There is racism, but it's a smaller problem than promiscuity or crime. "Systemic Racism" is too often an excuse to avoid responsibility for a bad outcome due to bad behavior: sleeping around, committing crimes.
The filthy maggot Jew swill yearn for the "good old days" of their Messiahs - Lenin and Stalin - who they helped murder FIFTY MILLION across Russia and Eastern Europe. But those surely do not count, since they were mostly only Goyim, eh??? Bernie's campaign claimed the gulags "paid a living wage." Bernie never repudiated that claim. Have the Jews repudiated Bernie? And where was the Jewish "Schindler" to help the Goyim avoid the gulags? NONEXISTENT!!!
Now not all Jews are evil. But a significant majority of them in the West sure are. 70-75%!!!
Dr. Loury, I think one of the most salient points made was that "systemic racism" is actually not tied to racist sentiment. There is very little racist sentiment in the US today. Intrermarriage is common and no one cares. We have had a Black President and a Black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Properly understood, systemic or (as I prefer to call it) institutional racism is about things being done by institutions - unrelated to the sentiments of the people who work in those institutions or the people who created those institutions. A major example - totally overlooked as we hunt for ever more microscopic micro-aggressions - is how the Social Security system works. The value of social security benefits is strongly connected to life expectancy. All else equal, people who live longer get a higher return on their payroll contributions. And people who die before retirement receive nothing. Now, Blacks live shorter lives. Corrected for income levels, they still live shorter lives. And that means that at any two people of different races but similar lifetime incomes, the Black person is subsidizing the white person. And the sums involved are large. I am not sure yet (I have a research intern cracking the numbers), but it appears that 40% of Blacks who contribute to Social Security fail to live long enough to qualify for retirement benefits - for whites, it is about 20%. All their payroll contributions are lost. And for a a male who dies at 60 after working for 40 years at a $50000 job, the value of the lost payroll contributions comes to $500,000 or more. That is the racial wealth gap being created by the Social Security system. And it is absurd to think that anyone designed in on purpose to work this way or serve this purpose. Its simply an mindless institution that needs to be fixed. Not hard to fix - at least conceptually. Either the families of people who die too young should receive a bequest from Social Security, or the system should be converted to private accounts liek 401Ks or IRAs. Or a combination of both these measures could be used.
It will be interesting to see what your research digs up. The largest losers in the systems are bound to be the young who subsidize the old way past the recipient's contribution level. But if you are looking onto who benefits the most, please also look at medicare/medicaid, food stamps welfare, ADC, (all wealth transfer programs) you can't look at just one entitlement program (money is fungible) and the total $ received in all programs over a lifetime whichis all that matters.....investigating which demographic benefits in just "one program" will be misleading...and is definitely incomplete.
Hi James. Thanks for writing. Medicare would play out the same way. For any working class or middle class person who doesn't get SNAP and/or TANF, the effect is unambiguous.
In other words your first claim while true was misleading and black women not white men might actually be the biggest beneficiary of wealth transfer schemes. Tsk tsk tsk
James, not sure I follow at all. The first claim - I assume about SS - is both true and in no way misleading. Saying it holds for Medicare as well only reinforces the point. And I am baffled why retirement entitlements (which are not meant to be wealth transfer schemes) are being mixed with social welfare programs in this discussion. Very poor people - Black or white - get things like SNAP and TANF. Most working class people and all middle class and upper class people do not. So AGAIN - if you are a standard generic person making $50,000 or $250,000 a year, and you are white, you will be subsidized through SS (and Medicare) by the standard generic person making the exact same sum who is Black. The reason is that Blacks live shorter lives (why is not fully understood).
The Census Bureau measures the recipients of six programs that are means-tested (based on income and other economic criteria) and designed to go only to low-income people: Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and General Assistance (which are what remain of the old welfare system). Its most recent study found that in 2012, 21 percent of the U.S. population, or 52.2 million people, participated in one or more of those six programs on average each month.
Black Americans are overrepresented among recipients of those benefits. In any given month, 42 percent of black Americans received a means-tested benefit, compared with 36 percent of Hispanics, 18 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders and 13 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Currently the U.S. population is 77 percent white (62 percent of them non-Latino white Americans), 13 percent black, 17 percent Latino and 5 percent Asian. (Latinos are an ethnicity and may be of any race.)
Well let me break it down for you....you are cherry picking facts and leaving others out........its about details. the progressive features of Social Security that benefit African Americans more than outweigh the shorter average life-expectancy effect.(of course average includes all the dysfunction of murder, overdose, HIV aids etc)
Social Security uses a very "progressive formula" to calculate benefits for retirees, survivors, and disabled workers. low earners ( a lot of minorities) receive monthly Social Security benefits equal to 90 percent of their average monthly pre-retirement earnings.
By contrast, for very high-income individuals, Social Security benefits replace about 25 percent of average pre-retirement earnings.
