How could you even attempt to interpret this by Absolute numbers when you're dealing with different population figures? And I'm assuming you mean poor whites in America, since as we all know Whites are a minority when taken as a race worldwide.
It's like saying if you have 100 Red mice that have a problem out of 1000, and 5 blue mice that have a problem out of 10, that the problem is more prevalent in Red Mice than Blue Mice because you have 100 Red mice with the problem as opposed to 5 blue mice. Which is the wrong way to interpret it if you are trying to determine which mouse population is more affected by the problem. Clearly the Blue mouse population where 50% of the population has the problem is more affected than the Red mouse population where only 10% of the population is affected. Logic dictates that the same applies when dealing with this topic with regards to **Minorities** and Non Minorities when answering the question which population is affected more by poverty or has a higher poverty level in the US. You have to deal with percentages when answering the question "What race is more likely to be poor in America? Whites or Non Whites". It is completely wrong to say 'Whites because there are more of them' in answer to that question. -Gel -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] By percentage, yes. But not by absolute numbers. There are more poor whites than poor of any other race. (Aren't there?) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:145091 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
