To combat racism, try reviving the black family

[Rubee]

I have always wondered about white supremacist - how can they believe in Jesus - he was a practicing jew the sworn enemy of a white supremacist - its a paradox.

I have come across alt-righters who have adopted idiosyncratic versions of Christianity to maintain their views. Some are Catholic, believe it or not. How they do the math in their heads, I have no idea. I think their problem is wanting to claim the best of Wstern civilization as a White/race thing and realizing the Catholic Church’s/Christianity’s centrality in all of it.

I have heard an alleged Catholic Youtuber claiming there’s some kind of “Mexican” soul/spirit versus a White one that animates Mexican Catholics versus White ones, and he cited the fact that the Mexicans, in his view, practice an “impure” Catholicism, i.e. mixed with paganism, as some kind of illustration/proof. Apparently, he has no idea the many many centuries it took Europeans to completely leave their old paganism back when Christianity was introduced to many of the old pagan societies. I also heard this person describe an interracial coupling, of a White girl with a Black man as degenerate. I wondered why he hadn’t been censured by his Bishop to avoid scandal, given he’s presenting himself as a Catholic traditionalist.

 

[Elizabeth3]

That is the very thesis of his article. Its in the title. Its in the conclusion. It is his only point. You apparently don’t agree with him, and want to read what he says as something more charitable than it is. But that is his point

I think you are reading that meaning into the title without looking at what he is actually saying in the article. Who is being addressed with the title - To Combat Racism, Try Reviving the Black Family? The reader is being addressed. It is not assumed that only black people are reading the article so as to address them. I’ve already quoted the conclusion. It clearly addresses morality at the national, cultural level. It doesn’t single out the black community but it also doesn’t leave them out.

 

[antunesaa]

Anything that encourages having a stable job, a wife (or husband) and children will do. Here’s a few suggestions:

1. abolish minimum wages. This will put a price on any sort of discrimination, thus working to eliminate it. The abundant jobs will habituate youngsters to the world of labor and will train them for better and better jobs;
2. attribute social welfare only to very specific cases, like handicapped people, sick people, mentally affected people, people with involuntary and temporary income shocks, etc. This will encourage the young to find a job, keep a marriage, and go on with their studies;
3. eliminate all additional subsidies to single mothers that married mothers can’t have, and enforce mandatory contributions of fathers for the rearing of their children. It is very important that the law rewards neither mother nor father for the abandonment of the household by either of them;
4. restrict abortions to cases not dependent on the mother’s will, or just outlaw them;
5. make divorce much more difficult and with assignation of responsibilities, thus encouraging good matches ex ante and dissuading divorce ex post;
6. make it a felony to supply pornography to the under 21.

Notice that these measures apply to all kinds of people but I think blacks would disproportionately benefit from them in the medium to long run.

 

[TMC]

I think you are reading that meaning into the title without looking at what he is actually saying in the article. Who is being addressed with the title - To Combat Racism, Try Reviving the Black Family? The reader is being addressed. It is not assumed that only black people are reading the article so as to address them. I’ve already quoted the conclusion. It clearly addresses morality at the national, cultural level. It doesn’t single out the black community but it also doesn’t leave them out.

That makes no sense. I am just reading the words that he wrote. He expressly singles out the black community. He doesn’t say “revive families” he says “revive black families.” His article is not complicated - it argues that the break down in the morality of black people is the source of their troubles.

 

[Rubee]

• abolish minimum wages. This will put a price on any sort of discrimination, thus working to eliminate it. The abundant jobs will habituate youngsters to the world of labor and will train them for better and better jobs;
• attribute social welfare only to very specific cases, like handicapped people, sick people, mentally affected people, people with involuntary and temporary income shocks, etc. This will encourage the young to find a job, keep a marriage, and go on with their studies;
• eliminate all additional subsidies to single mothers that married mothers can’t have, and enforce mandatory contributions of fathers for the rearing of their children. It is very important that the law rewards neither mother nor father for the abandonment of the household by either of them;
  . . .

