Monday, September 18, 2006

Household Income, Race & Voting.

Gary Younge's latest column makes the claim that since Bush came to office "median household income has fallen by 3%". As an iron rule when someone uses household income as a measure of wealth it means that they are trying to con someone. Unless more people living in their own houses is considered a bad thing by Gary Younge. He also makes the strange claim that:
black people, regardless of income, overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Indeed, were it not for black people, the Democrats would have won the presidency only once, in 1964. That was the year President Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights act, turned to an aide and said: "We have lost the south for a generation." We are well into the second generation now, and the racialised politics of the south seem to be influencing the rest of the country rather than the other way round.In other words there is a clear racial attachment that white voters have to the Republican party
So if black people are over whelmingly voting for one party, how it follow that it is white voters who are demonstrating a "racial attachment" to one party?

3 comments:

Matthew said...

Congratulations on having the 86th best Conservative blog!

Could you explain the 'more people living in their own houses' line?

Ross F said...

Household income depends as much on the number of earners per home as it does on how much they own. For example if someone earning £10000 a year is living with his parents who earn £45000 a year then their household income is £55000, but if that person gets a payrise and earns £20000 and can afford his own place then the average household income will have fallen to £37500 despite the fact that their situation has improved. Which is why when household income is used has a measure of wealth without any reference to individual income then I am sceptical.

"Congratulations on having the 86th best Conservative blog!"

Thanks for that.

Ross F said...

I meant £32500 not £37500