The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Heckman Calls Out Chetty
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

James Heckman of the U. of Chicago is a famous statistician and social scientist who won the quasi-Nobel in Economics. In an interview, he disses Harvard economist Raj Chetty:

S: When people talk about the American Dream they do so in the context of the current academic and policy discussion on income mobility and inequality. How would you characterize the current research in this field? What are some of the key issues with the literature and public discussions around these issues?

H: The current research in the field is shoddy. It has gained traction because it appeals to the negative image of American society held by leading opinion makers like the New York Times and the Atlantic. In truth, the evidence based on the IRS data is deeply flawed and has been incorrectly analyzed. Take “The Opportunity Atlas” promoted by the New York Times. It claims that “zip code is destiny.” Careful statistical analysis of the data shows otherwise.

The same can be said of the academics who write about the growth of the Top 1%. Careful studies show much less growth in disparity than what is picked up in the popular press and by populist politicians. A new “wisdom” has emerged: large samples more than compensate for faulty or missing data. The wisdom of this crowd is that sample size trumps careful data analysis.

S: Without going into detail, what do you think are the main barriers to income or social mobility? (Could be micro level such as agency and family structure or on a bigger scale in terms of labor markets, entrepreneurship, etc.)

H: The main barriers to developing effective policies for income and social mobility is fear of honest engagement in the changes in the American family and the consequences it has wrought. It is politically incorrect to express the truth and go to the source of problems. Public discourse, such as it is, cannot speak honestly about matters of culture, race, and gender. Powerful censorship is at play across the entire society.

S: In your research you discuss the key importance of family structure for social mobility. Why do you feel so strongly about this issue?

H: The family is the source of life and growth. Families build values, encourage (or discourage) their children in school and out. Families — far more than schools — create or inhibit life opportunities. A huge body of evidence shows the powerful role of families in shaping the lives of their children. Dysfunctional families produce dysfunctional children. Schools can only partially compensate for the damage done to the children by dysfunctional families.

S: Your work on early childhood education is constantly cited as a justification for universal preschool education. Is that a policy you have recommended or what is your main focus and potential solution when you promote the importance of early childhood education?

H: I have never supported universal pre-school. The benefits of public preschool programs are the greatest for the most disadvantaged children. More advantaged children generally have encouraging early family lives. The “intervention” that a loving, resourceful family gives to its children has huge benefits that, unfortunately, have never been measured well. Public preschool programs can potentially compensate for the home environments of disadvantaged children. No public preschool program can provide the environments and the parental love and care of a functioning family and the lifetime benefits that ensue.

S: Do you have any thoughts overall on how this current crisis could impact social mobility and inequality?

H: Inequality in health and earnings will be exacerbated by it. Poverty and disadvantage foster disease. Inequality in access to health care fosters inequality in health and poor health inhibits the ability to contribute to society. With so many people now out of work — and out of health benefits — short-run inequality generated by poor health will increase in addition to the inequality created by the loss of jobs. We know this is true because those in poor health before COVID-19 struck are the primary victims of the new pandemic. … To those who have more will be given. For stressed families where the single parent is still working, the early childhood environment will likely worsen.

 
Hide 155 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. OT,
    I just found the funniest thing in the world about Donald Sterling, fragment of his deposition from 2003:

    • Replies: @bigdicknick
    a memorable senior moment.
  2. Right on, Heckman!

    Two points:

    At least in this excerpt from the interview, he doesn’t go past nurture in discussing the differences in children. Granted, he notes above that “fear of honest engagement” regarding culture, race and gender, and he never says he’s past that fear.

    Check out that last part about current events. You’d think all the bleeding-heart lefties would be against this shutdown of our economy. I guess with an election coming, it doesn’t work like that.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    Chetty's work IMHO is really intellectually dishonest. He just uses a rigged and arbitrary definition of "upward mobility" that only identifies blacks and Native Americans as lacking mobility due to the fact they tend to regress toward a different mean.

    I don't know what Heckman's detailed analysis would show about families. But sometimes it's too easy to ascribe everything to "good family environment." As Judith Rich Harris showed "good families" are probably a symptom of being being functional people, more often than the cause of it.
    , @Bill
    He's still banging on about those five kids in Ypsilanti that one time back in the sixties. The only place he wants to go with his "culture, race, and gender (sic)" is to black culture and single mothers. That interview fragment (and Heckman's jabbering more generally) is a model of normie conservative retardation. No 1%, no concentration of wealth, black culture, blah blah blah. He knows better, obviously, but he's famously obsessed with his reputation.
  3. Heckman Calls Out Chetty

    Chetty, Chetty, bang, bang!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    He's just popped his Chetty.
  4. “It is politically incorrect to express the truth and go to the source of problems.”
    Heckman states EXACTLY the topic of sincerity .net: #TrueSpeech is not permissible to avoid (accurate) prejudice. Mandatory omission and lies are the root cause for our faulty policies and social sciences.

    Science, problem solving, and democratic voting cannot happen while we live under censorship, the #PCGagOrder.
    Western Censorship is very similar to China’s, just the dogmas and taboos are different.

    Heckman speaks so many truths. He certainly must have skills to avoid the real taboos, the third rails. He probably avoids speaking directly about race, and race differences. Or else he would be Watsoned.

    • Replies: @dvorak

    Heckman speaks so many truths. He certainly must have skills to avoid the real taboos, the third rails. He probably avoids speaking directly about race, and race differences. Or else he would be Watsoned.
     
    Don't get excited. He's no race realist.

    In fact, Heckman is one of the bad guys, just like Chetty. They're just competing purveyors of epicycle explanations of the genetic racial performance gaps. Genetic racial performance yawning chasms, really.

    Chetty's solution is to hunt down the few remaining, functional White working class towns and to destroy them with diversity.

    Heckman's solution is to spend unlimited amounts of money to make Black families as high-functioning as White ones.

    , @Goddard

    Western Censorship is very similar to China’s, just the dogmas and taboos are different.
     
    I used to live in Shanghai. You can talk freely about racial differences there. The Chinese are kicking the Africans out of Guangzhou and make no apologies for it. On the other hand, I used to say to my Chinese friends, white people established the modern world, not you, and they'd agree.

    Chinese friends who visited parts of the United States used to say to me, disapprovingly, "Why are there so many immigrants?" A girl I met once said, "I know you're American. But are you a real American?" Her eyes lit up when I told her that I could trace my American ancestry to the 1600s.

    In America, the TV is much more of a conditioning tool than in China. In China, newscasts show maps of Taiwan the same color as China. In America, you can't run an ad without at least one black person in it. White men are nutcases or stooges.

    In certain ways, the government of China is more responsive to its people than our elites are to Americans. They lie less to their people. In our country, clear majorities have expressed their preference for dramatically curtailed immigration. In response, you get Trump conning us once again with his promise of an executive order that turns out to be a dud. If Chinese leaders acted so childishly, there would be riots.

    Bottom line: Chinese, from their leaders, corrupt as they are, down to the lowliest citizen, take themselves and their country seriously. Our leaders are narcissists who are into irony and subversion. They take neither themselves nor their country seriously.

    , @Anon
    Heckman has it all wrong. As a member of our academic elite, he is part and parcel to the increasing inequality and social stratification of the US, just like Chetty.

    As Daniel Markovits pointed out in his book The Meritocracy Trap, today's meritocrats are the new aristocrats. Instead of the idle rich and the working poor, today we have the hard working rich and the idle poor. The rich today are increasingly people who work long hours in human capital intensive industries like finance, law, management consulting, tech, medicine and corporate C-suite, what Markovits called "glossy jobs". Through technological, financial and management innovations, this group of highly skilled workers came up with ways to replace many mid skilled workers, e.g. middle managers and loan officers were replaced by highly trained consultants or upper management through heavy use of computer analysis. The end result is, our economy is left with an ever more elite workers in high skilled, highly paid "glossy jobs", and everyone else trapped in low skilled, low paid "gloomy jobs" in service, retail, transportation, farm.

    Markovits sees this as a trap in that the elite workers are overwhelmingly graduates of expensive elite universities, who then spend large sums training their children to ensure they attend the same expensive elite schools and graduate to the top of the heap like their parents. Elite education and elite jobs work hand in hand to exacerbate inequality. Elite education leads to creation of elite jobs that eliminate non-elite jobs. A while back someone did a study and found that over 60% of our political, social and economic trends are influenced by graduates of only 12 schools -- HYPSM, Columbia, Cornell, UChicago, Duke, UPenn, Dartmouth and Northwestern.

    Inequality will continue to exacerbate in the US as long as we allow graduates of a handful of schools to have such outsize influence on our society. The first thing we need to do to achieve more equality in the US is to neutralize the power of our elite universities, who work as gatekeepers to determine who deserve to join the ranks of the elite, i.e. children of the (((elite))) with a few bones thrown to the "underrepresented minorities" who pose no real threat. How do we accomplish that?

    Hopefully this pandemic will offer us a new start in that direction. First, more families can now try to work remotely and move to rural, smaller communities. The lower cost of living will enable one parent to quit and become a homeschooling parent, which takes away the power of K-12. Then, smart middle class kids need to stop applying to elite universities in droves, and simply go to the cheapest local state university they could attend, if at all. A new mindset that stops worshipping wealth and luxury will cause more people to turn away from soul sucking jobs like finance, law and management consulting. Once those jobs lose their appeal, elite universities who supply majority of those workers will lose their luster.

  5. Heckman has an outfit called “The Heckman Equation” that pushes for the government to raise the babies of “disadvantaged” mothers, which would of course cost a ton of money:

    Invest in Early Childhood Development: Reduce Deficits, Strengthen the Economy

    https://heckmanequation.org/resource/invest-in-early-childhood-development-reduce-deficits-strengthen-the-economy/

    “The highest rate of return in early childhood development comes from investing as early as possible, from birth through age five, in disadvantaged families. Starting at age three or four is too little too late, as it fails to recognize that skills beget skills in a complementary and dynamic way. Efforts should focus on the first years for the greatest efficiency and effectiveness. The best investment is in quality early childhood development from birth to five for disadvantaged children and their families.”—James J. Heckman, December 7, 2012

    Heckman claims that poor black babies turn out much less rotten when raised by the government than when raised by their families, so that the expenditure of that ton of money is worth it. The evidence for those claims is from a couple of boutique studies in North Carolina about 50 years ago. Heckman’s argument that these small-scale experiments 50 years ago justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars now in an attempt to massively scale up whatever might have happened 50 years ago is laughable.

    These old North Carolina studies dealt with black infants, yet Heckman says they justify having the government raise all sorts of “disadvantaged” infants, e.g., Mexicans. Mexicans are just like blacks, right?

