96 comments on “Timmy elsewhere

  1. Not true of course. A 50 to 60 year-old black American high school dropout is less likely to be in jail than employment.

  2. I’m not sure how much either the education system or drugs are responsible for this. You can’t ignore the pernicious effect of “Black Kulture”.
    I’m thinking of a London family of my aquaintance. They were black but not Afro-Carib. From Sierra Leone & shared a family name with the President. And very religious. Two of the kids were christened Justice & Patience. And they were triers. Eldest son was a skater in Starlight Express. One of the daughters acted in a long-running TV series. Two others were qualified professionals.
    The youngest son was OK right through primary school until the Boyzfromdahood got their teeth into him at senior. Not saying he had the option. It’s be part of a gang or suffer. He acquired a Kingston Yardboy patois. Got into various bits of trouble with the law. By 18 he’s doing a stretch.
    The problem is; the Kulture validates this outcome. The creation of “Victims”. He’s a failure “coz’v society. inne? Kno wa I meen?”

  3. Could it just be a shrinking denominator? One of George W. Bush’s early reforms was the “No Child Left Behind” act of 2001. Without looking into the details, it sounds like it would have decreased overall dropout rates. The kids who dropped out despite the reforms must have been particularly badly-behaved, and thus more prone to crime.

    It would be more statistically accurate to look at black prisoners per total population (in that cohort), rather than per dropout. Though that wouldn’t make for such a good headline….

  4. As Bloke not in Spain points out, there is clearly something more going on here than merely a law gets passed and lots of people wind up in jail. Whether it’s the black American’s inability to resist taking or dealing drugs, or to avoid capture, or the racism of the po-lice, or of society in general (because it won’t give these kids jobs as lawyers, airline pilots or doctors), or something else altogether, who can say.

    Dearieme – possibly, but that’s a smaller subset. Tim’s talking about black drop-outs as a whole.

  5. There’s a phenomenally simple explanation: blacks are different to other races. And if you want more evidence: blacks were over-represented in the 2011 London riots by about 2,000%. And about 90% of those in prison for terrorist offences are Muslim, rather than Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, etc.

    Though of course the PC explanation for the above is that it’s all white man’s fault. Likewise white man is doubtless to blame for schoolgirls in Nigeria being abducted and sold into slavery and forced marriage. And British weather? That’s white man’s fault as well.r

  6. @Interested
    There’s definitely something going on.
    Let’s face it. Acquisitive criminality’s just the far edge of enterprise culture. There’s plenty of people do very well out of it.
    Trouble with the Brothers is, they really don’t seem to get the rules. if you want to stand on a street corner, dealing drugs, it really isn’t a career enhancing move to look exactly like someone standing on a street corner dealing drugs. Even if you’re not actually dealing drugs. Bad things will happen. One could almost come to the conclusion, their entire purpose is to get themselves captured, as efficiently as possible.

  7. “Tim’s talking about black drop-outs as a whole.” Nope, only the young ones.

    “The youngest son was OK right through primary school until the Boyzfromdahood got their teeth into him”: I remember being told a similar story thirty years ago. Then thecorrupters were Jamaicans, the corrupted were boys from the less violent islands of the Caribbean.

  8. >Dearieme – possibly, but that’s a smaller subset. Tim’s talking about black drop-outs as a whole.

    That’s what he said, sure, but as Dearieme said, it’s not true. Go and look at Tim’s graph — it only refers to 20-24 year olds.

  9. So, I was just wondering: do the rest of you lot now look at Ralph Musgrave’s comment and consider whether, just possibly, you haven’t somehow ended up on the wrong side of this discussion?

    There’s a much simpler explanation than the tenuous, twisted logic being used to blame the victims, which is that the US is still an incredibly racist country, on the whole. That explains the observation whilst not requiring endless contortions to explain why the majority of cases should be considered anomalous and the minority, the trend.

  10. Dave – “the US is still an incredibly racist country, on the whole.”

    True. But not so much of white Americans.

    How many times do they have to elect a black President, how many more decades do they have to offer race-based preferential treatment to blacks, how many more millions of third world immigrants do they have to allow into their country, before people stop accusing them of being awful racists?

    White non-Hispanic Americans are now only around 60% of the US population. They’ll be a minority within a generation. If they’re evil raaaaaccciiisssttss, they suck at it.

  11. @b(n)is – I’m now thinking of the besuited ghetto assassin from The Wire who steps out of his car in da hood, in tie and cufflinks, gets laughed at by the hoodies, then blows one of them away, adjusts tie, gets back into car.

    Back OT, what are the chances of any high school dropout regardless of race being in employment. Well below average I imagine. As are their chances (partly as a consequence of that lack of employment) of not being incarcerated.

    @Ralph Musgrave, it absolutely is the white man’s fault that there are large numbers of muslims hostile to the indigenous culture present in the UK. There wasn’t any attempt to screen out of those potentially hostile to the indigenous culture. That their offspring tend to be more radical and fundamentalist than the first generation immigrants is well known, Hanif Kureishi wrote about it 20 years ago.

  12. @Dearieme/Tank – yes, my mistake. I’d not read the original piece, or looked at the graph, which is not ideal when commenting on it.

    @Dave The trouble with your argument is it’s bullshit – there’s nothing intrinsic stopping black people from getting on in the US, as demonstrated by Ulysses Bridgeman, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Don Thompson, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Sowell, Bill Cosby, Jay Z, Eddie Murphy, Walter Williams, Neil Tyson, Roger W. Ferguson jr, Janice Howroyd, Magic Johnson and a million others.

    That is, if there really was some systemic, evil whitey plan to keep the blacks down, these people could not have done what they have done.

    Similarly, while we may disagree with prohibition, the mere fact of prohibition is not responsible for people being in jail. Just as the mere fact that burglary is illegal is not responsible for burglars being in jail – sentient beings have a choice, and if that choice is to burgle houses (or deal crack) then they are themselves responsible for what comes next.

    It is (in my view) racist to set lower standards for blacks, as in white crack dealers make the choice to deal crack, but black crack dealers are just pawns in an evil system. You don’t seem to view them as fully human agents of their own lives.

    In my view, the problems American blacks currently face are caused by a combination of welfare, the destruction of the family, and a failure (or to get into deeper water, the inability on the broad scale) to take advantage of the educational opportunities which are available to them.

