The sons of well-off black families do not do so well

White boys who grow up rich are likely to remain that way. Black boys raised at the top, however, are more likely to become poor than to stay wealthy in their own adult households…

Gaps persisted even when black and white boys grew up in families with the same income, similar family structures, similar education levels and even similar levels of accumulated wealth.

This is pathbreaking work by Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Maggie R. Jones, and Sonya R. Porter [full paper here].

The study, based on anonymous earnings and demographic data for virtually all Americans now in their late 30s, debunks a number of other widely held hypotheses about income inequality. Gaps persisted even when black and white boys grew up in families with the same income, similar family structures, similar education levels and even similar levels of accumulated wealth.

The disparities that remain also can’t be explained by differences in cognitive ability, an argument made by people who cite racial gaps in test scores that appear for both black boys and girls. If such inherent differences existed by race, “you’ve got to explain to me why these putative ability differences aren’t handicapping women,” said David Grusky, a Stanford sociologist who has reviewed the research.

A more likely possibility, the authors suggest, is that test scores don’t accurately measure the abilities of black children in the first place.

If this inequality can’t be explained by individual or household traits, much of what matters probably lies outside the home — in surrounding neighborhoods, in the economy and in a society that views black boys differently from white boys, and even from black girls.

“One of the most popular liberal post-racial ideas is the idea that the fundamental problem is class and not race, and clearly this study explodes that idea”…

The NYT piece is by Emily Badger, Claire Cain Miller, Adam Pearce, and Kevin Quealy.  And from the paper itself:

Conditional on parent income, the black-white income gap is driven entirely by large differences in wages and employment rates between black and white men; there are no such differences between black and white women.

Comments

'the black-white income gap is driven entirely by large differences in wages and employment rates between black and white men'

What a surprise - but are the wages of black men under the wages of women, both black and white? If so, one just might think that the explanation might have several levels, involving class, race, and gender. And, to the shock of absolutely no one, with white men still at the top of such measures. Without downloading the PDFs, one could also wonder just how did the authors treat the mass incarceration of black males over the past generation when looking at their data.

(And the pictures from the Equality of Opportunity Project at http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/team/ show precisely the sort of equality in action that one comes to expect from sources linked to at this web site.)

So The Bell Curve was right???

The bell curve explored the inherent superiority of males over females? Really? Do tell.

Males can reproduce without paying the cost of children, if white. Black males doing the same go to prison as rapists.

Therefore, white males are superior in evolutionary terms.

That's why there are so many white men in the world: evolutionary superiority.

"Males can reproduce without paying the cost of children, if white. Black males doing the same go to prison as rapists."

More proof that Mulpland is a completely different reality than everyone else's.

I’m not joking. Seek therapy.

This seems to contradict the hypothesis that intelligence (and achievement) gaps are due to genetic differences in the race.

If they were then successful black parents should have above-average genes and produce successful black children, there would be no mechanism for their kids to revert that strongly to the racial mean.

The fact their children are less successful points to culture, not genes, being the driving force. Not necessarily black culture as much as US culture as a whole.

U.S. culture... Because blacks do so well in Africa???

Aaron, are you aware of the effect of regression to the mean IQ? High IQ parents on average have children with a lower IQ than them.

Yeah, but....sons but not daughters. Do daughters show less reversion to mean than sons in other racial groups?

OneGuy,
In a way I'm talking about global culture. Wealth, intelligence, and success are associated with being white (and some varieties of Asian) all over the world. You can't inoculate black kids from this message no matter where they're born.

On average kids will trend towards what is expected of them by their culture. White and Chinese/Japanese/Korean kids will succeed because that's what's expected of those kinds of kids, black kids, no matter their nation or parentage, have to exceed expectations to achieve the same success.

anon,
I am aware, which is which is why I said "revert that strongly to the racial mean", ie the regression is more than you'd expect.

Also, because variance in IQ for males is higher than females, possible that regression to the mean occurs more rapidly for black sons than black daughters.

It doesn't contradict or affirm racial IQ differences. The study design is silent on that. The Black-Everyone Else achievement gap persists and is not addressed here.

It MIGHT suggest there is a genetic problem with black MALES, but there's enough pathological in black male culture for that to be the first suspect here .

Both environmental and genetic theories predict regression to the mean. If it is lower for Blacks than Whites, they'll regress to a lower point.

Interesting link - worth bookmarking.
As for the pictures - not a black person in sight and only one or two women.

True equality of opportunity can only be achieved by barring whites and males from participating in such groups

Which is clearly wrong, of course.

But then, if one were merely to give give women and blacks a combined weighting that is less than half of their number in the U.S. population, then one would expect to see somewhere around 1 out of 4 or so of the people in the pictures being female or black (or both).

Yet oddly, pictures showing no black people are not considered a sign of anything out of the ordinary at all.

Yes, the only remedy is to bar whites and males and force participation of blacks and females until equality of opportunity is achieved. It's not enough to give blacks and females an equal opportunity to join such projects. We must affirmatively force them to participate. In fact, black people are less likely to participate in just about every activity imaginable: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/11/black-people-less-likely/. Therefore, the same path must be followed in every course of life. Harrison Bergeron was weak sauce compared to the social engineering necessary to overcome our racist past.

"(And the pictures from the Equality of Opportunity Project at http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/team/ show precisely the sort of equality in action that one comes to expect from sources linked to at this web site.)"

You must have missed the "opportunity" part.

"reducing racial disparities requires policies that reduce black-white gaps in children's outcomes conditional on parental in-come, such as changes in human capital acquisition or childhood environment, consistent with the conclusions of Cameron and Heckman"

That's a good advice.

It has been obvious for several several years that black boys needed to be considered more disadvantaged than black girls. But politics isn't about policy, and diversity is mostly about hating males and whites.

"But politics isn’t about policy, and diversity is mostly about hating males and whites."
Oh, God.

Oh yes, the sort of people that hate males and whites also hate god - good catch.

Because God loves America, and they hate America, too.

I think you are getting the hang of it.

those walking around with that assumption will make more accurate predictions than people walking around without it, ceteris paribus. it's obviously stupid to say in public, but the privileged are gradually figuring it out.

"those walking around with that assumption will make more accurate predictions than people walking around without it, ceteris paribus."
No, they don't, they just make convoluted, unfalsifiable claims. "Black boys are more disavantaged than black girls because girls are oppressors" and "Black boys are more disavantaged than White (Asian, etc.) boys because they are low IQ, violent bums " may play well at Stormfront, but plays less well at other sites, not to mention in real life.

if you assume the champions of diversity are motivated more by a hatred of white males than by a love of diversity you will do a lot better at predicting what facts they draw your attention to and what organizations they decide to target.

Nope, that's exactly correct.

Wang Hua, the idea that black men are low IQ and violent is pretty much consistent with both arrest rates and incarceration rates as well as dropout rates.

For your next trick, you'll explain just how unfair cops and the justice system are to all these innocent people minding their own business with their hands up in the wrong place at the wrong time while Black.

You just pulled a disgusting trick. I have a rule that someone who calls racism is actually hiding something ugly about themselves. You have shown your ugliness.

Who said 'girls are oppressors' except you? Who said 'low IQ' except you?

What if it is the teachers, mostly female, who are afraid of black boys and are instrumental in their not getting a decent education or setting an expectation that the kids end up living up to? What if there is a nasty black culture that attracts these kids? I think Obama tells of going through a phase like that in his lifetime. Trying to fit in.

A Canadian black artist, doing very well, wrote of how his son, a son of privilege and wealth, was attracted to the hard and violent black culture and was seeing him slip into that lifestyle, which invariably is poorer and worse off.

Replying to derek:

"What if it is the teachers, mostly female, who are afraid of black boys and are instrumental in their not getting a decent education or setting an expectation that the kids end up living up to? What if there is a nasty black culture that attracts these kids?"

What if there's a war on school discipline, or at least a war against schools trying to get their black boys under control?

I think the low-hanging fruit in improving black education is preventing disruptive students from sabotaging the education of the ones who are willing to work and behave themselves. Even some of the currently disruptive ones would improve their behavior if it were made clear that disruptive students will be isolated from the rest.

Obama and his Obamarrhoids, on the other hand, worked hard to enable the afore mentioned sabotage. Thanks, Barack!

"I have a rule that someone who calls racism is actually hiding something ugly about themselves. You have shown your ugliness."

Except, of course, when it is calling (totally imaginary) racism against Whites, right? Do you think Blah is ugly? I am sorry you lost Civil War and WWII , but life is like that.

I live how Derek posted his "racism doesn't exist" screed right below a racist's reply. Awareness (particularly self-) is not one of the Stormfront's virtues, I think.

"Wang Hua",

What a disgusting comment. Please take your bigotry elsewhere

I see, my comment is disgusting, not the racists'.

Want Hua. I think we have established pretty clearly that either you are a habitual liar or have serious reading comprehension issues. I'll be generous and grant you the later. The only person here who said there is no racism is you.

Blaming racism is as useful as Hillary blaming gravity for her broken arm. The question is why these young men do so badly. I don't know the answer but I can guarantee that the facile and stupid one here response of racism will produce exactly the same result in a generation.

White families are facing exactly the same issue. How to keep their sons from making foolish decisions that have long lasting effects. Same with Asian families and Hispanic ones.

Social dysfunction trends show up first in the most vulnerable groups. And here they are. Screaming racism is pure stupidity.

Yeah, yeah. The only racism we must care about is the invented one, let us forget the real, systematic, existing for centuries one. And I am still waiting for the justification for how "Black boys are low IQ thugs who deserve what they get" can live side by side with "women are persecuting Black boys". Coherent thought was never the Stormfront strongest suit. You do not have a thought, you have excuses for hatred.

"how “Black boys are low IQ thugs who deserve what they get” can live side by side with “women are persecuting Black boys”"

For someone who prides himself on "logic" you obviously lack any understanding of it, since there is nothing whatsoever about these two statements that is mutually exclusive.

Not to even mention that you're just making up stuff that nobody said and throwing around "racism" and "stormfront" to make 100% clear that you're a bigot and have nothing to contribute to the world

“But politics isn’t about policy, and diversity is mostly about hating males and whites.”

Hate is too strong a word, but it is accurate to say that most of the diversity efforts are targeted at females and minority males. Since females as a group appear to be doing better than males for the younger than 30 cohort, perhaps it's time to reconsider this emphasis.

I don't think it is too strong a word at all. Get the diversity hawks tipsy or surrounded by apparent allies and they'll tell you all about their hatred for white men. Nothing speaks louder about such hatred than the term "White Privilege."

Or the fact that the diversity hawks keep saying how evil stereotyping is, while simultaneously making sweeping stereotypes about men, especially white men.

'but it is accurate to say that most of the diversity efforts are targeted at females and minority males'

For some utterly inexplicable reason, right?

'Since females as a group appear to be doing better than males for the younger than 30 cohort'

Maybe we should go back to past practice, and simply ban women from attending elite colleges, practicing many professions, or being allowed to open their own bank accounts. That just might help restore the old balance. And would work to counterbalance all that diversity effort by using time honored techniques, based on centuries of past experience.

Congratulations on mastering the strawman post.

Was there ever a time when even half of your comments were worth reading?

What I find fascinating is that actually quoting your words is the best way to be accused of being unfair to a strawman. For example, diversity programs, by definition, do not target white males. But then, tautology isn't an argument, is it?

Why would it be a tautology? Are there no areas in which white men are underrepresented? If no one cares about this, then the true concern cannot be diversity, can it?

Clock - "...For example, diversity programs, by definition, do not target white males. But then, tautology isn’t an argument, is it?"

California is a good laboratory. From Demographics of California on Wikipedia: 26% of public school students in 2011-12 identify as white, 52% as Latino or Hispanic. And yet there is a full bore effort to recruit Latinos into the University of California and California State University system, and lower income white males pay the costs. That is not racism, that is just a fact.

prior, you are such a troll.

"What I find fascinating is that actually quoting your words is the best way to be accused of being unfair to a strawman."

No, quoting me does not make you a troll. It's your responses that are strawman posts.

ie. "For some utterly inexplicable reason, right?"

I didn't say or imply that there weren't reasons for why diversity programs are targeted where they are. So, your response is a strawman argument, because you imply that I said something which I clearly didn't.

Then you double down on your strawman idiocy with this comment:

"Maybe we should go back to past practice, and simply ban women from attending elite colleges, practicing many professions, or being allowed to open their own bank accounts."

Again, I didn't state or imply that because females are now doing better than males for the younger cohort we should implement any draconian and oppressive laws.

remember, almost half of all males are completely invisible to women. they do not matter and they do not count. many self-aware females will admit as much: they literally do not see unattractive, harmless men.

unless they're family or can be used as objects of pity or scorn, the men doing worse than women are irrelevant (forgive the vagueness). again, this is really obvious if you're paying attention. how else do you explain the complete disinterest everyone has in the fact you just mentioned re: sex differences along 'the dimensions that matter' in the under 30 cohort? no one cares and you know it.

This is the sort of thing that I imagine a budding serial rape-murderer thinks in the privacy of his thoughts.

Does it really counts as "thoughts"?

Hazel Meade and Wang Hua are both racist and sexist. Not just that, they don't even have shame. Tell them that a black man is less privileged than a black woman and watch their sexism rise to the occasion. Tell them about the disadvantages of low status white men and watch them laugh about it - they are gloating about it, they love it, it feels good to them to have entire populations destroyed. Talk about sick people.

that's because you're crazy, Hazel.

"Hazel Meade and Wang Hua are both racist and sexist. Not just that, they don’t even have shame. Tell them that a black man is less privileged than a black woman and watch their sexism rise to the occasion. Tell them about the disadvantages of low status white men and watch them laugh about it"

I am sure the Stormfront ranted above about low IQ Blacks because they are very, I mean very concerned, about Black disavantaged boys. And I was told above that "calling racism", that is, calling racists racists is ugly, but I guess it only holds when it is about real racism, not invented one.

" they are gloating about it, they love it, it feels good to them to have entire populations destroyed. Talk about sick people. feels good to them to have entire populations destroyed. Talk about sick people."

Is it the Jews backstabbing German Aryans again? Is it #whitegenocide again? Neonazis are restless today.

Regardless of whether the person who brought up the point was racist or sexist, I think that it is an interesting idea that black men are perhaps neglected by the social justice movement in some ways precisely because they are men, and actually dealing with the particularities of masculinity intersect with blackness would be uncomfortable for many social justice warriors because it would mean in some ways defending masculinity, as opposed to merely attacking it. That is to say, in the US many people feel threatened by black men being men, and the progressive left is loathe to acknowledge any positive role for men qua men in society overall, so it cannot effectively deal with a society that penalizes black men for their masculinity because that would mean acknowledging that it is acceptable for men to be masculine.

