A Brief Study of Minority Purchasing Power


I was having a debate with some people today about Donald Sterling and Larry Johnson.  As some of you may know, Don Sterling is the NBA Basketball franchise owner who made racist comments about Black Americans, causing a storm and debate about institutionalized racism.

 

Larry Johnson is a former NBA basketball player who came out advocating for a Black owned basketball league in response to the perceived institutionalized racism.  Of course, of the 192 NBA (Basketball), NFL (Football), and MLB (Baseball teams), only 3 are owned by minorities (2 Indian, 1 Black – Michael Jordan).

 

So the argument was that more teams should be owned by Black owners.  The debate ended up at a point where someone spoke out in support of a Black owned league, and how Black Purchasing Power was enormous and should command more respect.  And that Black Americans, as a significantly large purchasing power, should be producers as well as consumers.

 

So I decided to do some research and found the following article showing that the claim was true, that Black Purchasing Power was indeed impressive.  (Source:  Huffington Post)

 

However, after further research, I realized that while this was true, it wasn’t actually a positive for the Black community, as we need to put it in perspective of population size, income, and other factors to get a real picture where Blacks spending was indeed a positive and a negative.

 

In fact, as a result of my research, I came to an alarming conclusion, that Blacks may account for an enormous purchasing power, but that didn’t necessarily translate into the right expenditures or investments.  Please read my response and research below, and feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.

 

My Response:

 

You’re right about Black Purchasing Power, but it’s not something to be proud of.  If anything, Black Purchasing Power is part of the root causes why Blacks are consumers rather than producers.  There is an article I read about how it’s concerning that 13% of the population is making 30% of the purchases (Source: Politic365), and how Black Americans are not saving the money or investing it.

 

To put this in perspective, Asians represent only 5.4 % of the population, and their buying power is 9% (Asian buying power grew the fastest in last decade, by 164%, Native Americans at 156%, Hispanics at 142%, Blacks at 73%, and the US as a whole at 69 %).  Hispanics represent 17% of the population, but their buying power is at 10%.  Native Americans comprise 1.3% of the population, and account for 1% of the buying power.  (Source:  The Multicultural Economy 2012 at the National Minority Supplier Development Council, Inc.)

 

What this means is that by comparison, is that Blacks are spending more (more than double their population size).  Now that wouldn’t be alarming, if it weren’t for the fact that African Americans rank the lowest in median income.  A 2009 stat (couldn’t find anything more recent, but I doubt there are drastic changes in a 3 year period).

 

2009 Annual Income by Race (Source: Census):
All Familes $60,088
White $62,545
Black $38,409
Asian $75,027
Hispanic $39,730

 

So if you consider the above numbers, Blacks median income is nearly half to two-thirds that of Asians and Whites, and nearly equal to Hispanics.  But they spend nearly three times that of Asians and Hispanic.  In fact, you could combined the Hispanic and Asian populations (17% + 5.4% = 22.4%, or double that of Blacks, but they still spend two thirds that of Blacks).

 

So yes, Blacks have more buying power, but they’re not saving it, which means they’re not putting money away to start up business, and as long as they do that, they will continue to be consumers, not producers, and thus having less of a say as to how businesses treat Blacks.

 

To add additional perspective, figures from the Census in 2007 showed the following facts (2012 figures are not in yet, Source: Census):
There were 1.9 million Black owned businesses.  In comparison there were 1.9 Asian-owned businesses (even though they had one third the population of Blacks), and Hispanics had 2.3 million businesses.  Women owned 7.8 businesses.

 

In terms of revenue, Black businesses made $137.4 Billion, compared to $513.9 Billion by Asians (nearly four times that of Blacks), $34.5 Billion by Native Americans (1/13th of Black population but making 1/3 revenues of Black businesses), and $345.2 Billion by Hispanics.

 

So you can see from these figures, despite making less revenue and income, Blacks are spending nearly 2.3 times more than the other races, and if you combine the population of the Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans (23.7% or nearly one quarter of the US population), they still spend less at 20% than Blacks are spending at 30%.  That’s alarming, and a big reason why Blacks are consumers and not producers.  Without savings and investments, how can you ever hope to own the businesses that produce?

Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny ...

From Tech Dirt:

Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details…

from the copyright-as-censorship dept

Imagine if the US government, with no notice or warning, raided a small but popular magazine’s offices over a Thanksgiving weekend, seized the company’s printing presses, and told the world that the magazine was a criminal enterprise with a giant banner on their building. Then imagine that it never arrested anyone, never let a trial happen, and filed everything about the case under seal, not even letting the magazine’s lawyers talk to the judge presiding over the case. And it continued to deny any due process at all for over a year, before finally just handing everything back to the magazine and pretending nothing happened. I expect most people would be outraged. I expect that nearly all of you would say that’s a classic case of prior restraint, a massive First Amendment violation, and exactly the kind of thing that does not, or should not, happen in the United States.