    Not allowing immigration by the sorts of people whose babies Heckman thinks the government should be raising makes a lot more sense than Heckman’s idiotic ideas about what we should do with those people and their children. I don’t think there’s one word about immigration on the Heckman Equation web site.

    And if it’s worth it to have the government raise the children of poor black women (to keep those kids from becoming such troublesome adults), then we should also try to bribe such women to not inflict their kids on us. There’s also not one word at The Heckman Equation about convincing women who should not be having children to not have children.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I agree with your criticism of the "Heckman Equation"* Still, I was curious about this Equation and skimmed his site. I think he is not entirely wrong in that the early years do matter more than later years. Though as you (and Steve on occasion) point out, the years that bring the early years into being are more important still, by that logic.

    I haven't seen the 50 year old NC studies but I wonder, in light of the looming shortage of white people, who it is who is going to be doing all the raising of the kids of these feckless single mothers?

    "raised by the government"
     
    Child welfare social work today consists almost entirely of moving children form birth parents (or more usually, birth single-mothers) to supposedly less dubious foster parents (or even foster single-mothers). In an era when the government can no longer institutionalize obviously schizophrenic homeless lunatics, the chances of an institutional orphanage-like solution, even if it would deliver some of Heckman's promised benefits, is approximately zero. Add in the SJW howling that would ensue when it becomes obvious that Heckman orphanages are almost entirely children of color, and the chances go from zero to negative. Or, if Heckman is proposing a vast expansion of state sponsored kidnapping and allocation of "at risk" babies to foster homes, where are all these upright, stable foster homes going to come from? There is already a global surplus of unadoptable black babies. Now Heckamn wants to boost the supply while demand is shriveling even further. I foresee failure.

    -----

    *Is having a portentous (and pretentious) moniker for your misunderstanding of reality a prerequisite to being a successful academic nowadays?
    , @Jack D

    “The highest rate of return in early childhood development comes from investing as early as possible, from birth through age five,
     
    Wrong. As early is possible is 9 months before birth when the sperm meets the egg. That moment is probably at least as important as everything that happens in the next 18 years put together. As long as that sperm belongs to violent (but sexy) black felons, the baby mammas are going to keep growing baby felons.

    If we can't bribe black women not to have babies (and to some extent we have - black fertility is down from the past) then maybe we could at least bribe them to have better babies.

    Heckman is like a lot of Leftist thinkers going back to Marx in that his diagnosis is a lot better than his prescription. You don't really have to be a rocket scientist to see that the family has been the foundation of human society forever and that you can't really build a stable society without stable families at its base. The question (which no one seems to be able to answer, certainly not Heckman) is how do you get back to a society where stable families are the norm? We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides - subsidizing single motherhood, destroying jobs that would allow a single breadwinner to support a family, depicting the family as something with a dark underside, glorifying "alternative lifestyles", etc. How do you put the toothpaste back in the tube? One more government program after dozens that have been tried isn't going to do it.
    , @Cynical Beast
    The intervention should be done even earlier. Condoms are much cheaper than baby sitting.
    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
    I read of some longitudinal studies that indicate that Head Start, Smart Start and More at Four have all been shown to be failures. This Heckman fella seems to be working a nice grift.
    , @jbwilson24
    "Not allowing immigration by the sorts of people whose babies Heckman thinks the government should be raising makes a lot more sense than Heckman’s idiotic ideas about what we should do with those people and their children."

    Good point. It's like feminists who get upset about sex doll brothels, arguing that they will cause men to become misogynistic, but who have no problem importing men from deeply misogynistic societies. Easier to stop them from coming in.

    I wonder if he knows that next to the Holocaust(TM), immigration and diversity is the next shibboleth on the list. After all, he mentioned censorship.
    , @James N. Kennett

    The evidence for those claims is from a couple of boutique studies in North Carolina about 50 years ago. Heckman’s argument that these small-scale experiments 50 years ago justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars now in an attempt to massively scale up whatever might have happened 50 years ago is laughable.
     
    It is quite usual for bad social policy to be based on the impressive results of pilot studies. Pilot studies are staffed by highly motivated, well educated, enthusiastic leaders. This almost guarantees good results, even if the "clients" are not cherry-picked, and even if the outcomes are honestly reported.

    Rolling out the program across an entire continent is a different matter. With ordinary employees, with average levels of motivation, the success of pilot studies can seldom be replicated.

    In this case, you have to ask who the surrogate parents will be. Responsible women, chiefly white? It would be better for everyone if they raised more children of their own.

    The proposal itself has parallels with the transfer of indigenous children to residential schools in Canada and Australia. Rightly or wrongly, its purpose is the same - to erase the culture of the children and replace it with white culture. If Heckman's plan goes ahead, 30 years later there will be a multi-billion-dollar class-action lawsuit.


    Not allowing immigration by the sorts of people whose babies Heckman thinks the government should be raising makes a lot more sense than Heckman’s idiotic ideas about what we should do with those people and their children. I don’t think there’s one word about immigration on the Heckman Equation web site.
     
    Allowing immigration by people who immediately qualify as members of a disadvantaged minority is batshit insane.
  6. The same can be said of the academics who write about the growth of the Top 1%. Careful studies show much less growth in disparity than what is picked up in the popular press and by populist politicians.

    Does anyone know more about this? I thought it was fairly well established that income disparity was increasing significantly. Any counter-evidence from Heckman?

    P.S. Has Heckman elaborated on his criticism of Chetty’s work anywhere?

    • Replies: @utu
    https://i.ibb.co/HDgDp2s/graph10.png
    https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality

    https://i.ibb.co/c6RGQ2t/graph11.png
    https://wir2018.wid.world/part-4.html
    , @PSR
    I have never really understood this 'income disparity' nonsense. When you live in a country that has between fifteen and twenty millions illegal - essentially peasant - aliens, and accepts nearly a million mostly poor immigrants a year, yeah, you've built a system guarenteeing huge income disparity. So what?
  7. @Sincerity.net
    "It is politically incorrect to express the truth and go to the source of problems."
    Heckman states EXACTLY the topic of sincerity .net: #TrueSpeech is not permissible to avoid (accurate) prejudice. Mandatory omission and lies are the root cause for our faulty policies and social sciences.

    Science, problem solving, and democratic voting cannot happen while we live under censorship, the #PCGagOrder.
    Western Censorship is very similar to China's, just the dogmas and taboos are different.

    Heckman speaks so many truths. He certainly must have skills to avoid the real taboos, the third rails. He probably avoids speaking directly about race, and race differences. Or else he would be Watsoned.

    Heckman speaks so many truths. He certainly must have skills to avoid the real taboos, the third rails. He probably avoids speaking directly about race, and race differences. Or else he would be Watsoned.

    Don’t get excited. He’s no race realist.

    In fact, Heckman is one of the bad guys, just like Chetty. They’re just competing purveyors of epicycle explanations of the genetic racial performance gaps. Genetic racial performance yawning chasms, really.

    Chetty’s solution is to hunt down the few remaining, functional White working class towns and to destroy them with diversity.

    Heckman’s solution is to spend unlimited amounts of money to make Black families as high-functioning as White ones.

    • Agree: bomag
    • Thanks: vhrm
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Chetty’s solution is to hunt down the few remaining, functional White working class towns and to destroy them with diversity.

    Heckman’s solution is to spend unlimited amounts of money to make Black families as high-functioning as White ones.
     
    Chetty's solution would weaken opposition to political funding of cities.
    Heckman's solutions would send more money into city bureaucracies.
    Therefore, both are popular among city populations, which control the American establishment just now.

    Academic themes don't have to be politically dictated, but they do have to be consistent with politics, since politics determines funding and influence.
  8. @Achmed E. Newman
    Right on, Heckman!

    Two points:

    At least in this excerpt from the interview, he doesn't go past nurture in discussing the differences in children. Granted, he notes above that "fear of honest engagement" regarding culture, race and gender, and he never says he's past that fear.

    Check out that last part about current events. You'd think all the bleeding-heart lefties would be against this shutdown of our economy. I guess with an election coming, it doesn't work like that.

    Chetty’s work IMHO is really intellectually dishonest. He just uses a rigged and arbitrary definition of “upward mobility” that only identifies blacks and Native Americans as lacking mobility due to the fact they tend to regress toward a different mean.

    I don’t know what Heckman’s detailed analysis would show about families. But sometimes it’s too easy to ascribe everything to “good family environment.” As Judith Rich Harris showed “good families” are probably a symptom of being being functional people, more often than the cause of it.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree with you, Mr. Toad, but that's not what I got out of Judith Harris' The Nurture Assumption (my review there). Her point was that almost all the nurture effects on people's traits are due to peers rather than parents. Anyway, it was a good book. I assumed that's the book you meant.
  9. OT: I just saw on 60 minutes a story on a BigData/AI tool called BlueDot from a Toronto based company that predicted the spread of Covid by collating a lot of independent data. Strangely, Canadian government and California had signed up with their services and supposedly got a good look at the Crystal Ball, but U.S. Government or NY did not. That might explain why Canada and California appear to be doing unusually well compared to U.S. and NY. BTW, The Chetty of BlueDot is a guy called Kamran Khan. But California governor Newsom said they take good care that cell phone location data is well anonymized.

  10. Pretty sure Heckman is one of the biggest denialists of racial differences out there.

  11. Heckman:

    The current research in the field is shoddy. It has gained traction because it appeals to the negative image of American society held by leading opinion makers like the New York Times and the Atlantic.

    The family is the source of life and growth. Families build values, encourage (or discourage) their children in school and out. Families — far more than schools — create or inhibit life opportunities. A huge body of evidence shows the powerful role of families in shaping the lives of their children.

    David “Soppressata” Brooks has some ideas about families.

    Writing recently in The Atlantic:

    The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake

    The family structure we’ve held up as the cultural ideal for the past half century has been a catastrophe for many. It’s time to figure out better ways to live together.

    TLDR: Brooks waxes nostalgic about extended families and “tribal bands” and thinks a new polyamorous(?) collection of “chosen families” and “forged families” is the way to go. Yeeek.

    • Thanks: Neoconned
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    https://twitter.com/RuckCohlchez/status/1250960027101171712

    In case Twitter doesn't post through:


    David Brooks @nytdavidbrooks
    Excellence is not an action, it’s a habit. Tenacity is doing what you were trained to do. It manifests in those whose training embraced hardship and taught students to deal with it.
    Opinion | The Age of Coddling Is Over

    Ken Klippenstein @kenklippenstein
    If David Brooks hates millennials so much then why did he marry one #EndChildTrafficking

    Fatt Yglazyass @RuckCohlchez
    every David Brooks column is a thinly-veiled projection of whatever his personal issue is at the moment, he's writing about millennials so much entirely because of various annoyances he has with her
     
    In the case of his "nuclear family" brain fart, after having been raised in a nuclear family, and having wafted to prestige and riches of a lofty sinecure in a nuclear family, he chucked over his own nuclear family so he could screw his research assistant-ette. So now, to maintain his pundit prestige, he has to circle back and create the meta-justification for this. Hence: the Atlantic piece.

