Ms. Gray seems to lack understanding of Economics and Comparative Economic Systems. Case in point: Sweden was a 'socialist country' several decades ago, but over time they discovered that a generous economic system was discouraging work, effort and and innovation. Decades ago the country had to update its 'socialism' to achieve a more dynamic society. They do have a safety net BUT they also expect citizens to work and contribute their fair share of effort to the country. It's a lovely country but not all the utopian 'honey & cream' that American Leftist think it is. People, like Ms. Gary really should get out and travel a bit as she sounds provincial.
I appreciated that you engaged with Ms. Gray, and that she attempted to engage with you.
I had many points where I was shocked at the ignorance and arrogance of her stances at certain points.
Clifton has done a far greater review than I could engage in, but quickly, two points.
First, of course, she trotted out the "real socialism has never been tried" canard. If America was just nicer to the USSR or Cuba or Venezuela or Red China, then we would have seen the thousand flowers blossom, and the establishment of the socialist paradise on Earth. That is simply ivory tower blather. If a superior economic system is going to get out and compete, it has to win. It does not depend on other countries or systems being "nice" to it. Also, the proof is in the pudding. How many purges and atrocities came from the establishment of these would-be paradises? How many refugees have fled, and continue to flee to the United States and other places? She has no example of successful socialism (or communism), something she thinks should be established here, in our country, first by trying to move towards Nordic social welfare, but then go further, and that is a dangerously wrong-headed direction that has no real world support. It's the path that leads to Red Guards and Commisars, gulags, purges, starvation, stagnation and shortages.
But sure, it has never been tried.
Also, her push back against the importance of the United States in World War Two came from a place of exceptional (and, might I suggest possibly willful) ignorance. She compared the sacrifice of the United States to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and, while not wanting to devalue the human lives lost, clearly thought that the Soviet losses (which she put at 27M (a number available on Wikipedia) and others have put at "over 20M" but disputed, and other researches have stated as 25M (https://daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu/insights/soviet-role-world-war-ii-realities-and-myths)) were much greater.
It was only when Germany turned on the USSR in 1941 that Stalin joined the Allied effort. Even still, the USSR kept its neutrality pact with Imperial Japan until 1945 (https://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/9333).
Nikita Khrushchev stated "'If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war,' . . . in his memoirs. 'One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me.'"
"In 1963, KGB monitoring recorded Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov saying: 'People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own.'" (both quotes from https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html).
The United States not only sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives, but also armed the UK and the USSR with vital products, weapons and raw materials. It was the Arsenal of Freedom. The USSR through its own actions, incompetence and failures, saw the tragic death of millions of its soldiers and civilians.
To simply look at the body bag total, and say that Americans should not be proud of the critical role played in World War Two, because the USSR suffered more casualties, is to reduce a complicated and difficult history to a comparison of two statistics that are lacking context and valence. It is a debating tactic beneath the dignity of a thinking and educated person.
The United States has a very complicated history, but I still put it against any other nation in the course of history, and it is exceptional and it is admirable, with many warts, failures and a good does of shame. Ms. Gray would discard a shining moment AND hold up the USSR in the alternative with a simplistic narrative, to try to arrive at the conclusion that the U.S. is not all that.
Ignorance and arrogance on display. Argue real history, and real nuance, and come to honest disagreements, sure, that is fine. But get off the leftist academic talking points, the canards, the false narratives and echo chamber call and response.
After all, we are dealing with serious issues here, that call for a serious and collective response by our country. There are real lives at stake, as well as the future of our country, which has been, and can be and should be a force for good in this world. It is not perfect, but it is better than the leading alternatives.
Does anyone want to live under PRC hegemony? Glenn raised it as a concern, and Ms. Gray did not even engage.
Thank you for your thoughts Clifton and Glenn. I always learn from this community and the discussion. I hope I don't fall to my own echo chamber, my own ignorance or arrogance (though I know it is always a danger).
Great article Clifton. My feeling is that Briahna is an empty suit in spite of her Ivy degrees and privileged life. I'm glad you took the time to illustrate it.
I've just been spending some time going through The Woodson Center's 1776 Unites Curriculum: https://1776unites.com/our-work/curriculum/. It's really well done with a focus on black history and achievement in America. I would be willing to bet a lot of money that Briahna does not even know it exists.
