Mon. 10/03/22 15:24 EDT
.post #19
It’s not my list actually; it’s from the same site as the page you linked to:
Literacy
It’s found near the bottom of the page, under “World.” I didn’t really include it for any particular reason, and I apologize for failing to provide the link, originally.
I don’t disagree, except in the case of Botswana, whose literacy rate, while not stellar, is certainly higher than some other African countries, and even some other outside countries.
Nothing…I was just giving some examples of what I meant by “to what extent” (since I hadn’t made that clear the first time), and trying to show its relevance when interpreting statistics such as “poverty.”
For example, let’s say that the “poverty threshold” is $10,000. (So, any annual income BELOW this qualifies one as being “poor”). 24.7% of blacks earn less than this, while only 8.6% of whites do. Sounds pretty bad for the blacks, right? But let’s make up some numbers:
Let’s say that 24.7% of Blacks all earn EXACTLY $9,999.99.
Let’s say, further, that 8.6% of whites all earn EXACTLY ZERO, while 16.1% of whites all earn EXACTLY $10,000.00…this means that 24.7% of whites (the same percentage as blacks who are “poor”) earn, on average, ONE PENNY MORE, per year, than the “poor” blacks. So, while it’s true that a higher percentage of blacks than whites are “poor,” the extent to which that’s true is insignificant.
That’s an extreme example to emphasize the fact that statistical aggregates frequently do not tell the whole story.
Here’s something else to consider. Have a look at this chart of poverty thresholds. You will see that, the larger the family, the greater that family’s income can be, while still qualifying as “poor.” So, when we see that a higher proportion of blacks than whites are “poor,” we should consider (for example) the average family sizes of those groups. Blacks who earn more than some “non-poor” whites, but who have large enough families can still be, ipso facto, “poor”!