    Never mistake something these people write for anything more than their id responses to their own personal psychodramas. They really have nothing to offer.

    At best, Brooks is an overpaid busker to inner-beltway pseuds.
    , @bomag
    Thanks for the link.

    Brooks waxes nostalgic about traditional families, but must duly note that it was oppressive of women and minorities.

    Scant mention of the economic pressure brought by immigrants and such that has raised housing costs while suppressing wage growth. Such things have made any family formation more expensive and thus less likely.
    , @Seneca44
    I have been waiting for legalized polygamy ever since the legalization of homosexual marriage. It is very much the same argument: Actions between consenting adults which don't harm others should not be regulated by the state.
  12. @res

    The same can be said of the academics who write about the growth of the Top 1%. Careful studies show much less growth in disparity than what is picked up in the popular press and by populist politicians.
     
    Does anyone know more about this? I thought it was fairly well established that income disparity was increasing significantly. Any counter-evidence from Heckman?

    P.S. Has Heckman elaborated on his criticism of Chetty's work anywhere?
    • Thanks: ic1000
    • Replies: @anon
    Don't conflate wealth with income. Does anyone really want people getting transfer payments to be accumulating wealth?
    , @eric
    I wonder what the US trend would be like if we excluded the post-1965 immigrants. You get a hint here.

    https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/are-immigrants-driving-income-inequality/
    , @res
    Right, that is the kind of evidence I had in mind. What is Heckman's counter evidence? Or am I misunderstanding what he is asserting with:

    The same can be said of the academics who write about the growth of the Top 1%. Careful studies show much less growth in disparity than what is picked up in the popular press and by populist politicians.
     
  13. “Public discourse, such as it is, cannot speak honestly about matters of culture, race, and gender.”

    Wow. He unleashed. What is the source of his bravery? Maybe like Nicholas Wade, he’s at a point in life/career that he can give negligibly close to zero Fuchs.

    • Replies: @Bill
    He's not talking about genes. No bravery involved.
  14. OT

    First recorded Covid death in U.S. was from massive heart attack, autopsy says

    …A Santa Clara County woman who is the earliest recorded death from Covid-19 in the United States died of a massive heart attack

    …The 57-year-old woman, who died Feb. 6, had evidence of the coronavirus infection in her heart, trachea, lungs and intestines

    …She was mildly obese and had a mildly enlarged heart, according to the autopsy, but had no coronary heart disease or clotting that would have caused a heart attack. The autopsy found that blood had collected in the sac around her heart, leading to pressure on the heart that caused it to rupture.

    • Replies: @notsaying
    I saw this report earlier today about the first coronavirus victim dying from a ruptured heart. It was based on a Washington Post article focused on the strangeness of this coronavirus: that it affects lots more things than the lungs and numerous odd reports have been associated with it.

    It seems unbelievable that people can have their hearts be so damaged by it that they rupture and yet others can have it with no symptoms. It will be a very good thing when a vaccine is discovered for it, that's for sure.
  15. “A new “wisdom” has emerged: large samples more than compensate for faulty or missing data. The wisdom of this crowd is that sample size trumps careful data analysis.”

    So once again, it’s all Trump’s fault. Just can’t win even when he’s not in the scene.

  16. @utu
    https://i.ibb.co/HDgDp2s/graph10.png
    https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality

    https://i.ibb.co/c6RGQ2t/graph11.png
    https://wir2018.wid.world/part-4.html

    Don’t conflate wealth with income. Does anyone really want people getting transfer payments to be accumulating wealth?

    • Replies: @utu
    "Don’t conflate wealth with income." - Don't you think that they positively correlate, particularly their gradients?
  17. Truer words have never been spoken. Yet genetics have been left out of this discussion. Nature vs Nurture and vise versa.

  18. MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace: Trump getting hurt politically is ‘silver lining’ to coronavirus pandemic

    “There is something both tragic and pathetic and ironic about the fact that it took a, you know, colorblind, genderblind, state lineblind virus to sort of have all of the president’s sins from his first three years catch up with him,”

    “He’s down at 38%. Pence is lower than him. I mean, he needs those people whether he likes what they say or not and I wonder what you think about whether or not there’s some silver lining there, that some of the things that we’ve been talking about for three years may be finally catching up with him?”

    • Replies: @Pericles

    Nicolle Wallace: "... that some of the things that we’ve been talking about for three years may be finally catching up with him?”

     

    The walls are closing in! RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!
  19. Let me reintroduce a post that I made a few years ago.

    I did my own analysis to determine the best states to live and raise a child.

    Here’s what I did to create my list.

    1. I inputed the rates of incarceration, overdose, teen births, death, and obesity for each state. However, I only utilized the data for the Non-Hispanic white populations of each state. That allows interstate comparisons, without race becoming a confounding factor.
    2. For America’s entire non-Hispanic white population, I found the national medians on the rates of incarceration, overdose, teen births, death, and obesity.
    3. I divided each state’s incarceration, overdose, teen pregnancy, death, and obesity rates by the respective national medians.
    4. By averaging together these modified rates, I computed an “Index of Misery” for each state.
    5. Higher the index, the worse off the population. Lower the index, better off the state. Above 1 = worse than average. Below 1 = better than average. You can make a relative comparison among our various states.
    6. The below chart applies only to NH-Whites.

    View post on imgur.com

    If you’re looking for a good place to raise children, the above chart is useful.

    • Thanks: PiltdownMan
    • LOL: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    You should definitely avoid Appalachia and the Ozarks. Large parts of the Deep South, Rustbelt, and Southwest should be avoided too.

    The Upper Midwest does quite well. Given the affordable cost of living, it should definitely be evaluated when looking for a place to settle down.

    California and much of the Northeast do well too, but the cost of living is quite high. So perhaps only move there if you have a high-paying job.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    New Hampshire is 37th? Usually they finish near the top of these lists. Or bottom, when the top means "misery".
    , @dearieme
    Joisy? Second best? That's a turn up for the books.
    , @jon
    Thanks for the graph. Some of the more interesting results, to me, are the neighboring (and seemingly similar) states with big differences in ranking:

    New Hampshire (36) versus Vermont (8)
    Wyoming (32) and Idaho (30) versus Montana (18)
    Oklahoma (48) versus Kansas (20)

    It might be worth a deeper look to see what are the possible causes of the differences between these pairings.
  20. @JohnnyWalker123
    Let me reintroduce a post that I made a few years ago.

    I did my own analysis to determine the best states to live and raise a child.

    Here’s what I did to create my list.

    1. I inputed the rates of incarceration, overdose, teen births, death, and obesity for each state. However, I only utilized the data for the Non-Hispanic white populations of each state. That allows interstate comparisons, without race becoming a confounding factor.
    2. For America’s entire non-Hispanic white population, I found the national medians on the rates of incarceration, overdose, teen births, death, and obesity.
    3. I divided each state’s incarceration, overdose, teen pregnancy, death, and obesity rates by the respective national medians.
    4. By averaging together these modified rates, I computed an “Index of Misery” for each state.
    5. Higher the index, the worse off the population. Lower the index, better off the state. Above 1 = worse than average. Below 1 = better than average. You can make a relative comparison among our various states.
    6. The below chart applies only to NH-Whites.


    https://imgur.com/a/wgQdSwX


    If you're looking for a good place to raise children, the above chart is useful.

    You should definitely avoid Appalachia and the Ozarks. Large parts of the Deep South, Rustbelt, and Southwest should be avoided too.

    The Upper Midwest does quite well. Given the affordable cost of living, it should definitely be evaluated when looking for a place to settle down.

    California and much of the Northeast do well too, but the cost of living is quite high. So perhaps only move there if you have a high-paying job.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    There are surprising outcomes from your analysis.

    • The Not-So-Deep South does significantly worse than the Deep South. WV, KY, OK, TN, AR (+OH and NV) all worse than MS, AL, LA, GA, SC.
    Fentanyl effect?

    • Other than empty Vermont and NYC-suburb Connecticut, New England (MA, ME, NH, RI) has a remarkably poor showing.

    • Particularly, New England (traditionally the axis of Brahmin moral and intellectual superiority) comes out well behind NY/NJ (traditionally the axis of crass commercialism).
    I wonder if NY/NJ is disproportionately helped in these stats by all the bright young things flocking to NYC for the lifestyle? Whatever else they do, they don't overdose (illegally) much, their parents can afford good lawyers so they don't get incarcerated when they get in mischief, and they don't birth anything at any age never mind as teens, so statistically they look good, even if I don't think they make such a great environment to raise kids...

    • Some parts of the Upper Midwest (MN, NE, Dakotas, IA, WI, IL) are more equal than others (MI, IN, OH).
    Presumably MI, IN, OH held back by rust belt effect? But then why doesn't that pull down IL too?

    • As you mention, CA shows surprisingly well in spite of its manifest pathologies.
    Maybe the teeming homeless are invisible to the statistic makers as they have no address/residency? Plus, CA's policy of non-prosecution of most crimes means low incarceration rates, but in a bad way.

    • In general, as you say, the "good" states boil down to expensive coasts or less expensive upper midwest (with above caveat).

    Now, about the ingredients ...

    incarceration
    As CA shows, there is such a thing as too low an incarceration rate. Incarcerating more isn't bad when the alternative is more crime. Maybe crime rates would be a more "direct" statistic? But perhaps that is harder to filter by race given the global imperative to hide who commits most crime?

    overdose
    Good misery marker. Still, I wouldn't want to raise kids among Xanax or Adderall addicts either, but those Sili-Valley and NY-metro substance users aren't gonna show up in overdose stats.

    teen births
    Can this be made unwed only? I think there is a massive categorical difference between a 19 year old married mother homemaker in UT vs. a 16 year old single mother stripper-tweaker in KY.

    death
    As the death rate remains firmly at 100%, presumably this is early death, or in other words, negative life expectancy? Or maybe violent death?

    obesity
    Good marker. How heavily (heh) is it weighted? I see this everywhere other than the most elite SWPL districts. Particularly, outside of the immediate NYC metro, obesity is nearly ubiquitous in NY/NJ, so their good ranking is surprising. Or the slenderish NYC metro is just enough to keep NY and NJ below the fatocalypse in the rest of the country.

    Obviously, in any state, there are pockets of higher-functioningness, which can lead a life superior to what the mother state has to offer. Zip code- or census block-level data could spot these, but I suppose the statistical ingredients may not be available at that level.