Wang Hua, you're really the most disgusting person I have seen on this blog.

Stray thought:
There seem to be a lot of white men walking around with a huge chip on their shoulder lately -
so much so that it reminds me of black men and the huge chip on *their* shoulder. Maybe some of the cultural problems affecting black men, are common to both black men and working class white men. Annd maybe reinforcing the giant chip on the shoulder isn't an particularly productive way of addressing those problems.

Shh - the fact that men just might not be naturally superior beings is a dangerous sign sign of feminazism.

Though oddly, these days, when Nazis seem to feel they are poised to make a big comeback, the 'feminazi' insult seems to have slipped out of public discourse. Strange how that works.

There's some obvious confusion entailed in the term 'feminazi' in an alt-right context.

Seems to be around the time that affirmative action and feminism morphed from equal opportunity to victim culture. Not sure why anyone would be annoyed by that.

Stray thought: There seem to be a lot of white men walking around with a huge chip on their shoulder lately –

No, Hazel. You're obtuse and abrasive and people throw it back in your face.

Hazel - " Maybe some of the cultural problems affecting black men, (sic) are common to both black men and working class white men."

Bingo! Though it is much worse for black men.

Unless one is an evolution denier, we know there is selection pressure for the pursuit of reproductive success. A recent experiment, conducted on Tinder (I know), demonstrated women summarily rejected over 80% of males while men rejected 46% of females.

There are a lot of unmarried low status males out there, including and especially black males. That has to be painful. I am grateful I am not one of them.

Art's pulling Hazel's pigtails again. He's so cute!

Blaming other groups for group outcome differences that aren't in your group's favor is all the rage these days. Nobody wants to miss out on that sweet, sweet fingerpointing.

Reinforcing the giant chip on the shoulder was my first thought on why black men would do poorly. We teach them to be angry, to suspect everyone (or at least everyone white), to blame every defeat on discrimination. Granted, discrimination exists, but are we helping black boys and men by telling them that the discrimination defines them, that it is the primary cause of everything that happens to them?

Perhaps black women do better because they aren't as programmed to expect failure and obstacles. The message should be "we shall overcome", not "they're all against you".

We teach them to be angry, to suspect everyone (or at least everyone white), to blame every defeat on discrimination.

Sounds just like the attitudes of Trump voters, minus the part about suspecting whites, plus a part about suspecting feminists, liberals, and immigrants.
To be fair, black men have better reasons for being angry and suspicious than white men, not that it helps them any. There is circular reinforcement of internalized rage that is more amplified for black men than for whites, but you can see the same pattern of self-destructive behavior in response to perceived systematic unfairness in lower class whites. One might even cite voting for Donald Trump as an example.

So what Hazel? So it's okay?

"One might even cite voting for Donald Trump as an example."

Trump never got 90% of any race to vote for him. Makes him the least racist president in at least 9 years.

There are a lot of unmarried low status males out there, including and especially black males. That has to be painful.

Really good point I overlooked.
It's not good for any society to have a lot of men around who can't find wives.

Which makes me wonder whether the single parent households remain that way by the woman's choice or by the man's choice, or if the eligibility for welfare is determined by whether there is a male in the household who is capable of working. I mean, if marrying the baby daddy causes your benefits to get cut off, then that's a problem that should be fixed.

" I mean, if marrying the baby daddy causes your benefits to get cut off, then that’s a problem that should be fixed."

It is absolutely a problem. I have a friend who just had another child. Those of my grandparents generation were asking her when the wedding was. Unfortunately marriage would be an immediate cutoff of SNAP funds, perhaps medicaid or chip as well. I don't know the exact details. Her baby daddy makes perhaps $12.00 an hour and would be lucky to get 40 hours. Hard to raise two children like that. Telling a little white lie to get extra assistance seems optimal.

Not sure how you can fix it. Punish the mother? The other partner(s)? Take the children away? Garnish wages?

@HL. I think that there should be a one time marriage bonus for low income parents who get married. Instead of taking benefits away, double them and guarantee them for say, 10 years (conditional on the couple remaining together). Like any government benefit it would be prone to abuse, but the thing about it is that any one attempting to abuse the system would still need to be careful about choosing a spouse (and a baby mama/daddy). So overall it would add a huge incentive for low income people to make careful choices when it comes to starting a family, as even when it came to two people who are working minimum wage jobs or are unemployed, a lot of money would still be at stake. I mean, even if a man/woman had a hard time earning money, they would still be valuable as a potential spouse (or partner in defrauding the government) if they were trustworthy and honest.

"Stray thought: There seem to be a lot of white men walking around with a huge chip on their shoulder lately – so much so that it reminds me of black men and the huge chip on *their* shoulder. "

This from the commenter who writes things like "this is the sort of thing that I imagine a budding serial rape-murderer thinks in the privacy of his thoughts" whenever someone criticizes her group. Tell us more about that chip on "our" shoulder.

People who are not Nazis-in-waiting could follow up on that by explicitly proposing that young white males from a low income background are similarly deserving of access to opportunity, as are others.

But, then, if more of those young white males from low income backgrounds have access to opportunity, then fewer of them can be manipulated toward holding grievances and hateful attitudes toward minorities, as compared to the situation where they simply adopt their parents' prejudices.

This is literally the argument that is made about Democrats keeping poor people dependent on them in reverse.

Good point.

I don't think people are trying to manipulate the situation so that poor white males will stay poor in order to have that grievance.

What I think is that, in observation of reality, that this reality is used as a wedge to stoke grievances. Specifically, that it is used as a way to identify possible recruits for whom possible manipulations, threats, etc., may be undertaken. For example, with a lot of data on lots of people having done that to a large number of low income white males, it could become scientific.

Regarding plausibility, it can be noted that Russian elections interference seems to have done similar things to/with black groups for the purpose of stoking tension.

But again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm referring to intentionally setting about to identify low income white males and try to recruit them into neo-Nazi groups. So ... if they really cared about those poor white males, they would propose to help them instead of to stoke grievances for recruitment purposes.

I should clarify that I'm not accusing people here of setting about to do that. I'm saying that it exists.

Yeah, I'm not really trying to judge it one way or another. It just struck me as interesting how parallel it is to that argument. It could be that both sides engage in a certain amount of emotional manipulation of their constituencies, in way that are destructive of their constituencies long term outcomes. Whether people are doing it on purpose or not is almost beside the point.

This is literally the argument that is made about Democrats keeping poor people dependent on them in reverse.

Except that argument is valid. There's a six digit population employed in a pseudo-profession called 'social work'. Except for a few oddballs like Charles Peters, interest in the Democratic Party in simplifying the welfare state has approximated nil. Also, occupational groups affiliated with the Democratic Party manufacture patron-client relations in any and every kind of institution, no matter what cost to the institutional mission. Manufacturing these dependency relationships is what the Democratic Party has been all about for more than 50 years.

My solution is to not hang out with egalitarian anti-racist douchebags. I'm pretty satisfied with this self imposed segregation. I assume the other party is too.

The harder part is trying to stop my tax dollars being spent on them. Still work left to do on that one. Minimizing income and voting for tax cuts seem like my best bet.

Seriously, Art? You don’t think the right-wing talk radio / FOX News reality bubble is destructive of white men’s ability to function in society?

Of course not. I'm not an idiot. People's 'function in society' is completely orthogonal to an interest in (much less consumption of) political commentary. The vast majority have only an occasional interest in public affairs.

People can be misinformed, but that's not a peculiar property of watching Hannity. We have a Facebook wall. About 90% of the political statements are made by Democrats and the one Republican who offers a comment favors mild tongue-in-cheek drive-bys. And, yes, epistemic closure is a problem for a number of them, and a severe lack of perspective. The worst offender was born in 1949 and has two post-baccalaureate degrees. I'll worry about Hannity when that man says something temperate.

Reality is not black and white.

For example, refraining from actively endeavouring to oppress people whose battles are more uphill than others, is not equivalent to demanding equal outcomes.

+1 to HL's comment. I know it's fashionable to condemn "the bubble" but it's the best bet we have. People like Hazel are a threat to my livelihood, so I avoid them wherever possible. I'm not big on tax cuts though. Why should we want more money going to the Goolag?

@JWatts: My main point was much milder, actually: that one should reconsider the emphasis within blacks. That in many contexts, we should treat black men as more diverse than black women. Because black men are victimized in several ways black women aren't. This is related to the so called absence of privilege mentioned in this post.

I am astounded that diversity folks usually don't recognize this, often looking at only "black vs white and men vs women" to conclude "black women have it worse than black men". Iattribute this negligence to diversity folks being so partisan sexist as to be wilfully blind to structural disadvantages a male can face (in the present case, black males).

If someone is mean to you because you're a racist asshole, it doesn't mean that they specifically have a problem with white males.

However, if people like you could keep your prejudices to yourself (or consider consulting statistical theory which exceeds chapters 1 and 2), fewer women and sufferers of hyper-melaninia would be predisposed to give the third degree to white people.

I doubt it. First look how ignorant you are. You suggested above that people who oppose AA on the grounds that it is not fair to poor white men have been labelled racists by your own team. Yet apparently you aren't even aware of that. Do you not remember that Bernie was a racist and sexist according to the intersectional crowd for focusing on class rather than intersectional feminism? Intersectionality is a political movement which far less interested in 'equality' than elevating themselves. This goes right to your last point - most of the people who are very invested in this come from a place of hatred and cynical power desires, not a desire for equality or polite discourse. If intersectionality was not opposed is there any indication that it would stop before reaching South African levels of wokeness?

This isn't about "teams". If some guy is a racist asshole and people are mean to him because he's an ignorant bigot, this is not erased by the fact that some people are able to acknowledge the difficulties of low income white people without intentionally setting about to stoke grievances.

It's ALL about "teams" with Thomas. So tiresome.

#woke is a team name. feminism is a team name. BLM is a team name. intersectional is a team name.

@Troll Me People are fundamentally tribal. So long as white men are not a majority and are disportionately successful, they will be hated, just like Jews are hated around the world, as well as overseas Chinese. See Amy Chua’s work on ‘market minorities’. Except in extremely individualistic and universalist cultures, market minorities are always hated and always at risk of hate crimes or genocide.

"The sons of well-off black families do not do so well"

Well, 'do not do so well' is ambiguous -- but it suggests they're failing relative to white men, white women, and black women. But the charts of 'income rank of kids vs income rank of parents' in the Times article refutes this interpretation. Black men are doing worse than white men, yes, but have almost exactly the same outcomes as white and black women. In this chart, the only outlier is white men. The other 3 groups are almost exactly on par.

+1, that's not readily apparent in the cited papers data. However, it's pretty obvious that if you merge the 'Average income rank of kids' graphs together, then the black male curve is pretty similar to the white/black female curve.

Black men don't appear to be doing poorly. White men do appear to be doing exceptionally well.

It took me a while to find the charts, under the heading:

> Large income gaps persist between men — but not women.

The observation is that if the charts were merged, instead of side by side, there would only be one outperforming outlier, I think this is interesting.

Are "White men" doing exceptionally well though?

Normed against the income of their fathers, they probably do about the same as "Black men" (e.g. they're no more likely to exceed their father)...

The differences here will be driven by the "Black women" tending to be higher on the income scale than "Black men"; the composite of mother+father will tend to be higher dad, lower mom for "White men", and higher mom, lower dad for "Black men", so when "Black men" follow their dad's path, it looks they're doing worse than their "parents" but really they're just doing worse than mom (just as White men still tend to do better than mom).

tl;dr, Chetty, norm all intergenerational gaps against "same sex parent" and then we'll talk.

This is the real story, I agree. To start untangling it, we should start with comparisons to relevant data about Asian women and men.

If black sons of well-off families do not do so well, then does that mean income mobility among black males is higher than among white males (black males in top income quantile less likely to stay in top income quantile)? If so, then does this data show that blacks are better off than whites in terms of income mobility/inequality or are we finally ready to admit that income mobility, defined in terms of relative income (moving between quantiles) rather than absolute income (raising absolute income levels of the poor), is just a really meaningless statistic?

Absolute income matters, yes. But income mobility still has to matter, because humans are jealous and competitive. The Left doesn't like to admit this is what motivates most of their crusade here, but I think they are being much more realistic than the Right, in this case.
Jealousy over inequality is the price humans pay for the motivations that help make capitalism work well. You can't reason it away and wouldn't want to anyway.

Triclops- "...yes. But income mobility still has to matter, because humans are jealous and competitive."

Yes! Success relative to others is what matters. It is hard to be wrong with evolutionary or anthropological arguments. Our behavior is driven by forces we don't fully understand and of which we are not aware. Kahneman is clear about this.

+0.2 is literally not the same as -0.2, genius.

But -0.2 is what the Left wants. Inheritance taxes, highly progressive income taxes, etc. are all designed to push people down the income scale so that everyone starts the economic race equally.

You can't have +.2 without -.2

"f so, then does this data show that blacks are better off than whites in terms of income mobility/inequality"

Not necessarily. Since the Blacks have lower incomes, a Black man making 150,000$ is further to the right of the income tail than a White man relative to his own group. To have a truly apples to apples comparison of within group mobility, you'd have to compare a Black man at the 90th percentile of Black men to a White man at the 90th percentile of White men.

Maybe it's because regression to the mean has a stronger effect in males more than females? There is certainly more variation in male IQs (both high and low), meaning that there is more room for the male offspring of high-IQ outlier parents to fall back to their group's overall norm. And regarding "a more likely possibility ... is that test scores don’t accurately measure the abilities of black children in the first place" -- that doesn't even make sense. The tests accurately measure the IQs of whites, Asians, Latinos, Native Americans and Ashkenazi Jews, but not black people? Because of slavery and colonialism and white privilege and Trump?

"Maybe it’s because regression to the mean has a stronger effect in males more than females?"

But in the presented data black females, white females, and black males all show almost identical levels of regression to the mean. White males are the exception (showing much less regression). See the chart in the times article (unfortunately the way they did the html, there's no way to link to it directly).

John Ogbu has made a career out of studying the impacts that dysfunctional Black culture has on young Black men. Of course he does not put it that way but he does point out the stigma of "acting White" among Black school boys.

He noted this effect long before this article.

It may be regression to the mean. Or it may just be that Real Men deep fry chicken for a living. Oddly this is one of those areas where two Leftist constituencies clash. Black boys may do poorly because it is humiliating to be under the thumb of female teachers. Female teachers being strong Democrat voters as Black men are.

Regression to the mean, as in IQ is more heritable than a great jump shot.