I think that Glenn is pretty non confrontational in his podcast discussions/debates, especially when his guest is a pretty young woman with a seductive smile. I doubt that Briahna would have gotten off as easily if she debated Bob Woodson or Larry Elder.
Sorry to change the topic a little. Be curious to get Glenn's and everyone else's take. 8th grade and lower grade standardized test scores are highly correlated with every socio-economic outcome variable we have data on in least means squared regressions.
Improvement between 12th and 8th grade test scores are highly correlated with improved outcomes for girls and boys less than 50 percentile 8th grade test scores. For boys with medium to high 8th grade test scores, the gains in socio-economic performance later in life are within standard error for improvements in 12th grade test scores versus 8th grade test scores.
Is anyone aware of more recent econometric data on how K-12 standardized test scores are related to socio-economic outcomes later in life?
What are the arguments that the strong correlations between 8th grade standardized test scores and socio-economic outcomes later in life are not due to caucasation, but due to endogeneity or something else?
Here is some SWAG speculation:
---the actual causation variables might be four:
------physical health
------mental health
------intelligence
------"relations before transactions"
---these could be driving both the 8th grade standardized test scores as well as socio-economic outcomes later in life
---are there any other possible explanations?
My view is that even if there is endogeneity and the above four are the actual causative variables . . . the effort to increase standardized test score results will automatically lead to a major effort to increase the physical health, mental health, intelligence and "relations before transactions" of children around the world.
Be curious to hear everyone else's perspectives.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FYI If we hold 8th grade test scores constant most socio-economic outcome differentials between blacks and non blacks significantly shrink. Please see the below Roland Fryer slide deck from 2010:
It's a nutty mindset that pretends culture has nothing to do with anything. William Darity says *people* can make different choices from one another but groups cannot. What does he think groups are made of?
A few years ago I was in a big car with a family full of parents, kids, cousins, etc., driving through Rocky Mountain National Park singing along with John Denver songs. You know how white people are. A few days later, in a small town, a van rolled into a parking lot blaring loud rap music, something about putting a cap in someone on a street somewhere. When the van disgorged, I saw that the occupants were white. Whatever. Which vehicle would I want rolling past me late at night if I were alone? One was about filling up senses and the other was about murder.
Gray's about education assertion was funny. I've heard it many times, and it's obviously untrue. The world is full of "known" things that are wrong. Type in a few words about diversity in business and you'll see a raft of articles telling us diversity is good for business. Profits are higher. Click the links (usually two levels deep) and we learn that someone did a survey asking employees if they *thought* diversity was good for business. Surprise! Many said yes—because their executives (who know better) told them so. Google prefers the popular lie over things that are true. Look up anything on women and investing and we learn that women are "better" investors. Yet (if we find real data) we learn they are much less likely to invest. How can they be better if they sit on their cash? Somebody did a study, and got the results they wanted. Google features the lie, multiplies it by ten, and it becomes our truth.
Gray's bashing of capitalism was fun also. Apparently the microphone she spoke into invented itself.
Great job, Glen. Both of you were cordial and respectful, a nice change from how these conversations can go (Kendi, Coates, etc.).
you can't compare apples and oranges and some to any conclusions.....
Tell me how blacks are doing AFTER normalizing for IQ, marriage and criminal behavior? In other words, how are:- non criminal , -married blacks, - with an IQ of 100 doing in America?
Because of affirmative action you may find that they are actually "out performing" married whites with average IQ of 100 and no criminal history.....compare "like things" if you are trying to ascertain level of "racism" in this country......there are many variables with partial explanatory power for disparities between races.....I highlighted three...but here is another one.....age. The most common age for whites is 58 but only 11 for Hispanics, 27 for blacks......who has more wealth accumulated and who is in their peak $ earning years? so if you compare at total populations...without "normalizing" for these and other factors you are not comparing like things and no sound conclusions can be reached.
Wow! I hope Clifton Roscoe continues to pipe up and provide data for refutation, or support, to the guests.
Clifton Roscoe vs. Briahna Joy Gray winner= Clifton Roscoe by "Technical" Knockout (TKO)
***Programming note for Glenn; This is exactly what I was writing about when I suggested allowing guests to make their case and then you doing a "follow up" episode analyzing their arguments against available empirical data. Much more interesting then sophistry alone
Thanks Clifton, for the great response. And Glenn, given all of what Clifton has added to this discussion, I might suggest having Briahna Joy Gray back on to the show for round 2...?
