Critical race theory

[Hygro]

That's isn't the complaint. The complaint is that which fails the sniff test is not an adequate starting point. Politically sensitive numbers are always elastic enough to be suspect.

The hopes for whatever number that privilege estimate comes out to are nil.

"Oh no they're coming for me"?

But this one seems pretty easily quantifiable.

 

[Farm Boy]

Coupled with a complete lack of faith?

Still attributing "our" to Trumpies instead of "the unsophisticated" in the other exchange?

 

[El_Machinae]

The sniff test is what you use to go collect other data. That said, if someone is not qualified to collect that data and knows it, getting feedback about the sniff test is still useful. But, I think of it more as the qualified intuition. Someone with a reasonable model of reality can see data and know that it doesn't conform, and then take pains to test that intuition.


There is useful doubting, even if somebody isn't qualified to doubt, and then not useful doubting. A person with useful doubts can at least give feedback as to what statistics they think are missing

 

[Hygro]

I mean, maybe? More likely the "sniff test" is just an excuse for someone to ignore facts that they don't wish to admit or acknowledge

We're calculating cost of college, time of college and lost potential wages, career progression and loss of potential wages.

We have to underestimate the cost of oppression because the parameters of the study are only for interviews and not for hires, so we'd need to see who filters black interviewees with white names, a much harder more expensive study that puts more burden on people just trying hire someone.

So we get say 5 years of lost college time wages (6 is average but round down, favoring the privileged) in today's pay say this is entry level so call it $100,000, $120,000. Then there's average cost of college which is, we'll keep it lower, about $15,000 a year for 6 years for 90k. We'll round em both to $200,000. We could literally stop there, very conservatively.

But we've only accounted high school and college here. We need to add in the high school convict to high school grad with no record leg. Googled it and, just for the sake of this post, we'll take the no time lost part that the google search highlighted so -22%. To gain that back we need +28.2%.

So now we're at $250,000.

We'll hold off on life expectancy differences (for education and race) for this one. We are also going to hold off on time advantage for when you have enough money to start investing and how much it gets to compound. Leaving this out favors the priveleged. Anyway, Forbes says we work 48 years on average. Round to 50 (this also favors the privileged btw).

Seems salaries peak 45-55, are close ish 35 and 65, mostly low your starting years https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-salary-by-age-percentiles/. So while yes college correlates to longer life, we're leaving that out as well. Ceteris paribus, 5 years less of working which is, ultimately coming off the back end, being lost marginal years.

Now we have some trouble, the college wage premium lifelong is about 1 million. But the callbacks take us to parity in jobs that are high school level. How do we track expected earnings? Let's shortcut this as well as relax overfitting to this study, even though that study is the point of the exercise:

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2011/collegepayoff.pdf we get black college grads at -20% in lifetime earnings. That's about $500,000. And again income, not wealth, no compounding investments accounted for. Obviously we've left the realm of tighter variables into the realm of lots of compounding variables (see: gender wage gap; unlikely different industries with their requirements linearly scale in bias.).

But now we're looking at minimum $250,000, and a suggested $500,000.

If we didn't jump ship at the 500k we'd take the $250k and then just eyeballing averages here (no division of education) https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-salary-by-age-percentiles/ pulling the final 5 years, we can go to the end for lower numbers, eyeballing it looks like $300k. So add those and you get $550,000.

We've been consistently rounding along the way (very naughty) and we'll continue to round, the 550k to the 500k. Funny how close those numbers were.

But don't forget the prison premium! Subtract back the 50k, then multiply it all by 1.282. 576900. Now let's round in the favor of our oppressed for once, but less than we rounded against.

$600,000.

 

[citizenofdoom]

Does race exist?
My skin can be yellow or white or black or purple or pink. My blood can be red or blue or electricity. Idt anyone would avoid talking or making $ with a person except the case your blood is electricity (some even has fun with gpt-3 or believes lambda having human right).
If race doesn't exist, CRT is void.
-
The free market incentivizes employers to use labours that are cheaper. If employing an asian or a black or a white is cheaper, the market will rush into that underprivileged class and push the demand up.
Nature selection contributes the rest. Employers who get cheaper labour per quality will get richer than who don't. Richer employers then teach their offspring about where to get the gold mine. As a consequence, differences between races will be nothing but thin air.
Well, if in case CRT is somewhat "true", then hire people of the underprivileged color to get rich. I meant, just hire them. If you do, you are on your way to,... you know, making a society better in your point of view. Also, by doing that, you are accelerating the progress to make CRT wrong.
Many social problems can be answered with "the free market solves it", surprisingly. People should really pursuit the free market theory, like how to consume more goods.
/s Consuming more goods increases the demand of labour, making each economic cycle shorter(I think?), hence, making all races becoming equal faster(equality unit/USD, some people seem to be more equal intrinsically ) /s

 

[sophie]

Why is it so many dudes get tripped up on

is a social construct != "does not exist"

 

[aelf]

Why is it so many dudes get tripped up on

is a social construct != "does not exist"

Some countries' education systems do not equip their people to consider such nuances.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why is it so many dudes get tripped up on

is a social construct != "does not exist"

They've observed people lying to them, and they don't trust the voices telling them it exists as such. They think you're either a) lying to them or b) mislead by people lying to you.