But, in a story that’s been in the making for over a year, and which we’re exposing to the public for the first time now, this is exactly the scenario that has played out over the past year — with the only difference being that, rather than “a printing press” and a “magazine,” the story involved “a domain” and a “blog.”

There are so many things about this story that are crazy, it’s difficult to know where to start, so let’s give the most important point first: The US government has effectively admitted that it totally screwed up and falsely seized & censored a non-infringing domain of a popular blog, having falsely claimed that it was taking part in criminal copyright infringement. Then, after trying to hide behind a totally secretive court process with absolutely no due process whatsoever (in fact, not even serving papers on the lawyer for the site or providing timely notifications — or providing any documents at all), for over a year, the government has finally realized it couldn’t hide any more and has given up, and returned the domain name to its original owner. If you ever wanted to understand why ICE’s domain seizures violate the law — and why SOPA and PROTECT IP are almost certainly unconstitutional — look no further than what happened in this case.

Okay, now some details. First, remember Dajaz1.com? It was one of the sites seized over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend back in 2010 — a little over a year ago. Those seizures struck us as particularly interesting, because among the sites seized were a bunch of hip hop blogs, including a few that were highly ranked on Vibe’s list of the top hip hop blogs. These weren’t the kinds of things anyone would expect, when supporters of these domain seizures and laws like SOPA and PROTECT IP talk of “rogue sites.” Blogs would have lots of protected speech, and in the hip hop community these blogs, in particular, were like the new radio. Artists routinely leaked their works directly to these sites in order to promote their albums. We even pointed to a few cases of stars like Kanye West and Diddy tweeting links to some of the seized domains in the past.

In fact, as the details came out, it became clear that ICE and the Justice Department were in way over their heads. ICE’s “investigation” was done by a technically inept recent college grad, who didn’t even seem to understand the basics of the technology. But it didn’t stop him from going to a judge and asking for a site to be completely censored with no due process.

The Dajaz1 case became particularly interesting to us, after we saw evidence showing that the songs that ICE used in its affidavit as “evidence” of criminal copyright infringement were songs sent by representatives of the copyright holder with the request that the site publicize the works — in one case, even coming from a VP at a major music label. Even worse, about the only evidence that ICE had that these songs were infringing was the word of the “VP of Anti-Piracy Legal Affairs for the RIAA,” Carlos Linares, who was simply not in a position to know if the songs were infringing or authorized. In fact, one of the songs involved an artist not even represented by an RIAA label, and Linares clearly had absolutely no right to speak on behalf of that artist.

Despite all of this, the government simply seized the domain, put up a big scary warning graphic on the site, suggesting its operators were criminals, and then refused to comment at all about the case. Defenders of the seizures insisted that this was all perfectly legal and nothing to be worried about. They promised us that the government had every right to do this and plenty of additional evidence to back up its claims. They promised us that the government would allow for plenty of due process within a reasonable amount of time. They also insisted that, after hearing nothing happening in the case for many months, it meant that no attempt to object to the seizure had occurred. Turns out… none of that was true.

What happened next is a story that should never happen in the US. It’s like something out of Kafka or the movie Brazil, but it should never have happened under the US Constitution. First, you have to understand the two separate processes: there’s seizure and then there’s forfeiture. Under the seizure laws, the government has 60 days from seizure to “notify” those whose property it seized (imagine having the government swoop in and take away your property, and not even being told why for two whole months). Once notified, the property owner has 35 days to file a claim to request the return of the property. If that doesn’t happen, the government can effectively just keep the property, so it tends to rely on intimidation and threats towards anyone who indicates plans to ask for their property back (usually in the form of threatening to file charges). However, if such a claim is filed, the government then has 90 days to start the full “forfeiture” process, which would allow the government to keep the seized property and never have to give it back. If the claim to return the property is filed and the government does not file for forfeiture, it is required to return the property. Thus seizures are supposedly used as a temporary part of the investigation, to stop criminal activity or to prevent the destruction of evidence. However, that’s not how things always play out in real life.

As we’d heard with a number of domain names that had been seized, the government began stalling like mad when contacted by representatives for domain holders seeking to get their domains back. ICE even flat out lied to the public, stating that no one was challenging the seizures, when it knew full well that some sites were, in fact, challenging. Out of that came the Rojadirecta case, but what of Dajaz1?

