Shit. Click between black young men without HS diplomas, then, say, hispanic young men without HS diplomas, or black young women without HS diplomas. WTF?
I don't know if I've mentioned this, but I've been working at an HBC, and for the first time have encountered men's groups and men-only classes at the university level, and holy fuck, it's pretty obvious there is more support needed here. Most of the faculty say it wasn't like this 15 or more years ago. You just didn't see black men getting so far left behind compared to other minority groups.
When I taught at a very integrated college for the past three years, we used to brag that we had people from nearly every country, every ethnic group, every religion on earth, but I saw maybe three or four black men the whole time I was there in 18 courses, and all of them dropped out of my classes after getting a C or lower on a paper. Black women made up about a third or more of most of my classes; there was no question that this was a college environment that welcomed black students. But where were the men?
It's appalling. I'm not sure where it starts or why.
Oh, it's not technically an HBC, because it's too recent, but only by a few years.
Click between black young men without HS diplomas, then, say, hispanic young men without HS diplomas, or black young women without HS diplomas. WTF?
Click between black, aged 25-44 with a college degree and white, same. 7.4% UR versus 3.9%. (3.9%???? Really?)
It's appalling. I'm not sure where it starts or why.
In the neighborhood, when the cops are all in your face, and you gotta take care of your people.
max
['This system has reached the outer margins of diminishing returns to scale.']
I'm not sure where it starts or why.
Around here, it starts with not wanting to appear "too white" coupled with a "what's the use of working hard, anyway?"
These weren't kids dealing dope and being beaten by the cops every morning, they just swam in the toxic social soup.
Let's hear some cheers for Johnson and his Great Society.
[Aha. I found the comment I left three weeks ago over at Delong's and now I am extracting part of it.] After much rooting around in the population ratio numbers: SA employment population ratios continue to steadily fall.
09/2008: 61.9%
09/2009: 58.8% = -3.1% [10/2009: 58.5%]
Teh stimulus was not big enough, by a long shot.
09/1979: 60.0%
09/1982: 57.6% = -2.4%
So Carter-Reagan presided over a fall of 2.4 percentage points over 3 years, and Bush-Obama have presided over a fall of 3.1 percentage points over 1 year. Impressive.
Hrmm: Johnson-Nixon (late 60's mini-recessions)
09/1968: 57.5%
09/1971: 56.6% = -0.9%.
Nixon-Ford (1973-1974 oil crunch and recession):
09/1972: 57.0%
09/1975: 56.1% = -0.9%.
Bush I (S&L recession):
09/1989: 62.8%
09/1992: 61.4% = -1.4%.
Clinton's first year:
09/1992: 61.4%
09/1993: 61.7% = +0.3%
(I'm using September to September since that's our current end of data plus I'm side-stepping seasonal adjustments.)
If the ratio hits 58.1% (doesn't seem like a reach at all - 57.9% should be pretty easy too) in 01/2010, and in 01/2008 the ratio was 62.9% then we're looking at a 4.8% drop in the employment population ratio in *2* years. Production is way up, of course, but as our libertarian "friends" were fond of informing us last winter, depressions are great because productivity goes way up.
[59.9% was the peak number reached in 1979. 58.1-58.2 were the peaks reached in '69 and '74, and is just above the 1950's peaks. 57.9 was the trough reached in 1983. Getting to 55.0%, the trough of 1949, '54 and '61 would require shaving another 3.5% shaved off - probably not going there, absent a major banking system collapse.
Reaganomics has been cancelled. Unused tickets may be returned for partial refunds at the arena's front ticket office starting tomorrow morning. Thank you and good night!]
max
['The crickets are chirping in America.']
I heard that 10.2% on the radio last night and commented on it to the kids. Then realised I didn't know what ours is as a percentage - looked it up later, and the latest figure I found is 7.9%. (Up about 2.5 points in the last 12-18 months.)
Asilon: Meaningless comparison. The US official rate is unreasonably low, has been since the 80s.
As far as I know, there aren't any think tanks or other leftist groups that try to push stats like that into the public consciousness anywhere in Europe, which just astounds me. The media might not be too receptive, but the US media isn't either. It would still be more effective than anything they do now, aspecially since influencing the political elitev is often the most important, and politicians are generally pretty ignorant.
I wonder how hard it would be to calculate US employment according to the eurostat definition. Exact numbers, or better diagrams have more of an psychological impact than just hearing it's really much higher.
Dear NYT,
I know you've got a high percentage of the population covered with "white" "black" and "Hispanic", but don't call your chart "The Jobless Rate for People Like You" if everyone else ends up in "All other races."
Sincerely,
All Other Races
Yes, sorry.
There are countless ways of defining unemployment, and the differences can be huge. The EU's statistics bureau Eurostat have their own defintion and put out stats for all EU countries so you can make meaningful comparisons.
The US defines unempleyment more narrowly than all or nearly all other countries. The Reagan administration changed the definition for political reasons, to mislead people, and it's worked spectacularly.
It's been conventional wisdom in political circles for 25 years that Europe has much higher unemployment than the US and needs reform, and it's based on comparing apples and oranges.
David, if you're still awake: Do you mean things like the US definition of exclusing people who are "not actively seeking work" from unemployment?
