Black or n ot is 2812, with a mean of 0.1341, and a exemplification deviation of 0.34079. The frequency for Other race or not is 2812, with a mean of 0.0715, and a standard deviation of 0.25767.AGE has a frequency of 2803, a mean of 45.96, and a standard deviation of16.1801.RESPONDENTS SEX has a frequency of 2812, a mean of 1.54, and a standard deviation of 0.498.RS HIGHEST DEGREE has a frequency of 2811, a mean of 1.61, and a standard deviation of 1.207.RELIGION IN WHICH RAISED was dichotomized as follows 1) Jewish or not, 2) Catholic or not, 3) Protestant or not, and 4) Other religion or not (No religion is the comparison group). Jewish or not has a frequency of 2809, a mean of 0.0228, and a standard deviation of 14924. Catholic or not has a frequency of 2801, a mean of 0.2960, and a standard deviation of 45656. Protestant or not has a frequency of 2801, a mean of 0.5598, and a standard deviation of 49650. Other religion or not has a frequency of 280, a mean of 0.0421, and a standard deviat ion of 20092.PARTYID was dichotomized as follows 1) Democrat or not, 2) Independent or not, and 4) Other political party (no political affiliation is the comparison group). Democrat or not has a frequency of 2800, a mean of 0, 3425, and a standard deviation of 0.47463. Independent or not has a frequency of 2800, a mean of 0.3539, a standard deviation of 0.47827. Other political party or not has a frequency of 2800, a mean of 0.0104, and a standard deviation of 0.10126.Pearsons Correlation AnalysisAs hypothesized Pearsons correlation coefficient supports the premises that the total family income of Blacks, on average, is likely to fall at or below 25,000 dollars (poverty). Pearsons correlation is 0.175 (very significant) therefore we renounce the unreal hypothesis, and accept the alternative. That is, there is a significant difference between the average total families incomes of Blacks compared to Whites.Other races appeared to earn slightly more that Whites. Pearsons correlation for Other is -0.003. Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis for Others, and conclude that there is no significant difference between the average total family incomes of others as opposed to Whites.Pearsons correlation for income and other political party is -0.029, indicating a slight decrease in the number of other political party members who have a total family income of 25,000 dollars or less. Therefore, we fail to reject the null, and conclude that other political party affiliation does not significantly affect the total family income of these respondents, as opposed to Republicans.Pearsons correlation between poverty and Democrats show .064. Therefore, we reject the null, and accept the alternate hypothesis Democrats are significantly more likely to show a family income of 25, 0000 or more a year. Democrats are less likely to have a total family income of 25,000 dollars or less.Pearsons correlation between Independent party and poverty is -0.064, which is significant, therefore we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Independent party membership has a significant affect on poverty. That is Independent party members are more likely to have total family incomes of 25,000 dollars or less.Pearsons correlation between the Jewish religion and poverty is -.052 which is significant. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis, and accept the alternative hypothesis. We conclude by stating that respondents who are Jewish are more likely to have a totally family income that is above 25,000 dollars.Pearsons correlation for Catholics is -0.55 which is significant. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis, and conclude that Catholics are less likely to show a total family income of less than 25,000 dollars.Pearsons correlation for Protestants is -0.028 which is insignificant. Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis, and reject the alternative hypothesis. We conclude that respondents who are Protestant are not likely to have incomes below 25, 0000 dollars.Pearson correlation between other religions and poverty is 0.017 which is statistically insignificant. Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis, and reject the alternative hypothesis. Respondents who coded as having Other political affiliation are not likely to have total family incomes below 25,000 dollars.Likelihood Ratio Chi-Sq.390.482**Nagelkerke R-Square.2093*P