 

[sophie]

They've observed people lying to them, and they don't trust the voices telling them it exists as such. They think you're either a) lying to them or b) mislead by people lying to you.

That doesn't follow from anything I said.

And it's not like the concept of social constructs being real and consequential eludes them completely. They comprehend language, and money, and animal taxonomy, and nations just fine. But when it comes to certain kinds of social constructs, the understanding flies completely out the window. I wonder why that might be.

 

[EnglishEdward]

People should really pursuit the free market theory, like how to consume more goods.

This results in congestion, resource depletion, pollution, waste disposal problems, and global warming.

And poor people get impacted more.

 

[Farm Boy]

I believe my answer addressed that head on.

If you want to argue that trust is a subcategory of prejudice, I'm on board. But you don't need to convince me. I believe that the advantage exists even if I think quantifying it is pretty pointless and suspect. For pretty much the same reasons I'd bristle at categorizing people as unsophisticated in negative terms and the conversation would mistake it for supporting a treasonous Assclown.

 

[Hygro]

Does race exist?
My skin can be yellow or white or black or purple or pink. My blood can be red or blue or electricity. Idt anyone would avoid talking or making $ with a person except the case your blood is electricity (some even has fun with gpt-3 or believes lambda having human right).
If race doesn't exist, CRT is void.
-
The free market incentivizes employers to use labours that are cheaper. If employing an asian or a black or a white is cheaper, the market will rush into that underprivileged class and push the demand up.
Nature selection contributes the rest. Employers who get cheaper labour per quality will get richer than who don't. Richer employers then teach their offspring about where to get the gold mine. As a consequence, differences between races will be nothing but thin air.
Well, if in case CRT is somewhat "true", then hire people of the underprivileged color to get rich. I meant, just hire them. If you do, you are on your way to,... you know, making a society better in your point of view. Also, by doing that, you are accelerating the progress to make CRT wrong.
Many social problems can be answered with "the free market solves it", surprisingly. People should really pursuit the free market theory, like how to consume more goods.
/s Consuming more goods increases the demand of labour, making each economic cycle shorter(I think?), hence, making all races becoming equal faster(equality unit/USD, some people seem to be more equal intrinsically ) /s

Real markets don't conform to economic equilibriums. They trend toward them when zoomed out, across time.

Wages don't equalize, by the way, they diverge. There's pressure to equalize, but compound(ing) interest effects is a helluva drug wedge. The rich get richer. Aka San Francisco pays more, and increasingly, for the higher number, and increasingly, of software engineers. Hollywood for actors. Increasing returns to scale is a key component of growth and income.

Further, politics, psychology, tradition, etc, all these things count even in the face of a working market economic system. You could convert the units of analysis, and "price in" your politics. If you succeed, you can see how people would rather pay a premium for dominance than be richer but share.

 

[Hygro]

I believe my answer addressed that head on.

If you want to argue that trust is a subcategory of prejudice, I'm on board. But you don't need to convince me. I believe that the advantage exists even if I think quantifying it is pretty pointless and suspect. For pretty much the same reasons I'd bristle at categorizing people as unsophisticated in negative terms and the conversation would mistake it for supporting a treasonous Assclown.

I was starting to write a reply agreeing that we could measure it 10 times get 100 results, but we should still try as how else are we going to know. But what I really want to know is like wait, what do you mean suspect? The econometricians, the sociologists, the data scientists, the various bureaus of government and universities... this is about as safe from suspect as we get so what's the suspect part?

 

[Farm Boy]

The same number used to describe the life experienced across lives will not mathematically equal the differences in life experienced?

 

[citizenofdoom]

This results in congestion, resource depletion, pollution, waste disposal problems, and global warming.

And poor people get impacted more.

True.

Real markets don't conform to economic equilibriums. They trend toward them when zoomed out, across time.

Wages don't equalize, by the way, they diverge. There's pressure to equalize, but compound(ing) interest effects is a helluva drug wedge. The rich get richer. Aka San Francisco pays more, and increasingly, for the higher number, and increasingly, of software engineers. Hollywood for actors. Increasing returns to scale is a key component of growth and income.

Further, politics, psychology, tradition, etc, all these things count even in the face of a working market economic system. You could convert the units of analysis, and "price in" your politics. If you succeed, you can see how people would rather pay a premium for dominance than be richer but share.

It seems like something too hard for me to quantify. I don't even study economics to know the game going on, just having some feeling about it.

I feel like currency as a concept having something that is intrinsically wrong that allows people to stack money which is meant to be consumed. I don't have evidences nor knowledge to prove it.

I know it's mathematically proven that richer but share < premium for dominance. Equilibrium is not optimal point, like two prisoners dilemma. People tend to either think the worst (minimax) or expecting for miracles (expectimax) in my opinion. I know that there might be no equilibrium exists, might be something harmonic or chaotic.