African Americans also have significantly lower average lifetime earnings than non-minorities and consequently receive Social Security benefits that replace a larger share of their pre-retirement incomes than non-minorities do. This can be seen in two statistics. The earnings of African Americans workers equal 73 percent of white workers’ earnings, on average. But the average monthly Social Security retirement benefit for African Americans equals about 85 percent of the average benefit for white retirees.
Other features of the Social Security benefit formula also protect African Americans. For example, the Social Security benefit formula is based on the highest 35 years of earnings; it discards other years. This helps African Americans, since they have double the unemployment rates and also experience longer average spells of unemployment than whites do. African-American men consequently have a higher number of years with no earnings than whites do, on average. By ignoring some years of no or low earnings in calculating benefits (since only the highest 35 years of earnings are counted), the Social Security system benefits African Americans. A study published in the Social Security Bulletin confirmed this, finding that counting additional years of earnings toward benefits would harm African Americans disproportionately.
Bettina Love's POV, for me, presents serious problems. The attempt to combine Hip Hop and its variants with Neo-Marxist constructs is not constructive.
Before I pose my question - please allow me a few minutes to present a little background information of one of your viewer/listener/substack contributors.
I describe myself as a former DFLer and a never Trumper. (In Minnesota the Democratic party is Democratic-Farmer-Labor)
Up until 2020 - I’ve voted for Democrats in every election, and I’ve was elected as a delegate to the state DFL convention in 2016 and in 2012.
My journey from an atheist, left leaning, liberal, democrat voter to my current politics has not been a straight line and will change based on new facts and ideas that I come across.
Aside from politics - I describe myself as a classical liberal, with libertarian leanings who strives towards the enlightenment ideals outlined by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams.
I started listening to the Glenn Show after Sam Harris’s “Can We Pull Back From the Brink” episode; however, the drift of my thinking started long before this podcast and long before the George Floyd riots. Before the election of Donald Trump in 2016, I probably would have considered myself - Woke.
I believe that facts, and logic and reason are what changed my mind and pulled me back from the brink, and your shows and writings have helped me move along to a more enlightened state of being.
As far as belief in the supernatural, I used to be a believer in new age whoism; however, I had no qualms in leaving those goofy ideas.
I’ve noticed that Glenn Lowry describes himself as a former Baptist, but he seems distressed in that he has left the Baptist faith, whereas John McWhorter holds no such misgivings about his lack of religious conviction.
I’ve also noticed that Ayann Hirsi Ali no longer mentions that she is an atheist herself and does not correct those who assume that she is still a believer in Islam.
To my question, which is to both Professor Mcwhorter and Professor Lowry:
Why are (small c) conservatives reluctant to profess an absence of belief in the existence of deities?
Charles Murray found when he tested the three different races on a standardized IQ test that Asians far surpassed Blacks and Caucasians. Caucasians performed marginally better than Blacks, however, when the Jewish cohort was eliminated from the Caucasian group, Blacks and Caucasians performed equally. IQ has no bearing on racial disparities seen in “white” countries.
Wrong.......those scientists are pretty smart......that's how we know Ashkenazi Jews have a ten to fifteen point IQ advantage.over.whites...because they separate them. Btw Murray didn't test anyone.....I think you've been Lied to
It's so, so nice to hear people who can address this all consuming issue with some thoughtfulness and nuance. "Systemic racism" is just a pejorative or a label. It's such an opaque term. It just doesn't advance anything. If you care about the actual inequities that exist and would like to see them narrowed, you just have to get below that vague conversation stopper and ask yourself what's really going on now, how we got where we are and, most importantly, what steps forward are actually going to help narrow the gap. Damning "whiteness" and accusing the nation and most of its citizens of "systemic racism" just isn't doing that. It might be psychologically satisfying for a certain type of person, but it's not a step towards a better, fairer country.
Where is the discussion of individual action (and the consequences from choosing to take one action over another) re: systemic racism vs. racial inequities?
ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYONE!
If “anti-racists” are so unconcerned with race, how come they only have a problem with White Countries, White Cities, White Neighborhoods, White Workplaces, White schools?
I’ve never seen any “anti-racist” complain that any place is too brown and it has to become LESS brown to combat racism.
A renowned expert on racial disparities, "Larkenson" has developed a comprehensive list of code words that can be applied in any situation. We should be thankful.
new topic: Is eliminating merit/standards productive or counter productive for blacks and Hispanics?
Governor of Oregon signs bill to eliminate the requirement to show proficiency in "essential learning skills" (reading, writing, and math) to earn HS diplomas in her state. Charles Boyle, a spokesman for the governor, said the new standards for graduation would help benefit the state’s "Black, Latino, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color."
If HS diplomas can no longer be used as a proxy for a minimum set of cognitive abilities, will that really benefit minorities or is something else going on? Qui bono?
Yes, I agree that it is another SUPER counterproductive policy of the left. What I don't know is the motivation. Is the left really that stupid?.....or is it a 3d chess move to coverup an incompetent government system and unions? And/or is it an attempt to obfuscate the artifacts that show obvious cognitive difference between races (on average)? I wish an honest leftist would just come out and make their case. they might say...."We the Left want to hide irreducible cognitive differences between races by eliminating all measurements of merit (SAT/ACT score, competitive admission, testing for HS graduation, etc). I could at least respect the honesty.
