---

You could easily explain this difference between the two with the income differences, couldn't you Jake?

---

I think its really silly to claim that the bay area fails when you come from waco texas thats all

I think its even more silly to use race as a measure of failure or non failure. Usually tose who do that suffer from total inferiority complex.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

I say no.
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/Census/maps/median_income.pdf
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/Census/maps/Race_Majority.pdf

Using these map, I created the following:

http://hotlism.net/imagehost/images/r606lm4788cvbonlaka6.jpg

(Note: by high income and low income, I divided it into high and mod high vs low and mod low -- according to the income map)

The map is too mixed in results to have any consistency.

It's false to assume that having more diversity, meaning no majority, will result in higher income.

What's interesting to note is that there are more high-income with race majority than high-income with no race majority.

What's sad to note is that the website gave no spreadsheet data on non-Hispanic White % per area.
This annoyed me.
I can't give exact percentages now.
(You can check here: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/Census/data.asp -- it gives income stats per area, and race per area, but won't separate Hispanics)

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

I didn't use race to explain the differences no.
I think its really silly to claim that the bay area fails when you come from waco texas thats all

I think its even more silly to use race as a measure of failure or non failure. Usually tose who do that suffer from total inferiority complex.

---

Also check my last post.

There is no correlation between diversity and income at all.
Your fraudulent "LESS diversity is not a good thing" achieves scattered results.

Every dark red spot on that map says you're wrong.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

In San Jose California, is racial diversity consistent with higher income?

---

---

It's false to assume that having more diversity, meaning no majority, will result in higher income.

---

---

What's interesting to note is that there are more high-income with race majority than high-income with no race majority.

---

---

This annoyed me.

---

---

You must understand that Waco is a college town for a large baptist college.

---

---

There is no correlation between diversity and income at all.

---

---

Your fraudulent "LESS diversity is not a good thing" achieves scattered results.

---

Since you can retract and twist what you orignally say I can too.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Looking at your own map it shows that racial diversity has NO NEGATIVE IMPACT on income or social status for the areas.

---

---

And its false to assume that having more diversity results in lower income as well.

---

We can say "Increased racial diversity usually does/doesn't result in lower income"

---

That actually doesn't really follow from your map or any map.

---

---

Because you don't consider hispanics to be white?

---

---

I don't really care to tell the truth. When ppl go into xxx is full of fail when they own area isn't so hot they don't have much of aleg to stand on.

---

---

True and that was my exact point. However the fact that MORE diversity does not destroy affluence or income kills your claims that tension and social problems show up when racial diversity occurs.

---

Faulty conclusions.

Diversity, be it racial, religious, or anything like that is often the center of many conflicts.

In a study by the UN between 1989-92, 82 conflicts were found that resulted in a thousand or more deaths, and 79 of them involved ethnic/religious antagonisms inside of one nation.
This is diversity. Racial/ethnic and religious.

79 conflicts with 1000 or more deaths, Jake.

---

Maybe I should say "Less diversity is NOT NECESSARILY a good thing" instead  
Since you can retract and twist what you orignally say I can too.

---

---

That's a faulty conclusion

---

No impact is no impact: postive OR negative.  

---

you did not see a comparison of the portions BEFORE and AFTER they were 'diversified'

---

I have no data yet on this but it seems to me that the bay area has become actually MORE diverse and MORE affluent over time.  

Again though even if that was true it does not mean there is a correlation. But it would mean that the impact was not negative.

---

This was not said, and one specific example isn't enough to say this rule is true or not.

---

---

We can say "Increased racial diversity usually does/doesn't result in lower income"

---

---

There is more dark red than light red.

---

---

Hispanics are often called "White" by US standards (Lol?) when they aren't.

---

---

Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians, Mexicans, and others are called White by the USA, when they aren't.

---

---

Can you restate this?

---

---

We only looked at one place, for one time, and one subject.

---

The fact is that I do not try unlike you to make some general claim. I am saying that YOUR general claims are faulty because they can be easily countered by a single example.  

I am simply showing that its wrong to say that racial divesity creates problems in general since it doesn't in many communities.  

The fact is that as you discovered yourself racial diversity has NO CORRELATION positive or negative in my city.

---

Diversity, be it racial, religious, or anything like that is often the center of many conflicts.

---

In fact both history and stats show that there are MORE conflicts going INSIDE religions INSIDE race INSIDE nations INSIDE continents than between them.

---

In a study by the UN between 1989-92, 82 conflicts were found that resulted in a thousand or more deaths, and 79 of them involved ethnic/religious antagonisms inside of one nation.

---

Tell me why people would even hate Irish ppl in England

http://golivewire.com/forums/peer-ynbnbpb-support-a.html

Why would English and French hate each other long before English became protestants. Why did Germans and British have so many conflicts when they are the same race and same religion. Why did the Vandals sack Rome?