OMG!!! If this email was a speech, I'd give it a standing ovation. And I think most of the Glenn Show followers would follow my lead!!! Great email!!!!!
I always enjoy Glenn and learn from him and his guests. Clifton did a great job with his input. That said, I am not as optimistic as Clifton and some who posted here that seem to think capitalism is the best solution. I do think something more like Scandanavian Socialism will likely need to be the solution once the AI revolution takes hold in maybe 10 to 20 years given the projected job losses even projected for the middle and professional classes. Our reliance on individualism may have run its course and we need to become more collective oriented. I live in Orlando, Florida where the average cost for a one-bedroom apartment rental is $1541 a month. I read this in our paper for example: "The latest numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics are out. And once again, Central Florida ranks dead last among America’s largest metros when it comes to wages. We rank 50th out of 50 with median hourly wages of $17.59, meaning half the jobs pay less than $36,588 a year." All I can say is capitalism as we have it today is not cutting it for a lot of people. Many are angry. Many Millennial types are in a bad place in the capitalist game. I figure with AI job losses coming and then as climate change kicks in harder driving people to migrate out of survival needs things are liable to get much worse leading to violence that may be beyond what I saw in the 1960s. I certainly hope I am wrong about all that.
Thank you Glenn for these discussions. I was born in Bay Area and not Eastern Europe in later 1960’s only because of family migration decisions decades prior. Yes, USA is exceptional.
On benefit of 2-parent households: I am a gay man and I strongly support the 2-parent model. Not an expert, not my field of study, but off the top of my head - I imagine numerous dimensions within the behavioral category that would be compelling. The lack of curiosity and complete silence of entire institutions on the benefit of 2-parent model is interesting. Perhaps my colleagues are traumatized by the specter of abuse within the home, and generalizing across broader society.
While appreciative of the Glenn-Brianha discussion, it should be in addition to, not in place of the professional and methodical, structured hierarchical discussions that institutions refuse to engage in. Any courtroom judge can attest to methodical process of discussion to determine if John Doe robbed a bank. I have watched with my own eyes as numerous institutions and organizations have intentionally refused a professional and methodical discourse that would guarantee the due process of information at each step - since 2017. We must reinstate due process at the institutions.
I write this because many of Briahna’s speculative statements are equally echoed within institutions without the necessary exploration.
Prof. Loury should present Mr. Roscoe's letter to Ms. Gray and ask her to respond to each of his points in their next video encounter. It deserves her direct, straight no chaser response.
People are always going to disagree over priorities and policy decisions. People are always going to spin and cherry-pick statistics which bolster their objectives. They always have and always will, and that's as it should be.
Today, however, we are regularly asked to make electoral and policy decisions based on agreed-upon falsehoods. That seems new, and ominous.
Thanks to Clifton Roscoe for pointing out that the claim about the educational attainment of Black women is inconsistent with the Census data. I wondered how such a mistake could be made and therefore went back and looked at the "source" for the claim. Here's what is says: "For example, although Black women only make up 12.7% of the female population in the country, they consistently make up over 50% of the number of Black people who receive postsecondary degrees. Percentage-wise, Black women outpace white women, Latinas, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans in this arena as well." (Footnote omitted.) It seems that the author (who claims to be a "college professor") made the fundamental logical error of mistaking "the percentage that Black women make up of all Blacks who receive postsecondary degrees" for "the percentage of Black women who receive postsecondary degrees." It is amazing to me that a "college professor" could make such a mistake and then that the mistake widely propagated, creating an entirely false narrative.
Ms. Gray seems to lack understanding of Economics and Comparative Economic Systems. Case in point: Sweden was a 'socialist country' several decades ago, but over time they discovered that a generous economic system was discouraging work, effort and and innovation. Decades ago the country had to update its 'socialism' to achieve a more dynamic society. They do have a safety net BUT they also expect citizens to work and contribute their fair share of effort to the country. It's a lovely country but not all the utopian 'honey & cream' that American Leftist think it is. People, like Ms. Gary really should get out and travel a bit as she sounds provincial.
Thank you Clifton and Glenn.
I appreciated that you engaged with Ms. Gray, and that she attempted to engage with you.
I had many points where I was shocked at the ignorance and arrogance of her stances at certain points.
Clifton has done a far greater review than I could engage in, but quickly, two points.
