To make the point you made - Disparities in racial outcomes are not prima facie proof of racism, the NBA analogy works, but if you go deeper, it quickly takes you to a position that is tough to defend. And I think it gets at what Charles Murrays was saying in his book, Facing Reality. The reason African Americans dominate NBA rosters i…
To make the point you made - Disparities in racial outcomes are not prima facie proof of racism, the NBA analogy works, but if you go deeper, it quickly takes you to a position that is tough to defend. And I think it gets at what Charles Murrays was saying in his book, Facing Reality. The reason African Americans dominate NBA rosters is because they are (on average) athletically superior in ways the NBA rewards. They have a genetic advantage in sports that require a lot of quick twitch muscle movements. Therefor, the outcome of 75% black NBA players is based on merit and should be seen as “fair”.
The current white and asian dominance in cognitively demanding professions, would need a similar justification to be seen as “fair”. For the comparison to be perfect, the advantage would need to be genetic. I don’t think we have the evidence and I don’t think most people are prepared to say whites and asians have a genetic cognitive advantage over blacks. And if we are eliminating innate advantage as the root cause of the disparity in outcomes, it opens the door to a lot of tough questions. Unless you are saying culture is the reason whites make up such a small percentage of NBA rosters.
In the case of male vs female crime, the comparison has the same issue. There is a genetic cause for the disparity between men and women. Men are more prone to criminality and violence. Can that be said of black males vs white males? Is it genetic? I don’t think we have the evidence to draw that conclusion so there are other tough questions to ask. Culture may be an easier explanation here, but it’s not a stretch to say that the racism and oppression of the past has largely created the conditions for the disparity in violence. Or the disparity in measurable cognitive performance.
You have taken a vast leap of logic that overlooks much easier and commonsense answers than genetics. To borrow from Glenn's own example, could a disparity in black criminality be partially caused by the prevalence of single family households lacking a father? Of course it could. Could relative underperformance in school achievement be partially explained by failed public schools in inner cities dominated by teacher's unions? Of course it could. Could the relative superiority of Asian academic achievement be explained by cultural factors that emphasize and reinforce education? Of course it could. Those are simple, readily observable, fact-based answers that have absolutely nothing to do with genetic predisposition. My only point is that it is ridiculous to prima facie equate disparities in racial outcomes with racism. Disparities in racial outcomes does, however, give us the ammunition to look deeper for causes that can be addressed. Fixing schools. Establishing enterprise zones. Supporting nuclear family development. Quite frankly, genetics is very LAST place this argument should lead to.
I was not making the logical leap to genetic differences at all, I was simply saying the NBA analogy (which is used often) is very limited. It can be used to dispute ridiculous left wing ideas that ALL racial disparities are due to racism (by providing an example where genetic differences cause a disparity), but after that, it falls apart. And I started by clearly acknowledging that the way you used it made sense. I was trying to make that clear before giving my concerns about it being used more broadly. Same with the male/female crime disparity. Both of those examples have innate differences as the primary cause of the disparity.
The reparations argument always comes down to a question of fairness. Who is paying reparations to the descendants of slaves? It is unfair to tell a white person they have to pay for sins of their ancestors, but we don't actually pay for things in that sense. We don't look to balance the budget by identifying where the money will come from. For big stimulus efforts the money is just created out of thin air. If the stimulus money doesn't also stimulate production, then it could contribute to inflation. If a trillion or a couple trillion resulted in a massive decrease in crime rates, moved millions of young men from illegal activities into the jobs market, and brought private investment back to the most crime ridden parts of our large cities, it would probably be one of the best investments government ever made. And I mean that just from a dollars and cents standpoint, not even considering the humanitarian aspect. But would cash payments achieve that goal? Without changing some of the underlying factors that lead a person to drop out of school or choose crime. And is the amount in your example enough of a carrot for a young person to stay on the straight and narrow?