So . . . strip Black people and other poor populations of any existing support they may already have. I fail to grasp the part where this will help.

 

[antunesaa]

You should listen to Thomas Sowell, my favourite economist together with Milton Friedman (a black and a Jew). He has numerous interviews on the progress of blacks during the XXth century. It was incredible. In my humble opinion, the social contract that Lyndon Johnson (a notorious racist) offered the black community in the 1960s was a trap: elimination of de jure discrimination in exchange for privileged access to social welfare and government money. Coupled with this came minimum wage laws (which give a free pass to racist employers) that severely hit blacks and contributed to bad outcomes among their youth. These two factors priced out many blacks of the labor market or discouraged them from entering it.

 

[Freddy]

antunesaa:

• abolish minimum wages. This will put a price on any sort of discrimination, thus working to eliminate it. The abundant jobs will habituate youngsters to the world of labor and will train them for better and better jobs;
• attribute social welfare only to very specific cases, like handicapped people, sick people, mentally affected people, people with involuntary and temporary income shocks, etc. This will encourage the young to find a job, keep a marriage, and go on with their studies;
• eliminate all additional subsidies to single mothers that married mothers can’t have, and enforce mandatory contributions of fathers for the rearing of their children. It is very important that the law rewards neither mother nor father for the abandonment of the household by either of them;
  . . .

So . . . strip Black people and other poor populations of any existing support they may already have. I fail to grasp the part where this will help.

You know what’s depressing? Somebody will stand on a platform and promise these things and people will actually vote for that person. Not those who aren’t on less than the minimum wage. Not those who are dependent on welfare to put food on the table. Not the students who are trying to pay for their education. But enough to make a difference.

 

[Rubee]

But enough to make a difference.

That is indeed sad.

 

[antunesaa]

In the short run it’s impossible to just eliminate everything. Some sort of transition policies would be needed. But individuals react to incentives. They’ll work if working is better for them in the long run. And notice this: without minimum wage laws anyone can find a job. As people gain experience they can get better ones. Eventually low paid jobs will be filled with students in part time, kids with little appetite for studying (thus removing them from the idleness of the street), etc. With experience these kids can get better jobs. Did you know that in the 1940s the wage gap between blacks and whites was almost nil after controlling for education and experience? That’s because non-binding minimum wage laws made blacks highly competitive with whites with similar qualifications and experience. Now that gap is considerable.

 

[Rubee]

In the short run it’s impossible to just eliminate everything.

Yeah I was thinking things should be added not eliminated. Shockingly, many countries less rich than America have been able to support their poor and insist on minimum wage without it magically making their populations lazy. Perhaps that thesis doesn’t actually address the real causes of the problems it’s trying, supposedly, to resolve.

 

[Freddy]

But individuals react to incentives. They’ll work if working is better for them in the long run. And notice this: without minimum wage laws anyone can find a job. As people gain experience they can get better ones. Eventually low paid jobs will be filled with students in part time, kids with little appetite for studying (thus removing them from the idleness of the street), etc. With experience these kids can get better jobs.

I note that you are constantly using the third person. One rarely sees these sort of opinions put forward by someone who is actually on minimum wages or is surviving on welfare.

Do you think it’s possible to live on around $60 a day? Obviously you do because you want to drop that figure even more. What do you think the lowest wage rate would be that would be acceptable to you?

 

[JSAD]

Perhaps because stable families produce well adjusted educated kids ?

Like it or not …that is what employers are looking for

 

[antunesaa]

But did you make any effort to understand that minimum wage laws are a boon for discriminating employers? Let me explain. Suppose an employer discriminates against a trait; it could be race but it could also be something else. Now suppose that two potential employees apply for a job. Employee A has the trait (say, he’s black) and is willing to accept the job if the wage is at least 9 dollars per hour. Employee B doesn’t have the trait and is willing to work if the wage is at least 9.5 dollars per hour. Both are equally capable of doing the tasks implied by the position, which yields the employer 11 dollars per hour.