First, of course, she trotted out the "real socialism has never been tried" canard. If America was just nicer to the USSR or Cuba or Venezuela or Red China, then we would have seen the thousand flowers blossom, and the establishment of the socialist paradise on Earth. That is simply ivory tower blather. If a superior economic system is going to get out and compete, it has to win. It does not depend on other countries or systems being "nice" to it. Also, the proof is in the pudding. How many purges and atrocities came from the establishment of these would-be paradises? How many refugees have fled, and continue to flee to the United States and other places? She has no example of successful socialism (or communism), something she thinks should be established here, in our country, first by trying to move towards Nordic social welfare, but then go further, and that is a dangerously wrong-headed direction that has no real world support. It's the path that leads to Red Guards and Commisars, gulags, purges, starvation, stagnation and shortages.
But sure, it has never been tried.
Also, her push back against the importance of the United States in World War Two came from a place of exceptional (and, might I suggest possibly willful) ignorance. She compared the sacrifice of the United States to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and, while not wanting to devalue the human lives lost, clearly thought that the Soviet losses (which she put at 27M (a number available on Wikipedia) and others have put at "over 20M" but disputed, and other researches have stated as 25M (https://daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu/insights/soviet-role-world-war-ii-realities-and-myths)) were much greater.
What this simplistic analysis elides is the fact that the Soviets were deeply complicit in the rearming of Germany (https://www.newswise.com/articles/historian-offers-first-deep-dive-into-secret-german-soviet-alliance-that-laid-groundwork-for-wwii; https://warontherocks.com/2016/06/sowing-the-wind-the-first-soviet-german-military-pact-and-the-origins-of-world-war-ii/). After the ascension of the Nazi regime, the Soviets signed a non-aggression pact, and trade and technical support continued to flow at an increased rate between the aggressive and murderous Nazi government and the aggressive and murderous Soviet government (https://www.persee.fr/doc/cmr_1252-6576_1995_num_36_1_2425).
The USSR helped build the Nazi war machine. The USSR divided Poland up with Nazi Germany, invading from the east as Hitler invaded from the west in 1939 (https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/06/world-war-ii-the-invasion-of-poland-and-the-winter-war/100094/) (Stalin then went on to invade Finland; he was not worried about being betrayed by Hitler).
It was only when Germany turned on the USSR in 1941 that Stalin joined the Allied effort. Even still, the USSR kept its neutrality pact with Imperial Japan until 1945 (https://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/9333).
Throughout the war, the United States provided materiel to the Soviets to keep them in the fight (https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/#:~:text=Totaling%20%2411.3%20billion%2C%20or%20%24180,common%20enemy%20%E2%80%94%20bloodthirsty%20Hitlerism.%E2%80%9D; https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html).
Nikita Khrushchev stated "'If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war,' . . . in his memoirs. 'One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me.'"
"In 1963, KGB monitoring recorded Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov saying: 'People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own.'" (both quotes from https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html).
The United States not only sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives, but also armed the UK and the USSR with vital products, weapons and raw materials. It was the Arsenal of Freedom. The USSR through its own actions, incompetence and failures, saw the tragic death of millions of its soldiers and civilians.
To simply look at the body bag total, and say that Americans should not be proud of the critical role played in World War Two, because the USSR suffered more casualties, is to reduce a complicated and difficult history to a comparison of two statistics that are lacking context and valence. It is a debating tactic beneath the dignity of a thinking and educated person.
The United States has a very complicated history, but I still put it against any other nation in the course of history, and it is exceptional and it is admirable, with many warts, failures and a good does of shame. Ms. Gray would discard a shining moment AND hold up the USSR in the alternative with a simplistic narrative, to try to arrive at the conclusion that the U.S. is not all that.
Ignorance and arrogance on display. Argue real history, and real nuance, and come to honest disagreements, sure, that is fine. But get off the leftist academic talking points, the canards, the false narratives and echo chamber call and response.
After all, we are dealing with serious issues here, that call for a serious and collective response by our country. There are real lives at stake, as well as the future of our country, which has been, and can be and should be a force for good in this world. It is not perfect, but it is better than the leading alternatives.
Does anyone want to live under PRC hegemony? Glenn raised it as a concern, and Ms. Gray did not even engage.
Thank you for your thoughts Clifton and Glenn. I always learn from this community and the discussion. I hope I don't fall to my own echo chamber, my own ignorance or arrogance (though I know it is always a danger).
Keep up the good work.