After continuing to stall and refusing to respond to Dajaz1′s filing requesting the domain be returned, the government told Dajaz1′s lawyer, Andrew P. Bridges, that it would begin forfeiture procedures (as required by law if it wanted to keep the domain). Bridges made clear that Dajaz1 would challenge the forfeiture procedure and seek to get the domain name back at that time. Then, the deadline for the government to file for forfeiture came and went and nothing apparently happened. Absolutely nothing. Bridges contacted the government to ask what was going on, and was told that the government had received an extension from the court. Bridges, quite reasonably, asked how that was possible without him, as counsel for the site, being informed of it or given a chance to make the case for why such an extension was improper.

He also asked for a copy of the the court’s order allowing the extension. The government told him no and that the extension was filed under seal and could not be released, even in redacted form.

He asked for the motion papers asking for the extension. The government told him no and that the papers were filed under seal and could not be released, even in redacted form.

He again asked whether he would be notified about further filings for extensions. The government told him no.

He then asked the US attorney to inform the court that, if the government made another request for an extension, the domain owner opposed the extension and would like the opportunity to be heard. The government would not agree.

And file further extensions the government did. Repeatedly. Or, at least that’s what Bridges was told. He sent someone to investigate the docket at the court, but the docket itself was secret, meaning there was no record of any of this available.

The government was required to file for forfeiture by May. The initial (supposed) secret extension was until July. Then it got another one that went until September. And then another one until November… or so the government said. When Bridges asked the government for some proof that it had actually obtained the extensions in question, the government attorney told Bridges that he would just have “trust” him.

Finally, the government decided that it would not file a forfeiture complaint — because there was no probable cause – and it let the last (supposed) extension expire. Only after Bridges asked again for the status of the domain did the government indicate that it would return the domain to its owner — something that finally happened today. Dajaz1.com is finally back in the hands of its rightful owner. This is really quite incredible, considering the “rush” with which it seized these domain names, claiming the urgency in stopping a crime in progress. But, of course, after realizing that it had no evidence to suggest a crime was ever in progress – there was absolutely no urgency to correct the error.

The level of secrecy in this case makes it sound like a terrorist investigation, not the censorship of a popular music blog. Normally, when there’s a lawsuit, the docket is available on PACER. Even in cases where things are filed under seal or everything is redacted, there’s at least a placeholder for them in PACER. This case does not exist anywhere that anyone can find. The docket was apparently kept hidden in a judge’s office in Los Angeles the whole time. No one knew this was going on, other than the US Attorney and the representatives of Dajaz1 (who still never saw the docket or the extension orders).

Let’s just take stock here for a second. We have the government clearly censoring free speech in the form of a blog that discussed the music world and was widely recognized for its influence in promoting new acts. The government seized the blog with no adversarial hearing and no initial due process. Then, rather than actually provide some sort of belated due process in the form of an adversarial hearing, it continued to deny any and all due process by secretly (even to Dajaz1′s own lawyer) extending the seizure without any way to challenge those extensions. All in all, the government completely censored a popular web site for over a year, when it had no real evidence for probable cause of infringement, as it had falsely claimed in the original rubber stamped affidavit. As we noted in reviewing the affidavit, the case had been put together by folks who clearly did not understand the law, the site or the music space. But to then double down on that and continue to hold the domain for a year in secret? That just compounds the error and takes it to new extremes.

This was flat out censorship for no reason, for an entire year, by the US government… Everyone should be horrified by this. It also shows what a joke the claims of supporters are that since “a judge reviewed the affidavit,” there’s due process. Without the other party, there is no real due process. Not only that, but the government made sure, at every step of the way, that the other party was not heard. That’s horrifying. It wasn’t just an act of omission in leaving out the party, but actively preventing the party from being heard.

And yet the feds and private companies continue to say we should just “trust them” to get these kinds of things right? Even more bizarre, they want to expand their ability to do this incontestable censorship through laws like PROTECT IP and SOPA? If anything, this massive screwup on the part of ICE, the Justice Department and the RIAA should lead us to go in the other direction. ICE and the DOJ should be investigated and reprimanded, if not directly penalized, for clear First Amendment violations, while the ICE program for seizing domains should be dismantled. John Morton, who led ICE’s domain seizure program, should tender his resignation or be fired. Victoria Espinel, the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, who defended these seizures to Congress, should issue a public apology, and begin a process to revamp the government’s role in such enforcement actions (and consider tendering her resignation as well). The federal government should issue a huge apology to the operators of Dajaz1 and make it clear that it will no longer take such drastic censorship actions. The RIAA should be investigated for providing claims about the site that were not true, and which it had no right to make.