    That is, where black men and women work hard at school, keep out of trouble with the law (as millions manage to), stay together to raise their kids, and generally behave like normal, decent members of society, their life chances are just fine.

    Trouble is, a lot of them just don’t seem able to do this (as is also true of plenty of whites)

    One thing it’s not is the fault of white Americans – all they do (on the whole) is pay for and run the joint, with increasing assistance from Asians.

  13. >There’s a much simpler explanation than the tenuous, twisted logic being used to blame the victims, which is that the US is still an incredibly racist country, on the whole.

    But if Tim’s graph is evidence for that, then that means that the US used to be a much less racist country, and has become more and more racist over the last few decades. You really believe that?

  14. The article says “Things aren’t great for white high school dropouts either” so is it a matter of race /culture differences or/and racism depending upon your prejudices?
    Surely the point is you drop out of high school things can go badly wrong for you, is that a big surprise?

  15. @B(n)IS

    ‘Let’s face it. Acquisitive criminality’s just the far edge of enterprise culture. There’s plenty of people do very well out of it.
    Trouble with the Brothers is, they really don’t seem to get the rules. if you want to stand on a street corner, dealing drugs, it really isn’t a career enhancing move to look exactly like someone standing on a street corner dealing drugs.’

    True. I’m just reading an excellent book called LAND OF OPPORTUNITY, about the Chambers brothers, a black crack gang of 1980s Detroit.

    They ran crack houses in the three figures, were making up to $30,000 per day in profit, and were reasonably under the radar, until they started doing things like hiring six pearl white Cadillacs to drive in convoy to a younger brother’s high school graduation ceremony back home in Arkansas.

    Given that they were from a dirt poor share cropping fmaily and had headed north to work on the General Motors production line, this raised eyebrows.

    One other point on this, of course, is that the bleeding heart Daves of the world who peacock about the place with their anti-racist badges don’t actually have to live next door to a Detroit crack house.

    The people who do actually have to live next door to Detroit crack houses are poor blacks.

    Ask someone like Debbie McBride what she thinks of black crime and po-po racism.

  16. @Dave The trouble with your argument is it’s bullshit – there’s nothing intrinsic stopping black people from getting on in the US, as demonstrated by Ulysses Bridgeman, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Don Thompson, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Sowell, Bill Cosby, Jay Z, Eddie Murphy, Walter Williams, Neil Tyson, Roger W. Ferguson jr, Janice Howroyd, Magic Johnson and a million others.

    That is, if there really was some systemic, evil whitey plan to keep the blacks down, these people could not have done what they have done.

    It’s not on/off, it’s degrees. There may be less prejudice nowadays but some remains.

    The first correspondence experiment using CVs to get interview offers to try to determine how employers discriminate was run in 1969. That experiment and all the experiments since have shown that employers discriminate by the names the experimenter randomly assigned to the CVs. In the US ‘white’ names receive more interview offers than ‘black’ names. The US is not the only country where this happens – ‘native’ names receive more interview offers than ‘foreign’ names in the countries where such experiments have been run. It happens in France, Sweden, Canada, the UK for example. And it doesn’t just happen to blacks in predominantly white countries, it happens to Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis too. So to suggest there is no prejudice, just because a few people have made it to the top, is bullshit.

  17. It may have something to do with the fact that any group with a strong sense of a separate identity from the general society have a tendency towards gangsterism. Sicilians, for instance.

    It’s because it triggers the “ingroup/outgroup” instinct in the brain; humans are designed to protect the ingroup and plunder the outgroup. All our ancestors did this; raiding neighbouring tribes. It’s a very powerful instinct. So if you isolate or encourage some group to identify as separate- as the multiculturalism of the post-1960s era has with blacks- you’re likely to get plunder behaviour from them.

    To use a non-racial example, the intense “ingroup feeling” of the old London underclass produced much the same. As with the old Barbara Windsor style, “the only done it to their own” bollocks, which actually means “they done it to other people”.

  18. Welfare has fucked up working class US blacks as it has fucked up the UK working class in general. It has turned what were in general stabile families with a work ethic into a largely fatherless assortment of youth with little chance of employment. Add shite state schools, state meddling in the economy which has vastly reduced employment chances both because of less businesses -via tax/regulation- and galloping inflation in “qualifications” needed to be employed. The major qualification for the young being the need to income more than minimum wage + profit. Also add drugs offering, because of prohibition, a possible route to wealth and the rise of gangs and the gang antics that has brought. More than enough to account for the problems.

  19. As for crack and other illicit substances from which huge amounts of money are reportedly made and crime occurs as a result: understand that prohibition inflates prices and increases the risk of substituting for more potent forms or more dangerous substances altogether. During Prohibition in the US, crime increased and became organised, tax receipts decreased and government spending increased, people opted for stronger alcohol or substituted with drugs (e.g. opium and cocaine). And after an initial drop alcohol consumption actually increased!

    Society does things and then complains about the results. Then it does a similar thing later on and complains about similar results. And it repeats this pattern over and over.

    People talk about “fault” or who is to blame. I do not dispute it is the fault of the criminal for committing a crime. But understand that on a macro-level such things are emergent from socioeconomic circumstances and rules; we ban a popular substance, inevitably people will continue to use it and inevitably we’ll encounter the problems associated with that (crime, corruption, gangs, more potent and risky substances etc). Whose “fault” is that? Or is talking about “fault” in that kind of context a bit simplistic and unlikely to mitigate the problem?

  20. @Mr Ecks,

    If welfare is responsible, please explain why the US underclass (Iess welfare) is more fucked up than the UK underclass (more welfare).

  21. @Dave & UK lib
    You are, of course, trotting out the standard, middle class, intellectual given that racism is an undesirable trait. For many people it’s an entirely understandable survival tactic. If you’re venturing into the black part of town, go armed. This has little to do with any individual black person but the learned experience, high numbers of blacks=grief.
    If black underachievement was due to unwarranted assumptions, then you’d expect that graph to tend in the opposite direction as people found they had less & less to fear from black society & blacks benefited from.the reduction. Particularly in view of the anti-racism education’s been ubiquitous for decades. This is, after all, the experience of most racial groups. If their is a racial element, it’s more likely the racism’s being validated by ongoing experience.

