I find sociological discussions like this fascinating in general. However I was particularly interested in seeing that towards the end of the article they list some of the places (with more than 10,000 residents) where this phenomenon is most significant, and, lo and behold, three of Cleveland's inner-ring suburbs (Shaker Heights, Euclid, and Garfield Heights) made the list.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/20/upshot/missing-black-men.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

 

Thoughts?

I'd say the data on a local level isn't really relevant in the same way as it is on a national or regional level. Local would have more to do with families and schools, and nationally/regionally on crime and the male psyche.

 

Also, I'm pretty damn tired of these data sets not adjusting the populations for wealth. Just creating data based exaggerations to be held too closely by activists and racists alike.