- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
30 Mar 21
1 edit
@no1marauder said"a representative sample would include about 75 white families at best which would not yield any statistical useful data."
The latest figures available indicate it has 77,347 people living in poverty in Oakland of which less than 10,000 are white.https://www.welfareinfo.org/poverty-rate/california/oakland Given that the pilot program is limited to 600 families, a representative sample would include about 75 white families at best which would not yield any statistical useful data.
Nearly 13% is "statistically significant" in any scientific sense of the words.
30 Mar 21
The post that was quoted here has been removedWhere did I claim that they were “unfairly discriminating”?
I just think it’s a poorly designed pilot. The whole point of a pilot scheme is to judge its efficacy before rolling it out on a larger scale.
This pilot will not gather any data on the schemes effectiveness at alleviating poverty within specific groups.
But seeing as your making a point of, how would you go about explaining to a destitute white person that because of their skin colour their destitution is not being addressed whilst the destitution of non white people.is being addressed.
Regardless of the mayors motives it’s a hard sell.
30 Mar 21
1 edit
@no1marauder saidWell then do that, why make it look, or at least enable it to be presented as, prejudicial toward one particular racial group is doesn’t make political or any kind of sense.
The latest figures available indicate it has 77,347 people living in poverty in Oakland of which less than 10,000 are white.https://www.welfareinfo.org/poverty-rate/california/oakland Given that the pilot program is limited to 600 families, a representative sample would include about 75 white families at best which would not yield any statistical useful data.
Again: the purpose of a pilot is to gain data on the efficacy of the scheme and factors that improve or work against the scheme. It simply does not make sense to exclude one racial group regardless of who the group are.
Given the small sample being helped it doubly doesn’t make sense to do the above.
“ 75 white families at best which would not yield any statistical useful data.”
Yeah that group would, or may certainly, yield what may be very telling statistical data which is perhaps why they were excluded.
Maybe they are actually just trying to pump what little money they have into communities of colour which in itself is no bad thing. It’s confusing when they dress it up as a pilot because for a pilot it’s very poorly designed.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI’m not “most of the white writers in this thread” and to a non racist neither would they be, but hey I guess that explains you ignorant and disingenuous reply.
“Does Kevcvs57 believe that this pilot program has enough funds to help *every*
poor non-white person in Oakland? As I understand it, it has enough funds to
help only a small minority of poor non-white people in Oakland.”
No he doesn’t believe that, but given that fact what is the point of skewing or potentially missing data on the efficacy of the scheme by excluding what could be seen as a control group whose only disadvantage is poverty rather than poverty + racism.
30 Mar 21
1 edit
@Duchess64 -
She implied that 'limited resources' led the government to prioritize helping the non-white poor.
Non-white people are about 2/3 of Oakland's population.
------------------
In other words,,, --Libby Schaaf (a white woman), mayor of Oakland, is a focking racist.
It's clear the priority is black people, not POOR people.