If Congress needs to do anything, it should be to investigate the lawless, unconstitutional, cowboy censorship and blocking of due process by both Homeland Security and the Justice Department. The last thing it should be doing is allowing more such actions. This whole thing has been a disgrace by the US government, starting with a bogus seizure, improper and illegal censorship, followed by denial of due process and unnecessary secrecy. Dajaz1 is currently reviewing its options in terms of whether it can or should take further action as a result of this, but at least it has its domain back. And people wonder why we’re so concerned about these seizures and new proposals to further such censorship.

Apple Issues Response To iPod Tracking App

Steve Jobs and Apple deny tracking iPhones.  What do you think?  Do you believe it?  Should the tracking be completely removed?  Or do you feel its an invasion of your privacy?  Share your thoughts.

From http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/27/us-apple-idUSTRE73Q3Q320110427

Apple denies tracking iPhone customers

 

Apple CEO Steve Jobs appears on stage during a news conference at Apple headquarters in Cupertino, California, July 16, 2010. REUTERS/Kimberly White

Apple CEO Steve Jobs appears on stage during a news conference at Apple headquarters in Cupertino, California, July 16, 2010.Credit: Reuters/Kimberly White

 

NEW YORK | Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:00pm EDT

 NEW YORK (Reuters) – Steve Jobs, responding to growing public pressure, broke Apple Inc’s silence on Wednesday to defend the iPhone’s use of location data and stressed that it had never tracked the movements of its customers.

Jobs, who is on medical leave, sought to control a firestorm that has broken out over whether Apple is monitoring the whereabouts of its customers, promising to adjust the mobile software to store less location data.

Jobs denied that it was tracking the movements of its iPhone customers during interviews with AllThingsD, a blog owned by News Corp, and others. He also said the company would look forward to testifying before Congress and other regulators.

Apple itself issued a similar denial on a day when privacy issues overshadowed news that it would begin selling a long-awaited white version of its marquee iPhone. Sales are due to begin on Thursday.

“Apple is not tracking the location of your iPhone,” the company said in a statement on Wednesday. “Apple has never done so and has no plans to ever do so.”

Still, Apple and Jobs, who is rarely seen or heard from these days, acknowledged that iPhones keep a database of nearby Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers. That information can then be used to help calculate location for applications such as maps.

At the moment, some of that location information is stored on each iPhone and is backed up in iTunes. This has raised concerns from privacy advocates, who say the process would make it possible, for instance, for someone with access to a person’s computer to retrieve information about their movements.

Apple said it planned to release a software update that would cut the size of the wireless hotspot location database stored on its iPhones, and stop backing up that information. The software will be released in the next few weeks.

Concerns about tracking came to a head earlier this month when two computer programmers presented research showing the iPhone was logging locations. Privacy advocates have sharply criticized Apple, while the Federal Communications Commission and U.S. Sen. Al Franken have asked the company to explain its policy.

“I would expect there are folks who would be interested in looking at this,” said Lydia Parnes, an attorney with Wilson Sonsini, Goodrich and Rosati and a former director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “But just saying information is collected doesn’t automatically mean that it’s a problem. It’s all about what consumers understand.”

A spokeswoman for the Federal Trade Commission, which has been known to pursue companies that fail to adequately safeguard customers’ data, declined further comment on Apple.

Google Inc, a fierce competitor of Apple in mobile computing, has also faced sharp criticism over reports that Android-based phones track the locations of users.

In a statement on Wednesday, Google defended its process by saying it was up to consumers whether they want to participate in location sharing on Android-based phones.

“We provide users with notice and control over the collection, sharing and use of location in order to provide a better mobile experience on Android devices,” the search advertising company said.

Any data that is sent back to Google’s servers is anonymous, it said.

Apple, in seeking to clarify its position, also said the data is anonymous and shows only the location of Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers surrounding the iPhone’s location. It said those geographic points could be more than 100 miles away from the actual location of the iPhone.

Separately, Apple also said a white version of the iPhone 4 would be available on Thursday after failing to deliver the model when it was introduced last year.

Ticonderoga Securities analyst Brian White cautioned against underestimating the consumer frenzy that might be stoked by a white version of Apple’s wildly popular smartphone.

“The purchase of consumer electronic devices is not always a completely rational decision. The delayed launch of a ‘white’ iPhone has created a certain mystique around the product,” White said.

Apple also announced that the newest generation of iPad would arrive in Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and other markets this week.

Apple shares closed down 27 cents at $350.15 on Wednesday.