The reality is that these people believe that standards are themselves a part of white culture that they imagine suppresses all others. These are cultural Marxists. In another time these things were called bourgeois. Now they are called White Supremacy. Same game. Different pieces.
James- the Governor’s decision to eliminate math/reading proficiency requirements for high school graduation in Oregon, will deny youth critical skills needed for adulthood. I suppose the high schools will focus on social justice as if that in itself were sufficient.
Yes, I agree that it is another SUPER counterproductive policy of the left. What I don't know is the motivation. Is the left really that stupid?.....or is it a 3d chess move to coverup an incompetent government system and unions? And/or is it an attempt to obfuscate the artifacts that show obvious cognitive difference between races (on average)? I wish an honest leftist would just come out and make their case. they might say...."We the Left want to hide irreducible cognitive differences between races by eliminating all measurements of merit (SAT/ACT score, competitive admission, testing for HS graduation, etc). I could at least respect the honesty.
Even as a liberal- I have no idea what the leftists really want. They are not transparent. On cognition from a behavioral science perspective, there is ability and then there is performance. I have not seen the data on race. It is my understanding that performance is more of a concern than ability. And while culture has weight effecting performance, income has even greater weight.
James, I think your premise is “Culture and income are results of cognition, not causes” (If I state you correctly), to which I respond that my personal friend John Doe is mid-40’s and he demonstrates limited education and analytical skills and subsequently has a corresponding income that is low and his personal lifestyle culture is somewhat reckless and conflict-based. Not that skin color matters but he is white. John Doe’s situation demonstrates that his mental potential was not maximized at each stage of development- not his personal fault. Culture is a human construct- the culture of bicycle riders, chess players, etc. One cultural advantage that African Americans have is the church which role-models discipline, attention, interpretation and analysis of a philosophically ancient text. This is role-play for school. I know this because I attended church at a young age and I am not African American.
Income and culture are a result of genes in all their positive expression for this 21st century American “environment”…..the most salient for success today at a individual level are genes for IQ and personality….zoom out and Closely Related genetic peoples express their genes together as a “culture”.
I have a suggestion for Glenn and John (alphabetical); Ask a medical doctor to tell you about localized prostrate cancer vs. other cancer (or advanced AIDS) that is systemic throughout the body. A doctor is expected to present evidence that the effect is systemic. The burden is upon the activist to demonstrate that their ideas are true. I am actually excited by the idea of a systemic problem -but haven’t seen the evidence for systemic racism. Unless one considers “wokeness” an example of a systemic racism problem ( as I do). If there were a systemic racism across the entire system (and I could be wrong), then it would manifest differently per the local culture of each institution or sub-system. In this scenario, individuals at the institution would need to behave in a cooperative manner to sustain it, or the institution or system would need built-in mechanisms that allow the racism to continue. A researcher would look for written policy or observe patterns of individual behavior that suggest an informal but enforced policy of discrimination. Email and telephone records would be useful in discovering patterns of interaction. This would be a good project for PhD students trained in quantitative analysis.
Most of the issues that are brought up as examples of systemic racism are unfalsifiable. Micro-aggressions, privilege, unconscious bias, and so on are things that occur in the mind of the affronted. If you cannot, as you say, show specific actions that inhibit specific persons then what you have is indistinguishable from religion, indeed all of these things must be taken on faith.
I beg to differ with Glenn and John. I think it is very fair to conclude that American education is indeed racially biased. A detached observer might even call it "systemic racism" (I'm motioning my hands in circles :) .
American education systemically discriminates in favor of racial minorities other than Asians.....examples abound.
Mr. Loury I listen to you as often as I can. I found myself disagreeing with you go on the discussion was related to blacks, Asians, and whites. My experiences have been that you have to look beyond language skills and understand their ability to solve problems and challenges. Some of the smartest and people I still admire are black people.
My question to you is that even though I do believe there is some level of Systemic Racism, we have to understand and appreciate that this systemic racism is also concerning in relation to black towards whites.
Pseudoscience is a problem in America, from claims on supplements, crystal healing, chiropractic medicine, and so on. Why is this so prevalent in America, and do we teach pseudoscience in Academia?
I ask this because at the beginning of graduate school (plant molecular biology) I assumed most of my classmates would be relatively rational, evidence-based people but soon noticed many of my fellow students believe in a lot of woo/quackery. Also, the departments seemed to have a pattern in the woo they believed e.g. Ecologists were into hippy, mother earth, natural is better beliefs. Yet, most of these people graduated by producing and defending an evidence-based thesis. So what does this mean about Ph.D.'s ,are they hyper-focus people in a particular field, where critical thinking is not required? Or is it that Ph.D. standards have been lowered to the point anyone can get a Ph.D. title? Or is that Ph.D.'s are human and succumb to the foils and cognitive biases like everyone else?
