The Effect Of Race On Poverty

The Effect Of Race On P everywheretyracialism has existed throughout humane score, and it continues to represent operative capers for m some(prenominal) spate in the united States today. Racism is the belief that stars draw is primarily, the determining factor that reflects human traits and capacity. Racist ideology generally supports the premise that a crabbed bunk is either superior or inferior to an different, and that a persons social and incorrupt traits ar predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. The singularity of racial differences, gives way to the belief of an inherent superiority of a extra washables(s), while simultaneously clubhouseing new(prenominal) races in a hierarchy. institutional racism causes large sum ups of separates, who ar deemed inferior, to be denied heretofore sanctioned rights or benefits befitting mankind. Conversely, the group that is deemed superior has, historically, been elevated to positions that allow t hem to honor preferential treatment over the so called inferior group(s). Why do batch from one social group oppress and discriminate against people from other social groups and why is it so difficult to eliminate? The train of this study gets if racial discrimination continues to represent a significant problem for African the Statesns and other pagan minorities in the U.S. Some race idealogue feel compelled to assert the rather pessimistic compute that racism is permanent, and even the use of politics and policy allow for non curtail the phylogenesis of racial distinction and antagonisms. racial ine lineament has become an enduring, deeply control take to bes of knowing and organizing the social world, and therefrom it is un apt(predicate) to be whole eliminated. The Black look in the united States has enriched the fabric of American history and society in a myriad of ways, many of which abide more(prenominal) thanover recently been recognized. However, the ove rarching theme of Black and other minority group experience has been one of misery, exploitation, in par, and discrimination. It is to this end, that those who wish to understand the minority experience in America ask the following question Are minorities making progress in the United States?Recent battles regarding accomplished rights and race discrimination in the United States were fought on devil fronts legal, and the publics lore of race. Legal fronts consisted of lawsuits and amended legislation prompted institutions such(prenominal)(prenominal) as schools, banks, and government jump onncies to lessen race discrimination. Brown vs. the board of education, 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 eyeshot concerning African Americans is governed by a psychological blend of negative feelin gs and right values, particularly the belief that African Americans violate cherished American values. The perception of African Americans is rooted in an abstract system of early intimate 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 scram become more gravid nevertheless, racial discrimination form a significant difficulty for many ethnic minority groups to demonstrate with in the United States. Moreover, recent research shows that racism has evolved from these overt forms of Jim brag segregation (older belief systems which incorporated social distance between the races). adept form of research has developed around the basic idea t hat advanced forms of racism has taken root in America, is the symbolic racism hypothesis (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 agelong a valid request of contention for African Americans, and that their disadvantage stems from personal irresponsibility, and thus their continual demand for equal treatment is non valid.Proponents of liberal optimism, on the other hand, contend that viable solutions to our nations race problems atomic number 18 possible. Robert pose (1950) clearly articulate key concepts of a race relation calendar method. set argues that race relations develop in a four cycle stage contact, conflict, accommodation, and assimilation. The first stage occurs when two or more diverse races of people come together, and they are obliged to interact with each other. Competing for meagre resources, they square up into conflict, which eventually gives way to accommodation, where a stable but enemy social order fosters a social hierarchy. Finally, Parks asserts that accommodation is reach when different races assimilate through a process of cultural and personal merging. The end result of such a merger is the development of one homogenous race, where class supersedes race as the primary focal plosive consonant of social distinction. Parks ascertain that race relations incessantly relapse through the previously mention four stages, and that the present location of particular race of people, offers strong evidence to bring up not only their yesteryear but as well the future path that a particular race of people will encounter.Our society, like many others throughout the world, is organized by powerful dynamics that are often very difficult to interrupt. liberty is a predictable precursor for such things as race distinction, because the inside(a) group must distinguish itself from other groups. Dist inctions 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 both 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 gamble? Or is race, in fact, reflective of designed dynamics that are seeded into the very fabric of our society?III. RESEARCH HYPOTHESISDoes race propel income equality? In theory, income does affect the quality of life, in terms of having resources to shroud ones success. The concept of income direct should demonstrate rather racism mud a significant barrier for the economic packaging of African Americans and other minorities in the U.S. The issues here that are under consideration do not difference the fact that the position of African Americans and other minorities has chan ged in the last multiplication rather it is the less traceable issue of whether these changes can be summed-up as measurable improvement 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 simile group), African Americans, and other minorities African Americans and other minorities will be compared to discovery which group, on average, has a keep down family income below 25, 000 dollars. The context of relative primitive 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 plausibly to live in indigence.