  22. The US has spent far more on Welfare than the UK–admittedly spread over more people. Literally trillions of dollars over the 50 years since Johnsons great society crap. I am not aware of the relative US/UK weekly/monthly payment rates.

    I am also unaware in what way the US underclass is more fucked up than the UK. There maybe more of them and more individually awful “extreme” horror type situations in the US but again they have a larger base of numbers. So more alcholics/druggies/abusers/crims etc and more extreme examples of awfulness in each category.

  23. @ Mr Ecks
    Do you want to explain what an “underclass” is?
    Can’t say I’ve ever come across one apart from on the page.

  24. You are, of course, trotting out the standard, middle class, intellectual given that racism is an undesirable trait. For many people it’s an entirely understandable survival tactic.

    In fact, I didn’t say it is undesirable (although I do think it is), I just said it appears to occur, despite the fact that some people have made it to the top.

    Employers tending to prefer to offer interviews to group A instead of group B because employers fear group B’s criminality seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy / vicious circle scenario.

  25. BNIS–You have already read the dictionary definition “on the page” so what do you want explaining ?. Are you asking me to explain why you don’t believe there is such a thing as an underclass?. I think that is for you to do.

  26. @UKL ‘It’s not on/off, it’s degrees. There may be less prejudice nowadays but some remains.’

    Well yes. But I don’t know of any way in which you can remove all prejudice from all human activity.

    I also don’t know that it would be desirable. Prejudice – prejudging the likely outcomes of certain situations – has kept me alive more than once.

    As to your CV point, if I ran a small business in Chicago I would probably file all applications from people call Ja-Shawn and LaDoucia in the bin, and interview candidates called James and Mary.

    That’s just a reflection of the obvious fact that, on the available information, the former are less likely to be good employees than the latter.

    One thing it is not is racism – there’s no law against black people calling their kids James and Mary, and plenty do.

  27. Bloke in France, if I, as an employer, don’t wish to employ some scrote with a conviction for GBH, theft, drugs etc. that should be my prerogative. I think having a criminal record is relevant and wouldn’t trust such a person with anything more than a toilet brush.

  28. @UKL

    ‘As for crack and other illicit substances from which huge amounts of money are reportedly made and crime occurs as a result: understand that prohibition inflates prices and increases the risk of substituting for more potent forms or more dangerous substances altogether.’

    Yes. I’m against prohibition. My nose/veins/lungs, my choice.

    ‘But understand that on a macro-level such things are emergent from socioeconomic circumstances and rules’

    Hmmm. Some poor people keep their houses clean, try to find work, sacrifice what luxuries they might afford for their children. Other poor people allow their dogs to shit in the living room, buy cider and hash ahead of nappies and bread, make no effort to work and strew fridges and sofas in their gardens.

    it’s the people themselves, not the ‘socioeconomic circumstances’.

    ‘we ban a popular substance, inevitably people will continue to use it and inevitably we’ll encounter the problems associated with that (crime, corruption, gangs, more potent and risky substances etc). Whose “fault” is that? Or is talking about “fault” in that kind of context a bit simplistic and unlikely to mitigate the problem?’

    Whose fault is it that some people choose to deal crack to 12-year-olds? Er, mine? White people generally? Black people generally? It’s the fault of the crack dealers, obviously.

  29. @BNIS

    ‘Do you want to explain what an “underclass” is?
    Can’t say I’ve ever come across one apart from on the page.’

    A class of people who do not work and do not wish to work but subsist on benefits and the proceeds of petty crime, who live in blended and ever-changing family groups, and who are semi-educated at best. Wear a lot of leggings and baseball caps, too.

    The closer you get to the benefit spigot the more you find them.

  30. @”Bloke in Germany
    August 6, 2014 at 1:17 pm
    @Mr Ecks,

    If welfare is responsible, please explain why the US underclass (Iess welfare) is more fucked up than the UK underclass (more welfare).”
    More guns and more drugs + less welfare is worse than more welfare? Also the US was a lot more violent to start with.

  31. @PaulB

    ‘This article is instructive on the history of African-American neighbourhoods in the USA.’

    Well, not really. it’s a load of toss by race hustler Ta-Nehisi Coates (I’d have put his job application in the bin) and a demand for people who have suffered no wrong to be further wedged up by people who have done them no wrong.

    When are these people going to stop acting like permanent victims, hands out, demanding stuff? How about, get off your lazy arse and do something with your life, a la Thomas Sowell?

    (On the other hand, the English owe me for the potato famine, but I owe the English for the Norman invasion and probably the Vikings, too (since I have Irish, Scandinavian and Norman descent). I like the sound of that.)

  32. DocBud says
    Bloke in France, if I, as an employer, don’t wish to employ some scrote with a conviction for GBH, theft, drugs etc. that should be my prerogative. I think having a criminal record is relevant and wouldn’t trust such a person with anything more than a toilet brush.

    Well so might I. If I was recruiting for a pharmacy or the police for example.

    But the types of jobs these guys could do are not that sensitive.

    I don’t have the data but my guess is that the median age for first arrest of black high school drop outs is 15 or 16. There seems to be no second chances in US life if 68% of the cohort has done jail time. The original original paper (linked to in yesterday’s FT) said that US employers could even see if you’d been arrested but not charged.

    Clearly nearly all jailbirds are guilty, I don’t buy that racism bullshit either. But condemning teenagers to a life without possibilities is a terrible problem. Any mild suggestion on how to fix it seems better than some of the bile on here.

  33. Interested,

    it’s the people themselves, not the ‘socioeconomic circumstances’.

    I’m talking in terms of statistical likelihoods as well as individual circumstances. What is the likelihood of people doing X in some circumstances? What is the likelihood of people doing X in some other circumstances? ‘Society’ has control over some circumstances, e.g. rules or laws. Suppose we don’t people to act in a particular way (e.g. consume an illicit substance). Suppose we create a rule that prohibits them from doing so. Suppose that results in a worse outcome for us all than how we started. What is the rational approach, here? Just carry on saying it’s the individual to blame? Or change the rule?

    Whose fault is it that some people choose to deal crack to 12-year-olds? Er, mine? White people generally? Black people generally? It’s the fault of the crack dealers, obviously.

    Obviously, as I said “I do not dispute it is the fault of the criminal for committing a crime”. But why does crack exist in the first place and why is there a market for it? The Iron Law of Prohibition or the Alchian–Allen effect explains why (at least in part).

