http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.html
That's my big gripe with the NYT article and charts - these would be considerably more informative if they were also broken down by race. As it is, the real story is incredibly blurred.
You'd immediately have to double the number of graphics and do god knows what to the amount of text, and that's if you just did a very simplified racial breakdown. Better to leave an ethnic, racial, or religious breakdown (and they're all worth discussing) for a follow-up article.
Because there are only two races?
In much the same way that I wasn't obliquely pointing out that your point was well made while underlining that read literally it was a significant underestimate of the added burden, or anything of the sort, I'm sure.
Serious question. I'm genuinely wondering what it means in all of this?
Recent immigrants have higher birthrates than nth-generation descendants. I've not verified, but my initial assumption is that the less wealthy have higher birthrates than the more wealthy.
This isn't really a matter of race, but one of economics and social norms.
Its like if you asked “what’s the average height of the most popular American Olympic athletes?” And found that the answer is 5 foot 6. Huh, they’re just like us? No, the gymnasts are 4 foot 8 and the swimmers are 6 foot 4.
That's still a bit confusing. Maybe I'm being dense, but one chart is for women with college degrees having babies and the other is for women without college degrees having babies.
So what impact would race have on when a woman with a college degree has a baby? (I mean, whether they are married or not is presumably irrelevant to the question of whether they have a college degree. So why would race not be irrelevant to that question?)
My question is the similar for the graph of married vs unmarried? If you are married and having a baby, (I mean, unless I'm missing something?), you are married and having a baby. Why would your race change that fact?
Great question. If married/college were the only relevant factors, it would not matter. However, there are cultural differences beyond just those.
Black women in the US do go to college at approximately the same rate as the rest of the US population, however they are far less likely to study STEM subjects, nor go to graduate school school, and are more likely to be going to a lower tier of school.
Also, even college educated black women are far less likely to be married or in long term relationships.
But the charts are not counting women who have college degrees AND are married. The chart is a count of women who have college degrees and had their first child. So whether or not a college educated black or hispanic woman is married, is totally irrelevant to that question.
I'm starting to think that, perhaps, you have misread the graphs? These are not graphs of women who are college educated AND married. These are graphs of women who are college educated. And then there is another set of graphs for women who are married. With both factors isolated to get a true picture of what's going on.
This whole subthread is a non-sequitur. You can see the pattern in every map except the unmarried, no-college degree map (which is almost entirely in the lowest bin on the histogram).
It's remarkable, that you don't "reason based on anecdata" but you were happy to kick off the thread with some racist assumptions. Go ahead, show us some "data" about all those 20yo white women who are just taking some time off from their college careers to work minimum wage while paying for daycare and waiting for daddy to get a job...
Look at the blob in Arizona for example on Without a college degree vs poverty. So yes the south east black population clusters in similar areas as poverty but out west they look rather different.
My ancestors (and my wife's) all arrived in Virginia. Over the course of several generations they gradually moved West - first into the Shenandoah Valley, then down through SW VA and into Kentucky and Tennessee. They arrived in Northern Arkansas from 1840 or so through 1900.
This a common enough story that it's listed as a migratory group by Ancestry.com. It seems likely that what you're seeing here is a social norm among a discrete population with a mostly shared culture.
http://www.deepseanews.com/2012/06/how-presidential-election...
The big one is the Bible Belt minus the Black Belt, and also seems to be missing the Carolinas, maybe because they've had so much internal migration from the Northeast recently.
El Paso and surrounding area is surely associated more with the Rio Grande Valley of far south Texas than either of these two areas -- a culturally distinct area of Tejanos and more recent Hispanic immigrants.
I don't know what to attribute the area of lower-age married fertility in eastern CO + western KS to, or other scattered areas.
I would lump in KS/eastern CO with OK and with Missouri minus KC/STL/JC.
So three or four regions:
* The bible belt - the black belt
* Mormons
* The lower midwest and "eastern west" (e.g., eastern CO but also maybe even to some extent parts of NV, the Dakotas, and the rural eastern partns of the PNW). Maybe this is two groups that sort of blend at their boundaries?
No two places are exactly the same but that last grouping makes at least as much sense as the bible belt. IMO, at least.
I'm not a demographer or anything, but I bet that you could explain some of the cultural differences between the bible belt and the lower midwest+eastern west in terms of historically dominant congregations/denominations of Christianity. (And also some other things, most notably slavery.)