This line of thought also made me wonder about Academia itself. For instance, the word theory gets thrown around a lot, e.g. Critical Race Theory, Literary Theory, and Theory Social Construction of Truth. Yet, these theories do not fit the definition of scientific theories where it's a model that has been rigorously verified by independent experiments and often has the power to predict outcomes. Personally, many of these soft sciences and humanities teach pseudoscientific information but are accepted because they have veneer truth due to coming from Academia. Do you agree with this assessment? How much of pseudoscience is taught and Academia, and should we remove these types of fields from it? Another way of putting it is, what is the benefit of degrees like "Gender Studies?" What kind of occupation do they produce besides more professors in said field? Having gender studies degree as a field makes less sense to me because sex, gender, behavior, etc are STEM fields, subjects that require vast biological knowledge rather than philosophical apologetics. Anyway, I am rambling. I respect you both a great deal.
Thomas- I have a BA in Biology and a Masters in Public Health (no PhD). But when I graduated from masters program, I naively assumed that every academic department at every university used some form of the scientific method. My graduate level study was in behavioral science which is the legitimate source for stories about human behavior. I have worked with STEM PhDs who are also liberal and assume that their counterparts in the Grievance Studies fields are ethical and scholarly. Also- I have approached PhDs in person with a printed social science article- where I yellow-highlighted sentences that they refuse to discuss either out of disgust for my cold-hearted attitude or because of fear.
Biology is a "natural "science and Public Health is regarded as an objective, statistically-based field or at least was at one time. If I am recalling correctly, Behavioral Science was involved with truly aberrant behavior, i.e. anti-social behavior, drug abuse, etc. & a cousin of Psychology. It was generally objective and interested in things like hyperactivity in children before discipline was no longer learned at home. It seems to have glommed onto much of the subjective so endearing to the Identity/Grievance Study crowd. It sort of reminds me of the the Oxycontin abuse issue. Those screaming most loudly about the abuse forget how complicit they were in creating it. Making pain "whatever someone says it is", the ability to sue for just about anything (without tort reform) and be rewarded and making MD so fearful of not prescribing basically gave out what people wanted, they stirred the fires of the national problem it became. We never hear this history. I bring this up as an example of how allowing subjectivity without skepticism to rule the day,
Abnormal or aberrant behavior is a sub-category within behavioral science. Behavioral science can compare joggers in SF to LA or daily bike riders to weekend bike riders. The behavior of individuals or groups. Basically the standardized observation of behavior!with collecting data. While different fields may have a different name for the process - as long as researchers use the scientific method, I am satisfied.
I hope that money, especially tax money, is being spent on more useful studies than joggers and bike riders. We have far more important issues to address than whether there are enough jogging paths or wide enough bike lanes.
Maybe the joggers are not visible at night and causing collisions. As for bikers- the weekend ride I belonged to had in a period of 5 months; one death, one human to vegetable crash conversion and one months/years physical rehab due to crash. The good news is that I purposely went slow down hill because I studied physics.
I agree with much of what you say. When we as Americans decided that a "service" economy (no dirty hands) was preferable to a "manufacturing" economy (many reasons). When you have a lot of people in a service sector that can all do the job well there has to be a way to differentiate and education became that. With more getting educated need more differentiation and specialization. Kind of a vicious circle. More BA's require more Master's, more Master's require more PHD's. Also the social sciences are as you say "soft". Lots of psychobabble and pseudoscience mumbo jumbo which beget more and more theories. One must publish and to get published must say something different, exciting enticing or controversial. All those "soft" & "identity" Master's & PHD's ended up in Academia, government, non-profits and human resources, so they indoctrinated many facets of society. STEM fields which we need for innovation & keeping a technological edge are not "inclusive" and the "trades" are just not "chic", so here we are....
I tend to argue that racism was systemic at one time. It was actually built into the system in a real and deliberate way. That ended 56 years ago. Most of the troubles today are not the result of the current system. If you are upper middle class or wealthy, and black then you actually have a better chance than most whites in America. The trouble is that we haven't managed to offset the problems for the average person that existed before the system changed. This is a two way street. As a society we need to do better when it comes to investing in education for poor minority students. That's one side of the street. At the same time the poor, minority students have to buckle down and take their own education seriously. You can't educate an unwilling student. Education is the key to improvement. This was recognized by the Founders of our country. But a good education requires the work of students, parents, teachers, and administrators. In that order. A willing student will learn even if the parents and teachers present obstacles. A willing student with parents who encourage and support their kids will also overcome any educational shortcomings at the school. But if the students aren't willing and the parents don't care even the best teacher can accomplish nothing.
So yes, we need to do everything we can to help and erase the ugly legacies of Jim Crow. It can't be done unless it's a partnership.
There is racism, but it's a smaller problem than promiscuity or crime. "Systemic Racism" is too often an excuse to avoid responsibility for a bad outcome due to bad behavior: sleeping around, committing crimes.