    Incentives matter.

  34. ‘If welfare is responsible, please explain why the US underclass (Iess welfare) is more fucked up than the UK underclass (more welfare).’

    Presumably there is a point at which enough welfare would lead to no crime. That is, if you gave every lowlife in the country a million quid a year, all but those who enjoy crime for the thrill or whatever would cease.

    At the zero welfare end of the scale, other effects would be seen – probably lots of people somehow finding work, others going to jail for repeatedly stealing bread.

    In the middle there are a range of options which, taken with the culture and demography of the people concerned, have different outcomes.

    The British people – even our chavs – have a long history of basic civility and law abidingness. Thanks to the left, we are exchanging this for a more exciting and vibrant culture of muggings, loud music and terrible clothes, but it takes time to get to Detroit standards of shitness.

  35. Bloke in France, I’m happy for them to have a second chance as long as it is not at my risk or that of my employees. I’m more than happy to buy the Big Issue off them.

  36. Hmm, for the sake of clarity perhaps I should not have written “racist bullshit” but “anti-racist bullshit”. On third thoughts, forget it.

  37. @UKL

    yes, I get all that (and I’m not wholly unsympathetic to the theory behind it).

    However, if the only response to a given law being broken is to blame society and repeal the law we are in a pretty parlous state.

    Beyond that, I suppose not unreasonably I have a different view of the agency of the individual than you do. Society, after all, is just an agglomeration of individuals.

    I don’t care how broke I am, I wouldn’t steal from an elderly widow.

    Some people will smash an elderly widow to the ground to take her purse just to buy four cans of Stella.

    What the law says about theft, and how Stella came to exist, are not very helpful in assessing this behaviour (IMO).

    It’s not even very helpful to say X is an alcoholic, he has difficulty controlling himself when the urge is on him. I mean, sure he does, but that’s why we have others control him for him (so to speak).

  38. @UKL – why ‘LOL’?

    There were (and to an extent still are) fewer safer places to live in the whole of human history than England. The whole of human history. Unless you can show different?

  39. @BIF

    ‘Clearly nearly all jailbirds are guilty, I don’t buy that racism bullshit either. But condemning teenagers to a life without possibilities is a terrible problem. Any mild suggestion on how to fix it seems better than some of the bile on here.’

    As one of the leading purveyors of bile on this thread, I will respond.

    I think it’s tragic and terrible that (if true) kids can’t get jobs because of a minor arrest when young.

    But I can also see that it’s a buyers’ market, jobs-wise, and that if I were an employer and I had the choice between X with a criminal record and Y without one I’d go for Y. So would most people, I’d have thought.

    [And – if there aren’t the jobs for everyone – then to do otherwise, to not incentivise good kids, would merely accelerate civilisational suicide.]

    As to a solution, you can’t in my opinion really solve these things after the fact, by intervention, or diktat, or social workers, or ‘investment’, or anything PaulB thinks is a good idea.

    The only way is to take a long term view and for parents to bring their kids up properly, or as close to properly as they can.

    That is not easy, I am a parent, albeit not one living in Watts, and it’s a constant battle.

    No walking away from your baby momma. No having kids by five different baby fathers. No getting drunk and stoned first thing in the morning. No stealing or buying stolen goods. No lying in and not caring if your kids are at school or not.

    Et cetera and so on – you know the script, you’re a decent person.

    Not easy, as I say. But it’s the only way. Nothing else works.

  40. Interested
    I think you’re right, and I really am trying to get it.

    The solutions proposed here and elsewhere do not really address the problem, do they? More welfare, less welfare. WTF? As for making drugs available through legitimate retail, how does that help a criminal get out of a spiral of criminality?

  41. However, if the only response to a given law being broken is to blame society and repeal the law we are in a pretty parlous state.

    Beyond that, I suppose not unreasonably I have a different view of the agency of the individual than you do. Society, after all, is just an agglomeration of individuals.

    I did not suggest we should blame society.

    A rule is proposed with the intention of having a particular outcome. How effective is it in achieving that outcome? What new problems does it add? What are all the economic and social costs? Given all that, is the rule worth the costs?

    In that, where do I “blame society”? Where do I deny the individual has agency or suggest he should not be held to account for breaking the rule?

    If the rule did not achieve the intended outcome and led to crime and corruption etc, it would seem entirely sensible to consider changing the rule or getting rid of it. Or should we just keep it, put up with the terrible results and hope for the best?

  42. @BIF

    ‘The solutions proposed here and elsewhere do not really address the problem, do they? More welfare, less welfare. WTF? As for making drugs available through legitimate retail, how does that help a criminal get out of a spiral of criminality?’

    The only real solution is for people to live decently. Of course, that discriminates against those who seem to find it very hard.

    Personally I would legalise drugs on the basis that it’s no-one else’s business what I smoke. However, I’d also deal with the other side of the balance – you take speed, your heart attack is your affair. And so on.

    The retail price of most drugs would be very low absent prohibition so that would deal with some of the criminality. That is, I do think some addicts rob old ladies to get the money for heroin. If heroin was a tenth of the price it is that would surely have some effect on the robbing of old ladies.

    Re welfare, I like Charles Murray’s version of the citizen’s income – as much as anything to spike the guns of those who insist it’s my job to put food in the mouths of able-bodied men half my age.

  43. @UKL ‘where do I “blame society”?’

    Where you said: ‘Society does things and then complains about the results.’

    But leaving that to one side you say:

    ‘If the rule did not achieve the intended outcome and led to crime and corruption etc, it would seem entirely sensible to consider changing the rule or getting rid of it. Or should we just keep it, put up with the terrible results and hope for the best?’

    As I say, I favour ending drug prohibition.

    However, it’s not the case that ending prohibition will in and of itself cure all ills related to prohibition, or that some of the terrible results we certainly see necessarily follow from prohibition.

    For instance, there are very few crackheads in Saudi Arabia.

    I’m not saying I want us to be more like Saudi Arabia, far from it, but I am saying that it is not as simple as, if you ban crack you will get lots of crackheads.

    There are other factors – chiefly cultural ones – in play, in my opinion.

    I think it’s also true that no law is entirely, or even mostly, effective. The cost of the police and the courts and the jails is absolutely vast, and yet they do not achieve their end, of protecting the law abiding and punishing (to taste) the guilty.