I read some theory about any amount of arbitrage in goods is expected to be eliminated. And labour is just a kind of goods, I believe. I expect job market will get more efficient and there are people believing job market is inefficient. To me, it seems ridiculous tho, I can tell currently job market is more efficient than job market 1 day after Lincoln. That trend is super long and probably irreversible that long trend of making job market efficient, ie equalize the value of labour from multiple sources. There might be some fluctuations in that trend tho.

I don't even feel like culture having any impact on me, it's very hard for me to comprehend culture, sorry. As a consequence, I tend not to consider anything like culture into decisions. I'm a guy wearing swimming short and a t-shirt to school as usual thing in the place full of pants.

 

[sophie]

I don't even feel like culture having any impact on me, it's very hard for me to comprehend culture, sorry. As a consequence, I tend not to consider anything like culture into decisions.

I'm a guy wearing swimming short and a t-shirt to school as usual thing in the place full of pants.

Both of these sentiments are an expression of culture.

Just gonna slip this in here since I don't want to run afoul of the mods' ban on standalone memes:

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Both of these sentiments are an expression of culture.

And yet he participates in it, i am very smart

 

[Hygro]

They've observed people lying to them, and they don't trust the voices telling them it exists as such. They think you're either a) lying to them or b) mislead by people lying to you.

Who is they? Most people thought race was a real and meaningful biological difference until recently. Even I did until, I dunno, whenever. Who figured it out first? The people saying "social construct". Who was skeptical? The people still stuck on bio. Right? So then who is this "they", the people who went, "ok so it isn't bio, but ok then it doesn't factor at all". Man now they're batting 0 - 2. Why are they the observers of the lie? Either they're perpetually ignorant, so uh, nice observation? I guess the eyes were elsewhere, charitably. But then to go "the liars!" and aim their claims of lies at the ones getting and saying it right, this isn't adding well and the sniff test is wrinkling my nose, my guy.

The same number used to describe the life experienced across lives will not mathematically equal the differences in life experienced?

Then what? Just give up? "Sorry you're only 10% of the population, and we don't trust solving it with an indirectness attached to a number, so you'll just have to eat it until you can wage race war"?

What's the recourse. Because once the prescription is "no prescription", then I would think, ok, people will do whatever wait that leads back to the reformation of politics and trying to quantify this whole thing. So there needs to be prescription else oh god we're just observing our participation in the The Great Algorithm.

Spoiler :

True.

It seems like something too hard for me to quantify. I don't even study economics to know the game going on, just having some feeling about it.

I feel like currency as a concept having something that is intrinsically wrong that allows people to stack money which is meant to be consumed. I don't have evidences nor knowledge to prove it.

I know it's mathematically proven that richer but share < premium for dominance. Equilibrium is not optimal point, like two prisoners dilemma. People tend to either think the worst (minimax) or expecting for miracles (expectimax) in my opinion. I know that there might be no equilibrium exists, might be something harmonic or chaotic.

I read some theory about any amount of arbitrage in goods is expected to be eliminated. And labour is just a kind of goods, I believe. I expect job market will get more efficient and there are people believing job market is inefficient. To me, it seems ridiculous tho, I can tell currently job market is more efficient than job market 1 day after Lincoln. That trend is super long and probably irreversible that long trend of making job market efficient, ie equalize the value of labour from multiple sources. There might be some fluctuations in that trend tho.

I don't even feel like culture having any impact on me, it's very hard for me to comprehend culture, sorry. As a consequence, I tend not to consider anything like culture into decisions. I'm a guy wearing swimming short and a t-shirt to school as usual thing in the place full of pants.

You are a participant in culture. No neutral observers! It's impossible. Your hunch and willingness to call it supply and demand and then reason that it will overcome racism is a culturally informed position.

Btw equilibrium is the optimal point of the prisoner's dilemma. Both semantically (aka what the words mean) and in terms of outcome.

The labor market might be more "efficient" than 150 years ago but that doesn't mean it has arbitraged to equal wages. Literally the opposite has happened, all strata are widening in income disparity.

 

[Farm Boy]

Crunched for time, but "they" being the ones that shut down when they hear "CRT." It's a signpost and trust applies. Since the wondering of why was directly related to the topic not believed in.

It's also why you can agree with the basic premises as they hit the road but still criticize the frame itself for being... heavy. Let's use "heavy."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

White names with criminal records and only high school got the same call backs as black names with college degrees and no criminal record.

that isn't "systemic hidden racism that doesn't track to reality", though. that's direct evidence of discrimination. the kind of evidence i ask for broadly, if you want to make broad assertions. the kind that correlations should drive you to look for and root out when you find it (and look for other explanations if you don't).

there is an enormous difference between "this particular industry is > 80% men, and that's a problem because reasons" vs "our model predicts bias against x, then we test for that bias, and observe evidence consistent with the prediction". though i would still be interested in what type of position is being applied for and the callback rate for the others (white with degrees/no criminal record, black with criminal history/no degree), as it informs the bias further.