There is ALWAYS a reason ppl can find to justify hate and killing.

Why is it that people in the US don't tear each other apart even though they have different religions?

Maybe because they have come here to escape religious persecution and made religous tolerance on the most important part of the US constitution.

Post edited at 12:27 am on July 2, 2009 by jakelong

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:41 am on July 1, 2009

---

I lived in a not only predominately but solely black area for a year and didn't have a single issue at all, so from personal experience alone I'm more with Aimforthehead on this.

---

This is where your problem is.
Racial tension does not come about when you're the sole or one of the very few people of a different race.
That's of course a given.

But when a minority group starts to gain in numbers, such happens.
They begin to have an effect on the community.

Apparently, you're the White kid.

They have no problems with Whites because you're the only one.

---

Ten of us shared the house.

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

that article explains a bit of the difference between circumstances

-------
whoisabs i'm not sure
Guess who's back?

Alright, when one racial group - either the groups labeled non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Asian, or Hispanic is at least 50% of the population, the average per capita income is $28,585.

When there is no majority population, the average per capita income is $24,092. This is when I omit '5123.04, which has a per capita income of "0" and obviously obscures the results (It has one White and one multiracial person).

Thus, it's fair to conclude census tracts with a racial majority have an average of $4,493 higher income than census tracts with no racial majority.

Also, just for fun, I took the 10 tracts with the highest % majority:
5127.00, 5026.01, 5068.04, 5031.13, 5017.00, 5059.00, 5030.01, 5037.02, 5034.01, and 5068.02

Their majority % was 87.5, 87.1657754, 84.65244322, 84.55823293, 84.53535532, 83.5078534, 82.683111, 80.08144688, 79.79641132, 79.59806665.
Their average being about 84% a majority.

They averaged a per capita income of $28,920.

The 10 most diverse tracts:
5038.02, 5120.23, 5009.02, 5120.20, 5031.08, 5033.27, 5043.18, 5033.12, 5009.01, and 5033.22

Had no majority. The average % of the most populous group was 35.2%

Their average income?
Brace yourself:
$23,422

Let's show some graphs now!

From the top 10 of each I just showed:

http://hotlism.net/imagehost/images/7fn5xyym1g6m7ymz6rc5.jpg

For the average of tracts with an ethnic majority vs tracts without one (First stats):

http://hotlism.net/imagehost/images/pv8fl68vi79gujgdqk0.jpg

Jake, I'd like your take on why the most diverse tracts have significantly lower per capita incomes than the least diverse tracts.
I'd also like your take on why tracts WITH majorities have higher per capita incomes than those WITHOUT majorities, and the difference of per capita income INCREASES when you choose only the top 10 of each.

EDIT:

The most revealing map:
http://hotlism.net/imagehost/images/7gfxlk98zo79tgdjyhhw.jpg

The data:

Code:

...range.......num....per capita income 75+.............20......$31,634.80 65-74.99........41......$29,151.51 57.5-64.99......37......$27,943.00 50-57.49........34......$26,805.26 40-49.99........43......$24,813.02 0-39.99.........19......$23,726.63

EDIT2:

http://hotlism.net/imagehost/images/p5ghf3madn0kkl1uma9i.jpg
I was just curious...

Post edited at 3:07 pm on July 2, 2009 by kidd rune

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

Found some nonWhite Hispanic statistics.

---

You make all those calculations and you don't say what you used as source.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Quote: from kidd rune at 1:39 pm on July 2, 2009

---

Found some nonWhite Hispanic statistics.

---

Are we still speaking of San Jose, the whole nation, the whole world? What?

You make all those calculations and you don't say what you used as source.

---

EDIT:
Here is the excel file.
It's quite messy, but you can take the numbers and connect them to what they mean.
http://www.mediafire.com/?aj2vowojmtm

Post edited at 2:17 pm on July 2, 2009 by kidd rune

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

Their average being about 84% a majority.

They averaged a per capita income of $28,920.

 Had no majority. The average % of the most populous group was 35.2%

Their average income?
Brace yourself:
$23,422

---

Anyway seems to me you are contradicting what you said earlier regarding the lack of correlation between race diversity and income.

Seems to me you went through a LOT of trouble to try to make a point that race diversity is NEGATIVE an not neutral as you claimed earlier.

Just another example of your lack of honesty. You can't believe that race is NEUTRAL. You WANT to believe that its is negative and yuou will go to great length to prove it.

To me examples like the silver creek neighbohood and many other like it just shows that race diversity does not necessarily bring problems.

I pretty much know that majority latino hoods are low income. I come from one. But looking at many areas in san jose and seeing them for my self I can tell you all that race diversity bring tenstion crap is just mainly in YOUR head.