    Should we abandon all laws and all police/prisons?

    My village essentially self-polices; couldn’t everyone?

    My street in London (Hackney) could have done, for sure. Enough blokes to patrol and keep undesriables out, no problem. Especially if the same was true of every street in every direction.

    We just left it up to the cops, and we got burgled occasionally; without cops, I suggest there’d have been no burglary at all.

    (I’m not seriously arguing this, only half seriously, but it’s not a million miles away from your position that the drug laws don’t work and create expense, so we should ditch them)

  44. Interested,

    @UKL ‘where do I “blame society”?’

    Where you said: ‘Society does things and then complains about the results.’

    That wasn’t blaming society, I don’t think in terms of blame at that level, it was literally about how we make decisions that lead to predictable adverse outcomes and then we complain about the adverse outcomes; it’s an observation of behaviour.

    However, it’s not the case that ending prohibition will in and of itself cure all ills related to prohibition,

    I’m sure it’s true that it won’t cure all ills. Again I don’t think in terms of on/offs, absolutes, but degrees. How we mitigate risks.

    or that some of the terrible results we certainly see necessarily follow from prohibition.

    For instance, there are very few crackheads in Saudi Arabia.

    I’m not saying I want us to be more like Saudi Arabia, far from it, but I am saying that it is not as simple as, if you ban crack you will get lots of crackheads.

    I didn’t suggest it would. I suggested it would inevitably result in people consuming possibly worse substances and possibly result in other, connected consequences. Perhaps executing dealers would result in fewer dealers and users, we can only speculate, but we are unlikely to have that kind of rule so the point seems moot. I don’t know what people in Saudi Arabia get up to.

    If we add a common charge to the price of two substitute goods the consumption of the higher priced good will increase (under certain assumptions). It seems to hold for grapes (Alchian–Allen’s example), coffee beans, wine, vehicles, marijuana (the substitutes are high and low THC) and orange juice (substitutes are fresh or concentrate).

    It’s been observed under prohibition:
    beer -> spirits
    opium -> morphine -> heroin
    cocaine -> crack -> meth(?)

    I didn’t suggest getting rid of a rule just because it is not wholly effective, I don’t think anyone expects such a rule to be 100% effective, even its proponents, I outlined a way to evaluate a rule and come to a decision about whether it is keep it or change it or abolish it.

  45. Interested

    “The only solution is to live decently”

    Well, I hope so, as I don’t want my wife playing away either. But once you have the basics (council house, dole, relative freedom from violence) it makes economic and evolutionary sense to have multiple fathers.

    As it happens, my wife has a friend who is just one such scrounger. Firstborn has a PhD in computing, and while he’s not making a fortune he’s not starving either. The second has had his run ins with stop and search etc. After the London riots he was expressing some views which Mr X might find a bit fruity. (He’s a store manager for Dixons or Currys or similar.) The third (3rd father) is a bit more PaulB but black hairdressing is such a goldmine it doesn’t matter. The fourth, despite the neglect at his birth that starved him of oxygen, is doing alright at school in Hackney.

    Anyway, she’s leaving (but probably not the council house) to marry (I suppose for the first time) an accountant in Maryland, so soon it’ll be the septics’ problem.

  46. @UKL

    Sorry – I thought you were making a more nuanced point than you were. It’s fairly trivial to observe that laws have consequences, that we should try to work out before and after the law has come into effect what those consequences might be or have been, and use that as a guide (though not the only guide) as to whether to maintain or repeal that law, and as regards future policy.

    (For me the much bigger question is whether, try as we might, we actually can arrive at much in the way of useful data, in a society as complex as ours – sixty million people, maybe ten billion daily interactions. I have the feeling that the answer is probably no, and that even if it were theoretically possible it is rendered impossible by the many and varied vested interests which are involved as soon as the government opens its chequebook.)

    I wouldn’t personally treat Alchian-Allen as having the force of revelation – it’s basic common sense, surely?

    Anyway, other than that, yes, I essentially agree with you (if that’s the extent of the point you’re making).

  47. Interested,

    As to your CV point, if I ran a small business in Chicago I would probably file all applications from people call Ja-Shawn and LaDoucia in the bin, and interview candidates called James and Mary.

    That’s just a reflection of the obvious fact that, on the available information, the former are less likely to be good employees than the latter.

    One thing it is not is racism – there’s no law against black people calling their kids James and Mary, and plenty do.

    What “available information” suggests Ja-Shawn and LaDoucia are less likely to be good employees than James and Mary?

  48. Actually, ‘nuanced’ was the wrong word – it makes it sound as though I think your point was literally trivial, which I don’t.

    I meant something more like ‘making a different point’, though that’s not right either.

  49. @UKL ‘What “available information” suggests Ja-Shawn and LaDoucia are less likely to be good employees than James and Mary?’

    You mean, apart from one’s own experience, the court reports and the Jeremy Kyle show?

    Aura and Hess found weird first names correlated with poor education, early pregnancy and general unhappiness. Not ideal in an employee. Of course, some people claim that this is because of racism – that the police go out of their way to arrest DuMarcus but allow Michael to walk past with his rock and pipe. I’m less sure.

    Kalist and Lee found ‘unpopular’ (ie ridiculous) first names were correlated with criminal records. Not ideal in an employee. Of course, some people claim that this is because of racism – that somehow maths teachers don’t want to pass onto LaJackson the mysteries of calculus which they willingly impart to John. I’m less sure.

    A number of studies have shown that people with ‘black’ (their description, not mine – though Bill Cosby and Chris Rock certainly think it’s an issue) first names don’t get called for job interviews.

    Of course, some people also claim that this is because of racism.

    As a non-racist person and employer working in the competitive private sector, I am – again – less sure.

    Most successful (or unsuccessful) employers couldn’t care two hoots what colour their workers are, as long as they are reliable and competent.

    So I doubt it’s racism, but linked to the first two paras ie people called Jasqushi are – for some reason – often unreliable nutcases who you just know are going to cause you trouble.

    As to why that might be, I can only speculate that the kind of people who have such a burning need to stand out from the crowd that they name their children by means of chucking a Scrabble set up in the air and picking out what comes down are suffering from a sort of prickly and self-righteous arrogance that does not go well with raising normal kids who just want to get along.

