Re: Jake White and politics and the Watsons

On Nov 15, 10:16 am, "Mark (newsgroups)" <marknewsgro...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
civilian...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Nov 15, 2:46 am, "Mark (newsgroups)" <marknewsgro...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

civilian...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

It's extremely easy to be institutionally 'non-racial', but its
questionable as to how 'fair' this is given the history of inequality
involved. Let's use the US as an example, as equal legislation has
been in place for 40 years there. The Civil Rights movement saw the
total abolishment of institutionalised racism by the mid-1960s, so by
your logic this means that merit should take over as the determinant
of outcomes.

But in 1999, the median income of African American families was
$33,255 compared to $53,356 of whites. Employed blacks earn only 77%
of the wages of whites in comparable jobs. In 2004, unemployment rate
for blacks was 10.3%, while their white counterparts were unemployed
at the rate of 4.7%. In the same year 30% of Whites held a bachelor's
degree or higher while only 18% of Blacks within the civilian employed
population 18 to 64 years old held such a degree.

As a group, Black Americans have shorter life expectancies than the
national average and often higher mortality rates for certain disease
conditions. They suffer disproportionately from heart disease, AIDS,
hypertension, stroke, sickle cell anemia, and diabetes (all these
diseases are linked to poverty and poor lifestyle).

Politically, the situation is even more bizarre: Barrack Obama may
seem to indicate substantial representation, but in modern times there
have been only 3 African-American senators (representing over 12% of
the population). They are underrepresented in every positive social,
political or economic indicator and overrepresented in almost every
negative one.

After 40 years these disparities still exist, yet you're saying that
it's enough to remove laws actively promoting inequality. How long
should they wait until the system eventually adjusts to equilibrium? I
don't think that you believe that African Americans, or any other
underrepresented group, are any less meritorious than whites (or that
women are less meritorious than men). But neither can you continue to
pedal the idea that the current distribution in American social and
economic life, and South African sporting teams, truly represents
merit.

That's an interesting ready, but I'm struggling to see _practically_
what you're saying. I understand that you're implying that you don't
think it's enough to remove laws premoting inequality. But what do you
suggest as a workable alternative?

I guess you're arguing your point by pointing at the failures of the
current American system. But are they failures? Why don't you compare
the same statistics you've given to those prior to 40 years ago and see
if the trend is an improvement. Is there an alternative that you can
point to in the real world that has worked better?

They are failures- obviously there has been a trend towards equality
of opportunity with the removal of segregation and laws promoting
racial inequality (you would expect this move towards 'market
equilibrium'). But equally obviously this hasn't meant a total arrival
at equal opportunity, which is what merit is about.

You're defining them as failures in the absolute sense, which is not
what I asked and also probably not true. I'm asking if they have
improved the stats you quote over 40 years. If not, they're absolute
failures. If they have, then they have a degree of success and you need
to measure them against other systems to see which is more/less successful.



So if people are
going to argue that the current state of affairs is 'good enough',
then you have to accept that there's a different motivation that
simple equality of opportunity and merit. I think you'd have to argue
that the status quo is good 'just because', and that it's too much
trouble to take a more active approach. I don't really rate that
argument.

As for what I think would be 'better'... I'd say giving preference to
disadvantaged people in marginal cases (even when they are slightly
behind the non-disadvantaged candidate) would be a good start. Also,
resources should be devoted to areas where opportunities are scarce
(rural villages, shantytowns etc.) in order to allow merit to be the
determining factor. Things like institutionalised scholarships are
also useful in this way. I don't think purely racial quotas are really
going to do that much good in the long-run, because inequality is more
complex than black vs. white. If they are justified anywere, it would
be post-apartheid South Africa but I still don't like the idea of
actively promoting race, rather than disadvantage per se, as the
rationale for intervening.

I lack the formal words to describe what you've just written above, so
I'll just say it sounds suspiciously socialist. Could you correct me and
direct me to a better term?

As I asked though, could you point to a real world example where this
system exists and has worked better than the "capitalist" approach of
removing formalised inequality? In South Africa we have had a certain
amount of years (cba looking it up) of BEE, which seems to fall into
what you describe above. By all the same measurements as you quoted for
the USA, would you descrive BEE as a failure in SA?

I read a book a while ago that was so over the top as to be almost a
paradoy. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. While it's obviously hyperbole, I
do subsribe to it's general tenets. The type of system you describe
sounds reasonable in principle, but then, so does communism.

I think you could describe it as being interventionist, but not
socialist. Socialism has the whole 'to each according to his needs'
idea behind it- equality of basic outcome rather than equality of
opportunity. Equality of opportunity really is a 'capitalist'
conception of equality.Capitalism relies on market solutions, but the
whole idea of equality of opportunity is intervening to create a
market that promotes the most competitive outcomes- the whole point of
capitalism.

You mention Ayn Rand's book 'Atlas Shrugged': the laissez-faire system
she promotes would seem to be in line with capitalist ethos, but you
will struggle to find . Capitalism is about markets and competition
being the best mechanisms for determining economic outcomes. However,
a lot of markets are imperfect and require 'fixing' in order to work
more efficiently- that's why you have laws against anti-competitive
behaviour.

In terms of sports in SA, the analogy is strong: if you leave the
'market' as is (where whites are disproportionately involved in
everything, except soccer) the the outcomes are not competitive. You
will not get the best players representing the best teams because many
simply aren't competing on the same level as a privileged elite. The
market should reward merit, and merit only. If it doesn't do so, it is
undermining its only claim to legitimacy.

Has BEE worked in SA? If the sole goal is to create more
opportunities, then probably yes. I think there has been a more
generic failure by the government to secure a safe and desirable
social, economic and political environment. I wouldn't say merit is
yet the defining factor in South Africa by any means. The creation of
a black privileged elite is hardly aiding the cause of equality of
opportunity.

A real-world system where it has worked better? I can't really think
of one, simply because there is no one place where it has been pursued
purely 'formally' or substantively. In America they had a quite
substantive system for a while, before whites got pissed off at
missing out and sued the universities/companies involved. In NZ it's
been more successful than elsewhere... Maori are actually
overrepresented in parliament.

Another problem is that it's hard to realistically differentiate based
on 'disadvantage'. In most places it's done by race, ethnicity, gender
and class. To provide extra opportunities based on this is to draw an
arbitrary line in the sand, and seems very unfair to people from other
groups who miss out as a result. That's why I think grassroots
programs to help obviously disadvantaged people, preferential
treatment in marginal cases and scholarships would be ideal, rather
than quotas.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Jake White and politics and the Watsons
    ... your logic this means that merit should take over as the determinant ... of the wages of whites in comparable jobs. ... it's enough to remove laws actively promoting inequality. ... economic life, and South African sporting teams, truly represents ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: Jake White and politics and the Watsons
    ... the median income of African American families was ... Employed blacks earn only 77% ... of the wages of whites in comparable jobs. ... it's enough to remove laws actively promoting inequality. ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: Inequality
    ... you can't is a social inequality. ... least healthy are the poor in rich areas - a number of mechanisms are ... equality and Saloth Sar was probably correct that his programme was the ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Inequality
    ... Here is the remarkable fact about this inequality ... for which equality in the inequality above is attained. ... S is an intersection of closed half-spaces ... we have to take extra care for the boundaries of the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Inequality
    ... What matters is degrees of inequality. ... exactly that, degrees of equality. ... you don't have genuine poverty and as long as there is social mobility. ... inflationary policies by excluding mortgages from inflation. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)