    Anyhow, thanks for a useful and thought provoking analysis.
    , @Barnard
    The Upper Midwest is too cold for the average American to consider. Much, much too cold. Please let everyone know it is too cold and we would appreciate it if they stayed in their current state.
  21. What is the quasi-Nobel?

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan

    What is the quasi-Nobel?
     
    Mr. Sailer's gentle dig at the pretensions of the economics profession.

    From Wikipedia:

    Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

    The prize was established in 1968 by a donation from Sweden's central bank Sveriges Riksbank to the Nobel Foundation to commemorate the bank's 300th anniversary.

    As it is not one of the prizes that Alfred Nobel established in his will in 1895, it is not a Nobel Prize.

    However, it is administered and referred to along with the Nobel Prizes by the Nobel Foundation. Laureates are announced with the Nobel Prize laureates, and receive the award at the same ceremony.
     
  22. @JimDandy
    What is the quasi-Nobel?

    What is the quasi-Nobel?

    Mr. Sailer’s gentle dig at the pretensions of the economics profession.

    From Wikipedia:

    Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

    The prize was established in 1968 by a donation from Sweden’s central bank Sveriges Riksbank to the Nobel Foundation to commemorate the bank’s 300th anniversary.

    As it is not one of the prizes that Alfred Nobel established in his will in 1895, it is not a Nobel Prize.

    However, it is administered and referred to along with the Nobel Prizes by the Nobel Foundation. Laureates are announced with the Nobel Prize laureates, and receive the award at the same ceremony.

    • Thanks: JimDandy
    • Replies: @Stephen Dodge
    To be fair, most of the other Nobels, even in the "hard sciences", also go to people who are not that bright.

    Bonnes élèves is the phrase you are looking for.

    , @dearieme
    I refer to it as the Counterfeit Nobel, which seems apposite.
  23. @anon
    Don't conflate wealth with income. Does anyone really want people getting transfer payments to be accumulating wealth?

    “Don’t conflate wealth with income.” – Don’t you think that they positively correlate, particularly their gradients?

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    "A lot of millionaires are actually cash-poor"-The Millionaire Next Door.
    , @anon
    Yea, but...No one seriously thinks that the bottom quartile should accumulate wealth. A lot of social programs means test for it to prevent it. So at least some wealth inequality is mandated and shouldn't be considered a problem.
  24. @PiltdownMan

    What is the quasi-Nobel?
     
    Mr. Sailer's gentle dig at the pretensions of the economics profession.

    From Wikipedia:

    Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

    The prize was established in 1968 by a donation from Sweden's central bank Sveriges Riksbank to the Nobel Foundation to commemorate the bank's 300th anniversary.

    As it is not one of the prizes that Alfred Nobel established in his will in 1895, it is not a Nobel Prize.

    However, it is administered and referred to along with the Nobel Prizes by the Nobel Foundation. Laureates are announced with the Nobel Prize laureates, and receive the award at the same ceremony.
     

    To be fair, most of the other Nobels, even in the “hard sciences”, also go to people who are not that bright.

    Bonnes élèves is the phrase you are looking for.

  25. @JohnnyWalker123
    Let me reintroduce a post that I made a few years ago.

    I did my own analysis to determine the best states to live and raise a child.

    Here’s what I did to create my list.

    1. I inputed the rates of incarceration, overdose, teen births, death, and obesity for each state. However, I only utilized the data for the Non-Hispanic white populations of each state. That allows interstate comparisons, without race becoming a confounding factor.
    2. For America’s entire non-Hispanic white population, I found the national medians on the rates of incarceration, overdose, teen births, death, and obesity.
    3. I divided each state’s incarceration, overdose, teen pregnancy, death, and obesity rates by the respective national medians.
    4. By averaging together these modified rates, I computed an “Index of Misery” for each state.
    5. Higher the index, the worse off the population. Lower the index, better off the state. Above 1 = worse than average. Below 1 = better than average. You can make a relative comparison among our various states.
    6. The below chart applies only to NH-Whites.


    https://imgur.com/a/wgQdSwX


    If you're looking for a good place to raise children, the above chart is useful.

    New Hampshire is 37th? Usually they finish near the top of these lists. Or bottom, when the top means “misery”.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    NH has a somewhat redneckish population by New England standards. I think it dates back to some colonial era thing I no longer remember. Maybe Albion's Seed said something about it.

    Of course, some of us don't mind rednecks, but yeah, if you're raising children, maybe not the best...

    By making this a Whites Only survey, JW excluded all the black and brown dysfunction that would otherwise have buoyed NH up. And then low taxes boost NH on Fortune magazine-type lists, and light govt on libertarian lists, but JW didn't use those criteria.

    , @JohnnyWalker123
    There's a high rate of drug overdoses in the state.
  26. It just funny how you see all of these people complaining about muh economy during the lockdown, I mean if you people gout your wish, and immigration is halted for the next 20 years, and all of the cheap Mexican, Indian H1B, and Asian labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more, I mean the meat packers and processors would go under, almost the entire fast food and restaurant industry would go under, much of the IT sector depending on H1B programmers would go under, a lot of farmers would go under, large parts of manufacturing, energy, the hospitality industry, and the agriculture industry which depends on cheap foreign labor would go under, or at least have to drastically change their business model from hiring workers at 5 dollars an hour to having to hire them at 20 per hour. Walmart, Home Depot, Amazon, and Lowes would either automate or would end up hiring a lot less workers due to higher wage rates caused by restricted labour supply caused by the loss of cheap legal and illegal foreign labour. The cruise ship industry would also go under. The economic dislocation would be as large as that being caused by the current lockdowns.

    • Disagree: Stan d Mute, Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @black sea
    Just curious, do you have any data to back up these predictions?

    Yes, without low-wage imported labor, some segments of the economy would undoubtedly suffer. But given the fact that many low-wage immigrant workers rely heavily on government support programs of various kinds, there are also some costs associated with their presence which are borne by the society as a whole, rather than their employers. And not all of those costs are entirely economic.

    You predict that at least 15% of US GDP would disappear in the absence of such workers. Is this a figure you just chose on a hunch, or is there some data to substantiate it?
    , @Almost Missouri

    "if you people gout your wish, and immigration is halted for the next 20 years, and all of the cheap Mexican, Indian H1B, and Asian labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more"
     
    This is the opposite of correct. If "cheap" labor disappears, then people won't stop eating food. The supply chain will simply continue by employing more "expensive" labor, as already happens in, e.g., Europe.

    Since GDP is purely a measure of activity, GDP would either go up with higher wages, or at worst would redistribute somewhat from capital owners to wage earners [boo hoo].
    , @bomag

    and all of the cheap... labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more
     
    That "cheap" labor is turning out to be one of our more expensive indulgences. It would be well worth fifteen percent of GDP to get rid of it.
    , @FLgeezer
    >much of the IT sector depending on H1B programmers would go under,

    May it be so.
    , @jon

    industry which depends on cheap foreign labor would go under, or at least have to drastically change their business model from hiring workers at 5 dollars an hour to having to hire them at 20 per hour
     
    See, you're starting to figure it out.
    , @AnotherDad

    I mean if you people gout your wish, and immigration is halted for the next 20 years, and all of the cheap Mexican, Indian H1B, and Asian labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more, I mean the meat packers and processors would go under, ....
     
    It's amazing the level of sheer idiocy one can finds, among people smart enough to be interested in Sailer's blog.

    Idiocy that is debunk by the simple observation that we had all that stuff before the immigration deluge.

    Idiocy for which the theoretical debunking was provided by Adam Smith coming up on 250 years ago.
    , @Art Deco
    George Borjas was addressing this question in his econometric modeling 25 years ago. The present-tense welfare benefits from trade in labor (i.e. immigration-and-remittances) he calculated at 0.1% of domestic product per year. You're not going to notice that. There would be some distributional implications of re-arranging the cost structure within certain sectors and some consumer segments would face small losses. It would hurt fruit growers in the southwest (as would market pricing of water). Long-term care in California would grow more expensive. Not a big deal.

    The issue with immigration is always cultural, no matter what red herrings are offered by advocates of open borders. You have an urban gentry who despise ordinary non-exotic Americans and wish to reduce their influence, insult them, and injure them. The same people like to build patron-client relationships with people they fancy have a 'plight'. A junior partner to this urban gentry would be rude chauvinists out of certain ethnic populations.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson Three

    much of the IT sector depending on H1B programmers would go under
     
    You mean like the ones that wrote the Boeing 737-Max 8 software? Or the ones that AT&T and Disney had Americans train before the H1Bs took their jobs? 128! Your 7-bit-witticisms are appropriate for the Intel 8080 world, not the present.
    , @Jim Don Bob
    I'd be glad to pay $3 for a head of lettuce if it meant, for example, that the emergency room at my local hospital didn't look like the third world. Immigration privatizes the profits and socializes the costs. I don't remember voting for any politician who said he was fine with importing 50 million people in this country who don't speak English at home.
  27. You can say this, you can say that- but only race-culture-national identity matters. Everything else is a footnote.

  28. @Reg Cæsar
    New Hampshire is 37th? Usually they finish near the top of these lists. Or bottom, when the top means "misery".

    NH has a somewhat redneckish population by New England standards. I think it dates back to some colonial era thing I no longer remember. Maybe Albion’s Seed said something about it.

    Of course, some of us don’t mind rednecks, but yeah, if you’re raising children, maybe not the best…

    By making this a Whites Only survey, JW excluded all the black and brown dysfunction that would otherwise have buoyed NH up. And then low taxes boost NH on Fortune magazine-type lists, and light govt on libertarian lists, but JW didn’t use those criteria.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    NH has a somewhat redneckish population by New England standards.
     
    They did vote for FDR three times. Can't get more redneck than that. Ask any true Yankee.
    , @Raz
    Southern NH is now a bedroom suburb for Boston and people working in office parks north of Boston. Which is why it is no longer a hard Republican state. When I lived in MA it still was.

    Back then the very conservative Manchester Union Leader had strong influence and could push the candidates it liked.
  29. If we get rid of no-fault divorce, even with all our other problems still in place, people will start getting married again. Until we deal with our effortful and deliberate elimination of marriage, people should not get married. The lawyer’s lobby will never allow us to deal with the ways lawyers have destroyed society to make a buck and temporarily feel important, which ways include the civil rights disaster and notably divorce, but a healthy society would also address the complete surrender of our legislative process to whoever has the cash to buy (or protect) a bad law. No good outcomes should be expected with these fundamental problems left intact. The picking-over and corruption of our academy by opportunistic third world beach crabs is pretty inevitable and low down on that list. If we can’t figure out family formation (let alone class mobile family formation) we deserve Chetty.

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    If we can’t figure out family formation (let alone class mobile family formation) we deserve Chetty.
     