I've never really understood that distinction; obviously I can think of people who are actually not interested in paid employment, but there are an awful lot for whom the story is "I'm no longer filling out applications at every restaurant and retail chain in town, but I'm working a couple of catering jobs for cash every month and I really really hope that turns into steadier work." And I don't know how those people are counted.
(On a topical note, I won't be able to stay in this thread, as I'm about to go off to work. To my weekend job. Which is scheduled to go on hiatus next month for an undetermined 12-18 mos. while the facility is renovated. Bah.)
I'm fairly sure they're not counted, which is the point -- for someone long-term unemployed, it's very hard for them to keep showing up in the statistics.
But how does 12 square with 13? The Europeans find some way to count them, apparently. Or at least some European countries. Or they're estimating, with models we don't trust or something.
It's not quite as clear cut as that, at least as I understand it. The Europeans do the 'out of labour force' stuff and other tricks as well, but they don't do it as aggressively as the Americans. I've seen normalized stats accounting for those kind of tricks and it only changes things by a point or two. The other factor is the much larger US prison population and military. The kind of folks who are doing time tend to come from demographics with very high unemployment rates. The one trick that Europeans do and we don't is semi-bogus training program schemes. There's also stuff like the German program of paying most of the wages of private sector workers to avoid layoffs. A good cost-effective program IMO since it basically amounts to the cost of unemployment benefits while keeping folks active, but it is a bit of a fudge as far as the stats go.
Or yes and no.
U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons.
U1 could sometimes be higher, sometimes be lower than eurostat, but I think in practice people that would fit as U2-U3 have been less common in Europe, because of labor benefit rules and other factors.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#Limitations_of_the_unemployment_definition
It's enough to make your head spin.
Employment figures aren't the whole truth, but they're a lot more straightforward:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/another-jobs-picture-europe-vs-us/
Europe obviously has a lot of variation. The US has been in the middle of the pack throughout the Bush years, not just recently, despite Greenspan's bubblelicious monetary policy vs the ECB .
I find it remarrkable that the gap between U1 and U5 is so huge. Who are these people mostly? Gangbangers? Unhappy housewives? Unhappy (or happy) mooching boyfriends?
If I were going to stereotype, I'd say that a decent sized segment of that gap is older workers who have lost jobs and don't have training or education that would transfer to a similarly desirable job. A 53-year old factory worker has a lot of job-specific knowledge and skills, but easily might not have any that would help him get a job better than working fast-food.
Hmm. Contra teraz, I'd say our worker retraining programs are not a trick. They're plentiful and free, and at least sometimes lead you to a new job.
My impression is that a decent number of those 'training' posts involve paying a company to take someone on and giving them makework. Which still beats long term unemployment or 'out of labour force' or prison, which seems to be the favorite American method, but it also leads to understated unemployment stats.
3.9%???? Really?
I guess this (along with living where I do) would explain why the recession hasn't seemed much dire from my seat.
A 53-year old factory worker
It's worse than that, really. I watched two successive fathers-in-law get hit by layoffs (and this wasn't during bad recessions), it's hard for anybody in their 60s to find work period. They had spent their careers in high-skill tech and management positions, were very capable, experienced, and intelligent men, and the only places that would hire them were places like Sears or sitting behind the desk at self-storage places or apartment complex offices. Huge pay, responsibility, and self-esteem cuts.
Damn that Lyndon Johnson. If there's a problem that's gotten much worse since the early 1990s, it's probably the fault of Lyndon Johnson and his cushy welfare state.
||
Stupak Amendment to defund abortion for private insurance to get floor vote, and will probably pass, and be in final house bill.
Removed in reconciliation? Still not clear.
|>
What was it, white males with college educations at 3.9%?
Probably close for white female same. Creatives. Obama knows his effective base, and is very good at this politics stuff. Those white technocrats (MY, EK), especially male, spread and enforce the message and were the essential part of the fa...never mind.
What was it, white males with college educations at 3.9%?
And aged 25-44.
Probably close for white female same.
3.6%.
Let's hear some cheers for Johnson and his Great Society.
Ooh, are we playing Blame Things? I blame the breakdown of the black family.
Ya know what I blame this on the breakdown of? Society.
26 was me. Does anyone want to blame the CIA for introducing crack to the black community in the 80s?
I always blame the Petite Bourgeoisie
A 53-year old factory worker
BLS let's us do some simple queries on the data here. I just wish they'd define "unemployment rate" and let people pick from U1-6. This page also let's us look at more detailed info. The Unemployment pull down menu even links to ILO information.
The current seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate for men 55 and over is 7.8%. I suspect this is U1.
Michael Shedlock discussing birth/death (of small businesses) adjustment and household survey, and other stuff
22
... Huge pay, responsibility, and self-esteem cuts.
Which makes retirement an attractive alternative if financially feasible. And it is unclear how to classify somebody who is semi-retired but would accept an extremely attractive job.
|| Available at an NYC greenmarket near you: tobacco. Big brown dried leaves next to the spinach, the fresh herbs, and the leaks. Locally grown, organic, just the thing for your fall stew. ||
Man, I'd think that selling tobacco at a greenmarket would create a real risk that some idiot would eat it. Do they have big signs saying poison, poison, do not swallow?
33: Right, that's the position you're in, IIRC. It's dependent on the individual situation, but I'd call most such people unemployed rather than retired -- if you didn't leave your last job voluntarily, and you'd take it back if offered, that sounds like unemployment to me even if you have enough savings that you don't have to work as a greeter at Wal-Mart.