    I repeat – call your kids James and Sarah and they will probably do just fine.

  50. it’s a … demand for people who have suffered no wrong to be further wedged up by people who have done them no wrong.

    I don’t supposed you read it, since the author’s forename isn’t white enough for you, but if you had you’d have learnt about how decades of racist lending practices by (especially) the Federal Housing Administration created impoverished African-American neighbourhoods.

    People who are brought up in poor, low-employment neighbourhoods are more likely to get drawn into crime and less likely to get jobs. So the history of racism is at least part of the reason why young African-American men who have dropped out of school are more likely to be in jail than in employment.

    There are other factors which have made the statistics get much worse in the last 25 years for both whites and blacks – the war on drugs which punishes minor involvement with a criminal record, the decline in unskilled employment generally, and the reduction in high-school drop-out rates (so that the average drop-out is less employable than formerly).

  51. During Prohibition in the US … after an initial drop alcohol consumption actually increased!

    I don’t think that’s true, if you mean alcohol consumption became higher than it had been before Prohibition. The study that’s usually referred to is this one, which estimates that alcohol consumption towards the end of Prohibition had recovered to about two thirds of what it had been.

  52. UKLiberty: “But why does crack exist in the first place…”

    Well, if you listen to the race-hustlers (and it would seem you do indeed lap it up) the CIA invented it to keep the brothers down.

    Dawg.

  53. PaulB makes a good point. If the absolute numbers of high school drop-outs is falling, the proportion of criminals among them is probably rising.

    But then what are we to make of the 21% who’ve been in prison but have “some college” education? One in five is still a pretty large number.

  54. PaulB: “…decades of racist lending practices ..”

    Oh, Christ, another of the left-wing brains trusts pops up. Now all we need is Arnald…

    You mean, the expectation of the loaner that the loanee will actually repay the money? Those racist bastards…

  55. PaulB–re your “racist lending practices”–from the Feds no less. Wrong way round. The costs of doing business in ghettos is higher because you have more danger of having your business hit by criminals/rioters etc, etc More danger of insurance claims and general default. Walter Block deals with this in “Defending the Undefendable”.

    On the matter of black names attached is of interest:

    http://takimag.com/article/the_jacksun_also_rises_jim_goad#axzz39dY6ttyF

  56. JuliaM,

    If you go to the link provided by PaulB you can find plenty of material about how redlining was racially motivated. If it was only about the lack of a likelihood to repay it would not have been as crude as it was. The backlash against it then led to stuff like the CRA – which has been criticised for undermining likelihood to repay.

    Similarly the points he makes about criminal records, less work for the unskilled and lower wages are all well documented.

    There is plenty of evidence to suggest why people hire people like themselves, that doesnt require racism, but does reflect shared experiences – public school educated people are more likely to be able to judge the ability of people of similar backgrounds rather than someone from a state school background and thus they hire people like themselves.

  57. UKLiberty: “But why does crack exist in the first place…”

    Well, if you listen to the race-hustlers (and it would seem you do indeed lap it up) the CIA invented it to keep the brothers down.

    What I’ve been talking about here in terms of the consequences of prohibition I discovered through mises.org and cato.org – I wasn’t aware the CIA is behind them.

  58. Where’s So Much For Subtlety? After all, he reckons blacks are “borderline retarded”.

    Interested wins the £5 for being the twat.

  59. Interested,

    @UKL ‘What “available information” suggests Ja-Shawn and LaDoucia are less likely to be good employees than James and Mary?’

    You mean, apart from one’s own experience, the court reports and the Jeremy Kyle show?
    [etc]

    You deny being racist (note I didn’t use that word in this thread before now) but admit to being prejudiced (I used that word) against “weird” names, which might not be weird in other countries.

    Incidentally, I’ve never seen any names like Ja-Shawn, LaDoucia, LaJackson or DuMarcus on these studies – no names with capital letters between the first and last letters. It’s ‘interesting’ you pick those as examples.

  60. …where black men and women work hard at school, keep out of trouble with the law (as millions manage to), stay together to raise their kids, and generally behave like normal, decent members of society, their life chances are just fine.

    unless of course their parents have given them a forename employers choose to discriminate against:

    ..people with ‘black’ …. first names don’t get called for job interviews….

    however, this is not of course racist in intent

    I doubt it’s racism … people called Jasqushi are – for some reason – often unreliable nutcases who you just know are going to cause you trouble.

    Let’s suppose that you’re right, and women called Jasqushi on on average less reliable employees than women called Mary. Let’s go further and suppose that men with dark complexions are on average less reliable employees than their fair-skinned brethren. Then you can make your interviewing more efficient by not bothering to interview black people. Or if you’re a bank you can make your lending more efficient by not bothering to consider applications from black borrowers.

    And you can sleep soundly knowing that your motivation is statistical and not racist. But the effect is just the same as if you were racist – it’s harder for black people to get jobs or buy houses, and in the end they and their children become more likely to turn to crime.

  61. For those who doubt there is discrimination:

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
    “We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list Equal Opportunity Employer’ in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market. ”

    and this

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w13661

  62. PaulB: Leftist horseshit.

    Banks are (or were before they became an arm of corporate socialism)there to make money. Black peoples money is as good as anybody else’s money–if they have the money to pay you back. If it is likely they don’t–then they don’t get the loan or they get it with much higher interest rates reflecting the higher risk the lender incurs–Wonga style.

    Also the majority of criminals embrace crime long before deciding that –after heroic effort of course–they aren’t going to get a job. Your ideas on crime seem to have been formed by reading “Oliver Twist” once too often–in good old socialist style.

    And on the topic of black names–read the article–most of the weird ones are self bestowed–not given by parents. Self chosen as a “fuck you Whitey”

  63. @UKL I deny being racist because I’m not racist. I literally couldn’t give a shit what colour your skin is, or what race you belong to, or anyone else. You didn’t use the word ‘racist’? And? You talked higher up about black and white hiring practices and native names, so I think I forgive myself for seeing where you were headed.

    @PaulB

    What we need is someone like you to draw up employment policies and quotas based on names. The idea that people spending their own cash to hire people should be allowed to make their decisions as to who they hire based on whatever criteria they choose is of course mad by comparison.