Let’s consider first the situation with a minimum wage law that forces the employer to pay any worker at least 10 dollars per hour. Since the employer discriminates against the trait that A has, he will hire B (the white guy) for a wage between 10 and 11 dollars per hour. He can just dismiss A without suffering any loss for being discriminatory.

Now suppose there are no minimum wage laws. If the employer hires B, he’ll have to pay him at least 9.5 dollars per hour. If he hires A, he’ll have to pay him at least 9 dollars per hour. But now, by accepting any wage between 9 and 9.5 dollars per hour A can in fact price B out of the job! The employer can still hire B because of his obsession, but now he pays a price for that. What do you think he’ll do in the long run? He’ll either become a pragmatist and hire people like A or will be driven out of the market by competition from less discriminatory employers.

In the previous example without minimum wage you can argue that the wage of A may be lower than that of B. Well, that is true but A will probably get the job, while with minimum wage he won’t. This empowerment of discriminated people is the first step for them to get hold of their own future.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That makes no sense. I am just reading the words that he wrote. He expressly singles out the black community. He doesn’t say “revive families” he says “revive black families.” His article is not complicated - it argues that the break down in the morality of black people is the source of their troubles.

Then the author is wrong in the application of the idea.

 

[antunesaa]

I don’t want anything. I just think minimum wages are well-meaning policies that have potent side effects like discrimination and pricing less prepared or experienced people out of the market.

But if you think minimum wage laws are good, I’m fine with that. I think otherwise and I have good evidence to underpin my opinion (the USA after WWII). For some strange reason people stick to the status quo. Like Chesterton said, “Christianity was not tried and found wanting; it was found difficult and not tried”.

 

[Freddy]

Perhaps because stable families produce well adjusted educated kids ?

Like it or not …that is what employers are looking for

So if you’re well adjusted you wont be the victim of racism. Got it…

 

[Rubee]

Now suppose there are no minimum wage laws. If the employer hires B, he’ll have to pay him at least 9.5 dollars per hour. If he hires A, he’ll have to pay him at least 9 dollars per hour. But now, by accepting any wage between 9 and 9.5 dollars per hour A can in fact price B out of the job! The employer can still hire B because of his obsession, but now he pays a price for that. What do you think he’ll do in the long run? He’ll either become a pragmatist and hire people like A or will be driven out of the market by competition from less discriminatory employers.

Is there any kind of study that shows this? This doesn’t seem to me to be true. Are there no poor White/Latinos who would work for lower wages too? There used to be a time children as young as 7 worked in factories 7 days a week. it did not stop because of market forces but because the government put a stop to it. Allowing people with capital to exploit desperate people in whatever way they want without protections and limits is not a civil way to run a country. I’ve seen how that works. It turns people into machines for others.

Also, how does it resolve discrimination at higher income levels?

 

[antunesaa]

That kind of policy is possible in highly homogeneous countries like Sweden and only if the minimum wage is sufficiently low relative to the median wage so as to be almost irrelevant. But for instance Germany never had a statutory minimum law and they’ve had the lowest unemployment rate in the European Union for a decade. Compare that with Italy, Spain, Portugal and France, all with high minimum wages relative to the median: these were the countries of the EU with the highest unemployment rate during the last decade.

 

[Rubee]

That kind of policy is possible in highly homogeneous countries like Sweden

I’ve heard this a lot from people who listen to um. . . lets just say sources I’d rather not recommend. What do you mean homogenous? In what way? And how does this homogeneity factor into supporting a country’s poor? Give me the logic.

 

[Freddy]

But did you make any effort to understand that minimum wage laws are a boon for discriminating employers?

Great idea. But why stop there. If the job is picking cotton and some guy won’t do it for less that a couple of bucks (and less say he’s white), then the owner could offer even less to some other guy (let’s say he’s black) and we have a win win situation.

The plantation owner makes a heap of money, the black guy gets some basic shelter and two square meals and racism is ended!

I think that was tried in some states.