    As I understand it, Russian Anarchists (capitalized because Anarchy was a real political theme in Russia in the 1800s) were the first modern group to try destabilizing their opposition by selective assassination of the most generally appealing and effective members of the groups that they opposed. This rule was actually used during a prolonged program of assassination, which culminated in the assassination of the Tsar because the Tsar was popular and a modestly successful reformer.

    Note that the Anarchist policy was counterproductive from the standpoint of Anarchist ideology. It led directly to the October revolution, an absolute government that destroyed the local autonomy favored by the Anarchists, and the hideous losses of WW II.

    Such a policy is inhuman on the face of it, but it was (in my opinion at least) the precursor of today's anti-family policies. The general idea is to destabilize an opposition strategy by making it impossible to raise a new generation, primarily by psychologically and physically mutilating the society's children.

    This entire strategy richly deserves to be strongly repressed. Arguments that the State knows best should be regarded as provocations (as in "sit down and shut up") and subject to counter-attack. There is no reason to send a child to a school where the child will be beaten up for political reasons, or emotionally and intellectually crippled. No reason at all. Children are a reward, successful raising of the children to functional adults is the supreme accomplishment in a human's life, and _nothing_ can justify a group that deliberately attacks your children to achieve political dominance.
    , @AnotherDad

    If we get rid of no-fault divorce, even with all our other problems still in place, people will start getting married again. Until we deal with our effortful and deliberate elimination of marriage, people should not get married.
     
    I agree with the sentiments, but i don't think "no fault" is really the key legal issue anymore.

    The social consensus--not unreasonable--is that people should not have to be in a marriage they no longer wish to be in. There is no longer a strong social taboo. So even if you could outlaw "no fault" divorce you'd just get a lot of long separations/desertions.

    I think the key reform is joint-custody. No more cash and prizes to women--it's usually women pull the trigger on this--blowing up their marriages. No more settling scores with your ex via child custody.

    -- Joint custody.
    -- Each spouse supports the children during their custody period.
    -- No monetary transfers. The only exception being when one party is unable--child abuse, drug addiction, being in jail, etc.--or unwilling to take on custody. Then they pay.

    Eliminate cash and prizes for blowing up marriages and force both parties to understand that when the marriage is over, it's over, but their parental duties remain and they are fully responsible for their half ... and you'll see more stable marriages. Probably more re-marriages.
  30. @Hippopotamusdrome
    OT


    First recorded Covid death in U.S. was from massive heart attack, autopsy says

    ...A Santa Clara County woman who is the earliest recorded death from Covid-19 in the United States died of a massive heart attack

    ...The 57-year-old woman, who died Feb. 6, had evidence of the coronavirus infection in her heart, trachea, lungs and intestines

    ...She was mildly obese and had a mildly enlarged heart, according to the autopsy, but had no coronary heart disease or clotting that would have caused a heart attack. The autopsy found that blood had collected in the sac around her heart, leading to pressure on the heart that caused it to rupture.

     

    I saw this report earlier today about the first coronavirus victim dying from a ruptured heart. It was based on a Washington Post article focused on the strangeness of this coronavirus: that it affects lots more things than the lungs and numerous odd reports have been associated with it.

    It seems unbelievable that people can have their hearts be so damaged by it that they rupture and yet others can have it with no symptoms. It will be a very good thing when a vaccine is discovered for it, that’s for sure.

  31. @Reg Cæsar
    New Hampshire is 37th? Usually they finish near the top of these lists. Or bottom, when the top means "misery".

    There’s a high rate of drug overdoses in the state.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    I remember decades ago Europe had a higher suicide/ overdose rate than we did. As the US becomes more "European" in its policies, maybe we're just catching up?
  32. Anonymous[376] • Disclaimer says:
    @dvorak

    Heckman speaks so many truths. He certainly must have skills to avoid the real taboos, the third rails. He probably avoids speaking directly about race, and race differences. Or else he would be Watsoned.
     
    Don't get excited. He's no race realist.

    In fact, Heckman is one of the bad guys, just like Chetty. They're just competing purveyors of epicycle explanations of the genetic racial performance gaps. Genetic racial performance yawning chasms, really.

    Chetty's solution is to hunt down the few remaining, functional White working class towns and to destroy them with diversity.

    Heckman's solution is to spend unlimited amounts of money to make Black families as high-functioning as White ones.

    Chetty’s solution is to hunt down the few remaining, functional White working class towns and to destroy them with diversity.

    Heckman’s solution is to spend unlimited amounts of money to make Black families as high-functioning as White ones.

    Chetty’s solution would weaken opposition to political funding of cities.
    Heckman’s solutions would send more money into city bureaucracies.
    Therefore, both are popular among city populations, which control the American establishment just now.

    Academic themes don’t have to be politically dictated, but they do have to be consistent with politics, since politics determines funding and influence.

  33. People who talk about income inequality without recognizing that two incomes (via two parents) make you richer than 1 income (single parent), are just effing stupid.

    Marriage evolved for a reason.

  34. @128
    It just funny how you see all of these people complaining about muh economy during the lockdown, I mean if you people gout your wish, and immigration is halted for the next 20 years, and all of the cheap Mexican, Indian H1B, and Asian labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more, I mean the meat packers and processors would go under, almost the entire fast food and restaurant industry would go under, much of the IT sector depending on H1B programmers would go under, a lot of farmers would go under, large parts of manufacturing, energy, the hospitality industry, and the agriculture industry which depends on cheap foreign labor would go under, or at least have to drastically change their business model from hiring workers at 5 dollars an hour to having to hire them at 20 per hour. Walmart, Home Depot, Amazon, and Lowes would either automate or would end up hiring a lot less workers due to higher wage rates caused by restricted labour supply caused by the loss of cheap legal and illegal foreign labour. The cruise ship industry would also go under. The economic dislocation would be as large as that being caused by the current lockdowns.

    Just curious, do you have any data to back up these predictions?

    Yes, without low-wage imported labor, some segments of the economy would undoubtedly suffer. But given the fact that many low-wage immigrant workers rely heavily on government support programs of various kinds, there are also some costs associated with their presence which are borne by the society as a whole, rather than their employers. And not all of those costs are entirely economic.

    You predict that at least 15% of US GDP would disappear in the absence of such workers. Is this a figure you just chose on a hunch, or is there some data to substantiate it?

    • Replies: @128
    Maybe not go under, but they would have to revise their business model, and certain labor intensive industries, like raisins and almonds in California would not exist at all, how would restaurants adjust if they had to pay a median wage for their waiters of US$20 an hour instead of US$5 an hour, a lot of restaurants on the lower end would basically fold, and as for manufacturing, they would probably automate if they had to raise wages substantially, I do not know how the cruise ship industry would adjust, h0w large are wages as a percentage of costs? It companies that hire H1bs, they may hire very few higher wage US replacements, but a lot of them would try to automate their coding (which can be theoretically done), or relocate to India. So for every 50 low wage foreign legal and illegal worker jobs loss you would see 2 new higher cost US labor hires? If you are replacing 10 dollar an hour H1b specials with 35 an hour US coders.
  35. Anonymous[376] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    If we get rid of no-fault divorce, even with all our other problems still in place, people will start getting married again. Until we deal with our effortful and deliberate elimination of marriage, people should not get married. The lawyer's lobby will never allow us to deal with the ways lawyers have destroyed society to make a buck and temporarily feel important, which ways include the civil rights disaster and notably divorce, but a healthy society would also address the complete surrender of our legislative process to whoever has the cash to buy (or protect) a bad law. No good outcomes should be expected with these fundamental problems left intact. The picking-over and corruption of our academy by opportunistic third world beach crabs is pretty inevitable and low down on that list. If we can't figure out family formation (let alone class mobile family formation) we deserve Chetty.

    If we can’t figure out family formation (let alone class mobile family formation) we deserve Chetty.

    As I understand it, Russian Anarchists (capitalized because Anarchy was a real political theme in Russia in the 1800s) were the first modern group to try destabilizing their opposition by selective assassination of the most generally appealing and effective members of the groups that they opposed. This rule was actually used during a prolonged program of assassination, which culminated in the assassination of the Tsar because the Tsar was popular and a modestly successful reformer.

    Note that the Anarchist policy was counterproductive from the standpoint of Anarchist ideology. It led directly to the October revolution, an absolute government that destroyed the local autonomy favored by the Anarchists, and the hideous losses of WW II.

    Such a policy is inhuman on the face of it, but it was (in my opinion at least) the precursor of today’s anti-family policies. The general idea is to destabilize an opposition strategy by making it impossible to raise a new generation, primarily by psychologically and physically mutilating the society’s children.

    This entire strategy richly deserves to be strongly repressed. Arguments that the State knows best should be regarded as provocations (as in “sit down and shut up”) and subject to counter-attack. There is no reason to send a child to a school where the child will be beaten up for political reasons, or emotionally and intellectually crippled. No reason at all. Children are a reward, successful raising of the children to functional adults is the supreme accomplishment in a human’s life, and _nothing_ can justify a group that deliberately attacks your children to achieve political dominance.

  36. @utu
    "Don’t conflate wealth with income." - Don't you think that they positively correlate, particularly their gradients?

    “A lot of millionaires are actually cash-poor”-The Millionaire Next Door.

    • Replies: @Keypusher
    Seriously, that’s it? That’s your answer? A data-free throwaway quote?
  37. @JohnnyWalker123
    There's a high rate of drug overdoses in the state.

    I remember decades ago Europe had a higher suicide/ overdose rate than we did. As the US becomes more “European” in its policies, maybe we’re just catching up?

  38. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Heckman:

    The current research in the field is shoddy. It has gained traction because it appeals to the negative image of American society held by leading opinion makers like the New York Times and the Atlantic.
     

    The family is the source of life and growth. Families build values, encourage (or discourage) their children in school and out. Families — far more than schools — create or inhibit life opportunities. A huge body of evidence shows the powerful role of families in shaping the lives of their children.
     
    David “Soppressata” Brooks has some ideas about families.

    Writing recently in The Atlantic:

    The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake

    The family structure we’ve held up as the cultural ideal for the past half century has been a catastrophe for many. It’s time to figure out better ways to live together.
     
    TLDR: Brooks waxes nostalgic about extended families and “tribal bands” and thinks a new polyamorous(?) collection of “chosen families” and “forged families” is the way to go. Yeeek.