I know, how naughty of me.

Maybe they have finally identified the patriarchy, and I'm being serious here. Do these results demonstrate a self-dealing high-class nepotism? Can the Hazel Meades of the world stop hating and laughing at white men in West Virginia long enough to acknowledge that the Patriarchy may be a distinct sub-group of white men?

Maybe it's because they are smart. They don't try hard on a test that has 0 payoff in real life.

I can't even imagine the type of attitude or outlook of a child to have an IQ test administered to them and respond to it by scoffing and refusing to actually try to do their best. Perhaps your comment has more to do with your general distaste for IQ/reality itself rather than believing an apparent parody of black children?

The payoff is 0.

How hard should a "rational optimizer" try?

But what's the cost of trying? You're sitting there with a pencil, why not? Yes your performance will probably be hindered by being told your whole life by people like Thomas that you are stupid, but that shouldn't mean you don't try. Or I guess maybe for some it does, but then I imagine plenty of whites don't try either.

True, it is a weakness in the argument that requires more explanation.

If you're conditioned toward high test-taking effort in relation to a belief that it will result in better life outcomes (regardless of one's belief regarding education as signalling, education as learning, or both), then this conditioning will result in higher (average) effort on a test with 0 payoff.

If this was the case, you would not see the strong correlations between IQ score and educational outcomes, which does not vary between racial groups.

Why take the test at all? Why not just sit there? The reality is that children, like people in general, prefer to be engaged rather then detached, and would rather exercise their minds then be bored.

I think you don't know what I mean by conditioned.

Let's call it habit.

Having not tried hard on 500 previous tests, faced with a 0-payoff test (will not contribute to passing the class or the grade or getting a scholarship), you'll probably also not try very hard (perhaps even more so) on the standardized test.

Troll me, your theory would predict that IQ tests would be less predictive in Blacks than in Whites. They aren't.

"This is pathbreaking work by Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Maggie R. Jones, and Sonya R. Porter", all of whom are close to retirement, whether they know it or not.

This study does not force me to give up my thoughts on the subject. My quote: "liberal post-racial . . . idea that the fundamental problem is class and not race" remains quite intact, as part of the problem remains that there are black subcultures in the US that seek to emulate the lowest common denominator. I've never thought it to be the fundamental problem, but it is certainly part of the issue. As the author notes, quote: "If this inequality can’t be explained by individual or household traits, much of what matters probably lies outside the home — in surrounding neighborhoods, in the economy and in a society that views black boys differently from white boys, and even from black girls." Which is certainly true, both in the larger US culture and in the smaller black subcultures.

Yeah it doesn't *force* me to give mine up either, but it raises a lot of questions.

I wish there were an easy answer here. I think part of the truth probably involves somewhat self-imposed handicaps -- "acting white" is a thing and really sort of appaling if you think about it. On the other hand, it seems possible that people in society seem marginally more primed to have negative thoughts about black boys. It'd be great if we could enumerate the wheres and whens so that something could be done -- I really dislike the handwaving "everyone is biased" because it's basically unfalsifiable and also relatively useless (unsolvable).

" “acting white” is a thing and really sort of appaling if you think about it."

What's the difference in "acting white" and the general advice to keep your nose clean & work hard at school?

Re-reading I think my wording was bad: I mean that "acting white" being a thing black people criticise each other for is appalling.

I suppose it generally is keeping your nose clean, but you can also imagine that there are affectations (speech, for example) that communicate race differences.

Well, it would seem to throw water on the idea that the barriers facing black males today are primarily due to *past* discrimination (past discrimination led to current unfavorable family circumstances which act as barriers even if discrimination now is removed). Because black sons of even well-off families aren't doing well, that means the relevant racial barriers are due to *current* discrimination. In turn, wouldn't that seem to imply that black males perhaps more than any other group would benefit most from race-blind and gender-blind admissions, hiring, etc.? The argument for race-conscious criteria was to counteract the effects of past discrimination. If current discrimination is the dominant factor, though, then that would seem to imply an emphasis on race and gender neutrality. I'm not sure how many people are going to pick up on that.

And it implies to me that patience, somewhat outmoded, is indeed a virtue, and a hard one. Paternalists - which is how I see the race industry, though I know others see them more as hatemongers - might reflect on the the limits to effecting their will, that they've surely become aware of, in the course of parenting their own offspring.

Peri - "...Paternalists... might reflect on the the limits to effecting their will, that they’ve surely become aware of, in the course of parenting their own offspring."

Amen to that! It is difficult to watch your children make bad decisions or engage in self-destructive, impulse driven behaviour. Sometimes I think they just have to learn from their own mistakes, but it is so much better and less costly to learn from the mistakes of others.

The problems in the black inner-city population are so deep and pernicious that I am not sure they are even solvable. I lived in one of those communities - a stranger in a strange land.

By the time you get to "admissions", the problem is backed into the cake.

The group referred to in the study is black males whose parents had high income, not all black males.

I'll just wait for Steve Sailer to pick this apart. He's a specialist in ferreting out Chetty's blind spots. Chetty's work is fascinating and valuable, but you need to read between the lines.

Can Steve pick out his own blind spots?

No, that's why they're called blind spots.

He insists trade and immigration are bad for the middle and lower classes despite the literature.

The "literature" has a lot of blind spots regarding immigration and lower classes. It may be true that on balance immigration improves wages even for unskilled lower class workers, but, at least in Europe, large influxes of immigrants tend to have a strongly negative effect on quality of life for lower class natives. Immigrants degrade the public schools - overwhelming schools with children who do not know the native language and who often gang up to bully native children, cause an increase in petty crime, create businesses where natives feel or actually are unable to compete for jobs (i.e. ethnic supermarkets, restaurants and hair salons), and generally make lower class natives feel that their status has been reduced in their own country.

Yep! Putnum, in "Bowling Alone", described this loss of social capital very well. However, the SJWs don't want to hear it - it is a challenge to their sacred values.

You now have a Target on your back.

Lower cost of low-skilled labour is explicitly supposed to be one of the benefits of certain types of immigration policy.

When this has an overall negative effect on most common indicators of well-being could still be debatable though, considering that the overall situation enables to afford access to good health care, and a good education for their children.

However, the higher likelihood of having nothing productive to do, and children observing parents who never had anything productive to do ... that would definitely be in the cost side of things.

Anyways, main point being that more affordable access to low-skilled help is often precisely one of the intended benefits of certain immigration policies. The fact that this will have problems for specific groups of natives therefore requires explicit intention and undertaking to counter what negative effects can be expected.

And Borjas showed that immigration reduces natives' wages. Immigration only "helps" the country if you accept that a plutocrat earning an extra $2 and a low-skill native earning one less dollar is a "win."

Sure, you can make "20 steps removed" argument about how that extra dollar earned by the plutocrat trickles down to the low-skill native, but that's a weak argument.

And anyway, increased diversity imposes a "tax" on the native stock, the cost of which swamps any "free trade benefits" 5 or 10 times over. Why is real estate so expensive in "good school" districts? Why not just build more "good" schools? You know why.

It's not 20 steps removed.

Step 1: Higher income groups earn higher profit and thus pay more taxes. Step 2: lower income people (excluding political environments where they are persuaded to vote against their self interest) will tend to support parties that provide for education and health.

Also, it should be specified that one-off immigration changes (e.g. a million people arrive) and short-term effects (e.g., equilbirium wages 6 months or 2 years out) are virtually assured to negatively impact the group that they compete with (in the case you mention, this is low-skilled labour). And, being the point, that this is different from the overall changes in quality of life that this may produce over a 10, 20 or 50 year time frame for an economy that more easily access inputs to labour inputs critical for production.

Of course the argument falls apart into absurdity if the case is low income people being paid $5 a day, and thereafter $3 a day due to a flood of extremely poor refugees combined with a situation of zero labour rights. But minimum wages in Europe are not low, and labour rights are enforced relatively well. So that excludes another form of argumentation where one would assume that it necessarily negatively impacts lower income natives.

Anyways, more importantly, in explicitly acknowledging what downsides there may be in the short run, it becomes possible to address them while enabling to access what longer-term benefits may be accessed through non-zero immigration.

Don't forget immigrant impact on housing stock. That's been calamitous here in the UK.

The "literature" is a load of crap. Those who write it know it. A common method is to look at cross city comparisons, notice that more immigrants are heading to Boston than Detroit, and thus conclude that immigration doesn't harm native wages because they are the same in Boston as in Detroit, as if the immigrants flipped a coin and decided which city to migrate to, knowing nothing about the economic conditions there. This kind of logic would be laughed out of the room in any other argument, but not this one, because no one's supposed to believe it anyway.

Here:

http://www.unz.com/isteve/chetty-affluent-black-males-much-more-crime-prone-whites-at-fault/#respond

For instance, he points out that, as an apparent limit in the data that Chetty had to work from, he needs to use individual income, not household income. So for black women, who tend more than white women to be unmarried, Chetty is comparing the income of single women to married women who may be stay-at-home moms, or moms with a low paying part-time job compare to their husband's career, but who, if they had chosen to have a career, have the ability to have made a good salary.

Chetty is an immigrant himself and he doesn't think of stuff that would be obvious to a native American, although I suppose he may also see things that native Americans are blind to on occasion. It would be much better if Chetty's data were available to a more diverse group of researchers, or if he had a more diverse set of collaborators.

But according to the Vox article, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17139300/economic-mobility-study-race-black-white-women-men-incarceration-income-chetty-hendren-jones-porter , Chetty did look at employment rates & hours worked and found them to be not too different. See figures E and F in that article. There is a small gap but the article says that (I haven't checked the math myself) it is much too small to explain the lack of a gap in income between white and black women.

This is worded in a confusing way in the article, but what I make of it is that we can assume that a black woman who grew up in a home where the household income is $X/yr. will have a lower IQ than a white woman who grew up in a home with the same household income. And yet despite the IQ gap they end up with roughly the same income on average. So we're looking for some other factor that is bolstering black female incomes or suppressing white female incomes. But whatever the other factor is, if the analysis I mentioned above is accurate, it isn't something as simple as white women simply not having paying jobs or having only part-time jobs.

From my personal experience, the biggest differences between the males who did well and those who did not were choices. A lot of the middle class kids I grew up with used drugs, caught STIs, or acquired criminal records that significantly impacted their ability to do well in school and to achieve other goals. Likewise, I opted to pay for med school via the military; this instantly told employers and residency committees that I was able to willing to play ball. Behavior matters. Several of us made a very conscious effort to keep our noses spotless - no drugs, no crime, and no association with anyone who did these things. All of us made it into the upper-middle or upper class except for one guy who went into law and has two alimony checks.

What is harsh is statistical inference. If you know nothing about me except my sex and race you will rightly assume that odds are higher that I have discipline issues, a criminal record, etc. That, in my experience, is all true. I know many guys who when confronted by this became hypersensitive to racism, this makes it easier for you to leverage affirmative action type opportunities but comes directly at the expense of people avoiding risk. Often this leads to cycles of perceived racism (legitimate or not does not matter), anti-social behavior (broadly defined), and then reputation formation which leads to people actually treating you differently. Men seem much more prone to this cycle.

Which has always lead me to believe that part of why black women are not so handicapped. Women are less threatening to managers, they tend to behave much more pro-socially, and they even look better for affirmative action points of view than black men. In my own experience, there is a mad scramble to get the best affirmative action applicants needed to satisfy some unspoken quota, and then the bottom falls out. Women appear to be viewed much more favorably here - women are still considered underrepresented in medicine. Even better, there is often a perception that black women are more likely to remain single and less likely to jump ship.

I can only speak for me, but it is trivially easy to get ahead if you are bright and maintain a spotless record. It is much harder on black men the moment they get blemishes. Is that fair? Of course not. Is that easy to change? No. Have I seen anything likely to actually work at changing that? No. Everyone seems caught in explaining this with simple Just So stories rather than what my experience tells me is a strong feedback loop that can start from any direction.

'A lot of the middle class kids I grew up with used drugs'

So did a lot of students at WT Woodson throughout the 70s. Guess what? Didn't hurt their careers, if only because like George Bush, it was all youthful indiscretion.

'and they even look better for affirmative action points of view than black men'

That was certainly true at GMU in the mid 1980s - you get credit for hiring in two categories, and thus can spare having to hire either another woman or another black person. Only coincidentally, of course.

'Have I seen anything likely to actually work at changing that?'

Well, there are a number of people doing their best to prevent such changes from happening - they are extremely uninterested in anything that might be effective in changing it. At least in the part of the U.S. I grew up in.

There's using drugs and using drugs. There is a huge difference between occasional drug use and becoming totally absorbed into the drug culture where life revolves around your next high. To be sure, lots of other behaviors have similar adverse effects such as drinking, video games, cigarettes, sex, etc. But the mental diversions involving psychoactive substances are much more powerful than garden variety obsessions.

Duration is also an issue. Many people experiment with drugs, sometimes heavily, then grow out of it. Others adopt it as a part of their persona for life. The latter group is often destined for poor outcomes.

Finally there are interactive effects with other social ills. Drugs expose people to a wide variety of illegal and antisocial behavior including irresponsible sex, violence, crime, and removal from positive actions and influences.

You are not going to be able to make everyone have the same amount of safety margin in society.

As a physician you can abuse all manner of prescription drugs and the first time you get caught and it goes on your record is basically free. Your employer will often pay for your counselling. The medical boards may require you to make slight modifications to your practice, but in general you get a pass. Have a record of doing the same amount of drugs as a medical school applicant and you just get round filed. I have watched admissions committees toss otherwise great applicants for having been convicted of doing less drugs than some of the committee members were caught doing.

In the military, your military ID works wonders to get out of or reduce tickets in some jurisdictions. I had friends who managed to walk with only 20 over tickets when they should have gotten reckless.

At every point in the criminal justice system female defendants are treated better than males - they get offered better pleas, they are more likely to be recommended for parole, and they are more likely to be granted parole. Behaviors that would earn men felony convictions do not earn similar convictions at similar rates for women.

Evangelicals, atheists, and Muslims all get hammered on applications. People are far less willing to forgive poor grades/test scores for students who attended universities like Wheaton or Grove City (the fact that their church offered a scholarship making this tens of thousands cheaper is not offsetting). The moral lapses of atheists are judged more harshly. Muslims get hit much more harshly for any hint of homophobia.

And on it goes. Beyond all this sort of soft discrimination, you have the issues that come with money, power, and nepotism. At my medical school, the diversity officer just so happened to get their kids admitted; in spite of them being below average on most metrics. I ultimately doubt that you can really make things more fair, you can shift around the power and the bias. It is far more effective to just accept the unfairness of it all and get on with life.

