The Long Term Economic Impact of Lynching.

Cutlass

The Man Who Wasn't There.
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
48,253
Location
US of A
The effects of the past are not dead and buried. They stay with us.



The past’s long shadow
Apr 13th 2015, 13:56 by C.R. | TELFORD


HENRY FORD, the founder of the carmaker that still bears his name, declared in 1916 that “History is more or less bunk.” When asked to open a museum more than a decade later, he sought to clarify his comments. It is not politicians and generals who change the future, he said, but the lives of ordinary people such as farmers or engineers. Two new papers, presented at Britain’s Economic History Society's annual conference last month, suggest that the legacy of individuals’ personal struggles in America is more enduring than even Ford could have imagined. The first*, by Cornelius Christian of Oxford University, looks at the consequences of the lynching of black Americans between 1882 and 1930. Mr Christian found that this history of racial violence still echoes down the decades. He also found that the higher an area’s lynching rate before 1930, the wider the income gap between blacks and whites remained in 2008-12, even when adjusted for factors such as the education and employment levels of a local area. A high rate of lynching widens this gap by as much as 15% in some cases. Another paper** presented at the conference, by Vellore Arthi, also of Oxford University, looked at the long-run impact of the Dust Bowl—a long period of drought in America’s central plains in the 1930s that involved a series of severe dust storms. Using census data Ms Arthi found that those who were born or were children during the disaster had a lower fertility rate than their peers from elsewhere in the country, were less likely to attend college and were more likely to suffer disability and poverty when they became older. As as other research has shown, some of these disadvantages, in turn, are likely to have affected the life chances of their children. In short, crimes that occurred a century ago and a drought that ended 75 years ago are still blighting lives today. * C. Christian, “Lynchings, labour, and cotton in the US South”. ** V. Arthi, “The dust was long in settling: human capital and the lasting impact of the American Dust Bowl”.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/free...story-0?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/the_past_s_long_shadow


Lynchings, Labour and Cotton in the US South
By Cornelius Christian
I show that cotton price shocks predict lynchings of African Amer-
icans in the US South from 1882 to 1930. Specically, a standard deviation decrease in the cotton price leads to a 0.095 to 0.16
standard deviation increase in lynchings, within a cotton-producing
county. Lynchings also predict more black out-migration from 1920
to 1930. Using a simple model, I show that this is consistent
with lynchings having labour market eects that benetted whites:
lynchings cause blacks to migrate away, lowering labour supply and
increasing wages for white labourers. I run complier tests to show
the mediating eects of railroads, the black-white farm worker ra-
tio, and slavery. I then turn to the long-term eects of lynchings.
I show that Mississippi counties with more violence during a 1964
Civil Rights campaign also had more lynchings during the earlier
period. Finally, present-day outcomes show that lynchings predict
higher black-white worker, family, and household income gaps; a
standard deviation rise in past lynchings predicts a 0.08 to 0.15
standard deviation increase in black-white income gaps. These
present-day results are robust to historical controls, to the use of
California lynchings as a falsication, to the use of white-on-white
lynchings as a placebo, and to the use of 1879 cotton acreage as an
instrument; they also survive tests using Altonji, Elder, and Taber
(2005) statistics.

.pdf here
 
The first*, by Cornelius Christian of Oxford University, looks at the consequences of the lynching of black Americans between 1882 and 1930. Mr Christian found that this history of racial violence still echoes down the decades. He also found that the higher an area’s lynching rate before 1930, the wider the income gap between blacks and whites remained in 2008-12, even when adjusted for factors such as the education and employment levels of a local area. A high rate of lynching widens this gap by as much as 15% in some cases.

So, basically there already was an income gap to begin with? How is the lynching then the cause?

Lynchings, Labour and Cotton in the US South

By Cornelius Christian

I show that cotton price shocks predict lynchings of African Amer-
icans in the US South from 1882 to 1930. Specifically, a stan-
dard deviation decrease in the cotton price leads to a 0.095 to 0.16
standard deviation increase in lynchings, within a cotton-producing
county. Lynchings also predict more black out-migration from 1920
to 1930. Using a simple model, I show that this is consistent
with lynchings having labour market effects that beneffitted whites:
lynchings cause blacks to migrate away, lowering labour supply and
increasing wages for white labourers. I run complier tests to show
the mediating effects of railroads, the black-white farm worker ra-
tio, and slavery. I then turn to the long-term effects of lynchings.
I show that Mississippi counties with more violence during a 1964
Civil Rights campaign also had more lynchings during the earlier
period.
Finally, present-day outcomes show that lynchings predict
higher black-white worker, family, and household income gaps; a
standard deviation rise in past lynchings predicts a 0.08 to 0.15
standard deviation increase in black-white income gaps. These
present-day results are robust to historical controls, to the use of
California lynchings as a falsification, to the use of white-on-white
lynchings as a placebo, and to the use of 1879 cotton acreage as an
instrument; they also survive tests using Altonji, Elder, and Taber
(2005) statistics.