    “Let’s suppose that you’re right, and women called Jasqushi on on average less reliable employees than women called Mary. Let’s go further and suppose that men with dark complexions are on average less reliable employees than their fair-skinned brethren. Then you can make your interviewing more efficient by not bothering to interview black people. Or if you’re a bank you can make your lending more efficient by not bothering to consider applications from black borrowers.”

    The trouble with you leftist monomaniacs, who see racism under every stone, if it’s not sexism or something else, is that, for you to be correct, millions of terrible, profit motivated, capitalist employers and bankers would have to be turning down easy cash purely for the sake of employing or lending to people with slightly less pigment.

    Maybe it does happen, but I suggest it’s pretty rare. I suggest it’s much more that they weigh the odds and take their decisions that way. So a black guy called David is probably a better bet to hire as a worker than a white guy called Billy-Leroy.

    It’s not a perfect science, Billy-Leroy might be a rocket scientist and David could be a crackhead, because it’s life, but it’s probably not an unreasonable judgment call.

    The racists are people like you, who insist that black people are too weak, too stupid, and too pathetic to make something of themselves without the help of big colonial whiteys like you, riding in on your charger with the lance of fair play. Or something.

  64. Ken–proves that employers don’t like “black” names–doesn’t prove that black people with ordinary names get rejected.

  65. There are pockets of racism that will never be eradicated.

    Mohammed from Clichy-sous-bois might not get the job because his prospective employer regards the chance of poor time keeping higher than Gervaise from Neuilly, due to the better transport links from the latter and the higher chance of the (3 times a day!) bus from Clichy being burnt.

    However, the law has gone as far as the law can reasonably go. The jews managed to overcome centuries of institutional racism. Now it’s the turn of blacks, hispanics and muslims to put in the effort.

  66. @ken

    I think you’re missing the point, you dickhead.

    Outwith the realms of race hustling academics paid by the public purse to make shit up, and people called Te-Nehisi who want your money because of their melanin content and stuff that happened 200 years ago, there is no such thing as a ‘black’ name.

    (I should have used scare quotes above, to help the hard of thinking.)

    There are just names that stupid parents give their children, and, genetics being what they are, that is a pretty good indicator that they will have stupid children.

    Who are not very fucking employable.

    Put it this way. If there are black names there must by white names. So explain William Cosby, James Brown, Edward Murphy, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Neil Tyson, Arthur Ashe etc etc

    I mean, it’s not like black people are prevented by law from giving their kids normal names (see above) or it’s not widely fucking known that calling your kid something stupid limits their life chances, is it?

    So instead of railing against racist employers, your and your fellow-travelling smug chums PaulB and UKdickcheese ought to be criticising the monumentally stupid, selfish and arrogant parents (blacks and whites) whose look-at-meism all-but condemns their kids from day one.

    But there’s fuck all chance of that, eh.

  67. Interested

    Yes, but it’s difficult.

    You just know that Tiffany is a 27 year old vomiting on a high street near you, and Martine is a primary teacher close to retirement.

    A few years ago there was a craze for irish names in France. It must be mortifying for the parents, thinking they we being so innovative, to find three other Kevins in reception class.

  68. Mr Ecks

    Actually I suppose I should have copied out the abstract from the second paper.

    “This paper tests the predictions about the relationship between racial prejudice and racial wage gaps from Becker’s (1957) seminal work on employer discrimination – something which has not previously been done in the large economics discrimination literature. Using rich data on racial prejudice from the General Social Survey, we find strong support for all of the key predictions from Becker about the relationship between prejudice and racial wage gaps. In particular, we show that, relative to white wages, black wages: (a) vary negatively with a measure of the prejudice of the “marginal” white in a state; (b) vary negatively with the prejudice in the lower tail of the prejudice distribution, but are unaffected by the prejudice of the most prejudiced persons in a state; and (c) vary negatively with the fraction of a state that is black. We show that these results are robust to a variety of extensions, including directly controlling for racial skill quality differences and instrumental variables estimates. We present some initial evidence to show that racial wage gaps are larger the more racially integrated is a state’s workforce, also as Becker’s model predicts. The paper also briefly discusses familiar criticisms and extensions of the standard Becker model, including an argument of our own which, like some recent work, shows that the model’s main predictions can be shown theoretically to survive the effects of long run competition.”

    This isnt just about names. This paper looks at measures of how racist people are and finds a link to the wage gap between races. Some of the effect may be about names (and potentially the negative signal given by the “black” name) and about the impact of statistical discrimination (eg Bloke in france’s points about the perceived likelihood of Mohammed being a poorer quality worker), but some is clearly about racist attitudes.

    All of this analysis is based on the theories of Gary Becker, who is not a “race hustler”. Nor are the academics who do these studies.

  69. @BiF yep I’m not saying it’s an exact science, it’s a rough guide. But so much of life is run on the rough guide principle.

    Any honest secondary school teacher or copper (for instance) knows that Kyle and Conor are more likely to be problematic than Edward and Simon. Not guaranteed, but well worth taking into account.

    It’s not even controversial – when Harry Enfield created Wayne and Waynetta, with Spudulika and Frogmella, everyone laughed in recognition, not outrage. I mean, it wasn’t surrealist humour.

    Except PaulB, UKLiberty and ken – they tut-tutted, pursed their lips and shook their heads at the injustice of it all. The daft fuckers.

  70. So instead of railing against racist employers, your and your fellow-travelling smug chums PaulB and UKdickcheese ought to be criticising the monumentally stupid, selfish and arrogant parents (blacks and whites) whose look-at-meism all-but condemns their kids from day one.

    But there’s fuck all chance of that, eh.

    A name like Tyrone or Jamal doesn’t seem “weird” (in the same way as DuMarcus or Jermajesty). Why on earth would it occur to a parent that calling their child Tyrone or Leroy would “condemn” him “from day one”? What is so “weird” about the names Hakim or Rasheed as to limit their life chances? What is “look-at-meism” about the names Kareem or Jermaine?

  71. UKL
    Tyrone, Jamal… yes they are “weird” names. Oddly enough, the second one is the name of the second child in my anecdote above. Seems Currys doesn’t mind.

    My brother in law (half brother in law, natch) phoned me for some careers advice. WTF does (really black name) need careers advice for? He’s only 16.

    Because MIT have asked him if he’d like a scholarship.

    Maybe it was his name, or just maybe it was because he came third out of all high school students in Florida.