Evangelicals, atheists, and Muslims all get hammered on applications.

Really? Someone puts the 'Sam Harris Fan Club' on his application? Sorry, not buying.

I believe the title supplied was President of the Student Atheist and Skeptic Association. They had gone to one of the more liberal undergrads in the country and likely assumed that this would help them as a "leadership position". In much the same vein being President of Intervarsity or Cru can hurt at some institutions. Almost invariably a student lists all their leadership positions and assumes that whatever was considered normal and inoffensive at their school will also be normal and inoffensive at medical schools half a country away.

For residency applications there are mixers the night before the formal interviews where people ask all sorts of questions and tell many stupid things. For instance "tell me about your wedding" can involve tales of in-law woes about the loss of religion. This is even more likely given the fact that many of these events have alcohol on tap. This gets even more fun as some of the mixers invite spouses along who may not be the best at playing the game, particularly spouses who just emigrated from the old country and buy the caricatures that religious conservatives back home tell about the godless West.

You're making this judgement based on a single case?

No, I am making it on a single case I was present for and recall plus a bunch of times people have told me about similar things. There is also some literature that has been cited to me by others. Given that my day job is keeping people alive and not running down the fine details given that it passes muster when I did encounter it and what I would expect to happen I am happy enough with this. The residency stuff, I have seen several times where the applicant is keeping his religion or lack thereof quiet, but his wife discusses it at mixers. Again, I suspect that given what I have seen is no more or less likely to be normative, it is reasonably that it happens more often.

In general, people lists all sorts of activities that they do not find to be offensive (e.g. Medical Students for Choice) that their potential employer (e.g. a Catholic hospital with priests on the hiring committee) may find objectionable. They appear to either not care or to not understand that this can introduce bias against them. Having seen it at least once for atheists, I assume they are no more special than anyone else and it happens.

No, I am making it on a single case I was present for and recall plus a bunch of times people have told me about similar things.

Based on your other remarks, I'm getting the impression that life events multiply like rabbits in your mind.

Well last psyche eval I sat through said that I showed no signs of delusions or hallucinations =)

But in all seriousness, I do fudge small things to overly comply with FERPA and HIPAA and to make sure I do not bring any trouble down from the internet to real life. I comment here because I enjoy it; if I am not your cup of tea you are of course free not to read.

Good posts. But how can you tell someone is an atheist at time of hiring? I've never seen anyone care enough to ask, and it would have been seen improper to ask anyways.

I didn't buy this at first, but the example supplied makes sense. There was a professor in my department who didn't want the program to gain a conservative reputation. If an applicant was a member of associations that were politically conservative, or received money from a conservative think tank, he'd sink the application.

It only takes one biased member of a hiring committee to pull these sorts of things. I'm inclined to think Black men get it worse than most, and I think the data from this study supports the hypothesis that it's worse for some groups than others. But the mechanism Sure cites (that it's a cascade and there is less mercy for a Black man than for other race-gender groups) makes sense to me.

Maybe. More so than I initially thought for sure. I'd still see it odd that these things come up when you first meet someone, especially in a hiring situation. Religion has been a taboo subject in hiring for a long time, as well as listing any ethnic references on your resume. I had second thoughts for my son listing Eagle Scout on his college applications.

This taboo is only for Americans. In other countries your religion or lack thereof is a government question (e.g. Germany has special taxes for your official religious affiliation). Other times some non-conformist is using medical school to get a visa and get out. They may just be naive or they may fully buy into the "diversity is strength" stuff and feel free to say things that conditioned Americans will not. It is bewildering for some immigrants that Americans have laws protecting against religious discrimination and talk about a wall of separation ... and then object to say an African Pentecostal talking about his church services. If you did not grow up with it, American taboos are pretty hard to pick up on the fly - our rhetoric does not match our actions at all here.

It is also the case that some things just are considered so boringly normal in some parts of the country (e.g. evangelical student groups in the South, pro-choice groups in NYC or California) that people cannot even imagine getting in trouble for it. This is particularly bad for med school applicants who often are nose to the grindstone throughout their earlier education and do not engage as heavily with pop culture. If you have never held a job and spent your whole life in prep schools filled with the like minded you just do not get a sense of what is considered controversial.

" A lot of the middle class kids I grew up with used drugs, caught STIs, or acquired criminal records that significantly impacted their ability to do well in school and to achieve other goals."

It would be interesting to see the same statistics redone with no criminal records as a conditions. Would the black male curve be closer to the white male curve? Or still be similar to the black/white female curve.

+1. That would be some interesting statistics to see.

A lot of the middle class kids I grew up with used drugs, caught STIs, or acquired criminal records that significantly impacted their ability to do well in school and to achieve other goals.

Sorry, not buying.

You dont have to buy it. Its an anonymous comment. Read it or dont read it.

Observing a trajectory and an outcome does not mean that the trajectory is the only way to obtain that outcome.

Similarly, observing a trajectory and a different outcomes does not mean that the different outcome can only be explained by the trajectory.

Otherwise stated, being bright and conformist, never raising controversial issues, etc., should not be proposed as a surefire pathway to white picket fences.

White women earn less than black women with comparable human capital because white women are less likely to be breadwinners. (Affirmative action may play some role as well.) Chetty et al. show that the individual incomes of white and black women with similar parental characteristics are similar, but the family incomes of white women are higher; white women simply don't need to earn as much as black women to get a similar or higher standard of living because they are more likely to have husbands who are breadwinners. They also claim that cognitive ability does not explain gaps while not actually observing cognitive ability. Mazumder has shown that cognitive ability does indeed play a large role in intergenerational mobility differences between whites and blacks.

"They also claim that cognitive ability does not explain gaps while not actually observing cognitive ability. "

+1, I don't particularly lean one way or the other on whether cognitive ability is determinant, but it's pretty clear that the authors didn't address the issue beyond some hand waving.

Good comment. What is the difference in work between the two? Do black women act more head of the house and work the hours white guys do, or fewer like white women?

30% of white children are born to unwed mothers compared to over 70% of black children.

Among all children (accounting for the couples who marry after having children), roughly half of black children are living with a single parent versus about 20% of white children.

The vast majority of single parent households are headed by women.

Boys suffer without a stable male role model.

It makes sense that black boys would be the most disadvantaged group in America given these dynamics.

As noted by the paper, if the issue was cognitive ability, you would expect both black women and black men to be affected similarly, or at least with similar distributions as white women vs. white men. Otherwise you would have to posit some unusual theory about intelligence being passed down to female offspring but not males, but only in Africans.

If all the aforementioned categories worked the same kinds of jobs and those jobs were all equally sensitive to differences in cognitive ability... Suppose women chose to work preferentially in careers that rely less on their cognitive ability and more on their other abilities (at the high-end, more nurses and fewer engineers, and at the low-end, more waitresses and fewer carpenters), then we'd see sensitivity to cognitive ability show up for men and not for women. I'm not sure this is true, but it's certainly plausible.

So intelligence is passed down equally by gender, it just matters more for one gender's career choices than the other's.

Well then wouldn't you expect black men to sort into occupations less sensitive to cognitive ability, just like women?

Not if activity preference was at least somewhat independent of cognitive ability.

My thesis is that IQ explains personal income less well for white women than black women, not that black men and women have different IQ distributions. The racial IQ gaps across genders are well-documented. Here's data from the recent PIAAC survey of a representative sample of 16-74-years-olds:

NUMERACY:

Group, Mean (SD)

White men, 278 (51)

Black men, 220 (48)

White women, 262 (48)

Black women, 211 (50)

LITERACY:

Group, Mean (SD)

White men, 281 (44)

Black men, 247 (40)

White women, 278 (41)

Black women, 248 (43)

"As noted by the paper, if the issue was cognitive ability, you would expect both black women and black men to be affected similarly,"

There are well known and distinct differences in the IQ distributions between men and women. The standard deviation among males is, on average, higher than among females. IE Women's bell curves tends to be narrower and taller, whereas men's tends to be wider and shorter. Thus one should expect some cognitive differences to show up between men and women.

That's not really responsive. Why would the distribution be different for black men, compared to black women, than it is for white men, compared to white women? Do africans men have a narrower taller distribution than white men?

" Do africans men have a narrower taller distribution than white men?"

According to the data that ZZ posted above, Yes. You'll note that Black men have an SD very close to White women, and that Black women are closer to White women. I don't know if this is true in all cases. And I suspect the true answer is more likely to be cultural differences than anything else. But the data doesn't rule out a cognitive difference.

You would expect similar outcomes if the amount of work is similar. Are the hours worked the same? Are the fields of work the same? For example, are black women who teach more likely to work for public schools (that pay more) than private schools? Does the likelihood of being a single mother have any effect on incomes? The author found some data that align and chose not to conduct further examination.

Also, the article notes that finding a neighborhood where blacks outperform whites is quite rare. It amazes me that people cling to concepts of equality where equality does not occur. It's a blind belief in a unicorn, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny simultaneously. Genes determine intelligence in some amount. Genes vary between peoples based on geographic origin of their ancestors. The complete denial of the mere possibility that genetic differences could not affect intelligence while affecting other traits (eye color, health issues, skin color, distance running, sprinting, etc.) is absurd, especially where all of the evidence points to one conclusion on the intelligence front.

We're talking about the children of upper-income blacks. Why would the male children of upper income blacks have lower cognitive ability than the female children of upper income blacks? If cognitive ability explains the lower performance of black male offspring, what explains the relativley higher performance of their sisters?

What could explain it is if white women generally choose not to maximize their income, but black women tend to be more often breadwinners who must maximize their income. Thus black men and women do equally well, whereas white men earn more than white women. You probably have many more black men in jail, many more black women who are heads of household... that should tend to move things in that direction, maybe?

Right, that's an explanation that isn't grounded in black men having lower cognitive ability. The reason why black women tend to be breadwinners may be that black men are discriminated against a lot more than black women, so black women are forced to be the breadwinners in their households.

Can you link to "Mazumder"?

A possible explanation is that parents with a good education are both a) culturally predisposed and also b) better equipped, to provide their children with the sorts of things that would enable them to get higher scores on a standardized test. For example, a child raised by wolves would not do well on a standardized test, nor would a child raised by a parent who never learned to read or write.

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/70502/1/677763700.pdf

For example, a child raised by wolves would not do well on a standardized test, nor would a child raised by a parent who never learned to read or write.

Sure, but that's not exactly a realistic scenario in America today.

The article you link doesn't make any claims relate to cognitive ability (although it cites someone in relation to it).

Perhaps you intended to refer to something else?

Did you even look at it? It uses the AFQT, which is an ordinary IQ test.

I see. I checked the equations and searched for "IQ" and "cognitive".

The results in Figure 8 show that, conditional on AFQT, African Americans are less likely to enjoy upward mobility (Panel E) and more likely to suffer downward mobility (Panel F). Which is consistent with racism being a cause of worse income outcomes.

The results in Figure 9 show the same, conditional on confidence (first two panels), and the same again, conditional on Rotter score (last two panels).

But the IQ-adjusted difference is small compared to the unconditional difference. It's consistent with the racism explanation if you think that there are no other differences than IQ between blacks and whites and that IQ is measured with 100% reliability in the study.

That 2 millimetres represents a 15 percentage point difference.

It's easier to see if you check the table of the summary statistics instead of the figure.

I've never claimed that IQ explains 100% of the differences, only that it explains a large part. The study is quite consistent with it, e.g.:

For example, the black-white gap in moving out of the bottom quintile is only 5.2 percentage points for those with median AFQT scores compared to the unconditional gap of 27 percentage points.

Appendix figure 4 in the paper shows that the average household income of white women is around 13 percentiles higher than that of black women with the same parental income level even when they have the same individual incomes. White women earn less than they could because they are not generally breadwinners unlike black women.

+1, it is slightly ridiculous not to observe this pattern. Moreover, as well, both Black women and White women are more likely to be compressed relative to ability because White women are compressed in their ability to seek compensation by the demands of raising a family. White women's academic strengths are, well, academic, because they are constricted in their freedom to acquire high paying roles, and end up in similar roles to Black women despite better education, because they fit around family life.

I mean, Chetty, just check out whether Hispanic males/females and Asian males/females also show the same asymmetry; if they do, sexual division of labor and constraint on market bargaining is probably the dominant hypothesis.

Yet there is not a mention of "Hispanic women" or indeed any sex differences in any groups other than Blacks and Whites... Are there any explanations for this that are consistent with intellectual honesty?

To finish Kendi's quote "“But for whatever reason, we’re unwilling to stare racism in the face."

Like every larger corporation hasn't spent the past 20 years scouring high schools and colleges for black kids who can speak basic English and perform basic arithmetic to get them on a fast track managerial program. Frankly the guys really take to the oppressed storyline and try to take advantage of the situation (not in a good way) much more than the ladies, who work hard and do well. Plenty of exceptions to the rule on each side though.

Can you imagine the job prospects of a black female software engineer in silicone valley?

Much better prospects than for white males. Google would be extremely happy to make one of them the CEO. They simply aren't any good.

I'm trying to get my daughter to go that route. I know quite a few in IT and when I tell them she's interested, universal reaction is that she'll have it made. She's 12 now, so plenty of time to grow out of it though. I hope not.

You are fucking stupid. All large tech firms would bend over backwards for such a candidate.

ES - "Can you imagine the job prospects of a black female software engineer in silicone valley?"
It would be a cake walk. Also, it is "Silicon" not "Silicone".

Silicone Valley ( San Fernando Valley) is closer to Hollywood. :)

"Like every larger corporation hasn’t spent the past 20 years scouring high schools and colleges for black kids who can speak basic English and perform basic arithmetic to get them on a fast track managerial program."

This is a popular idea on the right, but is there any real evidence for it? I have worked in the corporate world for 20 years. I even used to help manage intake for a well-known business consulting firm. I have never seen much of a concerted effort by anyone to hire minorities. At smaller corporations and firms an inability to do your job is usually pretty quickly exposed. In fact, if anything my boss was definitely biased towards people like him - Irish-American kids from a lower middle class background who had a lot of "drive", as he put it, to move up the social ladder. Or smart attractive young women that clients would like. Granted consulting is not Procter&Gamble, but given how few blacks I have ever met at our clients - which tended to be corporations in the $250M to $2 billion range - if there really are corporations devoted to PC hiring practices it must be mostly the Fortune 100.

I work for a company in the Fortune 500, but not 100. We have specific company organizations for asians, latinos, blacks, homosexuals, women, veterans*, and the disabled: all of which designed around networking and raising awareness. "Allies" are allowed to join them, and I've been told flat-out by HR that the best way to get promoted is to be part of them. Over half of the office events are sponsored by one of those groups. My company is on one top 50 list for diversity, whatever that's worth.