The filthy maggot Jew swill yearn for the "good old days" of their Messiahs - Lenin and Stalin - who they helped murder FIFTY MILLION across Russia and Eastern Europe. But those surely do not count, since they were mostly only Goyim, eh??? Bernie's campaign claimed the gulags "paid a living wage." Bernie never repudiated that claim. Have the Jews repudiated Bernie? And where was the Jewish "Schindler" to help the Goyim avoid the gulags? NONEXISTENT!!!
Now not all Jews are evil. But a significant majority of them in the West sure are. 70-75%!!!
Dr. Loury, I think one of the most salient points made was that "systemic racism" is actually not tied to racist sentiment. There is very little racist sentiment in the US today. Intrermarriage is common and no one cares. We have had a Black President and a Black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Properly understood, systemic or (as I prefer to call it) institutional racism is about things being done by institutions - unrelated to the sentiments of the people who work in those institutions or the people who created those institutions. A major example - totally overlooked as we hunt for ever more microscopic micro-aggressions - is how the Social Security system works. The value of social security benefits is strongly connected to life expectancy. All else equal, people who live longer get a higher return on their payroll contributions. And people who die before retirement receive nothing. Now, Blacks live shorter lives. Corrected for income levels, they still live shorter lives. And that means that at any two people of different races but similar lifetime incomes, the Black person is subsidizing the white person. And the sums involved are large. I am not sure yet (I have a research intern cracking the numbers), but it appears that 40% of Blacks who contribute to Social Security fail to live long enough to qualify for retirement benefits - for whites, it is about 20%. All their payroll contributions are lost. And for a a male who dies at 60 after working for 40 years at a $50000 job, the value of the lost payroll contributions comes to $500,000 or more. That is the racial wealth gap being created by the Social Security system. And it is absurd to think that anyone designed in on purpose to work this way or serve this purpose. Its simply an mindless institution that needs to be fixed. Not hard to fix - at least conceptually. Either the families of people who die too young should receive a bequest from Social Security, or the system should be converted to private accounts liek 401Ks or IRAs. Or a combination of both these measures could be used.
It will be interesting to see what your research digs up. The largest losers in the systems are bound to be the young who subsidize the old way past the recipient's contribution level. But if you are looking onto who benefits the most, please also look at medicare/medicaid, food stamps welfare, ADC, (all wealth transfer programs) you can't look at just one entitlement program (money is fungible) and the total $ received in all programs over a lifetime whichis all that matters.....investigating which demographic benefits in just "one program" will be misleading...and is definitely incomplete.
Hi James. Thanks for writing. Medicare would play out the same way. For any working class or middle class person who doesn't get SNAP and/or TANF, the effect is unambiguous.
In other words your first claim while true was misleading and black women not white men might actually be the biggest beneficiary of wealth transfer schemes. Tsk tsk tsk
James, not sure I follow at all. The first claim - I assume about SS - is both true and in no way misleading. Saying it holds for Medicare as well only reinforces the point. And I am baffled why retirement entitlements (which are not meant to be wealth transfer schemes) are being mixed with social welfare programs in this discussion. Very poor people - Black or white - get things like SNAP and TANF. Most working class people and all middle class and upper class people do not. So AGAIN - if you are a standard generic person making $50,000 or $250,000 a year, and you are white, you will be subsidized through SS (and Medicare) by the standard generic person making the exact same sum who is Black. The reason is that Blacks live shorter lives (why is not fully understood).
The Census Bureau measures the recipients of six programs that are means-tested (based on income and other economic criteria) and designed to go only to low-income people: Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and General Assistance (which are what remain of the old welfare system). Its most recent study found that in 2012, 21 percent of the U.S. population, or 52.2 million people, participated in one or more of those six programs on average each month.
Black Americans are overrepresented among recipients of those benefits. In any given month, 42 percent of black Americans received a means-tested benefit, compared with 36 percent of Hispanics, 18 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders and 13 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Currently the U.S. population is 77 percent white (62 percent of them non-Latino white Americans), 13 percent black, 17 percent Latino and 5 percent Asian. (Latinos are an ethnicity and may be of any race.)
Well let me break it down for you....you are cherry picking facts and leaving others out........its about details. the progressive features of Social Security that benefit African Americans more than outweigh the shorter average life-expectancy effect.(of course average includes all the dysfunction of murder, overdose, HIV aids etc)
Social Security uses a very "progressive formula" to calculate benefits for retirees, survivors, and disabled workers. low earners ( a lot of minorities) receive monthly Social Security benefits equal to 90 percent of their average monthly pre-retirement earnings.
By contrast, for very high-income individuals, Social Security benefits replace about 25 percent of average pre-retirement earnings.
African Americans also have significantly lower average lifetime earnings than non-minorities and consequently receive Social Security benefits that replace a larger share of their pre-retirement incomes than non-minorities do. This can be seen in two statistics. The earnings of African Americans workers equal 73 percent of white workers’ earnings, on average. But the average monthly Social Security retirement benefit for African Americans equals about 85 percent of the average benefit for white retirees.