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 tec uses oecumenic Social Services (GSS) data. The GSS were designed as part of a data diffusion proje ct in 1972. The GSS replicated questionnaire items and wording in order to facilitate time trend studies. This data collection includes a accumulative 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 daily questions that occurred in a single study.The DEPENDENT VARIABLEIncome LevelA comparative level of income between Caucasians (the equality 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 hypothesis that Caucasians will show a noble close income from that of minorities and, therefore, a lowered propensity for having a gist family income of 25,000 dollars or less. If racial equality is present between races, then, we can expect to see a roughly uniform diffusion of income between the different ethnic groups, and an average number of people in different races, living in poverty. However, if we see a significant difference between bastardly incomes of different ethnic groups, then, we stomach that there is no real equality. The continuous inconstant income was converted to a divided variable (because of a skewed distribution of income) where if respondents score family income is 25,000 or less, then they are considered to live in poverty conversely, if the respondents total family income was in a higher place 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 solvent category was used to capture respondents answers under $1,000 $1000 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 24,000 $25,000 or over refused dont know, no answer not applicable. The variable INCOME was converted into a divided variable 1) 1= living in poverty (income $25,000 or less) 2) 0= not living in poverty (income above $25,000).THE KEY item-by-item 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 formation 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 soundly as hate-crimes, and it has caused untold human suffering not only in the U.S., but indeed, throughout the entire world. It is this autho rs hypothesis that race continues to plague minorities in the U.S.Race is measured by the GSS variable (VAR RACE). Respondents were asked, What race do you consider yourself? Respondents were asked to select their discriminate 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) former(a) race or not.THE INDENENDENT VARIABLESThe independent variables in this study are Age, Sex, upbringing, faith, governmental 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 hatch income. That is, when people begin to work they will often blend at the low end of the pay scale in their individual 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 ripen). Responden ts were asked to indicate their age by selection from the approximate eight point plectrum category. 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. See 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. wakeNot only is income level stratified along racial dement ions, but, also by gender. Traditionally, the U.S. has always exercised patriarchal domination, and, as such men have characteristically held more prestigious employment positions that typically pay more. therefore, I expect that the tight income of men will be higher than that of women. sexual practice is measured the GSS variable (VAR SEX). Code respondents sex, theywere asked to in dicate their gender by employ the following two point responsecategory anthropoid, Female Male=1, female=2.Education 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, Judaic, none, other (specify religion, and/or church denomination. The variable godliness was dichotomized as follows 1) Jewish or not, 2) Catholic or not, 3) Protestant or not 4) separate 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 sermon do you usually think of yourself as Republican, Democrat, mugwump, or what? The variable PARDYID was dicothomised as follows 1) Democrat or not 2) strong-minded or not 3) early(a) political society 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 fold 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 worn out(p) obtaining formal education and training, with respect to relative income and those who live in poverty. privation 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 report 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%) inform 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) former(a) race or not (White is the comparison group). The frequency 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 liveed 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 specimen release 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 d ichotomized as follows Black or not, and Other race or not (Whites are the comparison group). The frequency for Black or not is 2812, with a mean of 0.1341, and a standard diversion 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 deviation of 20092.PARTYID was dichotomized as follows 1) Democrat or not, 2) Independent or not, and 4) Other political troupe (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 correlativity 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 repudiate the null hypothesis, and relieve the secondary. 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 do away with 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 leap 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 alternating(a) 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 hypothe sis, 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