Great article Clifton. My feeling is that Briahna is an empty suit in spite of her Ivy degrees and privileged life. I'm glad you took the time to illustrate it.
I've just been spending some time going through The Woodson Center's 1776 Unites Curriculum: https://1776unites.com/our-work/curriculum/. It's really well done with a focus on black history and achievement in America. I would be willing to bet a lot of money that Briahna does not even know it exists.
I think that Glenn is pretty non confrontational in his podcast discussions/debates, especially when his guest is a pretty young woman with a seductive smile. I doubt that Briahna would have gotten off as easily if she debated Bob Woodson or Larry Elder.
Sorry to change the topic a little. Be curious to get Glenn's and everyone else's take. 8th grade and lower grade standardized test scores are highly correlated with every socio-economic outcome variable we have data on in least means squared regressions.
http://ftp.iza.org/dp11808.pdf
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.508.567&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Improvement between 12th and 8th grade test scores are highly correlated with improved outcomes for girls and boys less than 50 percentile 8th grade test scores. For boys with medium to high 8th grade test scores, the gains in socio-economic performance later in life are within standard error for improvements in 12th grade test scores versus 8th grade test scores.
Is anyone aware of more recent econometric data on how K-12 standardized test scores are related to socio-economic outcomes later in life?
What are the arguments that the strong correlations between 8th grade standardized test scores and socio-economic outcomes later in life are not due to caucasation, but due to endogeneity or something else?
Here is some SWAG speculation:
---the actual causation variables might be four:
------physical health
------mental health
------intelligence
------"relations before transactions"
---these could be driving both the 8th grade standardized test scores as well as socio-economic outcomes later in life
---are there any other possible explanations?
My view is that even if there is endogeneity and the above four are the actual causative variables . . . the effort to increase standardized test score results will automatically lead to a major effort to increase the physical health, mental health, intelligence and "relations before transactions" of children around the world.
Be curious to hear everyone else's perspectives.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FYI If we hold 8th grade test scores constant most socio-economic outcome differentials between blacks and non blacks significantly shrink. Please see the below Roland Fryer slide deck from 2010:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnOi0w8rgYs&t=765s
https://www.slideshare.net/barcelonagse/roland-fryerbarcelonagsecalvoprize
It's a nutty mindset that pretends culture has nothing to do with anything. William Darity says *people* can make different choices from one another but groups cannot. What does he think groups are made of?
A few years ago I was in a big car with a family full of parents, kids, cousins, etc., driving through Rocky Mountain National Park singing along with John Denver songs. You know how white people are. A few days later, in a small town, a van rolled into a parking lot blaring loud rap music, something about putting a cap in someone on a street somewhere. When the van disgorged, I saw that the occupants were white. Whatever. Which vehicle would I want rolling past me late at night if I were alone? One was about filling up senses and the other was about murder.
Gray's about education assertion was funny. I've heard it many times, and it's obviously untrue. The world is full of "known" things that are wrong. Type in a few words about diversity in business and you'll see a raft of articles telling us diversity is good for business. Profits are higher. Click the links (usually two levels deep) and we learn that someone did a survey asking employees if they *thought* diversity was good for business. Surprise! Many said yes—because their executives (who know better) told them so. Google prefers the popular lie over things that are true. Look up anything on women and investing and we learn that women are "better" investors. Yet (if we find real data) we learn they are much less likely to invest. How can they be better if they sit on their cash? Somebody did a study, and got the results they wanted. Google features the lie, multiplies it by ten, and it becomes our truth.
Gray's bashing of capitalism was fun also. Apparently the microphone she spoke into invented itself.
Great job, Glen. Both of you were cordial and respectful, a nice change from how these conversations can go (Kendi, Coates, etc.).
you can't compare apples and oranges and some to any conclusions.....
Tell me how blacks are doing AFTER normalizing for IQ, marriage and criminal behavior? In other words, how are:- non criminal , -married blacks, - with an IQ of 100 doing in America?
Because of affirmative action you may find that they are actually "out performing" married whites with average IQ of 100 and no criminal history.....compare "like things" if you are trying to ascertain level of "racism" in this country......there are many variables with partial explanatory power for disparities between races.....I highlighted three...but here is another one.....age. The most common age for whites is 58 but only 11 for Hispanics, 27 for blacks......who has more wealth accumulated and who is in their peak $ earning years? so if you compare at total populations...without "normalizing" for these and other factors you are not comparing like things and no sound conclusions can be reached.