And it is unclear how to classify somebody who is semi-retired but would accept an extremely attractive job.
Also unclear how to classify a professional athlete who retires at age 40 with $100 million in the bank.
Luckily the 35 of them don't skew the national stats much.
Speaking of eating odd vegetables, what does one do with vegetables from a CSA that you can't identify? (We threw out the newsletter for that week.) Google needs some sort of image search where you upload a picture and it finds similar things.
I have a green bulb-like thing, kind of looks like a very big tomatillo, has long stems with cabbage-like flat green leaves at the top.
Also need something to do with 4 heads of cabbage.
Also need something to do with 4 heads of cabbage.
Sauerkraut?
Kimchee! Coleslaw. And...
Braised cabbage (works just fine with full-sized cabbages)
Also need something to do with 4 heads of cabbage.
I've been using a lot of cabbage in stir fries and fried rice this year, and enjoying it.
Technically, I suppose, I'm cooking it at too low a heat to be called "stir frying" but it makes a nice vegetable base for quote, unquote asian-style meals.
I think kohlrabi is best raw and sliced.
28: Rob, policies have consequences, often some not so good. This even applies to the always well-intentioned liberal policies, not only to evil, grasping, fascistic, Republican policies.
The Reagan administration changed the definition for political reasons, to mislead people
Using the popular official number, we see unemployment going from 4 to 8 to 10+ percent,
so I do not think it misleads about the onset or severity of the recent recession.
If I was blogging for AdSense $, I would be perpetually unemployed, always desiring more clicks through.
The official U(1,...,6) unemployments do under-measure entrepreneurial activity.
How should you classify prospectors when they are searching, and not finding ?
The newest horrible article is made even more horrible by the inaccurate citing of unemployment statistics that are not specific to the demographic being described.
Yes, kohlrabi it is. Really, just sliced raw? I'll go try.
The wikipedia article on kohlrabi is really something special. "It is tolerant to cracking" and "There are several varieties commonly available, including White Vienna, Purple Vienna, Grand Duke, Gigante (also known as "Superschmeltz"), Purple Danube, and White Danube."
I treat it like broccoli stems myself.
Let's all pretend I spelled broccoli correctly.
39: Our CSA gives out this cookbook at the beginning of the season. It's helpful.
Also, there are CSA recipe sites online.
Around here, it starts with not wanting to appear "too white" coupled with a "what's the use of working hard, anyway?"
So you're saying it's just an attitude problem?
Rob, policies have consequences, often some not so good.
Biohazard, what specific policies are you talking about, and what specific consequences?
35 I've heard of chefs using tobacco flavouring by infusing water with tobacco leaves, removing it, then soaking something else in the solution, and discarding the fluid. But it's something you'd presumably want to be vary careful with. If you just cook it with something and then eat it then you've just done the equivalent of eating a big chunk of insecticide. To me it's almost like selling uncleaned fugu at the fish stand. I do admit that I thought of buying some, crumbling it up and rolling it. Maybe next week.
I've heard of chefs using tobacco flavouring by infusing water with tobacco leaves, removing it, then soaking something else in the solution, and discarding the fluid.
Yeah, one of the desserts we had at Alinea earlier this year had tobacco in it; I presume (but don't know) that they did something similar. It was one of the less-successful courses in general, and the tobacco didn't really seem to add much to it.
I've heard of chefs using tobacco flavouring by infusing water with tobacco leaves, removing it, then soaking something else in the solution, and discarding the fluid.
I've heard of curing tobacco, grinding it, and putting it in hockey-puck shaped cardboard containers with metal lids. Except for the whole cancer/heart disease/gingivitis/loosing teeth problem, it was perfect.
And there's the famous story of Thomas Keller serving Anthony Bourdain a tobacco course when he at the (very non-smoking) French Laundry.
I once watched a guy drink tobacco that was marinated in saliva and spit into a beer can. The need to avoid that type of mistake, along with the fact that it is easier to hit a bigger opening, is why Miss Manners says you should always use your elbow to bust open the top of a can before using it as a spittoon.
58: Not "just". There's almost no social issue that is due to "just".
I was thinking about a specific subset of The Kid's friends who have bought into the useless and doomed black male stereotype without being beat on by cops or living in rat infested packing crates. It's reinforced by many of their acquaintances.
Some of that stereotype was/is augmented by the 1960's welfare policies that penalized men for staying with their families and for making reportable money.
An attitude that tells them not to bother trying isn't going to help them get hired by anyone for any reason, that's for sure.
I've had grasshoppers flavored with tobacco. Wouldn't recommend it.
Apo @ 25: I guess this (along with living where I do) would explain why the recession hasn't seemed much dire from my seat.
Oh, well, yes. This is why all the hyper-educated and the finance types ran around saying the recession is over. 'We're not hurtin'.' Which is what all that 'business confidence' crap is about.
18: I find it remarrkable that the gap between U1 and U5 is so huge. Who are these people mostly? Gangbangers? Unhappy housewives? Unhappy (or happy) mooching boyfriends?
People who have been dropped from the headline unemployment stat but haven't been dropped off the lines entirely. The entire point about fiddling with the numbers is to keep those people out of the headline number and keep the long-term unemployed out of the numbers entirely. They can only be so dishonest.
14: But how does 12 square with 13? The Europeans find some way to count them, apparently. Or at least some European countries. Or they're estimating, with models we don't trust or something.
They're keeping track of unemployment differently, AND they're collecting stats on long-term unemployment which the US more or less doesn't. Once you're off the rolls here, you're off the rolls.
teraz: It's not quite as clear cut as that, at least as I understand it. The Europeans do the 'out of labour force' stuff and other tricks as well, but they don't do it as aggressively as the Americans.
I'm just going to break out something I sent to Delong back in June:
I saw your link to the CT thread about labor market flexibility - I had not gone over to CT in a coupla days, so I hadn't seen at that point. So I clicked over to CT and discovered the Betting with Bryan Caplan thread. And in the comments of that thread I saw some guy saying this:(Which was followed by stuff about the Employment to population ratio, which is really the number to follow in the situation.)In any case, there are reasonable arguments to be made for all sorts of other adjustments too. For example, several European nations suppress their unemployment rates considerably by classifying an inordinate fraction of their population as "disabled"--the Netherlands is a prime example. You have cherry-picked one adujustment that happens to help your case.I thought he had a point, even though he was essentially engaging in a rear-guard action in support of 'employment flexibility'. Thus did I discover (after much rooting around) that the OECD kept those numbers, but not in a usable dataset, (the 2008 book on the subject that contains the statistical annex is 80 Euros; I found a read-only copy though) which makes graphing the crossnational ratio difficult. I was interested to discover in the OECD numbers though that the Nordic countries consistently run ahead of us (along with the Swiss, the Austrians and the Dutch), the Anglosphere runs right around the same numbers, and France/Italy/Germany run below us, and the Eastern European countries track together at lower level as well. That's actually the interesting part: ratio shifts in the numbers track together cross-nationally even at different levels, and apparently the UK AND Canada run ahead of us. In spite of having national health care and far better social services.
If you are so concerned about the validity of cross-country comparisons of unemployment rates (and there are good reasons for concern, dispite the fact that your reasons are entirely self-serving), I suggest that you avoid unemployment classifications entirely and simply compare the fraction of the working-age population that is employed.
48: Using the popular official number, we see unemployment going from 4 to 8 to 10+ percent,
so I do not think it misleads about the onset or severity of the recent recession.
No, it doesn't mislead about onset - it misleads about the heights of the previous 'boom' and it is misleading (as intended) about how severe this situation is. That is, 'if unemployment doesn't get to 10% we're fine and we don't need stimulus, etc., buy buy buy stocks'. Which can keep people in Apo's position thinking things aren't that bad. The way to read the 10% breach is that no matter how hard they've worked to keep the official numbers down (I include here seasonal adjustments), the line was crossed anyways. A bit late to make a difference to the politics.
Just like the whole thing with housing prices going up up up make it look like the 'Bush economy' was booming. Which it did, due to a debt- and deficit- and spending spree that gained nothing in terms of future development.
max
['Whee haw.']
So what were unemployment numbers for black men pre-Great Society?
You know what's swell? Reading about unemployment figures when unemployment is, to quote James Wolcott quoting Philip Larkin, coming like Christmas.
Damn that Lyndon Johnson. If there's a problem that's gotten much worse since the early 1990s, it's probably the fault of Lyndon Johnson and his cushy welfare state.
Also, if there is a problem that effects black men particularly strong, the odds are the fault is a program that gave out benefits without regard to race or gender.
Its also important to remember that black men were doing just fine before the Great Society programs. The sixties ruined everything for African American men.
The problem for black men is that Americans are more afraid of them than of other types of people.
||
Stupak Amendment Passes 240-194
Healthcare sanctified with humans sacrificed to the animals, young & female of course
Anybody been reading Hamsher on biologics for breast cancer? Jane Harmon, bribed and bought, got that taken out.
Hamsher (et al FDL) is beyond outrage to heartbreak
|>
Some of that stereotype was/is augmented by the 1960's welfare policies that penalized men for staying with their families and for making reportable money.
And the 1996 welfare reform (thank you, President Clinton) that pushed states to make poor women name their children's fathers on their birth certificates, and then go after them and garnish their wages.
Sounds OK in theory, until you find out that a guy who's working for cash and giving his ex her child support in cash is going to show up in the system as delinquent, and the next time he gets a payroll job, his wages are going to be garnished to pay back the state for her welfare benefits -- NOT to be given to her directly for the care of the child -- until he digs himself out of the unfillable hole that he's in because of being so far behind on his court-ordered child support.
There are a lot of arguably well-intentioned* pieces of the system that create incentives for very anti-social (by some definitions) behavior. It's more about class than race, but because black men are disproportionately poor, it hits them harder.
*I'm not the one to make the argument
||
Just finished The Duellists, the first of Ridley Scott's three consecutive masterpieces. This time I noticed that penultimate shot, the gorgeous long landscape from bluff across river to village near sunrise, has one of the most obvious and intense uses of lens flash outside of Cool Hand Luke and Conrad Hall.
I of course empathize with Feraud (Keitel) without reservation. The difference between Feraud and say the anarchist of The Secret Agent is the Romanticism of a "Code of Honour" and a century of bourgeois supremacy.
|>
73 gets it right. Except the "of course".
Sorry, I guess it is called lens flare
It's more about class than race, but because black men are disproportionately poor, it hits them harder.
See that's the thing that threw me about this whole discussion. We got started on the topic because of the dramatic difference in employment numbers between black men without a HS diploma and other similarly disadvantaged groups like black women without a high school diploma and hispanics without a high school diploma. But all the culprits named in the first round of Blame Things were causes that should have effected these groups equally.
76: But all the culprits named in the first round of Blame Things were causes that should have effected these groups equally.
Except black women go to jail in far fewer numbers than black men (which is the same as white women vs. white men). Same, but to a lesser extent with hispanic men (who are disproportionately concentrated in a coupla states, so they have political power in those states). Black men are concentrated in urban areas and in the South, which is the place that dispropotionately puts people in jail, and above and beyond that disproportionately puts blacks in jail.
It's hard to get a job if you've done time for anything, much less hard time. And, of course, if you disproportionately put black men in jail, then you can say that discriminating against black men because they're 'dangerous' is true in some not-nice sense.
(And instead of segregating blacks in enclaves away from society, black men are segregated from society in jail, basically. Hello, Jim Crow III: See? They Deserved That)
max
['Surely, said the old white guy, there must be some way to segregate blacks legally and have everyone be happy about it.']
Saw an apparently well-fed, non-dipsomaniac middle-aged white guy sitting on a bucket outside Home Depot today with a "Seeking Any Kind Of Work" cardboard sign. Don't see that every day.
Other anecdata:
Sat on the bus next to a very, very large working-class white fellow a couple of days ago. he was getting off at the same stop as me. I was going to the elections warehouse, to count ballots for $10.50 an hour. He was going to a security company to fill out paperwork. He is currently employed as an armed guard at 2 of the toughest liquor stores in town at $19/hr, with no benefits. On Wednesday he had put his resume on Monster, and on Thursday received an offer of $22/hr plus benefits from a competing security company, so, unsurprisingly, he was going to take them up on it. Certainly made me pause to regret my dalliances with criminality for a moment.
To AWB in 1: When I was in college recently, a coworker at the student newspaper, a large African guy who comes from UMC stock, went to the bursar's office to report on an upcoming strike. Within 10 minutes he was backed up against a wall by 3 cops who were questioning why he was casing the joint for a potential robbery (despite the fact that he had identified himself as a report to the bursar's people and the cops and provided ID.) That kind of thing, on a "liberal" campus in a "liberal" city, might have something to do with it. (cf. "The Continuing Significance of Race" Joe R. Feagin)
77
It's hard to get a job if you've done time for anything, much less hard time. And, of course, if you disproportionately put black men in jail, then you can say that discriminating against black men because they're 'dangerous' is true in some not-nice sense.
Black men go to jail at a higher rate than white men for the the same reason white men go to jail at a higher rate than white women. They are more violent. Statistically black men are more dangerous.
Cryptic: they are, you know - more of them go to jail! What was it Joseph Conrad said - "the pretty branding instrument invented by the overfed to protect themselves from the hungry"?
Re: unemployment stats. The Conservative governments introduced something like one change to the headline measure (the claimant count) per year between 1979 and 1997, all of which without exception constituted a downwards revision. They also had a semiofficial practice of stretching the rules for incapacity benefit - long-term sick pay - in order to hide the unemployed. In this, they were in a sort of secret alliance with Jobcentre staff who were trying to help the unemployed game the system and of course with the unemployed themselves, as IB was rather more generous than unemployment benefit.
Essentially, it went something like this: "Hello, Mr. Ex-Shipbuilder. Have you worked in the last two weeks? [No. Of course not, they closed the fucking shipyard] OK...by the way, do you have any health problems that might affect your ability to work at all? [Not really...] I mean, do you have a bad back? Do you ever experience back pain? [well, now you mention it, I've been using a giant angle grinder above my head for the last 15 years] Well, the DSS headquarters in Newcastle keeps badgering me to get people off the unemployment list, and there're a few more beer tokens in it for you if you sign this form transferring into incapacity benefit..."
And about 2 million people are still on IB now. The government is increasingly ugly about this, but whatever they say isn't going to get them back into work now if it didn't in the roaring boom.
Obviously, as well as a bit of government deceit this was also a valid strategy for surviving the 80s.
JBS: This is exactly what people always complain about you doing. You make a racist (or misogyinist) generalization. You get called on it. You present some statistic. That statistic doesn't say what you think it says. You get called on that. You back down from your original statement, insisting that it was other people reading your statement uncharitably, rather than a problem with the statement itself, that caused the kerfuffle.
Couldn't we maybe nip the cycle in the bud this time around? Many people here would like to improve their opinion of you.
85
What is wrong with the link I gave? What have I backed down from?
86: For one thing, Shearer, the link you gave shows that black men are convicted of murder at a higher rate than white men. Everyone knows that and it doesn't add anything to the conversation. Interesting questions are 'why' and 'is the different conviction rate a reasonable justification for the way black men are treated in our society' (hint: no).
Defending a claim like "Black men are more violent" with a stat showing that black men are more likely to be convicted of any given crime is simply bullshit.
87
For one thing, Shearer, the link you gave shows that black men are convicted of murder at a higher rate than white men. ...
The link also shows that blacks are 6 times as likely to be homicide victims as whites. Who do you think is killing them?
... Interesting questions are 'why' ...
To liberals maybe. The rest of us know the primary reason that they are convicted of murder at a higher rate is that they commit murder at a higher rate.
Defending a claim like "Black men are more violent" with a stat showing that black men are more likely to be convicted of any given crime is simply bullshit.
So you think conviction rates have no relation to behavior?
89: So, black men behave more violently, because black men behave that way?
I'm sorry, is "Black men are more violent" a statement about behavior or about the nature of black men? If you make sweeping negative generalizations about groups of people defined by race, people are going to identify those claims as racist.
For the lurkers:
[A]lthough African-American youth age 10 to 17 constitute 15% of their age group in the U.S. population, they account for 26% of juvenile arrests, 32% of delinquency referrals to juvenile court, 41% of juveniles detained in delinquency cases, 46% of juveniles in corrections institutions, and 52% of juveniles transferred to adult criminal court after judicial hearings.
And just in case you thought that was because at every stage in the legal process, members of a minority group *just happened* to be more likely to be guilty, the definitive review of racial disparities.
91
I'm sorry, is "Black men are more violent" a statement about behavior or about the nature of black men? ...
It is a statement about behavior. The word "statistically" in 80 should have given you a clue.
91
... If you make sweeping negative generalizations about groups of people defined by race, people are going to identify those claims as racist.
Like the guy I ran into in college who claimed it was racist to say blacks are poorer than whites?
90
So, black men behave more violently, because black men behave that way?
As 92 shows not everybody agrees that black men behave more violently.
So, could you maybe restate your point, James? I'm not sure what it is, is the thing, and I'd like to consider it.
Like the guy I ran into in college who claimed it was racist to say blacks are poorer than whites?
That's a negative generalization?
Oh for Jesus' sake!
Alright Shearer, let me break it down for you: A large plurality African-American people live in communities that are the targets of severe economic and security-force repression. They are "over-policed and under-protected" as the adage has it. The average African-American male is under constant surveillance to a degree that most other people are never going to experience. Even the slightest hint of a trace of misbehavior is used as an excuse to process him into the criminal justice system. Once he's in that system, and subject to that surveillance, the normal peccadilloes of youth and young adulthood are pathologized and criminalized, not in some abstract, "it's society's fault" way, but as a matter of law and public policy that plays out through an architecture of cops, probation officers, social workers, jailers, judges and attorneys. The violence is inherent in the system. It's all over for a lot of African-American men that first time they're picked up. Black people didn't start the Drug War, Nixon did.
96
So, could you maybe restate your point, James? I'm not sure what it is, is the thing, and I'd like to consider it.
My point is the fear mentioned in 70 has a rational basis in that statistically blacks are more likely to engage in criminal violence.
99: Based on your comment at 89, I'm guessing "Nope" but do you have a theory on why that might be the case?
100
Based on your comment at 89, I'm guessing "Nope" but do you have a theory on why that might be the case?
Some of the difference will probably go away if we adjust for the different incidence between the races of factors like age, poverty, single parent upbringing etc. associated with higher criminal violence rates within the races. I expect a considerable residual difference will remain. I would speculate that (as with the similar difference in rates of criminal violence between men and women) this difference is the result of a combination of cultural and biological (genetic) factors. I was under the impression that black males had higher testosterone levels than white males but this seems to be questionable .
Hang on, James is using rational is a particularly odd sense; it is not rational that Americans are scared of black men; it is a symptom of an underlying irrational pathology.
. . . it is not rational that Americans are scared of black men
See, for example, this book, which talks about the odd interactions between prejudice and "rational" fear.
Thank God I'm going to bed and am not going to be sucked into this argument, but I should note that I was the author of 92.
And Shearer, 101 reflects a truly non-standard understanding of reality. Are you aware that the vast, vast majority of "black" people in this country have genetic heritage as "white" people as well? Given this, do you think claims of racial group A having higher levels of [physical component X] than racial group B might be, oh, say, a tad problematic?
/sarcasm
I was under the impression that black males had higher testosterone levels than white males
Oh, James. Did you think that they all have bigger dicks, too?
104
And Shearer, 101 reflects a truly non-standard understanding of reality. Are you aware that the vast, vast majority of "black" people in this country have genetic heritage as "white" people as well? Given this, do you think claims of racial group A having higher levels of [physical component X] than racial group B might be, oh, say, a tad problematic?
No. Suppose all Africans have gene A which gives level a of X and all Europeans have gene B which gives level b of X. Suppose American blacks average 20% European ancestry and the effects of genes A and B are additive. Then Europeans will average b of X, American blacks will average (.2*b + .8*a) of X and Africans will average a of X. So the average difference between Europeans and Africans for trait X will be (b-a) while the average difference between Europeans and American blacks will be .8*(b-a). So the European admixture in American blacks will reduce but not eliminate any genetic difference between Europeans and Africans.
Too much hard work for me today. I'm turning in.
Gah, are people actually engaging James again? Is there the slightest indication that James has any kind of experience, personal or professional, dealing with or living with ethnic minorities? Does anyone really expect this conversation to go in a productive direction?
Let's talk about something more amusing. Is the word "brat" hate speech against children? Discuss.
Alternative topic. The Carrie Prejean sex tape, evidence of karma and/or a just and loving god?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04/carrie-prejean-sex-tape-t_n_345589.html
108
So what's the security force perspective? Have you encountered the term NHI?
realizing that even in this current economy, almost noone else of your demographic group is unemployed, is sort of depressing though.
Have you encountered the term NHI?
No Humans Involved? Never actually heard anyone use it on the job. Not sure what this has to do with your assertions about race.
113
Not sure what this has to do with your assertions about race
Just a reference to the well known compassion for black people found in the security forces.
It's not a term for blacks, you ignorant fuck. And I've yet to hear a single cop make a mention of the supposed genetic inferiority of black people, something you do in this forum on a regular basis.
115
It's not a term for blacks, you ignorant fuck. ...
That was Judge Charles Greene's defense. Strangely enough black people seem to feel otherwise .
Wait a second - the reasoning there was that cops use racist slang about black people (oh, just skip whether or not that bit is true), and cops necessarily have good judgment about which demographic groups are good people because they're out on the front lines (or whatever, this part of the argument isn't gelling), therefore the existence of racist slang among cops proves that people generally are right to be afraid of black men? Jesus, Shearer, stick to math.
Oh, I suppose it could be (1) the existence of racist cop slang proves that cops are all racist (2) gswift is a cop, therefore (3) gswift is just as racist as you are and should (4) shut up about objecting to your racist comments because he's being insincere. If that's the thinking, I suppose I can't call it nastier than the other option, which was pretty maximally nasty. But it's more personally directed at someone specific, so nasty in a different way. And of course still makes no sense.
It could be: cops don't like black people which this brutalises black people therefore black people are more likely to be violent, making white fear of black people logical*.
(I think that's a least bad legit reading. But I am prob. wrong, and I don't really follow myself, so I would be interested to know Shearer's actual logic.)
* For a given value of logical.
117 118
Gswift appeared to be claiming in 108 that people who deal with black people on a regular basis (like cops) have special insights. So I was just pointing out that cops are not known for their love and affection for black people.
As for racist comments, it is now racist to point out that black men engage in criminal violence at higher rates than other people? Or that this may have something to do with the reluctance of people to hire them?
Shearer, if you have well-sourced statistics supporting a claim, it's not racist to make that claim. "Black men are convicted of murder at a higher rate than white men," with a link, not a racist thing to say. Making the jump from that to a broad, essentializing claim like "They [black men] are more violent"? Racist.
If you want to have an interesting conversation about how the way African Americans are treated in our society is totally explained and justified by their behavior, you could probably do that here; you'd need to limit your statements to narrow claims well supported by data, and spell out your reasoning in detail, and you still probably wouldn't convince anyone, but you could probably get people to talk about it. But making broad negative generalizations about an entire ethnicity (or, half of an ethnicity) is racist enough that no one likely to be reading here is going to be willing to engage with you on it.
If you're just reconfirming that we have what you consider silly standards of what's a repulsively racist thing to say, you've done that. If you actually want to talk about this stuff, you need to either go someplace else where people won't call the kinds of things you're prone to saying racist, or learn to respect the local norms of discourse around here. You're a smart guy, you could probably learn how to phrase the things you want to say in a manner acceptable in polite company if you really wanted to.
"If you want to have an interesting conversation about how the way African Americans are treated in our society is totally explained and justified by their behavior, you could probably do that here;"
Well, yes and no. If Shearer became a better person, something like that would be possible. The possibility of an interesting conversation on those lines involving the actual James Shearer is nil.
Oh, I disagree -- while I admit that the behavioral change is unlikely, what's necessary wouldn't involve being a better person in any real moral sense, just a more precise and better-mannered one.
121
Shearer, if you have well-sourced statistics supporting a claim, it's not racist to make that claim. "Black men are convicted of murder at a higher rate than white men," with a link, not a racist thing to say. Making the jump from that to a broad, essentializing claim like "They [black men] are more violent"? Racist.
This is silly. Saying "They are more violent" in the context of the discussion was clearly shorthand for "They currently in the United States commit acts of criminal violence at a higher rate".
If you want to have an interesting conversation about how the way African Americans are treated in our society is totally explained and justified by their behavior, you could probably do that here ...
Where have I said anything about justified? I prefer to concentrate on empirical issues.
122
... If Shearer became a better person, something like that would be possible. The possibility of an interesting conversation on those lines involving the actual James Shearer is nil.
So you think it is only possible to have interesting conversations with good people?
123
... just a more precise and better-mannered one.
You all have a curiously onesided view of good manners. Apparently it is fine to call me an "ignorant fuck" because I think NHI has racial connotations.
So you think it is only possible to have interesting conversations with good people?
It is possible to have interesting conversations who aren't good, but it isn't possible to have interesting conversations with bad people who are uninteresting.
126: It's not that it's one-sided, it's that you're not getting the standard. You may think that the norms of discourse around here about what sort of stuff is racist enough that people will stop talking to you are silly, but they're not that hard to follow: if you're going to say anything that sounds like a negative generalization about an ethnic group, either (a) have it closely linked to respectable data, and don't go past what the data says or (b) be kidding, be genuinely funny, and be willing to apologize and back off if you offend anyone (most people shouldn't try this. You, I would say, especially shouldn't).
Violating that standard is, by my lights, unacceptably rude to everyone reading, and means that I'm not going to engage substantively with anything you say that comes close to it, and most of the people commenting here have similar standards. Not engaging substantively involves such things as calling you an ignorant fuck -- the point is that the way you're addressing the issues you want to talk about is not okay here. (I would say shouldn't be okay anywhere, but I'm sure there are plenty of places you can have the conversation you want to just fine.)
If you want to talk about race here, keep your claims tightly limited to what's well supported by data (e.g., "Black men have a higher rate of conviction of murder in the US than white men"? Fine. "Black men are more violent than white men"? Not fine.), and make your reasoning explicit and clear, because no one who has to reconstruct it is going to be remotely charitable. If you don't want to abide by these standards of discourse, I'm not going to ban you, but a lot of people are going to call you a dumbfuck.
You know, even if interpretive charity were being handed out by the bushel, it might help with 80 but it wouldn't help with 101. 101 says "a combination of cultural and biological (genetic) factors" causes a "difference in rates of criminal violence" between blacks and whites. The "biological (genetic)" part of that goes beyond 80 (which, with a lot of charity, could possibly be interpreted as a claim about correlation only) and invokes a causal mechanism that's explicitly racist. Once you take that position, you don't get to wonder in an injured sort of way why people are saying your views are racist.
129
101 was in response to a direct question and I said was speculative. If you want to believe I am a racist in general that's fine. The objection to the specific statement that blacks are more violent which is an empirical fact is nuts.
It seems like James's comments are being read without this forum's typical strong presumption of good faith. Maybe he's lost that presumption over time, but it's still awfully sad.
You keep talking as you please, and people are going to keep on calling you a racist dumbfuck and not listening. No skin off my nose, except that it's not terribly interesting.
If you wanted to talk about race, and not get called a racist dumbfuck, you could try sticking to clear points, well supported by good evidence. Think of it as an exercise in empathy: "If I were the sort of PC moron I'm surrounded by at Unfogged, how could the point I want to make be phrased so as not to make me think it was nauseatingly racist?". Some of your desired points may be impossible to make in a nonracist fashion, but I'd bet some of them would be salvageable, if you wanted to put the effort in.
Either way, it's your call.
Sammy Sosa sure is looking non violent.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-random9-2009nov09,0,7466365.story
132
... you could try sticking to clear points, well supported by good evidence ...
Here is a 2006 table of violent crime percentages by perceived race of offender. This is based on a population survey hence is independent of any bias in criminal conviction rates. The ratio of white offenders to black offenders ranges from .52 to 3.37. Since the ratio of whites to blacks in 2006 was about 6.25 this means blacks offend at greater rates with ratios ranging from 1.85 (attempted/threatened violence) to 12 (Robbery, Completed/property taken, With injury) with an overall enhancement of 2.4 (crimes of violence).
So far so good. I'll spot you the 'actually making a point' under the assumption that your point is that the higher unemployment rate for black men is a reasonable response by employers to that higher crime rate.
In response, though, I point out this paper, based on a 2004 study, showing that when otherwise matched pairs of testers are sent into job interviews, employers are more likely to hire a white man with a felony conviction than a black man without, which suggests that fear of criminality doesn't work as a total explanation of the difference in employment rates.
And further note that violent crime is heavily concentrated among people who are out of the employment market. Once you're actually looking at someone who's plausibly looking for work, the chances that they're a violent criminal are very small. (This, I would surmise, is why there's no visible employment effect from the even greater difference in rates of violent crime between men and women. If crime rates were a full explanation, it's weird that it has such a huge effect on employment across ethnic lines, and almost none on gender, isn't it.)
And we haven't even addressed the feedback effects of differential policing. If black kids are more likely to be imprisoned for minor crimes than white kids, and people who have been imprisoned are more likely to commit major crimes in the future, then you get an actually different crime rate that's still attributable to differential police treatment.
So I'm unconvinced. But also don't feel any need to say rude things to you about your rhetoric. This was a bit of a Kabuki exercise, given the prior discussion, but the same thing is doable if you start that way from the beginning.
135
In response, though, I point out this paper, based on a 2004 study, showing that when otherwise matched pairs of testers are sent into job interviews, employers are more likely to hire a white man with a felony conviction than a black man without, which suggests that fear of criminality doesn't work as a total explanation of the difference in employment rates.
This would depend on how having a felony conviction compares as a risk factor to being black.
... This, I would surmise, is why there's no visible employment effect from the even greater difference in rates of violent crime between men and women. If crime rates were a full explanation, it's weird that it has such a huge effect on employment across ethnic lines, and almost none on gender, isn't it.)
Who says it has none on gender? According to the NYT link the unemployment rate in the 15-24 age group is 11.4 for white women, 17 for white men, 23.4 for black women and 30.5 for black men. Part of the discussion in this thread was how the unemployment rate for black men was high compared to black women. And the rate for white men is also high compared to white women.
And the statement that gender is much more important than race ignores the multiplicative nature of having two risk factors (black and male). From here the homicide rates in the 18-24 age group are 2.0 for white women, 11.8 for black women, 22.4 for white men and 203.3 for black men. So going from white female to white male increases the risk by a factor of 11.2 while going from white male to black male only increases the risk by a factor of 9.1 but the absolute increase in risk is 20.4 going from white female to white male and a much larger 180.9 going from white male to black male.
And we haven't even addressed the feedback effects of differential policing. If black kids are more likely to be imprisoned for minor crimes than white kids, and people who have been imprisoned are more likely to commit major crimes in the future, then you get an actually different crime rate that's still attributable to differential police treatment.
Yes but this is still a real difference as opposed to an illusory difference. I expect felony convictions with prison sentences are an additional risk factor but doubt the difference between white and black rates only exists among people with felony convictions and prison time.