I don't know what it's like on the hiring side, but given the amount of effort done on cultivating existing minority-group talent, I find it hard to believe they aren't doing just as much on the front end.

And after all that, usually the only black face I see on my floor of the office is the African-immigrant IT guy. Admittedly, you see plenty of women on the floor, and other departments have a few more people of African origin. My point is that whatever is holding back black men, I think it's happening before resumes get sent out.

Although, I will fully accept your point that smaller companies where the manager is doing the entire hiring process are bound to hire a lot of people similar to the manager. My last job was at a smaller company where the manager wanted all the hires for my job to, unnecessarily in my opinion, have 3 semesters of college calculus. As a result (combined with the mediocre pay), half the department was made up of physics majors.

*-I know it doesn't fit with the overall theme of the comment, but wanted to give full disclosure that one unit isn't about an identity group.

I don't have the data, but every large company I've worked for has had African Americans and/or women in executive or other coveted positions, but I'm in a diverse city.

When I was in the military, we recruiters used to drive all over the state, asking black kids with good PSAT scores if they wanted ROTC scholarships.

"This is a popular idea on the right, but is there any real evidence for it? I have worked in the corporate world for 20 years. I even used to help manage intake for a well-known business consulting firm. I have never seen much of a concerted effort by anyone to hire minorities."

The Federal government mandates Affirmative Action plans by government contractors.

"Federal affirmative action regulations require that government contractors develop a written affirmative action plan. In addition to an affirmative action plan document, the company's CEO or highest-ranking executive almost must demonstrate her support for equal employment opportunities in a written statement. Many companies prepare a written policy statement that affirms the organization's commitment to fair employment practices, building diversity within its ranks and the company's affirmative action plan. A copy of the written statement is posted throughout the workplace and enclosed in application packets for people interested in jobs."

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/examples-affirmative-action-workplace-12019.html

My former company F1000 had very big drives to hire minorities, even though we were pretty well represented. At one time managers were told to hire the minority if one applied for their open positions, not much talk about qualifications. Kind of bit them in the ass later, not that they were about to admit it.

So are we back to culture?

Amazing how long it took for someone to flag this squarely and simply (there's obviously an interplay between culture and other factors, which could exacerbate the impact of culture).

Well, according to this study it's not privilege in upbringing, it's not "class", it's not racism (unless you believe black women are treated as a different race than black men are).

Now, there _is_ a group which does remarkably well compared to most blacks in the U.S., but with the same skin pigmentation range. However, they were raised to have a different culture, so....

“One of the most popular liberal post-racial ideas is the idea that the fundamental problem is class and not race, and clearly this study explodes that idea”…

Except it doesn't apply to black women

Black women have a very similar curve to white women. So, yes it certainly does apply to black women. If the fundamental problem is race, then why do black women not show any negative effects?

I think what they are saying is that if class was the issue, you would expect middle and upper class blacks of both sexes to perform well, therefore class must not be the primary driver.

But if black women are doing well, then race must not be the primary driver.

No. Because by controlling for income, they are throwing away the variance that causes differences in income in the first place. This is looking at variance within a variance within a variance. A sort of triple difference study. It makes sure that the observed effect is real but it does it by assuming away other effects that may be the larger fundamental drivers of differences which make blacks as a group perform differently than the average American.

This is a standard problem of restricted variance.

"I think what they are saying is that if class was the issue, you would expect middle and upper class blacks of both sexes to perform well, therefore class must not be the primary driver."

It would seem that the critical constraint is not class nor race, but culture.

@WilcoxNMP
.@UpshotNYT: Poor black boys are more likely to do well in life when they came from "places where many lower-income black children had fathers at home."

@WilcoxNMP
.@Harvard's William Julius Wilson calls this a "pathbreaking finding":

Aka, poor Black boys more likely to become rich Black men when they have dads who are rich Black men, not so likely to become rich Black men when they have poor and absent dads and rich moms.

Could it be that (and I know this is crazy!) parental transmission of human capital is sex specific? That mom can't really teach son how to be a man so well?

I read that quote as saying "One of the most popular liberal post-racial ideas is the idea that the fundamental problem is class. Clearly this study explodes that idea”

The "not race" portion was referring to the post-racial idea, not the study.

>The fact that black women have incomes and wage rates comparable to white women conditional on parental income despite having much lower test scores suggests that tests do not accurately measure differences in ability (as relevant for earnings) by race, perhaps because of stereotype threat or racial biases in tests (Steele and Aronson 1995; Jencks and Phillips 1998).

There's already a literature on this matter, finding that blacks earn significantly more per point of IQ than whites. Nothing to do with test inaccuracy. For example Nyborg & Jensen 2001, who write:

"This finding seems most easily explained as an effect of ``affirmative action,'' both in amount of education, especially beyond high school (which is related to job status) and in racially preferential employment policies." AA probably explains at least some of the male-female gap, as black women are twice as likely as black men to get a Bachelor's degree.

And another thing: the neighborhood thing blatantly contradicts a gazillion twin studies. They don't even bring that up! Surely if your work is in complete disagreement with an enormous, established body of academic work, you need to explain why that is?

I think the comment by Slocum (scroll up) is the key to making sense of this: The rates of regression to the mean for black men, black women and white women is basically the same. The outliers are white men, who are slower to regress to the mean. So the phenomenon that needs explaining is about white men. It won't do much good to speculate about black neighborhoods - or really any neighborhoods - when we're seeking the needed explanation. After all, white women live in the same neighborhoods as white men.

There is a lot of social pressure on white men to succeed, and no excuses nor support nor sympathy for failure. In fact, the SJWs would celebrate such failures as comeuppance.

White men also look out for white men.

White men regress to the means of White men about as fast. Slower regression would mean that poorer White men stay poorer relative to all White men, than poor Black men relative to all Black men.

The White male mean is simply higher, probably because of sexual division of labor, and tacit knowledge within the White male population about how to earn income, beyond what education provides.

I wouldn't think that explains it. Rather, it's that White women are more likely than White men to drop out of the workforce to have kids(remember that "wage gap" myth) and that drags down the White female average so that it looks like they are regressing more than White men. And Black men are much more likely to have criminal records, which further drags down their wages relative to those of Black women.

IQ is both environmental and genetic and the two are intertwined. The relationship between IQ and income is likely very non linear also, so that metric is poor.

A more likely possibility, the authors suggest, is that test scores don’t accurately measure the abilities of black children in the first place.

That seems unlikely, too, though. SAT scores are a strong predictor of success in higher education. If it weren't measuring the abilities of a particular group well, that would not be the case.

And the impact would only be on black boys, not on black girls. Even if it were a diabolical racist plot to keep black boys down, it would be pretty darn tough to design a test so that only black boys underperform.

Perhaps, but it does not mean it's inherent.

Also, if you believe that there is less payoff per amount effort, probably you will try less hard in school and get a lower score on standardized tests.

If you try less hard in school, you won't get very good grades and you won't advance very far, either, which will pair pretty well with your low test scores. Sorry, but that is not a rebuttal to the idea that test scores are good indicators of academic ability.

Trying less hard in school for 12 years would tend to affect academic ability.

Try this other thought out: we're talking in general here about the downward mobility in the children of upper class black folks. Do you really think they have this mindset that they can't hope to succeed because of institutional barriers, so they just give up. But their own black parents made it. These are kids who grew up with rich black parents, so they know it is possible. So while your contention that the kids just aren't trying very hard is at least plausible, the idea that it's because the kids don't expect to succeed due to racism does not.

Someone else proposed a networking effect, which certainly seems plausible.

I agree that the argument about effort is not likely to have strong relevance (if any) if focusing on the specific question addressed in the study.

I love how the "anti-racist" is positing that black men are just lazy???

Black girls ought to be in the same social network, though, as black boys, right?

Here in the Bay there is a non-profit called "Black Girls Code." On the website there is a page that says "Black Boys Code" is coming soon, but it's indicative of the paper that Black Boys Code came afterwards. I think it is probably easier to establish the girls version because boys are so rambunctious...especially when they don't have fathers at home. Still, boys wind up liking programming more than girls, so if they can get the behavior stuff under control I hope it will work.

One thing I think would help is making clear to black boys what jobs will likely make them money one day. Black boys get bombarded with the idea that the way to make it in life is through extreme long shots: music, athletics, politics, etc. They should impress on black boys that none of them are going to be pro athletes. Instead the opposite happens: schools delude black boys into wasting all their time on sports, to the glory of the institution. I hate the phrase "there's always a chance." Statistically there is no chance any given boy will be an athlete, and even if he becomes one he will very likely go bankrupt or get injured or get some terrible women pregnant.

Programming is a "profession" for losers.

Clearly you can tell that by looking at the list of the world's richest individuals.

welcome to reality: they're still losers.

sexy women don't date programmers.

So what? I perfer to suck black cock.

"welcome to reality: they’re still losers."

Not really. Women, or at least a large percentage of women, would throw themselves at any man who can throw around a sack of money.

Schools like things nice and ordered, and over the past generation this has become even more enforced. Just looking at high school graduation rates, boys have been seriously slumping for a long time.

Look at page 11 here. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_48.pdf Schools are built to satisfy the needs of white girls. The worst place to be a black boy is New York, with Wisconsin next. The best place to be a black boy is Oklahoma and Texas.

Amen to that! Schools are hostile environments for many boys. Sports and shop used to keep the high energy boys out of trouble. Both have been cut at many schools.

I'll wager that, upon closer inspection, the chief explanation for poor outcomes is steeping themselves in the baggy saggy pants, rapping, sports addicted, drug using, admiration for crime and violence stereotypes of Black urban subculture.

These things are already beginning to adversely affect young Asian men from good families who throw on this persona. Choices and behavior affect outcomes - imagine that.

Maybe in the 1990s/2000s. No young urban male really wears saggy baggy pants.

Kanye West brought in skinny jeans and now they're all constricted just like the rest of us. No more racial gap!

Can confirm Oakland is skinny jeans territory.

Re: No young urban male really wears saggy baggy pants.

I would suggest a visit to Baltimore where you would quickly be disabused of that notion.

The less well off ones still wear baggy pants. These are the ones that are obvious to stay away from. They live on the bad side of town and you'll move before sending your child to one of their schools. They get points for keeping it real. They are threatening to some because, relative to a SWPL, they have nothing to lose and are unpredictable/irrational. More of a physical, literal threat than a competitor for resources or opportunities.

The ones wearing skinny jeans and bow ties are participating in a rebranding of what being black (woke?) is. These are the ones you see in media, campus, and other places SWPLs would be. Over represented relative to their total numbers. They look and act nicer (whiter) so they are SWPL approved. Might help their test scores a bit, but not a whole lot. Definitely helps with getting a job and being culturally accepted. They get points for the effort to assimilate. Threatening because they do a pretty good job fitting in and are an attractive novelty, making them prime competitors for resources and opportunities.

You're about 20 years out of date old man. No body wears baggy pants any more outside of Fox news clips to scare oldsters like you.

I saw a black guy with saggy pants that didn’t fully cover his ass last week at Ross Dress for Less. I saw a different black gentleman wearing the same thing at Aldi a month ago. You’re full of shit.

Sorry, I see you just meant current young guys. I wish I could delete my comment.

I live in a black neighborhood and can confirm that saggy pants are still very popular.

There's some cluelessness with the rebuttals here. Baggy pants were very much in fashion from the 1990's to the mid 2000's. The cohort studied here is "The study, based on anonymous earnings and demographic data for virtually all Americans now in their late 30s,"

Which would mean this is precisely the cohort that wore baggy pants as teenagers.

I don't think "baggy pants" is really a benchmark. But I expect MR posters to be able to do basic math.

There was a white teen fashion called "phat pants" back around Y2K. That didn't last long. However low income urban males still wear saggy pants (at least in Baltimore wear I live).

Fully half of the difference vanishes in census areas where black men are in the same household as their kids, so you may not be far off.

Endogeneity, yo.

Maybe you should ask yourself why black youth are drawn to those things. Read Coates's memoir or watching The Wire might help.

This paper confounds cognitive and non-cognitive abilities. It is likely girls have different non-cognitive abilities than boys. Boys are also probably competing in more winner take all sectors where raw ability matters more than compliance.

I bet that this would not have a chance at publication if they could definitively show it was cognitive ability though. So being able to claim it wasn't IQ means this will get in a top journal.

right, that's the point. what would strauss say?

The term "racial bias" appears in the abstract. I was pleased to see they define it well in the text:

"We focus on two measures of racial bias. The first is a measure of implicit racial bias from implicit association tests (IAT), which measure the difference in a participant’s ability to match positive and negative words with black vs. white faces (Greenwald et al. 1998). We obtain mean IAT racial bias scores for white and black study participants (with higher values representing greater bias) at the county level from the Race Implicit Association Database. The second measure we use is the Racial Animus Index constructed by Stephens-Davidowitz (2014). This is a measure of explicit racial bias, based on the frequency of Google searches for racial epithets at the media market level, which are aggregations of counties."

I'm always curious about this topic, because it is widely believed that society is racist. Overall racist. You know there's some racists out there, but we don't really know who they are unless they out themselves on Duck Dynasty. And then a lot of people are even subconsciously racist. So we live in sort of a crypto-racist country, where hiring managers at large companies claim not to be racist. If you look at them individually, they appear not to be racist. But taken as a whole they're obviously racist because minorities just can't get ahead.

So can we observe racism directly? Apparently not. We're left with inferring that subconscious associations about blacks mean you're racist. You know the obvious extension of this study is to take some people you definitely know AREN'T racist, and have them take the test. Another obvious extension is to use IAT on green squares and red triangles to see if we can tease out shapism at the same p-value.

And if you google the N word, you're obviously racist. But who does this? What kinds of useful things can a racist find by googling the N word? As far as I know you would find a lot of gangster rap, which presumably anti-black people are not googling. I'm also not exactly well-versed in the most toxic forms of white supremacy, but as far as I know the HBD crowd don't drop N-bombs gratuitously.

"You know the obvious extension of this study is to take some people you definitely know AREN’T racist, and have them take the test."

You can never be sure that someone is not a witch.

“You know the obvious extension of this study is to take some people you definitely know AREN’T racist, and have them take the test.”

But racism is systemic. Endemic and systemic. So those alleged non-racists you are talking about finding are simply going to be racists who have internalized the dominant ideology in a different way. Because systemic.

+1 LoL. It's sooooo powerful and omnipresent we scientists can't detect it. It's like the Luminous Aether.