Other features of the Social Security benefit formula also protect African Americans. For example, the Social Security benefit formula is based on the highest 35 years of earnings; it discards other years. This helps African Americans, since they have double the unemployment rates and also experience longer average spells of unemployment than whites do. African-American men consequently have a higher number of years with no earnings than whites do, on average. By ignoring some years of no or low earnings in calculating benefits (since only the highest 35 years of earnings are counted), the Social Security system benefits African Americans. A study published in the Social Security Bulletin confirmed this, finding that counting additional years of earnings toward benefits would harm African Americans disproportionately.
Correction - The lost payroll contributions come to $250,000 or more in the example I offered.
Bettina Love's POV, for me, presents serious problems. The attempt to combine Hip Hop and its variants with Neo-Marxist constructs is not constructive.
Before I pose my question - please allow me a few minutes to present a little background information of one of your viewer/listener/substack contributors.
I describe myself as a former DFLer and a never Trumper. (In Minnesota the Democratic party is Democratic-Farmer-Labor)
Up until 2020 - I’ve voted for Democrats in every election, and I’ve was elected as a delegate to the state DFL convention in 2016 and in 2012.
My journey from an atheist, left leaning, liberal, democrat voter to my current politics has not been a straight line and will change based on new facts and ideas that I come across.
Aside from politics - I describe myself as a classical liberal, with libertarian leanings who strives towards the enlightenment ideals outlined by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams.
I started listening to the Glenn Show after Sam Harris’s “Can We Pull Back From the Brink” episode; however, the drift of my thinking started long before this podcast and long before the George Floyd riots. Before the election of Donald Trump in 2016, I probably would have considered myself - Woke.
I believe that facts, and logic and reason are what changed my mind and pulled me back from the brink, and your shows and writings have helped me move along to a more enlightened state of being.
As far as belief in the supernatural, I used to be a believer in new age whoism; however, I had no qualms in leaving those goofy ideas.
I’ve noticed that Glenn Lowry describes himself as a former Baptist, but he seems distressed in that he has left the Baptist faith, whereas John McWhorter holds no such misgivings about his lack of religious conviction.
I’ve also noticed that Ayann Hirsi Ali no longer mentions that she is an atheist herself and does not correct those who assume that she is still a believer in Islam.
To my question, which is to both Professor Mcwhorter and Professor Lowry:
Why are (small c) conservatives reluctant to profess an absence of belief in the existence of deities?
Charles Murray found when he tested the three different races on a standardized IQ test that Asians far surpassed Blacks and Caucasians. Caucasians performed marginally better than Blacks, however, when the Jewish cohort was eliminated from the Caucasian group, Blacks and Caucasians performed equally. IQ has no bearing on racial disparities seen in “white” countries.
Wrong.......those scientists are pretty smart......that's how we know Ashkenazi Jews have a ten to fifteen point IQ advantage.over.whites...because they separate them. Btw Murray didn't test anyone.....I think you've been Lied to
It's so, so nice to hear people who can address this all consuming issue with some thoughtfulness and nuance. "Systemic racism" is just a pejorative or a label. It's such an opaque term. It just doesn't advance anything. If you care about the actual inequities that exist and would like to see them narrowed, you just have to get below that vague conversation stopper and ask yourself what's really going on now, how we got where we are and, most importantly, what steps forward are actually going to help narrow the gap. Damning "whiteness" and accusing the nation and most of its citizens of "systemic racism" just isn't doing that. It might be psychologically satisfying for a certain type of person, but it's not a step towards a better, fairer country.
The only systemic racism in this country is the morally depraved democrat party.
Question for both Lowry and McWorter
Where is the discussion of individual action (and the consequences from choosing to take one action over another) re: systemic racism vs. racial inequities?
ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYONE!
If “anti-racists” are so unconcerned with race, how come they only have a problem with White Countries, White Cities, White Neighborhoods, White Workplaces, White schools?
I’ve never seen any “anti-racist” complain that any place is too brown and it has to become LESS brown to combat racism.
Who do they think they are kidding?
“Multiculturalism” = White Genocide
Anti-Racism is just a code word for anti-White.
We aren't a "white country."
A renowned expert on racial disparities, "Larkenson" has developed a comprehensive list of code words that can be applied in any situation. We should be thankful.
new topic: Is eliminating merit/standards productive or counter productive for blacks and Hispanics?
Governor of Oregon signs bill to eliminate the requirement to show proficiency in "essential learning skills" (reading, writing, and math) to earn HS diplomas in her state. Charles Boyle, a spokesman for the governor, said the new standards for graduation would help benefit the state’s "Black, Latino, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color."
If HS diplomas can no longer be used as a proxy for a minimum set of cognitive abilities, will that really benefit minorities or is something else going on? Qui bono?
thoughts....
Obviously the elimination of standards can be nothing but harmful. For everyone.
Yes, I agree that it is another SUPER counterproductive policy of the left. What I don't know is the motivation. Is the left really that stupid?.....or is it a 3d chess move to coverup an incompetent government system and unions? And/or is it an attempt to obfuscate the artifacts that show obvious cognitive difference between races (on average)? I wish an honest leftist would just come out and make their case. they might say...."We the Left want to hide irreducible cognitive differences between races by eliminating all measurements of merit (SAT/ACT score, competitive admission, testing for HS graduation, etc). I could at least respect the honesty.