    In case Twitter doesn’t post through:

    David Brooks @nytdavidbrooks
    Excellence is not an action, it’s a habit. Tenacity is doing what you were trained to do. It manifests in those whose training embraced hardship and taught students to deal with it.
    Opinion | The Age of Coddling Is Over

    Ken Klippenstein @kenklippenstein
    If David Brooks hates millennials so much then why did he marry one #EndChildTrafficking

    Fatt Yglazyass @RuckCohlchez
    every David Brooks column is a thinly-veiled projection of whatever his personal issue is at the moment, he’s writing about millennials so much entirely because of various annoyances he has with her

    In the case of his “nuclear family” brain fart, after having been raised in a nuclear family, and having wafted to prestige and riches of a lofty sinecure in a nuclear family, he chucked over his own nuclear family so he could screw his research assistant-ette. So now, to maintain his pundit prestige, he has to circle back and create the meta-justification for this. Hence: the Atlantic piece.

    Never mistake something these people write for anything more than their id responses to their own personal psychodramas. They really have nothing to offer.

    At best, Brooks is an overpaid busker to inner-beltway pseuds.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "David Brooks: Excellence is not an action, it's a habit."

    Says David Brooks, the force behind nothing excellent, ever.

    David Brooks knows precisely zero about excellence, and would not recognize it if it strapped him down and covered his scrawny pitiful body with a tattoo of the full text of "A Good Man Is Hard To Find."

    Poll for denizens of iSteveistan: who has the most punchable face in America? Is it...

    a) David Brooks,
    b) Bill Maher,
    c) Scott Pelley, or
    d) Beto O'Rourke?
    , @UK
    Maybe, but I have found that Brooks is one of very few journalists who shows genuine understanding of ideas and situations that are not really his own.

    Perhaps his ability to see and recognise parts of himself in others is part of that, but he goes beyond this and seems to genuinely connect with what he is observing. His line about community and diversity existing in tension is absolutely one of my favourites and gets to the heart of why I am not signed up to the progressive platform.

    And this article, in which he speculates on ways in which community may become more like family, is a reasonable extension of that.
    , @Barnard
    American Renaissance had a good column in the last couple of weeks about newspaper pundits. It used as an example a newspaper columnist from the first half of the 20th Century named Drew Pearson who was very widely published. He was essentially a pro Soviet Commie, two members of his staff were caught passing information to the Soviets. Pearson is so forgotten today, if you search his name in Google, the first four pages of results are all for the wide receiver of the same name who played for the Dallas Cowboys in the 1970s and early 1980s. Columnists like Pearson in his day and Brooks, George Will, Krugman, etc. today, are just highly paid gatekeepers trying to keep public opinion within a certain pre-approved range. Nothing they write has any lasting value. The column also mentioned David Broder and William Safire as columnists who were a huge deal during their careers but that no one talked about now. David Brooks will be forgotten with ten years of his death.
    , @Anon
    Always thought David Brooks was a insufferable pretentious nitwit pretender living off the reputation of a famous school he lucked into. His book Bobos in Paradise was an embarrassingly shallow self-adulation in disguise. It amazes me that he continues to be called a conservative columnist for the NYTimes. With conservatives like him, who needs liberals? Now that I know he's ditched his first wife of nearly 30 years who converted to Judaism for him to marry a woman 23 years his junior, I'm even more disgusted by him. He's nothing but a pretentious dim-witted phony, a fake conservative who is now trying to tear down nuclear families the way (((liberals))) do just because his own fell apart due to his Jewish propensity for lust and infidelity. How pathetic.
  39. @128
    It just funny how you see all of these people complaining about muh economy during the lockdown, I mean if you people gout your wish, and immigration is halted for the next 20 years, and all of the cheap Mexican, Indian H1B, and Asian labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more, I mean the meat packers and processors would go under, almost the entire fast food and restaurant industry would go under, much of the IT sector depending on H1B programmers would go under, a lot of farmers would go under, large parts of manufacturing, energy, the hospitality industry, and the agriculture industry which depends on cheap foreign labor would go under, or at least have to drastically change their business model from hiring workers at 5 dollars an hour to having to hire them at 20 per hour. Walmart, Home Depot, Amazon, and Lowes would either automate or would end up hiring a lot less workers due to higher wage rates caused by restricted labour supply caused by the loss of cheap legal and illegal foreign labour. The cruise ship industry would also go under. The economic dislocation would be as large as that being caused by the current lockdowns.

    “if you people gout your wish, and immigration is halted for the next 20 years, and all of the cheap Mexican, Indian H1B, and Asian labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more”

    This is the opposite of correct. If “cheap” labor disappears, then people won’t stop eating food. The supply chain will simply continue by employing more “expensive” labor, as already happens in, e.g., Europe.

    Since GDP is purely a measure of activity, GDP would either go up with higher wages, or at worst would redistribute somewhat from capital owners to wage earners [boo hoo].

    • Agree: UK
    • Replies: @GermanReader2
    The real measure for wealth is not GDP but GDP per capita. If lots of illegals were expelled from the US, then the GDP would probably go down, but the GDP per capita would rise. To illustrate that point consider India and Switzerland. One country (India) has a higher GDP, the other (Switzerland) a higher GDP per capita. Where would you rather like to live?
  40. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Heckman:

    The current research in the field is shoddy. It has gained traction because it appeals to the negative image of American society held by leading opinion makers like the New York Times and the Atlantic.
     

    The family is the source of life and growth. Families build values, encourage (or discourage) their children in school and out. Families — far more than schools — create or inhibit life opportunities. A huge body of evidence shows the powerful role of families in shaping the lives of their children.
     
    David “Soppressata” Brooks has some ideas about families.

    Writing recently in The Atlantic:

    The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake

    The family structure we’ve held up as the cultural ideal for the past half century has been a catastrophe for many. It’s time to figure out better ways to live together.
     
    TLDR: Brooks waxes nostalgic about extended families and “tribal bands” and thinks a new polyamorous(?) collection of “chosen families” and “forged families” is the way to go. Yeeek.

    Thanks for the link.

    Brooks waxes nostalgic about traditional families, but must duly note that it was oppressive of women and minorities.

    Scant mention of the economic pressure brought by immigrants and such that has raised housing costs while suppressing wage growth. Such things have made any family formation more expensive and thus less likely.

  41. @Almost Missouri
    https://twitter.com/RuckCohlchez/status/1250960027101171712

    In case Twitter doesn't post through:


    David Brooks @nytdavidbrooks
    Excellence is not an action, it’s a habit. Tenacity is doing what you were trained to do. It manifests in those whose training embraced hardship and taught students to deal with it.
    Opinion | The Age of Coddling Is Over

    Ken Klippenstein @kenklippenstein
    If David Brooks hates millennials so much then why did he marry one #EndChildTrafficking

    Fatt Yglazyass @RuckCohlchez
    every David Brooks column is a thinly-veiled projection of whatever his personal issue is at the moment, he's writing about millennials so much entirely because of various annoyances he has with her
     
    In the case of his "nuclear family" brain fart, after having been raised in a nuclear family, and having wafted to prestige and riches of a lofty sinecure in a nuclear family, he chucked over his own nuclear family so he could screw his research assistant-ette. So now, to maintain his pundit prestige, he has to circle back and create the meta-justification for this. Hence: the Atlantic piece.

    Never mistake something these people write for anything more than their id responses to their own personal psychodramas. They really have nothing to offer.

    At best, Brooks is an overpaid busker to inner-beltway pseuds.

    “David Brooks: Excellence is not an action, it’s a habit.”

    Says David Brooks, the force behind nothing excellent, ever.

    David Brooks knows precisely zero about excellence, and would not recognize it if it strapped him down and covered his scrawny pitiful body with a tattoo of the full text of “A Good Man Is Hard To Find.”

    Poll for denizens of iSteveistan: who has the most punchable face in America? Is it…

    a) David Brooks,
    b) Bill Maher,
    c) Scott Pelley, or
    d) Beto O’Rourke?

    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
    Wait, wait! I want to write in Jared Kushner! That face is eminently punchable.
    , @Redman
    Bill Maher. Hands down.

    IMO the guy has the most punchable face in the history of America. Even if he wasn’t unfunny and a total jerk, he’s got punch me written all over him.
    , @Jim Don Bob
    You forgot Bill Kristol. I once thought that he and Brooks were smart guys, but DJT drove them round the bend.
  42. @128
    It just funny how you see all of these people complaining about muh economy during the lockdown, I mean if you people gout your wish, and immigration is halted for the next 20 years, and all of the cheap Mexican, Indian H1B, and Asian labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more, I mean the meat packers and processors would go under, almost the entire fast food and restaurant industry would go under, much of the IT sector depending on H1B programmers would go under, a lot of farmers would go under, large parts of manufacturing, energy, the hospitality industry, and the agriculture industry which depends on cheap foreign labor would go under, or at least have to drastically change their business model from hiring workers at 5 dollars an hour to having to hire them at 20 per hour. Walmart, Home Depot, Amazon, and Lowes would either automate or would end up hiring a lot less workers due to higher wage rates caused by restricted labour supply caused by the loss of cheap legal and illegal foreign labour. The cruise ship industry would also go under. The economic dislocation would be as large as that being caused by the current lockdowns.

    and all of the cheap… labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more

    That “cheap” labor is turning out to be one of our more expensive indulgences. It would be well worth fifteen percent of GDP to get rid of it.

    • Agree: UK, XYZ (no Mr.)
  43. UK says:

    I suspect a lot of people who grow up in even a half-way decent environment have no idea what it is like growing up in an incredibly dysfunctional one. It isn’t like having a bad time in your adult life where at least you can know what a bad time is. Instead, it is all you know and essentially it is you, because you have no other experiences. It therefore forms instincts and, most insidiously, the lack of them that you may not even know you should have.

    Deeply believing that you’re irredeemably bad and defective from age 4 upwards is quite a trip. Especially when you can’t even conceive how bizarre that is.

    This will also lead you to end up in patterns which echo that childhood. For example, someone who grows up in a very abusive household will still obviously know what most types of abuse are. They will recognise that being hit or stolen from are bad. Nonetheless, if they don’t happen to have an objective measure by which to label the abuse as it is, they will lack the emotional warning sign that usually leads people to leave or fix their situation. Instead they may fall back on their childish coping mechanisms, which will likely be some form of self-harm, no matter how subtle. This is a childish way of re-asserting control. Essentially, people who lack an instinctive feel for their boundaries from having them broken so many times as a child will allow themselves a lot of suffering and barely realise it. They may also unwittingly encourage it and, through a sort of hidden hand process of trial and error, seek it out.

    I’m dubious of either the solution that somehow makes the nuclear family sacrosanct and I’m equally dubious of early childhood education. Lives are complicated and people are complicated, a simple formula is unlikey to be the answer.