  72. Any honest secondary school teacher or copper (for instance) knows that Kyle and Conor are more likely to be problematic than Edward and Simon. Not guaranteed, but well worth taking into account.

    That may be statistically true, but there is no reason for a secondary school teacher to take it into account – she has every opportunity to treat her pupils as the individuals they are.

    Meanwhile, we were discussing a horrifying statistic, and the obvious contradiction between your claim that where black men and women behave in a manner you approve of “their life chances are just fine” and your claim that it’s normal to discriminate against people whose forenames make it likely that they’re black.

    Which claim do you want to abandon?

  73. Interested>

    “@Dave The trouble with your argument is it’s bullshit”

    You clearly didn’t get my point. I asked if (and why) it doesn’t bother you to be on the same side of the argument as people claiming racism is good. You can think what you like, but surely when you’re marching alongside the white supremacists, you have to consider your position a little more carefully?

  74. tribism is good. Look at the people the government dont mess with. Strong tribes.
    The tribe will look out for you . The PC will not but they might steal your child.

  75. A quick scroll down my company telephone directors finds a lot of ‘black’ names (mostly in IT).

    Yet they are all Nigerian or Ghanaian names. Not a ‘Duwayne’ or ‘LaToya’ amongst them.

    Racist bastards at my office… 😉

  76. I knew a white couple who named their kid “India Hope” or something stupid like that. If I received a CV with the name “India Hope” on it would go straight in the shredder.

  77. UKL – Rajesh isn’t a weird name, it’s a perfectly normal Indian/Nepali name. You horrible little racist.

  78. @PaulB

    ‘Meanwhile, we were discussing a horrifying statistic, and the obvious contradiction between your claim that where black men and women behave in a manner you approve of “their life chances are just fine” and your claim that it’s normal to discriminate against people whose forenames make it likely that they’re black.’

    I didn’t say that ‘it’s normal to discriminate against people whose forenames make it likely that they’re black’, that’s just a flat-out lie.

    But then you are a liar.

    What I did say is that where stupid people dream up stupid names for their kids one effect of that is to signal to potential employers that you may just have a stupid applicant, as his parents were probably stupid.

    Beyond that, even if I had said that, which I didn’t, there would be no ‘contradiction’ between the (very obvious and academically proven) suggestion that if you call your kid James he’ll probably get an interview, whereas if you call him Damarcus he may not.

    I never said calling your kid Damarcus was a cast iron guarantee of his stupidity, either, just that there was a fair chance of it. As it happens, you’re the first Paul I’ve come across who’s a cunt.

  79. PaulB is slightly in the wrong here. He’s trying to place interested on the horns of a dilemma, but failed to identify the horns correctly.

    Interested is arguing that the primary reason for discrimination is statistical with search costs. (eg it is expensive to search (to look to hire) for someone and that therefore statistical discrimination – eg Mohammed from the banlieu is less likely to be reliable – makes sense). There is no racism in this.

    In addition, Interested is pointing out that if there is a systematic bias against hiring talented black people, this would be solved by firms swooping in and hiring these people. Interestingly, this was a point made in the discrimination literature (possibly by Becker himself – this isnt my area of expertise). It was noted that this would NOT occur if the discrimination was occuring because customers rather than employers were racist.

    The issue is that the literature shows that statistical discrimination with search costs does not explain the full gap in wages and employment. Which, in the end, suggests that racism does play a role.

  80. Interested: I realise that your beliefs are incompatible with any sort of clear thinking, but if you’re replying to me do please try to talk about what I actually wrote.

    You have said “people with ‘black’ first names don’t get called for job interviews” and also “their life chances are just fine”. If you don’t want to contradict yourself you need to withdraw one of those statements.

  81. ken,

    Interested is arguing that the primary reason for discrimination is statistical with search costs. (eg it is expensive to search (to look to hire) for someone and that therefore statistical discrimination – eg Mohammed from the banlieu is less likely to be reliable – makes sense). There is no racism in this.

    The results of the correspondence experiments show the discrimination is by name, not by area. It’s not “Mohammed from the banlieu” vs. “John from the nice bit”, it’s “Mohammed” vs. “John”.

    (The French also discriminate between Catholic and non-Catholic names.)

  82. UKL

    I was taking the original BiF example to illustrate what we mean by statistical discrimination. And yes the literature finds discrimination based on name alone, but there is also an effect from location in the same Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004 piece. By themselves, name and location based discrimination may simply be evidence of statistical discrimination. your pendantry is noted, but irrelevant.

  83. “while the quality of the neighborhood of residence is a significant factor in employers’ decision to contact a job applicant, African Americans do not appear to benefit more than Whites from living in better neighborhoods. These findings are interesting. Indeed, if ghettos and bad neighborhoods are particularly stigmatizing for African Americans, one might have expected African Americans to be helped more by having a “good” address. Our results do not lend support to this hypothesis.”

  84. UKL

    So location is another reason for statistical discrimination. The implications of the quote you give are that

    1) Black names result in discrimination
    2) Bad locations result in discrimination
    3) Good locations do not result in better outcomes for black names than for white names

    Mohammed from the banlieu includes two negative signals.

    Digging deeper into the paper, we discover that in fact of the three variables they use to determine whether a neighbourhood is nice, two are obviated by the CV sent (fraction of neighbourhood white and fraction college or more), the one that uses log income shows a positive interaction with black names (albeit statistically insignificant)- but taken together with the headline effect would suggest that there might be a positive effect to getting out of the ghetto. Table 6 (Effect of applicants’ address on likelihood of call-back).

  85. France has just passed a law inaugurating the anonymous CV.
    It has been realized that the number of minority candidates interviewed is likely to fall by 50% because they will no longer benefit from “a certain indulgence”.

  86. When I was young, the blackest of my friends was also called John. He has had a more successful (financially much more successful) career than I although I assume that I was the whitest of his friends (most of the others were pink). Maybe it was because his name was John or maybe it was because his talents were sufficiently visible that he was not totally dependent on filling in CVs that were ignored by lickspittle HR clerks who lacked 1% of his abilities.
    Irrational discrimination hurts the discriminator as well as the non-employee, so eventually collapses but HR departments are lazy so it can take a long time. UKL convincingly argues that HR departments are lazy while Interested argues that some discrimination is rational. My example does not refute either claim.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.