Poverty/Crime Excuse Smashed

A scientific study of rich and poor black and white youth in the US has definitively smashed the excuse used by nonwhite apologists that poverty “causes” crime.

The study, published in the March 2016 edition of the Race and Social Problems journal, found that poor black males were nearly four times more likely to commit crime than poor white males, and that poor Hispanics were not far behind.

The results showed, said the paper, that the “chances of incarceration in America are always higher for blacks than for whites or Hispanics, regardless of their level of wealth.”

blacks in prison

Titled “Race, Wealth and Incarceration: Results from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,” the paper was prepared by Khaing Zaw, Statistical Research Associate at Duke University; Darrick Hamilton from The New School Department of Economics, New York; and William Darity, Professor Public Policy, African and African American Studies, and Economics, at Duke University.

Zaw is Chinese, and Hamilton and Darity are black, so there can be no credence given to accusations of “white bias” in this study.

Although obviously set up with the intention of proving some sort of “discrimination,” the study was instead left with an inexplicable—for them, at least—fact: that when all socioeconomic factors are equal, nonwhites still have significantly higher crime rates than whites.

It is a searing indictment on the prized liberal core belief that higher nonwhite crime rates are always the result of “poverty” brought about by “white racism.”

The study analyzed data from the US Bureau of Labor’s 1979 National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which was a longitudinal project that followed the lives of a sample of American youth born between 1957–64. It originally included 12,686 respondents ages 14–22 when first interviewed in 1979; after two subsamples were dropped, 9,964 respondents remain in the eligible samples.

The study asked the participants about their assets and debts, and interviewers also noted their type of residence, including whether they were in a jail or prison.

Participants were then grouped by race and their household wealth, and researchers then went back through the data to see how many people in each group were arrested and jailed for criminal activity. The study excluded all those who were only briefly locked up, as opposed to full incarceration.

The “poverty” graduations were divided into ten groups of ten percentiles, broken up by income levels (Table 6 of the paper).


The results found that about 2.7 percent of the poorest white young males ultimately went to prison, while 10.47 percent of black males in that category went to prison, and 7.16 percent of Hispanics.

In the next income category up, 20.48 percent of blacks went to prison, as opposed to 3.13 percent of whites, and 14.56 percent of Hispanics.

The disparity remains constant throughout the entire range, with the percentage of whites being imprisoned never rising about 6.36 percent.

Only the very wealthiest black youth—those whose household wealth exceeded $69,000 in 2012 dollars—had a better chance of avoiding prison than the poorest white youth. Among black young people in this group, 2.4 percent were incarcerated.

As the study concluded:

Between races, we find that at low levels of wealth both blacks and Hispanics still had a higher incarceration rate than whites. At higher levels of wealth at the baseline, although the black-white incarceration disparity was reduced for males, it was not eliminated.

After trying to explain this enduring gap by “differential exposure to discrimination,” and other clearly made-up factors, the study then admits that:

We do observe that for Hispanic males starting with higher levels of wealth, odds of incarceration are similar to those of white males at comparable wealth levels. Why Hispanic males experience this convergence but not black males, we leave to further study.

In other words, the study is at a loss to explain why, given the same socioeconomic circumstances, there is a difference in the incarceration rates between Hispanics and blacks.

In its introduction, the paper provides a number of important background facts related to the topic:

Department of Justice estimates indicate that one in three black men born in 2001 can expect to be incarcerated in the course of their lifetime. In comparison, the rate for Hispanic males is one in six and for white males, one in seventeen.

Mass incarceration in the USA disproportionately affects blacks. Among men born between 1965 and 1969, 3 percent of whites and 20 percent of blacks had served time in prison by their early thirties.

As the Washington Post noted in its report on the study:

“In criminal justice, though, you can’t just explain away the disproportionate rates at which black and Hispanic youths end up in prison by pointing out that many people of color did not grow up with the same economic advantages as their white peers.”

Recommended For You


  1. Yes, excellent. Now how about a compound study of institutional anti-white bias explicitly showing non-criminal poor whites, being treated like criminal blacks/hispanics for merely being poor, or is that white?

  2. I was in prison for a decade, and what I saw was the following:

    Putting aside genetic predisposions for now, people constuct their identities first based on what they are not. So a black looks at how whites act and is attracted toward adopting the opposite attitudes as a way of defining his identity as black. Once many individuals share these same attitudes, they become culture and are amplified even more. No amount of education or poverty reduction can reverse this trend, since it misses the underlying drivers. Higher IQ individuals can escape their own culture and create their own identies, but these are the exceptions, not the rule.

    If the above is true, then diversity is doomed to failure and politics are destined to balkanization.

    1. I guarantee these results will quickly be relegated to a box in a basement somewhere.
      Though the conclusions may fit the facts, they don`t fit with libtard theories.
      Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, you libbies.
      Sticking flowers in as*holes will never make a vase.

  3. But nowhere do they consider the effect of lower intelligence. It seems to me that black people -with their lower average IQ – and I stress average, not everyone, some are obviously highly intelligent and capable – and in the UK the people from Pakistan, brought in two generations ago from farming folk to work in the cotton mills, who are also not likely to include intellectually gifted people, then observe white people with decent jobs, earning good money and doing well. The only reason they can then think of for their own inability to achieve is “Racism”. And some of their slightly more intelligent leaders with the gift of oratory will say that, and it will be believed. So they turn to violence, crime, drug dealing, as the only route to money. Just a thought.

    1. It has nothing to do with people telling them “they can’t make it.” That’s just their nature. You have lots of poor whites in the Appalchians, in Eastern Europe, who have lost jobs here in America, who even were poor during the Depression in the 30s, but we didn’t resort to being violent or destructive or having bad attitudes. At some point and their anti-white attitudes and tendencies will come to the surface.

      Whites elected a black president twice, we’ve handed them the keys to our major cities that WE built, we give them a much better life than they have in Africa, and yet they hate us, they’re attacking us, they whine/demand incessantly.

    2. Sub Saharan Africans IQ ranged between 60 and 80. They should have been taken back to Africa after the civil war where they can complete. They are obviously failing here and in all western countries!

  4. Look guys you just can’t fix stupid. As long as we have a government hell bent on giving free stuff away for being a sorry ass. The problem is created when the kids of these government funded people become adults. They still want to live for free. But on on a larger income level that don’t include having to work. The fix would be noting is free if assistance in needed some type work would be require and must complete a trade training program.

  5. The sample sizes are different for each group.

    For instance, the lowest wealth shows Hispanics were incarcerated at 7.6%
    But the sample size is only 63.

    Which means 5 people.

    Where the lowest whites was 2.7%
    But the sample size was 162.

    Which would also come to 5.
    So the same number of people were arrested.

    Does this mean you can apply the same percentage if the population was the same?

    I’m not sure, but it should be noted the sample sizes aren’t the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.