    As for the things that lead to ineqality of people’s innate assets – there are 5 things that you carry with you as a young adult wherever you go. They are your intelligence, your looks, your health, your education and your upbringing. The first three are a bit random, the 4th depends on the others (except your looks) and we already use the government to work on it; only the 5th is absolutely external to you. This leads decent compassionate people to highlight it every now and again. It is the crucial factor that we might help fix and don’t currently. The problem though is that efforts tend to lead to Rabbit Proof Fence…

    If you’re going to build institutions that make up for toxic homes then they need to be staffed by saints. The patience you need for other people’s awful children is inhuman and the power you have over them is corrupting. Furthermore, the peer group can’t be all toxic too – which, as they’ll all be abused little terrors, will be pretty unlikely. You’d also need to overcome the incredible pain that a child feels when so obviously rejected and pushed into special treatment. And there’s no real way around that, it is what the situation is.

    Even worse, you’ll have a problem working out which children are in that terrible upbringing. It is normal for a child to try to persuade the world that their home life I absolutely fine and normal. They essentially are their home life and so they are simply trying to convince others that they are normal, and not bad, awful people themselves. Again, this will sound absurd to most, but five year olds most certainly can think this way.

    These tremendous obstacles, and there are more, may be why people hope something straightforward like emphasising the nuclear family will lead to some sort of organic fixing of the situation. I’m not sure. One of the problems I speculate would be that with people having few children, children in turn have few uncles or aunts. And it is those relations that traditionally could have provided a lifeline to the products of awful upbringings. The later age of childbirth can remove grandparents from the picture as well.

    Indeed, marriage was undermined by the now adult products of very awful marriages.

    I suppose it isn’t an all or nothing solution and I deeply appreciate Heckman’s wisdom in highlighting this area. Solutions need not be from government and just lots of clever people thinking about it will lead to interesting ideas.

    I personally feel that a more tribal structure through relaxed and informal polyamory is promising. It is the only way I can think of to restore greater kinship structures that cannot exist with current childbirth levels.

    This will no doubt cause convulsions in many who read it. All I can say is that having a wider pool of adults who can provide love to a child than two increases the probability that they will actually receive it. And yes, there are lots of weird cults and whatever, filled with wackos, that show the dangers of this…but as with Unz.com, that which is verboten will end up carrying more than its fair share of the complete crazy. It is also the wackos who will be reported upon.

    Alternatively, one might look to religious institutions to provide this. I suspect one advantage of the Catholic church having unmarried priests was that all of the parishioners’ children were also their children. The problem though is that this seems to have led to even more wackos and general evil. It is this that my suggestion might be properly compared too…

    In summary, abused children are generally pretty difficult to look after so they require great people. They also don’t deep down feel they deserve anything good and so they even reject being looked after completely. So you need to overcome their family, their own objections and their bad behaviour in order to help them or even identify them. And you have to somehow care enough to do so. Without your own intense personal connection, I don’t think there are many people who can fit that bill. So who do you staff the institutions with? There are some who will recognise all of the above and be able to make an effort for a limited period of time, but not the type of long-term committed and sustained effort that is needed. Again, you end up with Rabbit Proof Fence.

    To even think of solving such a difficult problem requires an entirely safe environment for discussion. One where people can speak absolutely freely without fear of being punished for saying the wrong thing. Anything else just leads to the same old inquisitorial finger-pointing and one-upmanship. Heckman gets this right.

    • Replies: @leterip
    Thanks for this. It is quite a good start to describing the problem of increasing amounts of dysfunctional children.

    I think that religion used to provide a framework to maintain semi-functional families. In our post-religious world, this framework is gone and there is nothing replacing it except in the more intelligent families.

    While there are many good foster homes; as you say, there are not nearly enough. I hold foster parents in great regard - what they do is incredibly difficult.
    , @GoRedWings!
    Thank you for this superb comment. I feel educated after reading it.

    I’m dubious of either the solution that somehow makes the nuclear family sacrosanct and I’m equally dubious of early childhood education.
     
    Concur. Many families are hell. And 'early childhood education' (i.e. systematically getting kids out of unhealthy, abusive, dangerous situations) cannot repair the damage done by non-loving/ dysfunctional/absent parents. Or bad genes.
    A happy childhood is not and has never been the default option. You could say a happy childhood for your kids used to be the main object of societal struggle up until ca. 40 years ago and is still an aim many struggle to achieve, but there have always been losers in that struggle (say, the remorseful, but relapsing alcoholic) and there have always been people who procreate rather thoughtlessly, and they create a lot of misery. There's people who deliberately take out their own childhood on their kids, and others who don't know why they're abusing their offspring. Some single-moms treat their kids as a pet, a statement, a project, a substitute for a partner etc. There are so many different kinds of wrong people who still have children and would probably claim they love them with all their heart. Not sure society can fix all this. Not sure it should try.
    Liberalism is a sickness that promises a solution to every problem and has no room for suffering. For the reality of human failure, and, since 'erare humanum est', for humans.

    First, we must fight the lying, everything else falls into place. If we can't fight it by open opposition, we have to ridicule it, satirize it, make it embarrassing.
  44. @Hippopotamusdrome


    MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace: Trump getting hurt politically is 'silver lining' to coronavirus pandemic
    ...
    “There is something both tragic and pathetic and ironic about the fact that it took a, you know, colorblind, genderblind, state lineblind virus to sort of have all of the president's sins from his first three years catch up with him,”
    ...
    “He's down at 38%. Pence is lower than him. I mean, he needs those people whether he likes what they say or not and I wonder what you think about whether or not there's some silver lining there, that some of the things that we've been talking about for three years may be finally catching up with him?”

     

    Nicolle Wallace: “… that some of the things that we’ve been talking about for three years may be finally catching up with him?”

    The walls are closing in! RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!

  45. Fear is FreeDumb®
    Subjugation is Liberation
    Contradiction is the Truth
    Those are the facts in Life

  46. @Calvin Hobbes
    Heckman has an outfit called “The Heckman Equation” that pushes for the government to raise the babies of “disadvantaged” mothers, which would of course cost a ton of money:

    Invest in Early Childhood Development: Reduce Deficits, Strengthen the Economy

    https://heckmanequation.org/resource/invest-in-early-childhood-development-reduce-deficits-strengthen-the-economy/

    “The highest rate of return in early childhood development comes from investing as early as possible, from birth through age five, in disadvantaged families. Starting at age three or four is too little too late, as it fails to recognize that skills beget skills in a complementary and dynamic way. Efforts should focus on the first years for the greatest efficiency and effectiveness. The best investment is in quality early childhood development from birth to five for disadvantaged children and their families.”—James J. Heckman, December 7, 2012

    Heckman claims that poor black babies turn out much less rotten when raised by the government than when raised by their families, so that the expenditure of that ton of money is worth it. The evidence for those claims is from a couple of boutique studies in North Carolina about 50 years ago. Heckman’s argument that these small-scale experiments 50 years ago justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars now in an attempt to massively scale up whatever might have happened 50 years ago is laughable.

    These old North Carolina studies dealt with black infants, yet Heckman says they justify having the government raise all sorts of “disadvantaged” infants, e.g., Mexicans. Mexicans are just like blacks, right?

    Not allowing immigration by the sorts of people whose babies Heckman thinks the government should be raising makes a lot more sense than Heckman’s idiotic ideas about what we should do with those people and their children. I don’t think there’s one word about immigration on the Heckman Equation web site.

    And if it’s worth it to have the government raise the children of poor black women (to keep those kids from becoming such troublesome adults), then we should also try to bribe such women to not inflict their kids on us. There’s also not one word at The Heckman Equation about convincing women who should not be having children to not have children.

    I agree with your criticism of the “Heckman Equation”* Still, I was curious about this Equation and skimmed his site. I think he is not entirely wrong in that the early years do matter more than later years. Though as you (and Steve on occasion) point out, the years that bring the early years into being are more important still, by that logic.

    I haven’t seen the 50 year old NC studies but I wonder, in light of the looming shortage of white people, who it is who is going to be doing all the raising of the kids of these feckless single mothers?

    “raised by the government”

    Child welfare social work today consists almost entirely of moving children form birth parents (or more usually, birth single-mothers) to supposedly less dubious foster parents (or even foster single-mothers). In an era when the government can no longer institutionalize obviously schizophrenic homeless lunatics, the chances of an institutional orphanage-like solution, even if it would deliver some of Heckman’s promised benefits, is approximately zero. Add in the SJW howling that would ensue when it becomes obvious that Heckman orphanages are almost entirely children of color, and the chances go from zero to negative. Or, if Heckman is proposing a vast expansion of state sponsored kidnapping and allocation of “at risk” babies to foster homes, where are all these upright, stable foster homes going to come from? There is already a global surplus of unadoptable black babies. Now Heckamn wants to boost the supply while demand is shriveling even further. I foresee failure.

    —–

    *Is having a portentous (and pretentious) moniker for your misunderstanding of reality a prerequisite to being a successful academic nowadays?

    • Agree: Redman, West Reanimator
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    In the future, the remaining white tax serfs will be paying reparations to the "Stolen Generation" of children raised by the State per Heckman's thesis.
    , @Calvin Hobbes
    My “raised by the government” here means dawn-to-dusk daycare on business days. I don’t think Heckman proposes orphanages.

    But here’s another idiotic angle to what Heckman proposes. He would lessen the burden of having babies specifically for women who should not be having babies (because he says they don’t take proper care of their babies). It seems likely that these women who should not be having babies would react by having even more babies than they do now. You’d think that an economist would consider how people might change their behavior when incentives are changed. Heckman is supposed to be some sort of economist, right?

  47. @Almost Missouri
    https://twitter.com/RuckCohlchez/status/1250960027101171712

    In case Twitter doesn't post through:


    David Brooks @nytdavidbrooks
    Excellence is not an action, it’s a habit. Tenacity is doing what you were trained to do. It manifests in those whose training embraced hardship and taught students to deal with it.
    Opinion | The Age of Coddling Is Over

    Ken Klippenstein @kenklippenstein
    If David Brooks hates millennials so much then why did he marry one #EndChildTrafficking

    Fatt Yglazyass @RuckCohlchez
    every David Brooks column is a thinly-veiled projection of whatever his personal issue is at the moment, he's writing about millennials so much entirely because of various annoyances he has with her
     
    In the case of his "nuclear family" brain fart, after having been raised in a nuclear family, and having wafted to prestige and riches of a lofty sinecure in a nuclear family, he chucked over his own nuclear family so he could screw his research assistant-ette. So now, to maintain his pundit prestige, he has to circle back and create the meta-justification for this. Hence: the Atlantic piece.

    Never mistake something these people write for anything more than their id responses to their own personal psychodramas. They really have nothing to offer.

    At best, Brooks is an overpaid busker to inner-beltway pseuds.

    Maybe, but I have found that Brooks is one of very few journalists who shows genuine understanding of ideas and situations that are not really his own.