I am sure a one time payment would improve living standards, but wouldn't that improvement be temporary? I am not sure it would do much for long term success. Everyone under 30 with a criminal record, which is a lot of people, would have no incentive to change. Unless you have a stipulation in the plan that exempts prior convictions. A teenager who dropped out of school and is looking at either attempting to enter the lowest level of the jobs market (and likely not getting hired) or following in the footsteps of others in his neighborhood and turning to crime to pay the bills, will choose getting a job because there is $15k waiting for him in 10 years? That doesn't seem likely to me. If these kids had that kind of discipline they wouldn't have dropped out of school and wouldn't need the $15k to succeed. Delaying gratification is not common in the poorest areas of the country. Are you thinking the fact the country has acknowledged and paid reparations will change the way poor black people feel about the country? That they might feel less like outcasts and be more motivated to work within the rules of society?
Certainly some adults receiving lump sum payments would use the money to make positive changes in their lives and improve their futures. We probably just disagree on how many. I think you have more confidence in peoples ability to manage money than I do. Poor people, for the most part, have zero experience handling money. They would have no idea how to turn $15-30k into a permanent change of lifestyle. There was a study done some years ago that showed 60-75% of professional athletes were broke within 5 years of retirement. And thats starting with 7-8 figure sums. I would guess the money would be more helpful, long term, to middle class people with steady jobs. Maybe to pay off college debt, put into a retirement account or, like you said, start a business. Too many poor people are in such a deep hole with regards to marketable skills that $15k won’t get them out.
A 15 year old in the hood is watching his peers get shot and go to prison on a regular basis, yet the lure of quick money is still enough to turn him toward that same lifestyle. If death and prison are not enough of a stick, then I don’t see $15k, to be delivered in 11 years, being enough of a carrot to keep him in school or in the legal workforce. I agree that incentivizing young men to finish school and get into the workforce is a worthy goal, I just don’t think $15k at 26 would achieve it.
I have serious concerns about the governments ability to do it, but could you imagine what that same $1 trillion would do if put toward improving schools, after school programs, and trade schools in the poorest areas of the country? In theory it would be amazing. In reality, half would be lost to waste and fraud.
To make the point you made - Disparities in racial outcomes are not prima facie proof of racism, the NBA analogy works, but if you go deeper, it quickly takes you to a position that is tough to defend. And I think it gets at what Charles Murrays was saying in his book, Facing Reality. The reason African Americans dominate NBA rosters is because they are (on average) athletically superior in ways the NBA rewards. They have a genetic advantage in sports that require a lot of quick twitch muscle movements. Therefor, the outcome of 75% black NBA players is based on merit and should be seen as “fair”.
The current white and asian dominance in cognitively demanding professions, would need a similar justification to be seen as “fair”. For the comparison to be perfect, the advantage would need to be genetic. I don’t think we have the evidence and I don’t think most people are prepared to say whites and asians have a genetic cognitive advantage over blacks. And if we are eliminating innate advantage as the root cause of the disparity in outcomes, it opens the door to a lot of tough questions. Unless you are saying culture is the reason whites make up such a small percentage of NBA rosters.
In the case of male vs female crime, the comparison has the same issue. There is a genetic cause for the disparity between men and women. Men are more prone to criminality and violence. Can that be said of black males vs white males? Is it genetic? I don’t think we have the evidence to draw that conclusion so there are other tough questions to ask. Culture may be an easier explanation here, but it’s not a stretch to say that the racism and oppression of the past has largely created the conditions for the disparity in violence. Or the disparity in measurable cognitive performance.
You have taken a vast leap of logic that overlooks much easier and commonsense answers than genetics. To borrow from Glenn's own example, could a disparity in black criminality be partially caused by the prevalence of single family households lacking a father? Of course it could. Could relative underperformance in school achievement be partially explained by failed public schools in inner cities dominated by teacher's unions? Of course it could. Could the relative superiority of Asian academic achievement be explained by cultural factors that emphasize and reinforce education? Of course it could. Those are simple, readily observable, fact-based answers that have absolutely nothing to do with genetic predisposition. My only point is that it is ridiculous to prima facie equate disparities in racial outcomes with racism. Disparities in racial outcomes does, however, give us the ammunition to look deeper for causes that can be addressed. Fixing schools. Establishing enterprise zones. Supporting nuclear family development. Quite frankly, genetics is very LAST place this argument should lead to.