Seriously, why does anyone care what the IAT "shows"?
It fails every standard of valuable science. Among the most egregious:
Doesn't predict behavior.
Very weak correlation between different scores for same individual.

The paper's conclusion is also overly broad. It confuses average and marginal effects. Holding income constant ignores the fact that blacks are more likely to have issues that will lower their income in the lower classes -- crime for men and early pregnancy for women.

"and early pregnancy for women."

Black women do better than white women when looking at the NYT's charts.

Fits with the theory that white people are crazy, and work even when they do not have to. They waste their youth studying only to get well paid but boring jobs like account or most engineering jobs. Were blacks have a more sensible view of life. You go for it in sports and music and enjoy the journey whether you make it or not.

Why make so much money? You can only enjoy one room in a house at a time. A cheap cars gets you there almost as good as an expensive one.

Specially when you get that sweet white male money via taxes anyway

This is the old culture of living slowly. Today the young ones feel powerless. They overcompensate by being overtly "masculine".

Imagine a white guy with steroid biceps, open carry and camo pants. This guy does not fit almost anywhere. Unless this example guy finds a niche (gym, coaching, training) he'll be poor. Same for young blacks: posture, voice and clothing to signal raw masculinity to fill that power void. Powerless guys want to be feared and they are truly feared by society, to the point very few people want to deal with them. The lesson may be.......careful with what you wish for.

You have a point about Black boys wanting to be feared, but when you're obviously a target for the State and private actors to control your behavior, why appeal weak?

Appearance or results, choose one.

Women don't marry men with low income/potential. Since many women still want to have kids, it means lots of kids without fathers.

Maybe you think that's just fine.

Real wages were lower in the 1950s, and yet 95% of children were born within wedlock.

Ah, MR. Where 50 comments say variations of "ignore this data, my racism is justified by biased premises, my unchanging priors."

Did you even bother reading the comments? Or is your analysis completely free of any actual data, that might taint its underlying truth?

Yes I did. Everyone dumping their priors all over the page and basically no one grapling with the strong implication that racist expectations shape the outcome.

The study doesn't conclude racism. Indeed, since the data indicates that black women are performing nearly identical to white women, it indicates that racism is not the determining factor.

"Everyone dumping their priors all over the page"

Congratulations, you manage to commit the same error that you accuse others of committing. Usually posters make this mistake in different posts, but you tied it all together nicely.

That is dumb. Impossibly so.

You have no intuition of how racism might interact with expectations by gender?

Even without it, all you have to do is read the racist priors above, about "black males."

"You have no intuition" Glad you decided to out yourself on how you come to your conclusions.

I'm not necessarily saying that racism is the issue, but it could be that black women do better than black men for several fairly obvious reasons:
1) Black women are less threatening
2) Black women are more sexually attractive to white men, who are more often in control of the hiring decisions
3) Hiring a black woman allows the HR department to check both a "minority" and "female" box at the same time.

From the article, TMC

“One of the most popular liberal post-racial ideas is the idea that the fundamental problem is class and not race, and clearly this study explodes that idea,” said Ibram Kendi, a professor and director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University. “But for whatever reason, we’re unwilling to stare racism in the face.”

I am not sure why Tyler clipped that quote above.

Even without it, all you have to do is read the racist priors above, about “black males.”

If you download the full paper, it uses the term 'black male' no less than 42 times.

Yup, I even quoted that exact thing above. All we learn from that is that the data from this study says it's not racism, so, of course, it's racism.

The very fact that it's black men rather than black women suggests that the intersectional prior assumption weighs more heavily on the gender side than on the race side.

That could be the result of toxic black male masculinity intersecting with the war against boys by the feminists, etc. having a more negative impact on black boys.

It is possible that, in aggregate (on average), racism is not negatively affecting black women as compared to white women, whereas it DOES have a negative impact on black men.

What other explanation might there be?

I'm just going to throw this out there and say that, realistically, yeah, black men are more affected by racism than black women, because men, especially young men, are just seen as more threatening and less compliant. And thus black men as seen a way more of a risk than black women. A black woman is potentially an obedient worker, but a black man is always going to chafe at being ordered around.

I'm also going to posit that white culture trains boys to fit into a dominance hierarchy in a way that doesn't work as well across racial lines. The testosterone-driven dynamics by which men settle into a hierarchical social order of alphas and betas does not sit well when all the "alpha" is a different racial group than the "beta".

Personal observation - men in general, both whites and blacks, get testy when interacting with the police. Many men, of all races, do not like submitting to another person's authority - way more than women. I suspect that when black men interact with white police officers that dynamic gets dramatically amplified, due to the combined effects of normal male discomfort with submitting to authority, and racial distrust.

"But a black man is always going to chafe at being ordered around. "

Only if I don't fit the chains right! Oops, sorry!

Racist expectations by whom?

An entire society, with text and subtext.

Which strangely doesn't affect Hispanics or Asians:

White children born to parents at the 25th percentile of the income distribution reach the 45th percentile on average, while those born to parents at the 75th percentile reach the
60th percentile. Hispanic children with parents at the 25th and 75th percentiles reach the 43rd and 54th percentiles, respectively. Hence, the intergenerational gap between Hispanics and whites is 2 percentiles at the 25th percentile and 6 percentiles at the 75th percentile. Because of these modest intergenerational gaps, Hispanic Americans are moving up significantly in the income distribution across generations.
...
Asian children with parents at the 25th and 75th percentiles reach the 56th and 64th percentiles on average, respectively. Restricting the sample to Asians whose mothers were born in the U.S., we find intergenerational gaps between Asians and whites of approximately 2 percentiles on average across the parental income distribution. The changing patterns of intergenerational mobility for Asians make it more difficult to predict the trajectory of their incomes, but Asians appear likely to remain at income levels comparable to or above white Americans in the long run.

Jeff, whatever gave you the idea that prejudice would be uniform, consistent, or "rationally" applied?

Shouldn't we actually expect a mess of outcomes growing from a mess of expectations?

(Here are you are doing that million dollar contradiction. You are asking us to ignore the varied acceptance/prejudice among and toward various groups, and demanding a uniform outcome.)

Tribalism creates ingroups and outgroups. Maybe this doesn't manifest itself equally, but if you're operating under the assumption that America Is A Big Ol' Racist Hive of Racism, and some of that racism is directed at Hispanics and Asians (which I assure you it is), but they, along with black women, remain largely unaffected by it in their economic prospects, at least over generations-long time periods, then...maybe that initial assumption isn't quite the whole story?

Jeff, one bit above is "the idea that black men are low IQ and violent is pretty much consistent with both arrest rates and incarceration rates as well as dropout rates."

In what way am I "assuming" that racist expectations exit?

Or is your (million dollar contradiction) idea that "black men" should overcome that fluidly, if it isn't true?

Not this post but a few down, interesting how in normal human discourse among intelligent people ad hominem argumentation may begin after five or ten rounds while on the internet it starts after one round

There are a lot of posters (from every side) who default to ad hominem, straw men, sock puppeting, motive attribution, etc. Since MR lacks even basic login security, this sight is worse than most in several of those categories. Still there are still quite a few observant and smart posters who create a significant amount of thoughtful posts.

Nobody said to ignore the data. We're the one's pointing out what the authors ignored, the effect of marriage and differential crime rates.

Or the always good "my racism is justified because look how blacks do in a world free of racism!"

There's no racism anymore Anonymous. We banned it in the 60s.

The million-dollar irony on every Marginal Revolution race page, is that the racists tag-team with the people who say "see there is no racism!" They do this without internal discord, because they see themselves on the same side.

And the lack of racism in the outcomes totally justifies judging people by the statistical average for their racial group. Look man, if there's no racism, then it should be totally cool for me to assume that black men are idiots and criminals and bar them from my establishment!

"judging people by the statistical average for their racial group" Isn't that the final claim that racism is still relevant in hiring? Disparate impact?

I think everyone is a little racist, sexist or whatever down deep, so it'll never go away. But we've done a pretty good job of removing racism from white culture over the past 50 years.

How about we start on all the non white racism that still stays strong? It's almost like equality isn't really the goal here.

Isn’t that the final claim that racism is still relevant in hiring? Disparate impact?

"Disparate impact" is not the same thing as prejudice based on statistical discrimination.
When someone cites "disparate impact" what they are saying is that a policy is racist if, regardless of intent, it has a disproportionately negative impact on minority groups.
Prejudice resulting from statistical discrimination is essentially just prejudice dressed up in nicer sounding language. It means your judging individuals by their group averages, rather than by their individual merits. Aside from the fact that people deserve to be judged in their own merits, the fact is you can define the groups that you are doing the averages over any way you want, and so categorize individuals into a "good" group or a "bad" group more or less arbitrarily. For instance, if I decided that the relevant statistical grouping was "sports fans" vs. "non sports fans", I might find that sports fans are on average stupider than non sports fans, and then I could use sports fandom as a stand in for intelligence and just decide not to hire sports fans. This is effectively the same thing as deciding not to hire black people based on the notion that black people are on average less intelligent.

I don't think anyone will get away from using statistical discrimination for an immediate classification on how much to scrutinize someone. There is that famous Jesse Jackson quote about black men on the street. I completely agree the only decision should be about their individual merits, but AA is counter to that.

I don't think society is inherently racist against blacks. No one would care if blacks got ahead by studying hard and avoiding crime.

Look man, if there’s no racism, then it should be totally cool for me to assume that black men are idiots and criminals and bar them from my establishment!

If there's no racism you'd go out and create it? ok... that's dumb even for you.

@Hazel

Statistical discrimination is the first mark of sanity.

If you had world enough and time, then sure, gather all the data on someone or something to support the decision. But 99.9% of you decisions IRL you don't have exhaustive data, can't get the exhaustive data, and would be mad to even spend the effort trying.

So you must use a heuristic based on the information you do have. And if that's only sex and skin colour....

@Careless, I'm doing a parody of the basic argument of some of the alt-right commenters around here.
They're basically arguing that worse outcomes for blacks are totally not caused by discrimination, but by the criminality and/or lower intelligence of blacks, and that therefore, it should be okay to discriminate against blacks. You saw the circular reasoning inherent in that.

@Alistair

I've heard you note before that the value of the heuristic is only good insofar as it's the only information you have. As soon as you have additional information to go on, the value of the heuristic drops to zero.
So how hard is it to find out a little additional information?
If the heuristic is based not on personal observation but on social stereotypes passed on from others, how certain can you be of it's accuracy? Sometimes, it pays to give people a chance to prove the stereotype wrong.

That is not what a parody is. At all. Not even vaguely in the right direction.

"Poor"? "Wealthy"? By an expansive definition, perhaps 45% of the population might qualify as 'poor' (in the sense that they have little net worth and their job is no better than semi-skilled). By an expansive definition (e.g. the self-evaluation of people given options of 'propertied', 'middle' and 'working'), about 5% of the population might qualify as 'wealthy'. More precise definitions might put these shares at 25% and 2.5% respectively. Evidently no one else interests Mr. Chetty.

If Chetty got the data from the government, shouldn't all citizens be allowed to see the data itself?

woah wait i think we can, cool.

I wonder how much extended family matters.

Downward Mobility from the Middle Class: Waking up from the American Dream
by Gregory Acs

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/24856/1001603-downward-mobility-from-the-middle-class-waking-up-from-the-american-dream.pdf

QUOTE: Black men raised in middle-class families are 17 percentage points more likely to be downwardly mobile than are white men raised in the middle. Taking into account a range of personal and background characteristics--such as father's occupational status, individual educational attainment and marital status--reduces this gap, but still leaves a sizable portion unexplained. However, taking into account differences in AFQT scores between middle-class white and black men reduces the gap until it is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

Upward Intergenerational Economic Mobility in the United States
by Dr. Bhashkar Mazumder

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/empreportsupward20intergen20mobility2008530pdf.pdf

QUOTE: Perhaps the most stunning finding is that once one accounts for the AFQT score, the entire racial gap in mobility is eliminated for a broad portion of the distribution. At the very bottom and in the top half of the distribution a small gap remains, but it is not statistically significant. The differences in the top half of the AFQT distribution are particularly misleading because there are very few blacks in the NLSY with AFQT scores this high.

Oddly enough, the Acs paper does not mention The Bell Curve. The Mazumdar paper does mention The Bell Curve, dishonestly.

MAZUMDAR QUOTE: Despite the fact that the AFQT is viewed by the military and most social scientists as a straightforward measure of academic skills, it is important to note that Richard
Herrnstein and Charles Murray in their controversial 1994 book, The Bell Curve, chose to interpret AFQT scores as a measure of "general intelligence" that is genetically transmitted. A growing number of studies, however, have rejected the interpretation that AFQT scores are unaffected by environmental factors such as years of schooling and experience.

Appendix 3 of The Bell Curve has a table "The Independent Effect of Education on AFQT Scores as Inferred from Earlier IQ Tests". The table is described as showing that "...the independent effect of education is to increase the AFQT score by .07 standard deviation, or the equivalent of about one IQ point per year-also in line with other analyses". Mazumder's insinuation that The Bell Curve makes the claim that "AFQT scores are unaffected by environmental factors such as years of schooling and experience" is thoroughly dishonest.

I forgot to mention that, just like (earlier) The Bell Curve book, the papers by Acs and Mazumdar are based on National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data.

You seem to be operating on the premise that if something is easy to use, that therefore it should be preferred over other methods.

If you literally want to filter out everyone who can't read and write because it's not your job to teach them to read and write (for example, it is not the job of the military to teach people to read and write), using a simple test can make sense.

Similarly, the normal distribution (Bell curve) is one of the simplest concepts in statistics.

Just because it is economical or simple to use for some particular purpose does not imply that it is accurate.

Troll Me:

"Just because it is economical or simple to use for some particular purpose does not imply that it is accurate."

And just because something is economical or simple to use for some particular purpose does not imply that it is not accurate.

The black mean score on the AFQT is about one SD lower than the non-Hispanic white mean. In the US, the black mean score on just about any large-scale test of reasoning ability is about one SD lower than the non-Hispanic white mean. This fact is known as the Fundamental Law of American Sociology, and it's worth keeping in mind when considering things like intergenerational economic mobility.

A fact like that cannot be refuted. However, I'm not inclined to think that genetic explanations are more than marginally relevant, if at all.

And I stick to that argument even in the face of the reality that I can easily observe the differential gene expressions causing some groups to have relatively high skin melanin compared to others. The causal explanation from the evolutionary perspective is relatively straightforward. I'll separate it into 2 parts: A) how white people got white and B) how black people got (or stayed) black.

