If you adjust for population size, there's no difference. Test is long winded way of saying race has no influence on poverty, teacher smokes rocks she buys from her student.
Uh. That's not how statistics work. This particular paper is using the statistics of 41 million white children, 5 of which live in poverty. That's 12.2%. Then it gives 10 out of 36 million non-white children living in poverty. That's 27.8%. No matter how you adjust the population, 27.8 is always > 12.2.
This is an ingenious statistical trick used by race hustlers and jews, though. I have to give them that credit. "How is it a trick?" you might ask. Black and Hispanic women have more children than White women. That means for every poor woman there are more poor non-white children than white children.
In other words, imagine if two neighbors, one Hispanic family and one white family. The White family only makes $25,000 a year and the Hispanic family earns $35,000 a year. The white family has two kids and the Hispanic family has 4 kids. The way "poverty" is calculated would suggest there's a crisis of institutional racism in our hypothetical town because twice as many Hispanic kids live in poverty as white kids, even though the reality is the spics are making 40% more money than the Whites. Why? Because every time a spic drops an anchor baby the income considered as "below the poverty line" goes up. How's that for bullshit?
If you ever hear a race hustler talking about bullshit statistics like that, ask them to give you the stats on household income for whites and non-whites corrected for education and experience. I'll tip you off that they don't have those statistics because it paints a far different story.
(post is archived)