The reality is that these people believe that standards are themselves a part of white culture that they imagine suppresses all others. These are cultural Marxists. In another time these things were called bourgeois. Now they are called White Supremacy. Same game. Different pieces.
Yes, at the highest level it is a civilizational clash between individualistic (European) and tribal/communal (non European) cultures/Genes.
James- the Governor’s decision to eliminate math/reading proficiency requirements for high school graduation in Oregon, will deny youth critical skills needed for adulthood. I suppose the high schools will focus on social justice as if that in itself were sufficient.
Yes, I agree that it is another SUPER counterproductive policy of the left. What I don't know is the motivation. Is the left really that stupid?.....or is it a 3d chess move to coverup an incompetent government system and unions? And/or is it an attempt to obfuscate the artifacts that show obvious cognitive difference between races (on average)? I wish an honest leftist would just come out and make their case. they might say...."We the Left want to hide irreducible cognitive differences between races by eliminating all measurements of merit (SAT/ACT score, competitive admission, testing for HS graduation, etc). I could at least respect the honesty.
Even as a liberal- I have no idea what the leftists really want. They are not transparent. On cognition from a behavioral science perspective, there is ability and then there is performance. I have not seen the data on race. It is my understanding that performance is more of a concern than ability. And while culture has weight effecting performance, income has even greater weight.
culture and income are "results" .....Not causes
James, I think your premise is “Culture and income are results of cognition, not causes” (If I state you correctly), to which I respond that my personal friend John Doe is mid-40’s and he demonstrates limited education and analytical skills and subsequently has a corresponding income that is low and his personal lifestyle culture is somewhat reckless and conflict-based. Not that skin color matters but he is white. John Doe’s situation demonstrates that his mental potential was not maximized at each stage of development- not his personal fault. Culture is a human construct- the culture of bicycle riders, chess players, etc. One cultural advantage that African Americans have is the church which role-models discipline, attention, interpretation and analysis of a philosophically ancient text. This is role-play for school. I know this because I attended church at a young age and I am not African American.
Income and culture are a result of genes in all their positive expression for this 21st century American “environment”…..the most salient for success today at a individual level are genes for IQ and personality….zoom out and Closely Related genetic peoples express their genes together as a “culture”.
I have a suggestion for Glenn and John (alphabetical); Ask a medical doctor to tell you about localized prostrate cancer vs. other cancer (or advanced AIDS) that is systemic throughout the body. A doctor is expected to present evidence that the effect is systemic. The burden is upon the activist to demonstrate that their ideas are true. I am actually excited by the idea of a systemic problem -but haven’t seen the evidence for systemic racism. Unless one considers “wokeness” an example of a systemic racism problem ( as I do). If there were a systemic racism across the entire system (and I could be wrong), then it would manifest differently per the local culture of each institution or sub-system. In this scenario, individuals at the institution would need to behave in a cooperative manner to sustain it, or the institution or system would need built-in mechanisms that allow the racism to continue. A researcher would look for written policy or observe patterns of individual behavior that suggest an informal but enforced policy of discrimination. Email and telephone records would be useful in discovering patterns of interaction. This would be a good project for PhD students trained in quantitative analysis.
Most of the issues that are brought up as examples of systemic racism are unfalsifiable. Micro-aggressions, privilege, unconscious bias, and so on are things that occur in the mind of the affronted. If you cannot, as you say, show specific actions that inhibit specific persons then what you have is indistinguishable from religion, indeed all of these things must be taken on faith.
I beg to differ with Glenn and John. I think it is very fair to conclude that American education is indeed racially biased. A detached observer might even call it "systemic racism" (I'm motioning my hands in circles :) .
American education systemically discriminates in favor of racial minorities other than Asians.....examples abound.
Mr. Loury I listen to you as often as I can. I found myself disagreeing with you go on the discussion was related to blacks, Asians, and whites. My experiences have been that you have to look beyond language skills and understand their ability to solve problems and challenges. Some of the smartest and people I still admire are black people.
My question to you is that even though I do believe there is some level of Systemic Racism, we have to understand and appreciate that this systemic racism is also concerning in relation to black towards whites.
Question for Dr. Loury and Dr. McWhorter:
Pseudoscience is a problem in America, from claims on supplements, crystal healing, chiropractic medicine, and so on. Why is this so prevalent in America, and do we teach pseudoscience in Academia?
I ask this because at the beginning of graduate school (plant molecular biology) I assumed most of my classmates would be relatively rational, evidence-based people but soon noticed many of my fellow students believe in a lot of woo/quackery. Also, the departments seemed to have a pattern in the woo they believed e.g. Ecologists were into hippy, mother earth, natural is better beliefs. Yet, most of these people graduated by producing and defending an evidence-based thesis. So what does this mean about Ph.D.'s ,are they hyper-focus people in a particular field, where critical thinking is not required? Or is it that Ph.D. standards have been lowered to the point anyone can get a Ph.D. title? Or is that Ph.D.'s are human and succumb to the foils and cognitive biases like everyone else?