A) How back people got black. 1) The blackenning factor: Without skin melanin, it's more likely to get skin cancer when exposed to a lot of sun. Therefore there is a strong selection effect against lighter-skinned people, who will more often get skin cancer and die as a result of it. This is the same as saying that there is a strong selection factor in favour of darker skin in tropical climes. 2) No whitening factor: And, with lots of exposure to sun, there is lots of vitamin D production even with dark skin.

B) How white people got white. 1) The whitening factor: In northern climes, for much of the year there is not much exposure to sun, not only because you're covered up, but also because the angle of incidence to sun rays is less direct. Both of these cause to have less vitamin D production. This leads to cancer (and other problems), which is the same as having rapid selection effects against darker people in northern climes. (So blacks living in the north should take vitamin D supplements, which are extremely cheap). 2) Less blackening factor: Because there is less exposure to sun at levels that cause skin cancer, pressures toward darker skin which exist in tropical climes would be much much weaker.

The relevance is that all of this can happen without necessarily implying that the easily-observed genetic difference or descendancy would result in genetically determined difference in intelligence. (However, it is statistically unlikely that all groups would have identical statistical distributions regarding all neurological characteristics. However however, it is also unlikely that such differential distributions would be easily discernible from 0 average difference if all cultural factors were equal.)

What can you own theorizing tell us about how winter affected natural selection after 50,000 or so generations?

Thomas, if you're going to say something say it.

Cultural transmission (i.e., unrelated to genetics) is a perfectly reasonable explanation for what you want to say.

Also, it may be relevant that trade relations bring exchange of knowledge, and Northern Europeans traded a lot of water, which brought them into contact with yet more trade and thus yet more knowledge. In addition to many other arguments that I'm sure you're equally prepared to ignore as the last time.

trade a lot over water

Calvin, Thanks for the links, they explain the situation much clearer than Chetty's.

After reading the Chetty paper the issue is that black males raised without fathers in poor neighborhoods with few fathers as role models tend relatively (in comparison to whites and especially Asians) to not graduate high school, to not go to college, to not be employed, to work fewer hours, to not marry (one third white marriage rate), and to commit crimes (5X White rate and 15X Asian rate of incarceration).

The chart on income and outcomes by race is especially fascinating when you look, not at the black column but the Asians, with incomes substantially higher than whites, as well as higher educational attainment, higher rates of employment and more hours worked per week. Who’d a thunk?

Not shown here, but clarified in your links is that when compared to whites and adjusted for parent’s income and AFQT score (an imperfect measure of intelligence) there is virtually no difference in mobility.

Assuming we can’t do much about AFQT or whatever it measures, this leads to the totally obvious conclusion that blacks should graduate high school, try to go to college, get and stay married, not have kids outside of marriage, get a job and work as many hours as necessary and to not commit crimes. The other conclusion is that they should also try to move away from poor black areas.

As someone with a young black male grandson in high school now, this is very good to know. My primary concern is with his neighborhood, school and potential peers (he is brilliant and unlike the vast majority of black kids has a loving dad).

Was the part about Asian Americans supposed to be sarcasm ( as in it is obvious that Asian Americans would be the most successful racial/ethnic group in the US tracked in these sorts of studies)?

Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in their controversial 1994 book, The Bell Curve, chose to interpret AFQT scores as a measure of “general intelligence” that is genetically transmitted. A growing number of studies, however, have rejected the interpretation that AFQT scores are unaffected by environmental factors such as years of schooling and experience.

Can you imagine being Murray and having people lie about you almost every time you're mentioned in this manner?

When you see how easily it happened, it makes you wonder about all the researchers famous enough to be slandered but not famous enough to clear their own name.

"Downward Mobility from the Middle Class: Waking up from the American Dream by Gregory "

I thought of Gregory Hood.

"a society that views black boys differently from white boys, and even from black girls."

Society or themselves? Do any of these guys self-describes as average? Ironically, the low income people always self-describes as great at many things.

Tyler sure gets great intellectual luminaries like this one. First, read the definition of irony. Second, the way a society sees people also changes their behavior and expectations of themselves. Just like women were taught to lower their expectations and that they are to blame when they get raped.

What I get out of the study is that we need a lot more studies, and that many comfortable views that appear useful, like American ideas of people getting out of life what they put in, are further from reality than we'd like to admit.

ironically adverb us ​ /ɑɪˈrɑn·ɪk·li/ in a way that is different or opposite from the result you would expect.

some people is overconfident on their skills and expect riches, the outcome is zero or negative. if ironic has a different meaning in a local dialect it's fine, don't push the dialect rule on english.

"Just like women were taught to lower their expectations"

Is that why your mom married a loser? To be serious, the message of society is the exact opposite. It makes sense, with high expectations, there will be more women who hold out for the men who meet them. As the supply of these men is perfectly inelastic, it results in lots of bitter single broads available for feminist recruitment.

Probably a lot of low income people are great at a lot of things. If I had to guess, the things they are great at do not tend to create profits for corporations that employ people in the year 2018, and this is part of the reason that they do not have higher income.

Probably some of them are deluded about how great they are too ... but probably that's not a problem.

Probably a lot of low income people are great at a lot of things. If I had to guess, the things they are great at do not tend to create profits for corporations that employ people in the year 2018, and this is part of the reason that they do not have higher income.

I don't think you'll find good trade skills among low income people in this generation. Go back about 3 generations. People with good trade skills tend to be out earning a satisfactory living.

Consider the hypothesis that affirmative action benefits are accruing mainly to black women at the expense of black men. After all, black women count as both minorities and women so one can understand why race and gender conscious admissions officers and hiring managers might favor them over black men. Observations (from non-technical summary) consistent with this crowding out hypothesis:

Finding #2: Black-white income gap driven entirely by men's outcomes. Black women earn more than white women conditional on parent income.

Finding #3: "black women have outcomes comparable to white women conditional on parental income despite having much lower test scores" but not true for black men vs. white men.

I'm not saying that this crowding out hypothesis is true but just wondering whether any observations in the authors' findings contradict it.

That's a surprising result. I wonder what causes it. My first guess is that black males are victims of toxic masculinity.

Toxic masculinity is a diffuse term. But, narcissistic personality disorder rates are higher among black males https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18557663

It is possible that white psychiatrists are disproportionately likely to be offended by a black guy expressing confidence.

For example, the guy could just be having fun making grand claims about himself, and even when in a scheduled meeting with a psychiatrist refuses to be told that he must recant on the claims, with the result of a diagnosis as opposed to the more appropriate raised eyebrows or good hearted laugh.

It is possible that white psychiatrists are disproportionately likely to be offended by a black guy expressing confidence.

I gather the psychiatrists who've picked over you didn't make much of an impression on you.

You don't seem interested in directly confronting the extreme likelihood that that would explain at least part of the observed difference in average frequency of diagnosis.

You don’t seem interested in directly confronting the extreme likelihood

It's an 'extreme likelihood' only in the lint-infested space between your ears, Nathan. Real mental health professionals find most of their charges a bore, aren't emotionally invested one way or another, and just want to give 'em a scrip, get 'em out of there, and see if they can make a clean claim of it. The idea they're 'offended' by Tyrone's B.S. is a fantasy of your.

Perhaps there is a more appropriate word to replace the one that you focused on.

Wow. What a bizarre comment.

You're running out of straws to grasp.

For those who are curious and don't want to find away around the paywall while the actual numbers are not in the abstract:

Table one indicates that the Male/Female rates are:

White 6.8%/3.3%
Black 13.6%/11.6%

The thing that makes me kind of question this study is that it shows 20-29 as having a wildly larger rate than 65+ (9.4 vs 3.2). Thus implying that either there is something wildly wrong with young people or that the clinical definition of NPD is something you can grow out of.

I'd wager some of both. Less synthetic phenomena are known to have cohort-to-cohort variation in their prevalence (consider the shift toward the young in the propensity to commit suicide that happened between 1955 and 1980). My parents contemporaries were often baffled by the problems in living some of the young were having ca. 1975; I don't think this replicates the disposition of their parents ca. 1945.

Young people is more impulsive than older ones. I think most of us agree on that point. The clinical definition on NPD today may be "wrong", but the "thing" psychologists are trying to describe is real and quantifiable.

In general, there is much less generational transfer of wealth in Black families. Only about 7% of Blacks benefit from an inheritance vs. 36% for whites. In part, because they invest differently. If you look at Blacks and whites earning $365,000 their portfolios are very different. Blacks are more conservative investors who avoid stocks and bonds and prefer CDs, life insurance, and real estate. Blacks and whites with comparable incomes have very different net worths.

There is a big difference in business assets.

Wealthy black Americans are less likely to hold equity in business assets. Looking at this group’s non-financial assets, 9% are equity in business assets. That figure is 37% for comparably wealthy whites. The numbers are similarly stark if you look at this as a percentage of total assets: 21% of the wealthy whites’ total assets are invested in their own businesses, versus just 6% for wealthy blacks. Because both groups are equally likely to run their own companies – 23% in both cases – the researchers calculate that this means white business owners are investing in their businesses at a rate 7 times higher than black business owners. In raw dollar terms, it means that black business owners have about $68k in their businesses, while white business owners have roughly $468k.

https://hbr.org/2015/02/how-americas-wealthiest-black-families-invest-money

Blacks may need to borrow more to start their businesses. They may have fewer friends and relatives who can invest. Or perhaps they are more often the beneficiaries of programs to start minority businesses.

Bottom line, they have a lower net worth, than whites with comparable incomes, and have fewer assets to pass to the next generation. Black businesses may not have enough reserve capital to survive difficult periods. With less of a cushion, adverse life events will have a more significant impact on the next generation.

This is a partial explanation for why Black families may see generational drops in income. As for the gender issue. I don't know if Black sons are more likely to inherit the family business and the risks that involves

The article is about a subgroup (those with higher income parents), not the entire group, so referring to averages of the entire group is not the correct point of comparison.

I guess that is why I wrote. "This is a partial explanation for why Black families may see generational drops in income.

And that was in response to Tyler's first sentence "White boys who grow up rich are likely to remain that way. Black boys raised at the top, however, are more likely to become poor than to stay wealthy in their own adult households…"

I see now that you bring up an interesting point.

I really surprised by this finding but I think a lot of the residue racism and activity is generation diminishing. Simply put we are measuring the kids growing up in the 1970s through 1990s where the African-Americans faced 'residual racism' by the community. (By residue meaning they are softly discriminated against.) So I do believe this does turn around and in fact I believe the WWC in Rust Belt are not the ones receiving this treatment.:

1) Some of this could be the Jordan Peterson idea that African-American were not as accepted in Middle/Upper class society and treated differently.

2) African-American had more kids than White or Asian-American families so that diminishes the time and money spent on them.

3) There was probably harshest treatment by law enforcement. (They arrest the African-American teenager with pot while looking away for white teenagers.)

4) African-American people are not as assorted mating as white populations.

5) There might have been some past racial politics that hurt the middle class African-Americans in the 1980s and 1990s. There were a lot calls that a well behaved African-Americans were 'white' back in the day.

I read that mid income blacks r likelier to live in poor areas than poor whites are. Every job i have had i got by being plugged into a network / subculture, referral by a friend, or by emulating a close friend or family member. Black dudes seem to have lousier networks

Give the USPS test at low-quality schools? More trade schooling? Permit more homebuilding? Build nj / NY tunnel? Lowr status of low-$ROI uni diplomas? Make MD, JD obtention shorter or less legally obligatory?

Being wealthy is hard: I know I can't

"Wealthy black Americans are less likely to hold equity in business assets."

I'll bet they are more likely to hold equity in fancy clothing and cars, though.

That was a reply to DanC.

What a stupid racist comment

Actually, that's been discussed on this very blog before:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/09/politically-i-1.html

Ok, poor people, especially some minorities, may use some purchases as status symbols. My post was about wealthy Blacks and how net worth affects generational transfers.

I will stand corrected that the desire to own something that others might desire is a human drive. For the poor, that may limit them to flashy clothes. You can see some of the same tendency amongst soccer moms in upper-income white suburbs. Look, you will see signaling in jewelry, hairstyles, nails, snacks, etc.

There's probably data on how much higher income groups spend on conspicuous consumption, broken down by race/ethnicity. Instead of just namecalling, maybe you could find it and just refute Calvin's post, then call him racist?

I'm sorry. The tone of a comment like "I’ll bet they are more likely to hold equity in fancy clothing and cars, though" is racist.

It may not have been his intent; I don't know. But perhaps if he had fleshed out the comment, ambiguity and misinterpretation could be removed.

Next, you can read that I did not call him a racist, I said the comment was racist. Telling someone that you think the criticism goes too far, is insensitive or even racist, is not the same as calling someone a racist. It is telling them that they should rethink what they said or clarify. If it was an attempt at humor, I didn't find it funny. If it was trying to make a point, his point is poorly expressed.

Lastly, what I was posting about was about wealthy Blacks and the difficulties of transferring wealth across generations, as a possible reason for a drop in incomes in the children of wealthy Blacks. That has little to do with the linked earlier discussion about poor people signaling through their consumption. The link is not related to what I was arguing; it was tangential at best.

But if you want to defend the comment go ahead.

I've never understood this mentality. Higher levels of consumption/income in the black culture than in the white culture both fits with mine and probably everyone else's lived experience, and apparently, based on the link above, the data. So something which is both intuitive and factual is "stupid racist". This is the denial of reality on the left. Why be like this? Are you so sensitive to being called racist (and you are a racist, see implicit bias), that you would rather we operate the world based on false information that perpetuates racism than true information that might help us address it? So sad. Also, why does the group which alleges that culture (or "society") can inform racism, so often reticent to even consider that culture can inform consumption and saving patterns. Even looking at it from an assumed black perspective - you are looked down on, people assume you have lower income than you do and less wealth than you do, in response you make purchases of flashy, conspicuous items that advertise your success. Isn't this same concern with appearance what lead Mark Zuckerberg to famous wear pajamas to a VC meeting - to make a show of his lack of need of VC approval and assistance? Isn't this the same thing that leads some to wear $5,000 pointy leather shoes in Manhattan?

The group that I was referring to, older, established, Blacks making $365,000 a year with 23% owning their own business have little in common with the groups studied in the paper Conspicuous Consumption and Race. Except they are all dark-skinned.

The authors of the paper might like to explain all those people in the suburbs wearing pricey North Face jackets. They also ignore housing consumption. Many non-minorities signal their conspicuous consumption in the form of McMansions and designer jean educations. How has massive student debt and a period of foreclosures worked out with that consumption pattern? Not to mention that half of all Americans have no retirement savings.