I was not making the logical leap to genetic differences at all, I was simply saying the NBA analogy (which is used often) is very limited. It can be used to dispute ridiculous left wing ideas that ALL racial disparities are due to racism (by providing an example where genetic differences cause a disparity), but after that, it falls apart. And I started by clearly acknowledging that the way you used it made sense. I was trying to make that clear before giving my concerns about it being used more broadly. Same with the male/female crime disparity. Both of those examples have innate differences as the primary cause of the disparity.
The reparations argument always comes down to a question of fairness. Who is paying reparations to the descendants of slaves? It is unfair to tell a white person they have to pay for sins of their ancestors, but we don't actually pay for things in that sense. We don't look to balance the budget by identifying where the money will come from. For big stimulus efforts the money is just created out of thin air. If the stimulus money doesn't also stimulate production, then it could contribute to inflation. If a trillion or a couple trillion resulted in a massive decrease in crime rates, moved millions of young men from illegal activities into the jobs market, and brought private investment back to the most crime ridden parts of our large cities, it would probably be one of the best investments government ever made. And I mean that just from a dollars and cents standpoint, not even considering the humanitarian aspect. But would cash payments achieve that goal? Without changing some of the underlying factors that lead a person to drop out of school or choose crime. And is the amount in your example enough of a carrot for a young person to stay on the straight and narrow?
I am sure a one time payment would improve living standards, but wouldn't that improvement be temporary? I am not sure it would do much for long term success. Everyone under 30 with a criminal record, which is a lot of people, would have no incentive to change. Unless you have a stipulation in the plan that exempts prior convictions. A teenager who dropped out of school and is looking at either attempting to enter the lowest level of the jobs market (and likely not getting hired) or following in the footsteps of others in his neighborhood and turning to crime to pay the bills, will choose getting a job because there is $15k waiting for him in 10 years? That doesn't seem likely to me. If these kids had that kind of discipline they wouldn't have dropped out of school and wouldn't need the $15k to succeed. Delaying gratification is not common in the poorest areas of the country. Are you thinking the fact the country has acknowledged and paid reparations will change the way poor black people feel about the country? That they might feel less like outcasts and be more motivated to work within the rules of society?
Your eligibility standards seem pretty rational.
Certainly some adults receiving lump sum payments would use the money to make positive changes in their lives and improve their futures. We probably just disagree on how many. I think you have more confidence in peoples ability to manage money than I do. Poor people, for the most part, have zero experience handling money. They would have no idea how to turn $15-30k into a permanent change of lifestyle. There was a study done some years ago that showed 60-75% of professional athletes were broke within 5 years of retirement. And thats starting with 7-8 figure sums. I would guess the money would be more helpful, long term, to middle class people with steady jobs. Maybe to pay off college debt, put into a retirement account or, like you said, start a business. Too many poor people are in such a deep hole with regards to marketable skills that $15k won’t get them out.
A 15 year old in the hood is watching his peers get shot and go to prison on a regular basis, yet the lure of quick money is still enough to turn him toward that same lifestyle. If death and prison are not enough of a stick, then I don’t see $15k, to be delivered in 11 years, being enough of a carrot to keep him in school or in the legal workforce. I agree that incentivizing young men to finish school and get into the workforce is a worthy goal, I just don’t think $15k at 26 would achieve it.
I have serious concerns about the governments ability to do it, but could you imagine what that same $1 trillion would do if put toward improving schools, after school programs, and trade schools in the poorest areas of the country? In theory it would be amazing. In reality, half would be lost to waste and fraud.