***Clifton Roscoe..... do your stuff!
Wow! I hope Clifton Roscoe continues to pipe up and provide data for refutation, or support, to the guests.
Clifton Roscoe vs. Briahna Joy Gray winner= Clifton Roscoe by "Technical" Knockout (TKO)
***Programming note for Glenn; This is exactly what I was writing about when I suggested allowing guests to make their case and then you doing a "follow up" episode analyzing their arguments against available empirical data. Much more interesting then sophistry alone
Thanks Clifton, for the great response. And Glenn, given all of what Clifton has added to this discussion, I might suggest having Briahna Joy Gray back on to the show for round 2...?
Thank you Clifton from a grateful Homer! I appreciate the time and talent that went into your post!
I too was unconvinced by Ms. Gray who is less well informed than she realizes. Clifton Roscoe response is right on!
OMG!!! If this email was a speech, I'd give it a standing ovation. And I think most of the Glenn Show followers would follow my lead!!! Great email!!!!!
I always enjoy Glenn and learn from him and his guests. Clifton did a great job with his input. That said, I am not as optimistic as Clifton and some who posted here that seem to think capitalism is the best solution. I do think something more like Scandanavian Socialism will likely need to be the solution once the AI revolution takes hold in maybe 10 to 20 years given the projected job losses even projected for the middle and professional classes. Our reliance on individualism may have run its course and we need to become more collective oriented. I live in Orlando, Florida where the average cost for a one-bedroom apartment rental is $1541 a month. I read this in our paper for example: "The latest numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics are out. And once again, Central Florida ranks dead last among America’s largest metros when it comes to wages. We rank 50th out of 50 with median hourly wages of $17.59, meaning half the jobs pay less than $36,588 a year." All I can say is capitalism as we have it today is not cutting it for a lot of people. Many are angry. Many Millennial types are in a bad place in the capitalist game. I figure with AI job losses coming and then as climate change kicks in harder driving people to migrate out of survival needs things are liable to get much worse leading to violence that may be beyond what I saw in the 1960s. I certainly hope I am wrong about all that.
Thank you Glenn for these discussions. I was born in Bay Area and not Eastern Europe in later 1960’s only because of family migration decisions decades prior. Yes, USA is exceptional.
On benefit of 2-parent households: I am a gay man and I strongly support the 2-parent model. Not an expert, not my field of study, but off the top of my head - I imagine numerous dimensions within the behavioral category that would be compelling. The lack of curiosity and complete silence of entire institutions on the benefit of 2-parent model is interesting. Perhaps my colleagues are traumatized by the specter of abuse within the home, and generalizing across broader society.
While appreciative of the Glenn-Brianha discussion, it should be in addition to, not in place of the professional and methodical, structured hierarchical discussions that institutions refuse to engage in. Any courtroom judge can attest to methodical process of discussion to determine if John Doe robbed a bank. I have watched with my own eyes as numerous institutions and organizations have intentionally refused a professional and methodical discourse that would guarantee the due process of information at each step - since 2017. We must reinstate due process at the institutions.
I write this because many of Briahna’s speculative statements are equally echoed within institutions without the necessary exploration.
Prof. Loury should present Mr. Roscoe's letter to Ms. Gray and ask her to respond to each of his points in their next video encounter. It deserves her direct, straight no chaser response.
People are always going to disagree over priorities and policy decisions. People are always going to spin and cherry-pick statistics which bolster their objectives. They always have and always will, and that's as it should be.
Today, however, we are regularly asked to make electoral and policy decisions based on agreed-upon falsehoods. That seems new, and ominous.
Thanks to Clifton Roscoe for pointing out that the claim about the educational attainment of Black women is inconsistent with the Census data. I wondered how such a mistake could be made and therefore went back and looked at the "source" for the claim. Here's what is says: "For example, although Black women only make up 12.7% of the female population in the country, they consistently make up over 50% of the number of Black people who receive postsecondary degrees. Percentage-wise, Black women outpace white women, Latinas, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans in this arena as well." (Footnote omitted.) It seems that the author (who claims to be a "college professor") made the fundamental logical error of mistaking "the percentage that Black women make up of all Blacks who receive postsecondary degrees" for "the percentage of Black women who receive postsecondary degrees." It is amazing to me that a "college professor" could make such a mistake and then that the mistake widely propagated, creating an entirely false narrative.