What this does is suggest a correlation, not necessarily causation. What it certainly does not show is any predictability.
 
So, basically there already was an income gap to begin with? How is the lynching then the cause?



What this does is suggest a correlation, not necessarily causation. What it certainly does not show is any predictability.


Decades after it was going on, and the effect is still there.
 
I buy it, abuse or tragedy within families ripples thru the generations. Its takes alot of strength to overcome these patterns.
 
Why is there correlation, though? Coincidence or is there a variable that ties these two things together?

From what I've read, the only correlation would be one of time. The question of how lynching would cause poverty isn't even addressed.

Decades after it was going on, and the effect is still there.

Again, that at most suggest a possible correlation, not a causation.
 
Correlation =/= causation. A more likely explanation in my mind is that places where lynchings were more likely to occur were more racist and segregated overall, which on the whole would push blacks out and there would be a greater effort by whites to solidify their political, social, and economic power.

Lynchings were a tool of terror, but were a symptom of something much deeper and widespread.
 
thecrazyscot said:
A more likely explanation in my mind is that places where lynchings were more likely to occur were more racist and segregated overall, which on the whole would push blacks out and there would be a greater effort by whites to solidify their political, social, and economic power.

Indeed, lynchings and income gaps have both been symptoms / results of racism & segregation, but there is no cause-effect relationship between them.
 
Why are you so keen to reject it?

Because making it is a destructive red herring to a serious issue that still exists. The social construct that's allowing disproportionate amounts of people to be handled unfairly/shot/robbed/whatever is still a factor today and it's likely the factor that led to the lynching back then. It's never been okay, but it is absurd to claim that the lynching is the CAUSE of the issue. The cause of the issue is a society that accepts (to different degrees) unfair treatment of its minority populations or gross violence in the first place. US history doesn't really have a time period where it didn't happen.

If the goal is just to say that long-term oppression and violence of minorities has a negative impact on said minority groups, well okay, but that's not exactly rocket science.
 
Basically are they saying crime doesn't pay?

No, I'm not sure how you can read OP and come to that conclusion.

There are a few takeaways in the OP:

1. The article attempts a correlation/causality fallacy
2. Systematic oppression and killing of a minority population negatively influences it and has a tendency to perpetuate.
3. Disasters that negatively impact people in an area can leave them at a disadvantage in the future also.

#1 isn't worth anybody's time.
#2 should be obvious, but it's stupid to blame lynching for current disparity, rather than the mindset that allowed lynching and allows the current disparity while perpetuating. Criminals are the ones committing the crimes.
#3 should be obvious too; it isn't much of a reach to see that events that put people at the same disadvantages as being low-income generally leads to similar long-term disadvantages as being low-income.
 
No, I'm not sure how you can read OP and come to that conclusion.

There are a few takeaways in the OP:

1. The article attempts a correlation/causality fallacy
2. Systematic oppression and killing of a minority population negatively influences it and has a tendency to perpetuate.
3. Disasters that negatively impact people in an area can leave them at a disadvantage in the future also.

#1 isn't worth anybody's time.
#2 should be obvious, but it's stupid to blame lynching for current disparity, rather than the mindset that allowed lynching and allows the current disparity while perpetuating. Criminals are the ones committing the crimes.
#3 should be obvious too; it isn't much of a reach to see that events that put people at the same disadvantages as being low-income generally leads to similar long-term disadvantages as being low-income.
If # 3 is obvious (I agree), then how is # 1 a fallacy? :confused:
 
If # 3 is obvious (I agree), then how is # 1 a fallacy? :confused:

#3 isn't a correlation-causality thing. It's a straight cause. Event x makes y population low-income/injured/disadvantaged. Even if the reason for event x is different from the reason most low-income populations are low income, they are still a low income population and will share similar disadvantages.

#1 is attempting to correlate historical crime/lynching to today's struggles and implying causality. The historical crime (and crimes against minority populations today) are symptoms (with multiple factors leading to them) though, not causes.

In contrast, a major drought taking resources away is a direct cause of not having resources. I'm not buying that the lynching crimes themselves carrying the same lasting impact, and suspect the environment that allowed it/moved populations/altered supply/demand coupled with garden variety discrimination to be larger factors.
 
To the best of my knowledge not a single individual currently holding a high paying job has ever been lynched.

Sorry, red diamond, momentary outburst.

More seriously.

The concept of the 'rags to riches' story is a perpetuated beneficial myth among those with money. Almost everyone with significant money knows that their money was built on a generational base. By maintaining a widespread belief in the R2R myth the number of families actively pursuing generational planning is minimized, which makes said planning far more effective for those who do pursue it.

Since I strongly believe this, it would be absurd for me to think that people who come from ancestry that has been exposed to severe hardship in fairly recent generations are on an even footing with people who don't.
 
Can we also calculate the effects of German WW2 occupation on modern economic crisis in Greece?

Syriza will be happy. :)

Unfortunately, that would be an Italian occupation. (German troops conquered Greece, that's true.)
 
Back
Top Bottom