So while minorities may be doing conspicuous consumption, as defined by this study, it would appear that there is a whole lot of consuming gone on that falls outside of their definition of conspicuous. I guess there is an awful lot of inconspicuous consuming going on with those white folks in the suburbs. Thank goodness they aren't trying to keep up with each other.

I don't like the study. The authors build up a definition for conspicuous consumption that fits their biases. Go to any local high school in the country, and you will see pressure to consume products that fit the social norms of that group. And in many cases you will find parents making sacrifices and adjusting spending to meet that social norm. I could publish a paper titled Conspicuous Consumption and Suburban Peer pressure. Tweak some definitions and get similar results while ignoring race.

Poor people want to feel like they aren't poor. They buy things that give them pleasure. Some groups with a higher income buy a different set of more expensive status symbols: shocking! But members of the higher income group doing the study see their status symbols as necessary and proper while the status symbols of the poor are evil. Either way, they are both buying a lot of crap.

"Blacks making $365,000 a year with 23% owning their own business have little in common with the groups studied in the paper Conspicuous Consumption and Race. Except they are all dark-skinned."

I don't think they'd say that if asked.

Read the study and get back to me.

It's a flip comment, but if you doubt its accuracy, your head is deeper in the sand than that of any "racist" you'll point out. Do you observe the world around you? Are there black people there?

https://t.co/8bx8pTTe6L

"What a stupid racist comment"

Is it racist if it's true? In some contexts, perhaps, but not this one. You can't start of generalizing about races and then object to an on topic generalization!

If you want to give a counter-example, you could mention that whites aren't having children at replacement rates so many are only passing down wealth a few generations before family extinction.

Where did I attempt to generalize? Where did I attempt to make moral judgements? I don’t see the need for government interventions to correct a perceived market failure. Nor do I like paternalistic posturing about the choices others take. If society is creating through government action counterproductive actions, ie people responding to poorly thought out government incentives then stop the government. If a group of poor people like to spend more on shoes then you think is moral, get over yourself,

Instead look at why blacks have lower net worth, even if they have high incomes. Why because they are more conservative investors and they tend to have lower reserves in the companies they own. Their life experiences may shape those preferences but it is hardly a call for government action.

I attempted to show that the explanation for some blacks not successfully passing wealth to the next generation is not automatically a call for government action. There is a non-racist, less paternalistic explanation for why this can occur.

"Where did I attempt to make moral judgements?"

At this point: "DanC - What a stupid racist comment."

Oh I thought Morris was referring to my earlier post . Oh wait he was.

It would be interesting to do this analysis on household rather than individual income. Household income is more relevant to one’s standard of living because income within the household is typically shared. There are summary statistics of household vs. individual income in the paper, and the two main conclusions are that racial gaps are much larger at the household than individual level (the median white man’s individual income is only 2x higher than the median black man’s, but his household income is 3x higher, and the median white woman’s individual income is only about 30% higher than the median black woman’s, but her household income is 2.5x higher) and that women have noticeably higher household incomes than men—especially among blacks and Asians, who are otherwise at opposite ends of the income spectrum.

The analysis you're looking for is reported in online appendix figure 4. White women have a lot higher household income than black women whose parents had the same income level. This suggests that the male-female discrepancy in the results is simply due to the man being the breadwinner in white families and the woman in black families.

Just got to this part:
"We find significantly smaller black-white intergenerational gaps in individual income, of
approximately 5 percentiles instead of 13 percentiles."

So most of the difference is just a difference marriage preference. They made it seem a lot worse than it is by focusing on household income

A lot of confusion seems to arise from showing household income rank for parents, but individual income for kids. I see the paper has a household-to-household chart, but I'd like to see one split by gender.

They are alleging a very specific racism.

Not against Hispanics, Asians or black females.

Before I believe this, I would want to at least inquire about the attitudes (work ethic vs blaming any failure on racism/privilege) the families manage (or don't manage) to pass on to their offspring, because I believe those are the real cause of success or failure. If a black youngster from a rich household goes to public school, he is very likely to gravitate toward black peers who hold to the failure-causing attitudes and demand that he follow them too.

For what it's worth, like collin I see the problem as diminishing. Indeed, Soros and NAACP seem to have invented the new nonsense of "white privilege" and "using merit is racism" in a desperate attempt to keep race-hate alive because if it dies, they become redundant.

Even with racism, this could be relevant.

There is a risk that the presence of racism could serve as a scapegoat that would prevent a higher share from acknowledging what acts they could directly take to earn higher income. Of course, that would involve an assumption similar to saying that earning higher income is the only objective one should have in life ...

Have they done any international comparisons ?

This "black-white" race thing is a feature of American society. Other countries are different (in countries like China, UK, France, Japan or Germany all people that are not ethnically local are foreigners and so it's about xenophobia rather than race, while other multi-ethnic countries like Brazil are so mixed that they don't have a "black-white" divide) and so the scope for international comparison is extremely reduced.

There are the Aborigines in Australia and "First Nations" in Canada.

According to the Son Also RIses, success is largely a function of intelligence and intelligence is largely inherited -- so long as good marriages are made. But if the initial success were a function of race preferences, then this rule would not work. Admission to the special testing high schools in NYC are entirely based on a single exam that is graded blindly. According to Thomas Sowell, in 1980, the black population at Stuyvesant, the preeminent special testing high school, was 12%, about equal to the representation of blacks in the general population. Now blacks make up around 1% of that school's population. Could be that with the immigration of the smart and poor Asians admission is harder. Could be that as Amy Wax has observed African-American culture is a hindrance to academic success. Dubious that American society today is more racist than it was in 1980 and that explains the poor showing of African-Americans on the exam.

In Brazil if you are poor you are "black" if you are rich you are "white". That is, race is a product of class. Genetically, about 90% of Brazilians are mixed Afro-Europeans but higher income mixed Brazilians regard themselves as white while lower income mixed Brazilians regard themselves as black.

Now, when talking about "race" I guess that the main issue is the US's obsession with racial segregation: racism will cease to be a problem when people stop being divided by "race". Hence, studies that focus on race are perpetuating racism by reproducing the social construct that is race.

Generally I would say the U.S. got less race-conscious through the early 2000's, with "color-blind" being a goal (see Martin Luther King). However, the script has flipped and now the "anti-racists" are very adamant that color-blindness is itself racist and that racial identity is critical at all times, so the U.S. is becoming a more racial society.

That study could be used for evidence of sexism as well as racism: if white men make more money than black men because they have better skills then white women should make more money than black women. However, women are all placed in dead end jobs like being a secretary and so are not given the opportunity to use their potential skills, which flattens out the wages of all women which eliminates the racial gap in female income.

That's not actually true though

I wonder if part of this is a sort of racial sorting in college. And my guess is it'll only get worse with college segregation making a comeback...

When I walk around Stanford, which isn't far from where I live, I often see groups of young guys walking around in groups. You see groups of white, Indian, and East Asian guys walking together, and groups of Blacks by themselves. Stanford seems to actually promote this sort of segregation with black dorms, black clubs, and black-only graduation ceremonies.

But as anyone knows, you make many of your most useful connections in college, especially if you're from a "sorta-rich" family and manage to go to a place like Stanford (or Harvard, Yale, etc). The Black guys likely don't have a lot of white (or Indian or East Asian) connections from college, and won't be able to leverage them in their careers.

And Stanford's policies of de facto segregation - however nicely "motivated" - won't help matters.

It really bothers me when authors blindly control for income. As if that just equalizes the two groups and all other differences must be due to racism (which is only given the weakest of attempts to measure).

Obviously income alone has no explanatory power, which is why when you sort by income you still see differences by race. But then rather test additional variables, like propensity for crime or affinity for schooling, it's fashionable to just say RACISM. IT MUST BE RACISM I CONTROLLED FOR 1.5 THINGS.

You can't directly observe crypto-racism in facebook's hiring process. But you can directly observe pro-violence/drugs/promiscuity in popular minority media. If it's obvious that we're all subconsciously racist, it should be equally obvious that singing along to killing police officers and dealing drugs is negatively correlated with your GPA.

I am sure if you control for musical tastes as well as socioeconomic status that minorities who prefer Bach do quite well! Come to think of it, whites who prefer gangster rap have never struck anyone as "middle class"...

Plenty of middle class and even upper class whites enjoy gangster rap.

Scenario 1: You have a position to fill. Two otherwise identical CVs are presented with sufficient qualifications and experience, one with the name Jamaal Jamaalson, and the other one from a Joseph Smith. Do you call in none, one or both for an interview?

Scenario 2: You have a position to fill. There is a single applicant, and his name is Jamaal Jamaalson. Do you call in none or one for an interview?

This is not a trick question. Maybe not a ginormous deal if you really might be slightly more likely to call in Joseph than Jamaal. That'll add up to something important at the level of a labour market, but many people in that group are basically decent people.

But there's this subset that are 0% likely to call Jamaal in either situation. And that's bad for everyone, for reasons that extend well beyond the labour market.

I know Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and others have noted that homeownership, successful marriages, and other positive demographic metrics were higher for Black Americans before they hitched their wagons to the Democratic party's donkeys. The leftist radicals, LBJ's/Nixon's Great Society/Welfare, programs and racist groups like Nation of Islam exacerbated an increase in negative demographic trends.
Many Asian immigrants grew up in worse political and economic conditions, but still emphasize that a good education and hard work produces positive results. They ignore the leftist diatribes that only presented a face of progress - not the real deal.

The average black male in the US has an IQ of 85. Poor working class white kids score higher on IQ tests than black males from wealthy neighborhoods. It is sad, but it is true.

Let me try so summarize, for my own sake, some of the main points of the debate.

1) One observes that black kids growing in high income family do much worse at adult age than white people growing in similarly high income family.

There are two obvious (too obvious) explanations that are often proposed for this and similar findings.
1a) This is the fault of racism, this is a proof that black people are given less opportunity than white people.
1b) This is because racism is right, black people have many genes favoring lower IQ, of course the genetic lottery
may create black people with high IQ and high income, but those individuates will still have many un-expressed
bad genes that will reappear in the next generation, and the phenomenon we see is just regression to the mean.

We can call 1b) the racist explanation and 1a) the explanation by racism. Of course the authors of the paper favor 1a) and devote an important part of the paper to show that 1a) is more likely than 1b). However, as they recognize, they use census data and do not have access to any test result or indirect way to get the ability or IQ of the individuals in their population.
So they are forced to argue indirectly, as follows:

2) Actually, the phenomenon 1), when studied separately for both sexes, disappear for black girls, and looks even stronger for black boys.

They claim that this observation, indirectly, makes the explanation 1b) less likely and 1a) more lightly. That's partly right. It is still possible to defend 1b) in presence of 2), as have been attempted here, by arguing for instance on the difference in the variance of the distribution of IQ of girls and boys, but that's clearly a complicated argument, difficult to falsify with the state of data, which shows a clear defensive stance from the supporters of 1b). On the other hand, for 2) to support 1a), 1a) has to be obviously modified:
1a') this is the fault of racism of sexism (agains black males).

Interestingly, the paper himself, and the New York Times, still insists that the findings supports 1a), and accuse "racism", but not "sexism". Clearly it is not politically correct to blame sexism, when sexism is disadvantaging male. But the intellectual carcan in which the authors of the paper and the article in NYT live and think is not in itself a refutation of their argument, and I really
agree with them than 1) and 2) favors some version of 1a) (namely 1a')) over 1b).

What next? One can cast doubt on 1) and 2). On 1) it seems difficult at this stage, by 2) appears less solid, and Steve Sailer (who of course has intellectual skin in the game) has pointed out a serious problem in the way 2) is established. His main argument is explained above, in Matinellica's comment.

You can also propose other explanations than 1a) and 1b), in particular explanations that do not involve un any way the fuzzy concept of race with all its genetic undertones. I am sure such explanation would be the first one given by almost anyone on earth, but in America explication by "races" are popular (though not as much as in Germany.)
There is a black boy culture, which is what it is and does not value especially high hard work in school, to which black male kids adhere statistically even when they come from rich families (because they see themselves as black boys,
wither because they are seen this way, or simply because they are black and boys), which would explain 1) and be perfectly compatible with 2). Of course, among the 300 commentary, such an explanation has been proposed several times, and very well so. But I believe that it should be considered more seriously still.

+1. Thank you very much for this excellent exposition.

"1b) This is because racism is right, black people have many genes favoring lower IQ, of course the genetic lottery may create black people with high IQ and high income, but those individuates will still have many un-expressed bad genes that will reappear in the next generation, and the phenomenon we see is just regression to the mean."

The races differ in many ways other than IQ, with those other differences also being partly genetic and also involved in life outcomes.

The conclusion that differences in outcomes between different 'races' is due to racism cannot be made on that data. One can conclude that Asians face no racism and in-fact have race privilege based on this data, if one claims the reason why Black males' poor outcomes are due to racism. If you look at job interview call-back data, Asians are discriminated against based on their names.

Asians face racism, but despite this, outperform Whites. Let's us not limit debate to just racism.

Another study that would be informative is to look at income based on SAT scores (decades ago) of people of different backgrounds.
It would be less likely to be biased by cultural factors.

National Geographic dealt with is past.

Waiting for Tyler to post on this: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/12/592982327/national-geographic-reckons-with-its-past-for-decades-our-coverage-was-racist

Males tend to screw up more massively than women do, and thus get sent to prison far more, which is a big factor in why Black males from the upper class earn less than White males. The incarceration rate for Blacks is 10 times higher, even among the sons of wealthy Blacks they are much more likely to be convicted felons.

I'd like to see some hard stats from reputable sources there. Criminality is generally linked to economic status and I am very skeptical that high income black men are convicted of crimes at the same rate as low income black men (even if it's possible they are convicted at a higher rate than their white counterparts in the upper class).

It looks like the caravan has moved on from this item here, but Steve Sailer's blog now has a discussion, and I'd say the comments are a lot more insightful than most comments here.

Chetty: Affluent Black Males Much More Crime-Prone, Whites at Fault

http://www.unz.com/isteve/chetty-affluent-black-males-much-more-crime-prone-whites-at-fault/

It’s pure speculation to attribute this to “society” as a whole. There may be forces pressing on black males differently than on black females, but they may originate within black culture. For example, the image of the male promulgated by best-selling black musical performers is wildly at odds with the traits preferred by large bureaucratic organizations and to a large extent the marriage marketplace. But that is a conversation internal to black Americsns, not one structured by external forces.

Put more simply, which gender has more latitude within African-American cultural norms to “act white”. The female can often justify/excuse it by saying, “I have young children and the father(s) left me. I.have.no.choice.” Can a black male say that as often? It’s more of a choice, thus more a betrayal, for him to act white.

Comments for this post are closed