This line of thought also made me wonder about Academia itself. For instance, the word theory gets thrown around a lot, e.g. Critical Race Theory, Literary Theory, and Theory Social Construction of Truth. Yet, these theories do not fit the definition of scientific theories where it's a model that has been rigorously verified by independent experiments and often has the power to predict outcomes. Personally, many of these soft sciences and humanities teach pseudoscientific information but are accepted because they have veneer truth due to coming from Academia. Do you agree with this assessment? How much of pseudoscience is taught and Academia, and should we remove these types of fields from it? Another way of putting it is, what is the benefit of degrees like "Gender Studies?" What kind of occupation do they produce besides more professors in said field? Having gender studies degree as a field makes less sense to me because sex, gender, behavior, etc are STEM fields, subjects that require vast biological knowledge rather than philosophical apologetics. Anyway, I am rambling. I respect you both a great deal.
Much love fellow humans.
Thomas Payne
Thomas- I have a BA in Biology and a Masters in Public Health (no PhD). But when I graduated from masters program, I naively assumed that every academic department at every university used some form of the scientific method. My graduate level study was in behavioral science which is the legitimate source for stories about human behavior. I have worked with STEM PhDs who are also liberal and assume that their counterparts in the Grievance Studies fields are ethical and scholarly. Also- I have approached PhDs in person with a printed social science article- where I yellow-highlighted sentences that they refuse to discuss either out of disgust for my cold-hearted attitude or because of fear.
Biology is a "natural "science and Public Health is regarded as an objective, statistically-based field or at least was at one time. If I am recalling correctly, Behavioral Science was involved with truly aberrant behavior, i.e. anti-social behavior, drug abuse, etc. & a cousin of Psychology. It was generally objective and interested in things like hyperactivity in children before discipline was no longer learned at home. It seems to have glommed onto much of the subjective so endearing to the Identity/Grievance Study crowd. It sort of reminds me of the the Oxycontin abuse issue. Those screaming most loudly about the abuse forget how complicit they were in creating it. Making pain "whatever someone says it is", the ability to sue for just about anything (without tort reform) and be rewarded and making MD so fearful of not prescribing basically gave out what people wanted, they stirred the fires of the national problem it became. We never hear this history. I bring this up as an example of how allowing subjectivity without skepticism to rule the day,
Abnormal or aberrant behavior is a sub-category within behavioral science. Behavioral science can compare joggers in SF to LA or daily bike riders to weekend bike riders. The behavior of individuals or groups. Basically the standardized observation of behavior!with collecting data. While different fields may have a different name for the process - as long as researchers use the scientific method, I am satisfied.
I hope that money, especially tax money, is being spent on more useful studies than joggers and bike riders. We have far more important issues to address than whether there are enough jogging paths or wide enough bike lanes.
Maybe the joggers are not visible at night and causing collisions. As for bikers- the weekend ride I belonged to had in a period of 5 months; one death, one human to vegetable crash conversion and one months/years physical rehab due to crash. The good news is that I purposely went slow down hill because I studied physics.
I agree with much of what you say. When we as Americans decided that a "service" economy (no dirty hands) was preferable to a "manufacturing" economy (many reasons). When you have a lot of people in a service sector that can all do the job well there has to be a way to differentiate and education became that. With more getting educated need more differentiation and specialization. Kind of a vicious circle. More BA's require more Master's, more Master's require more PHD's. Also the social sciences are as you say "soft". Lots of psychobabble and pseudoscience mumbo jumbo which beget more and more theories. One must publish and to get published must say something different, exciting enticing or controversial. All those "soft" & "identity" Master's & PHD's ended up in Academia, government, non-profits and human resources, so they indoctrinated many facets of society. STEM fields which we need for innovation & keeping a technological edge are not "inclusive" and the "trades" are just not "chic", so here we are....
I tend to argue that racism was systemic at one time. It was actually built into the system in a real and deliberate way. That ended 56 years ago. Most of the troubles today are not the result of the current system. If you are upper middle class or wealthy, and black then you actually have a better chance than most whites in America. The trouble is that we haven't managed to offset the problems for the average person that existed before the system changed. This is a two way street. As a society we need to do better when it comes to investing in education for poor minority students. That's one side of the street. At the same time the poor, minority students have to buckle down and take their own education seriously. You can't educate an unwilling student. Education is the key to improvement. This was recognized by the Founders of our country. But a good education requires the work of students, parents, teachers, and administrators. In that order. A willing student will learn even if the parents and teachers present obstacles. A willing student with parents who encourage and support their kids will also overcome any educational shortcomings at the school. But if the students aren't willing and the parents don't care even the best teacher can accomplish nothing.
So yes, we need to do everything we can to help and erase the ugly legacies of Jim Crow. It can't be done unless it's a partnership.