First, Australia's unemployment rate has increased since 2011. Currently, it's at the highest level in about ten years. Second, America's unemployment rate is at its lowest level in six years. Based on that, it would be reasonable to suppose that the differential ought to have increased. Third, the differential is seven freaking percentage points to even get the Indigenous unemployment rate to the same level as the black unemployment rate. That's a huge gap by any reasonable standard. Fourth, low labor force participation rates is an indicator of disadvantage. Sixth, as I've explained a difference of a few years due to different reporting schedules is nothing big in statistical circles. But if you want to find data from 2014 on Indigenous unemployment by all means go for it I won't stop you. (I reserve the right to snicker).
Seven percentage points over two periods of time, which (as you've stated) hold very different economic circumstances. Low labor participation must be a compared stat between the two groups when considering unemployment rate, income, etc. You can't just say one group is worse without considering all the factors contributing to unemployment (which isn't a very good stat in and of itself, and you should look more at labor participation and underemployment on top of this). You also need to consider factors such as single income households, number of children per household, education rates, drug and alcohol abuse rates, etc. But you're ignoring all of this.
Look you can make all the airy-fairy qualitative arguments you want and I'll continue to ignore them. Why? Because they have no explanatory value sans data. But I'll humor you with one of my own: If we accept that Australia spends more on health programs (which I've shown is a dubious assumption) then the differential in life expectancy between groups should increase if we standardized for health expenditure. Basically, if we accept that relative health expenditure is a good explanatory variable for health outcomes with higher levels of the former leading to better outcomes in the latter then logically if we increase United States expenditure to match Australian expenditure the life expectancy gap would increase as black people's health outcomes rose and vice versa. I can come up with a bunch of other otherwise unprovable conjectures if you would like?
Ah, but here again you did not prove a damned thing. Comparing expenditure vs GDP is a silly means of finding out the goals and effectiveness of social programs such as healthcare. Black Americans simply do not have any form of universal healthcare provided by the state, and if they do it is limited to children (specifically the really poor, and often times it is only subsidized and people don't pay for it anyway) or elderly, not the middle of the road poor (again, because many states have opted out of Medicaid expansion and also happen to be the states with the highest African American populations). Now, you want to compare life expectancy of these two groups without considering that life expectancy of Native Americans is pretty much on par with Indigenous Australians (but again, you want to pick a poor group to compare it to to pretend our minorities don't suffer as much as yours).
When you're considering social programs such as welfare, food stamps, income tax refunds, and healthcare, the United States is pitiful compared to Australia. And if you can't see why that is an important factor in a debate about income, crime rates, and disadvantaged status then I don't know what you think is? See, there is an obvious lack of knowledge on your part about how large, dense, and unprotected our minorities are in comparison to all other first world countries. We simply do not provide what Australia does, so it isn't even a fair comparison.
You used 18k as the median household income of an African American, now add a few thousands a year in healthcare to match your programs and you get 14kish income. Now consider how little money that is to provide to households, and the ease in which criminals can affect the youth. Drugs, gangs, prison system promoted violence, etc.
You can't just pretend these factors don't exist. You want to make a point, but you're missing the forest for the trees, man.
Can you provide me with compelling reason I can't make the comparison? I also don't think you understand what cherry-picking is.
I've listed them all, but none of the factors that matter seem to be ones that you want to include in this discussion, which stems from your ignorance of American social programs, minorities, poverty, regional divisions, household size, etc. But please, let's continue making your group sound worse than ours just because you want to sound smug about it. It doesn't provide anything to the people actually suffering. It is nothing more than a whitewash of the social and economic issues in the United States by a foreigner who has never studied nor lived among these groups.
I don't want to argue with you Masada, but you're going about this topic in a completely backwards manner.
EDIT: All I can find on the Australian GDP percentage spent on your national healthcare service is 9.5%, not the 19.5% you compared to the United States.
EDIT2: Apparently you guys subsidize medicine to the point of being super cheap. I also need to remind you that the American market bears the brunt of new medicine costs in comparison to other countries. (this is why we buy pills from Canada or Mexico)