Most tension comes more from stress from lack of job lack of prospect and other issues than because OMG this are is latino or black and therefore BAD.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

All I did was transfer the data from
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/Census/Income.xls
and
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/Census/Race.xls
(2nd tab)

I merged them into one spreadsheet, took out the unnecessary data, and processed the information.

I gave you the excel file so you can check my work.

I am contradicting myself? Heavens no.
Firstly, to contradict I have to prove the opposite when I claim something else.

So I would have had to say it was good. I didn't.
I said when a minority gains in numbers, it has an effect on the community.
I did not specify positive or negative.
Simple, it depends.

You asserted "And they CAN'T have a POSITIVE effect of course?"
While I responded with something like "I didn't say that"

And I didn't.

You used San Jose as an example of diversity being POSITIVE, while I showed the less diverse areas of San Jose have higher per capita incomes than the more diverse.

Remember, we're only speaking of San Jose, and San Jose is not a representation of earth.

---

Just another example of your lack of honesty. You can't believe that race is NEUTRAL. You WANT to believe that its is negative and yuou will go to great length to prove it.

---

I don't think race is neutral. Looking at this map:
http://hotlism.net/imagehost/images/p5ghf3madn0kkl1uma9i.jpg

I'd say if an area was partially White and partially "Asian," it would probably have a higher per capita income than if it was Hispanic and another group.

I'm sure you would agree that Whites and "Asians" have more money than Hispanics usually, San Jose being no exception.

I'm not trying to prove race is negative. I don't even know what that means.

---

To me examples like the silver creek neighbohood and many other like it just shows that race diversity does not necessarily bring problems.

---

The fact is, nowhere in this thread did I say when an area becomes diverse, and the only change is the racial makeup, it immediately fails and begins to have numerous problems.

There are many more variables to consider.

---

I pretty much know that majority latino hoods are low income. I come from one. But looking at many areas in san jose and seeing them for my self I can tell you all that race diversity bring tenstion crap is just mainly in YOUR head.

---

All of my beliefs based on it are based on what I posted here.

This map is very informative

And it CLEARLY hints at a conclusion I did not give before that post.

---

Most tension comes more from stress from lack of job lack of prospect and other issues than because OMG this are is latino or black and therefore BAD.

---

---

I said when a minority gains in numbers, it has an effect on the community.
I did not specify positive or negative.
Simple, it depends.

---

If you do then I have no issue.

---

You used San Jose as an example of diversity being POSITIVE, while I showed the less diverse areas of San Jose have higher per capita incomes than the more diverse.

---

The fact is that some communities are very diverse and still have a great income.

We are talking about the impact on a COMMUNITY and some communities enjoyed great income and prosperty.

Of course when you add things up over many communities and average things out then the results aren't as dramatic.
 

---

Remember, we're only speaking of San Jose, and San Jose is not a representation of earth

---

If you admit that it simply affects it but can be either positive or negative then I have no issue.

---

I don't think race is neutral.

I'd say if an area was partially White and partially "Asian," it would probably have a higher per capita income than if it was Hispanic and another group.

---

Maybe maybe not. It reelly depends on the people we are talking about. The problem is you think its BECAUSE of the fact that asians are there or latinos are there. You think it is BECAUSE of their particular  RACE.

The real reason is that asians tend to have higher incomes (especially in the Bay Area for example) because those asians are from elite immigrant families as you put it yourself.

Whereas many latinos immigrant tend to come from poorer less educated areas.

But it is NOT because one is asian (superior) and the other is latino (inferior).

The factors you use to justify that race is not neutral are not proven,

You just correlate the facts but as you saw yourself from the San Jose example there is no real CORRELATION.

It just happens because of the PARTICULAR situation in San Jose (and its true of any community)

---

I'm sure you would agree that Whites and "Asians" have more money than Hispanics usually, San Jose being no exception.

---

---

To me examples like my neighborhood show that it can.

---

---

There are many more variables to consider.

---

---

---

I pretty much know that majority latino hoods are low income. I come from one. But looking at many areas in san jose and seeing them for my self I can tell you all that race diversity bring tenstion crap is just mainly in YOUR head.

---

I knew absolutely nothing about income, racial makeup, and the like about San Jose until this thread.

---

---

I'd say, have you heard of the term racial tension at all? Did anyone say these ethnic changes are the SOLE tension-bringers?

---

Look at Germany in 1933. Before the great poverty and social problems which came from the treaty of versailles most Jews actually went along fine with Germans. They went to war with them/ They attendeded school and university with other germans. They created businesses and jobs for both jews and non-jews. Then the great economic crisis happened in Germany together with humilating defeat. Then suddenly ppl were competing for scarce jobs and starved. Then racial tension just went up in flames.

If you look at rich places where eveyone has jobs and money theres really little racial tenion. In areas where ppl are depressed and hopeless inter- racial tension and inter-racial tension is just up the roof.

That is what I am saying and trying to explain to you.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP