SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 04:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, it doesn't. That accounts for unequal distribution within races in a market economy, but it does not account for unequal distribution between races.

Would you like to answer my question, now?

I have...you just don't like my answer.

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2018, 04:25 PM)Beaker Wrote: Can you say with a straight face that racism isn't less prevalent now than when you graduated?

 
Since the generation I graduated with are still in the work force the effects are still being felt.  And the benefits of my generation will be passed on to the next because of intergenerational wealth elasticity.


The privilege of being white still exists.   


How old are you and when do you claim it disappeared?

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2018, 04:31 PM)Beaker Wrote: I have...you just don't like my answer.

No.  You have not answered the question.

Why do whites control a disproportionate percentage of the wealth and power in this country?

If you say the percentage of wealth and power is based on work ethic or "pursuing opportunity" then you are saying that white people do it better than minorities.  There is no other way to interpret your answer.  You think that whites are just a superior race.

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 04:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  
Since the generation I graduated with are still in the work force the effects are still being felt.  And the benefits of my generation will be passed on to the next because of intergenerational wealth elasticity.


The privilege of being white still exists.   


How old are you and when do you claim it disappeared?

I never claimed racism disappeared. I just believe that concepts such as white privilege and institutional racism are all covered under the racism umbrella and that we don't need additional permutations to further divide us. I said in earlier posts, the way to fight racism....which both you and I agree exists....is to fight individual examples of it when we encounter them. 

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2018, 04:27 PM)Beaker Wrote: That's because I didn't say white people control a disproportionate percentage....you did.

I have posted the numbers to prove that they do.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 04:31 PM)Beaker Wrote: I have...you just don't like my answer.

Have you? Here is my question:

(06-28-2018, 04:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Are white people more willing to seek opportunities and put in work than other races?

That question has a yes or no answer. Your answer:

(06-28-2018, 04:26 PM)Beaker Wrote: All races have individuals more willing to pursue opportunities than others.

That's not a yes or a no, and it isn't even an "it depends." So maybe I will rephrase it with a bit more wiggle room for you to see if you can give it an actual answer.

In your opinion, is the average white person more willing to seek out opportunities and work to succeed than the average black person?

I even simplified it so there are only two races involved.

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 04:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  You have not answered the question.

Why do whites control a disproportionate percentage of the wealth and power in this country?

If you say the percentage of wealth and power is based on work ethic or "pursuing opportunity" then you are saying that white people do it better than minorities.  There is no other way to interpret your answer.  You think that whites are just a superior race.

I have no idea how you interpret me saying individual differences account for differences in wealth distribution to mean whites are a superior race. That's simply absurd.

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 04:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have posted the numbers to prove that they do.

Yet you claimed I said it.

[Dill]

(06-28-2018, 10:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know how else to explain this to you, because this seems like some very simple statistics to me. If all people are afforded equality of opportunity, then each strata should reflect a distribution of race, gender, religion, etc., as overall society. The poorest 10% would have nearly the same racial makeup at the top 10%. Equality of opportunity doesn't result in equality of outcome, but it does result in equal distribution among demographics. There is no equal distribution among demographics, which means that equality of opportunity is not in effect.

Am I getting too technical in my argument? Does this make sense to other people?

It makes sense to me.  But I understand you to be posing a question which can, in principle, be answered by social science.

A simple illustration of what I mean by posing and answering questions in this fashion: if someone claims that cell phone ownership in the US is largely restricted to the wealthiest 10% of the population and almost non-existent among the poorest 10%, then one could research that claim (as an in-principle-refutable hypothesis) by various and established social scientific methods, including surveys and data from service providers and retail outlets, not to mention personal observation.

If the research found there was no appreciable difference in ownership between the above-mentioned demographics (rates of ownership roughly the same) and if research from other researchers replicated these results, then the hypothesis of uneven distribution would be refuted.  A further consequence: there would be no scientific basis for asserting, say, that "In the US, opportunity for cell phone ownership is largely restricted to the rich," or some such. Conversely, if the hypothesis were confirmed, there would be basis for other claims/hypotheses worth exploring, such as that cell phone ownership correlates with economic opportunity.

I have not done any such study, but for the moment I am assuming cell phones are almost equally distributed across all classes. If there is any variation in ownership demographics, it is likely due to factors like age.  I think I can see this "equal" distribution everywhere I go. If someone does not have a cell phone I think is because he/she did not want one very badly.

But I don't see opportunity equally distributed everywhere I go, and I don't think that is because some people don't want it very badly.

Claims about the distribution of "opportunity" are a bit more complex than claims about cell phone ownership, since defining it is not simple: is it for education? jobs? housing? Does it depend on home resources (including cultural capital)? Distance from services?  Equal "access"? Can it only be measured in achievement--grades, hiring and promotion, home ownership? But nevertheless, it seems like the question of whether opportunity is equally distributed is, in principle, answerable, if people want to answer it.

The difficulty might be that people don't want to answer it, that the question in itself disrupts existing narratives about how one achieves success or wealth in the US, and who is to blame if one does not, what kind of nation we are. (Not referring to Beaker here, who will not dismiss any question framed in scientific terms nor dismiss scientific results out of hand, but I am saying that for many in the world beyond this forum, the question itself is prima facie disturbing, even blaming.)

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2018, 04:39 PM)Beaker Wrote: Yet you claimed I said it.

It doesn't matter who said it.  It is true.

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2018, 04:37 PM)Beaker Wrote: I have no idea how you interpret me saying individual differences account for differences in wealth distribution to mean whites are a superior race. That's simply absurd.

If "individual" differences account for the difference and whites as a group have superior results then that means a higher percentage of whites individuals are superior.

[*PhilHos*]

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 04:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If "individual" differences account for the difference and whites as a group have superior results then that means a higher percentage of whites individuals are superior.

So all groups will have exactly the same amount of individuals pursuing opportunities with the same effort? (Proportionally speaking of course.)

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2018, 04:53 PM)Beaker Wrote: So all groups will have exactly the same amount of individuals pursuing opportunities with the same effort? (Proportionally speaking of course.)

I say yes.

You say whites have more, correct?  The reason whites have superior results is because more white work harder, right?

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 04:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I say yes.

You say whites have more, correct?

I say individual motivation and effort is nearly impossible to quantify, so you therefore cannot empirically account for those differences....regardless of race. Which means you cannot expect wealth distribution to exactly match racial distributions as far as percentage of population.

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2018, 05:00 PM)Beaker Wrote:  Which means you cannot expect wealth distribution to exactly match racial distributions as far as percentage of population.

The only way it would not match is if one race had a higher percentage of hard working individuals.

We are not talking about a small sample size.  We are talking about tens of millions of people.

And we are not talking about a small difference in results.  White income and wealth is dramatically greater than blacks and other minorities.


So whites would have to have a much larger percentage of individuals working harder than minorities.

That is what you are saying.  There is no other interpretation.

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 05:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The only way it would not match is if one race had a higher percentage of hard working individuals.

We are not talking about a small sample size.  We are talking about tens of millions of people.

And we are not talking about a small difference in results.  White income and wealth is dramatically greater than blacks and other minorities.


So whites would have to have a much larger percentage of individuals working harder than minorities.

That is what you are saying.  There is no other interpretation.

See, you're not accounting for individual difference and assuming your interpretation is everybody else's also.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 05:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The only way it would not match is if one race had a higher percentage of hard working individuals.

We are not talking about a small sample size.  We are talking about tens of millions of people.

And we are not talking about a small difference in results.  White income and wealth is dramatically greater than blacks and other minorities.


So whites would have to have a much larger percentage of individuals working harder than minorities.

That is what you are saying.  There is no other interpretation.

Normally when you and I are in the same argument and arguing in different ways I am like "what the **** are you talking about!?" This is not one of those times. This is a logically valid conclusion based on his argument.

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2018, 05:13 PM)Beaker Wrote: See, you're not accounting for individual difference and assuming your interpretation is everybody else's also.

Yes I am accounting for individual difference.

And you are saying that the white race has a much larger percentage of superior individuals.  

There is no other interpretation.

The sample size is huge.

The difference is huge.

And it does not vary significantly from year to year.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 05:13 PM)Beaker Wrote: See, you're not accounting for individual difference and assuming your interpretation is everybody else's also.

Again, individual differences account for variation within the races, not between them, if you understand the races to be equal.