    Perhaps his ability to see and recognise parts of himself in others is part of that, but he goes beyond this and seems to genuinely connect with what he is observing. His line about community and diversity existing in tension is absolutely one of my favourites and gets to the heart of why I am not signed up to the progressive platform.

    And this article, in which he speculates on ways in which community may become more like family, is a reasonable extension of that.

  48. @Reg Cæsar

    Heckman Calls Out Chetty
     
    Chetty, Chetty, bang, bang!

    He’s just popped his Chetty.

  49. @black sea
    Just curious, do you have any data to back up these predictions?

    Yes, without low-wage imported labor, some segments of the economy would undoubtedly suffer. But given the fact that many low-wage immigrant workers rely heavily on government support programs of various kinds, there are also some costs associated with their presence which are borne by the society as a whole, rather than their employers. And not all of those costs are entirely economic.

    You predict that at least 15% of US GDP would disappear in the absence of such workers. Is this a figure you just chose on a hunch, or is there some data to substantiate it?

    Maybe not go under, but they would have to revise their business model, and certain labor intensive industries, like raisins and almonds in California would not exist at all, how would restaurants adjust if they had to pay a median wage for their waiters of US$20 an hour instead of US$5 an hour, a lot of restaurants on the lower end would basically fold, and as for manufacturing, they would probably automate if they had to raise wages substantially, I do not know how the cruise ship industry would adjust, h0w large are wages as a percentage of costs? It companies that hire H1bs, they may hire very few higher wage US replacements, but a lot of them would try to automate their coding (which can be theoretically done), or relocate to India. So for every 50 low wage foreign legal and illegal worker jobs loss you would see 2 new higher cost US labor hires? If you are replacing 10 dollar an hour H1b specials with 35 an hour US coders.

    • Replies: @ic1000
    > [Absent continued wholesale import of Huddled Masses,] The cruise ship industry would also go under.

    That one was funny.
    , @stillCARealist
    minimum wage in CA right now is $12. A server with tips can make $20/hour easily. At a restaurant like BJ's (extremely popular), the servers share their tips with bussers, making even their menial jobs worthwhile. My 17 year old worked at a sandwich shop making minimum wage with other teens. It was very much worth it for all of them.

    I don't think you know what you're talking about.

    As to almond orchards, count on CA taking away more and more water so that the need for harvesters in future will contract. Grapes are being picked by machines and will continue in that trend. If the price of berries and cilantro rises, we'll be okay. Water will be more of a problem in CA's future than cheap labor.

    We visited a sake factory here locally, and the manager had a great time showing us all the new technology that was eliminating labor right and left. He can produce more sake with fewer employees than ever before. same thing with a Kikkoman factory.

    Coders? There are plenty of Americans that would excel at those jobs who aren't even being considered. Start publicizing the opportunities for high schoolers who are wasting their hours in video games and you'll see people start working.

    Construction? do you have any idea how much those guys make? $20/hour is pretty much base wage right now. Again, American guys (of all colors) love those jobs and would flood into them without the illegals and their racist employers keeping them out. Yes, racist employers: They want to hire Mexican/Central American guys who speak Spanish.
    , @jon

    how would restaurants adjust if they had to pay a median wage for their waiters of US$20 an hour instead of US$5 an hour
     
    Australia and New Zealand both have minimum wage requirements at around US$13/hour. And that's for the whole country - in the more expensive cities, they're getting more than that. They're getting by somehow.
  50. GermanReader2 [AKA "GermanReader2_new"] says:
    @Almost Missouri

    "if you people gout your wish, and immigration is halted for the next 20 years, and all of the cheap Mexican, Indian H1B, and Asian labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more"
     
    This is the opposite of correct. If "cheap" labor disappears, then people won't stop eating food. The supply chain will simply continue by employing more "expensive" labor, as already happens in, e.g., Europe.

    Since GDP is purely a measure of activity, GDP would either go up with higher wages, or at worst would redistribute somewhat from capital owners to wage earners [boo hoo].

    The real measure for wealth is not GDP but GDP per capita. If lots of illegals were expelled from the US, then the GDP would probably go down, but the GDP per capita would rise. To illustrate that point consider India and Switzerland. One country (India) has a higher GDP, the other (Switzerland) a higher GDP per capita. Where would you rather like to live?

    • Replies: @128
    GDP corellates better with military and geopolitical power though, not to mention that a more racially homogenous US without the 1965 immigration act would probably have more left-leaning economic and social policies due to greater social cohesion, closer to Germany and Austria, so working hours would be shorter for the average American due to stricter labor laws and no right to work or at will employment, which translates to lower per capita GDP (US per capita GDP is 20 percent higher than places like Austria or the Netherlands due to longer working hours, in terms of productivity per working hour US workers are not that far ahead of the Dutch). So a smaller US with a population of around 250 million with a lower per capita GDP of around 50000 USD will have a GDP of around 12 trillion, or almost half or preset day GDP of more than 21 trillion. Is there any reason that US per capita GDP would rise of you got rid of all the low cost labor, a more reasonable assumption is that if you do not have the 1965 immigration act, and if immigration Latin America also gets cut if it gets too many, then White Americans would make up more than 80 percent of Americans, social and economic policies may resemble Europe more.
    , @UK
    If a man and a woman are forced apart and go from eating lovely home-cooked meals together most nights to ordering takeaway in solitude instead, then GDP will go up.

    The right understands the inhumanity of the bureaucratisation if everything through state power but the left understands the inhumanity of the commodification of everything as shown in the fetishization of GDP per capita.
  51. Doubtless, Heckman, like others of his ilk, would be the first to make a big virtue signalling show of denouncing the Chinese for the ‘despicable’ ‘human rights abuse’ of the Chinese government in taking Uighur children from their families to be educated in ‘special boarding schools’.

    • Replies: @UK
    Yeah, great point! Amazing!

    If you can't trust the CCP to show the children of despised minorities tremendous love and care then who can you trust?
  52. I do not know about Walmart, if say the supply of cheap labor gets cut, the labor supply drastically shrinks? Median wages go up sharply, so your 7 dollar an hour greeter suddenly has an asking price of 15 an hour, would Walmart still hire the same number of greeters? Or would they just get rid of the position, or replace them with LCD screens with a greeting jingle. I mean the price of US labor is so cheap right now that Walmart could afford to hire people who do nothing than greet people all day. What I remember from microeconomics 101 is that if the price of labor increases relative to capital then employers will replace labor with capital.

  53. @Almost Missouri
    NH has a somewhat redneckish population by New England standards. I think it dates back to some colonial era thing I no longer remember. Maybe Albion's Seed said something about it.

    Of course, some of us don't mind rednecks, but yeah, if you're raising children, maybe not the best...

    By making this a Whites Only survey, JW excluded all the black and brown dysfunction that would otherwise have buoyed NH up. And then low taxes boost NH on Fortune magazine-type lists, and light govt on libertarian lists, but JW didn't use those criteria.

    NH has a somewhat redneckish population by New England standards.

    They did vote for FDR three times. Can’t get more redneck than that. Ask any true Yankee.

  54. @GermanReader2
    The real measure for wealth is not GDP but GDP per capita. If lots of illegals were expelled from the US, then the GDP would probably go down, but the GDP per capita would rise. To illustrate that point consider India and Switzerland. One country (India) has a higher GDP, the other (Switzerland) a higher GDP per capita. Where would you rather like to live?

    GDP corellates better with military and geopolitical power though, not to mention that a more racially homogenous US without the 1965 immigration act would probably have more left-leaning economic and social policies due to greater social cohesion, closer to Germany and Austria, so working hours would be shorter for the average American due to stricter labor laws and no right to work or at will employment, which translates to lower per capita GDP (US per capita GDP is 20 percent higher than places like Austria or the Netherlands due to longer working hours, in terms of productivity per working hour US workers are not that far ahead of the Dutch). So a smaller US with a population of around 250 million with a lower per capita GDP of around 50000 USD will have a GDP of around 12 trillion, or almost half or preset day GDP of more than 21 trillion. Is there any reason that US per capita GDP would rise of you got rid of all the low cost labor, a more reasonable assumption is that if you do not have the 1965 immigration act, and if immigration Latin America also gets cut if it gets too many, then White Americans would make up more than 80 percent of Americans, social and economic policies may resemble Europe more.

  55. @Sincerity.net
    "It is politically incorrect to express the truth and go to the source of problems."
    Heckman states EXACTLY the topic of sincerity .net: #TrueSpeech is not permissible to avoid (accurate) prejudice. Mandatory omission and lies are the root cause for our faulty policies and social sciences.

    Science, problem solving, and democratic voting cannot happen while we live under censorship, the #PCGagOrder.
    Western Censorship is very similar to China's, just the dogmas and taboos are different.

    Heckman speaks so many truths. He certainly must have skills to avoid the real taboos, the third rails. He probably avoids speaking directly about race, and race differences. Or else he would be Watsoned.

    Western Censorship is very similar to China’s, just the dogmas and taboos are different.

    I used to live in Shanghai. You can talk freely about racial differences there. The Chinese are kicking the Africans out of Guangzhou and make no apologies for it. On the other hand, I used to say to my Chinese friends, white people established the modern world, not you, and they’d agree.

    Chinese friends who visited parts of the United States used to say to me, disapprovingly, “Why are there so many immigrants?” A girl I met once said, “I know you’re American. But are you a real American?” Her eyes lit up when I told her that I could trace my American ancestry to the 1600s.

    In America, the TV is much more of a conditioning tool than in China. In China, newscasts show maps of Taiwan the same color as China. In America, you can’t run an ad without at least one black person in it. White men are nutcases or stooges.

    In certain ways, the government of China is more responsive to its people than our elites are to Americans. They lie less to their people. In our country, clear majorities have expressed their preference for dramatically curtailed immigration. In response, you get Trump conning us once again with his promise of an executive order that turns out to be a dud. If Chinese leaders acted so childishly, there would be riots.

    Bottom line: Chinese, from their leaders, corrupt as they are, down to the lowliest citizen, take themselves and their country seriously. Our leaders are narcissists who are into irony and subversion. They take neither themselves nor their country seriously.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @bigdicknick
    china is run by patriots. Half of our elite are israeli patriots.
  56. @Redneck farmer
    "A lot of millionaires are actually cash-poor"-The Millionaire Next Door.

    Seriously, that’s it? That’s your answer? A data-free throwaway quote?

  57. @GermanReader2
    The real measure for wealth is not GDP but GDP per capita. If lots of illegals were expelled from the US, then the GDP would probably go down, but the GDP per capita would rise. To illustrate that point consider India and Switzerland. One country (India) has a higher GDP, the other (Switzerland) a higher GDP per capita. Where would you rather like to live?

    If a man and a woman are forced apart and go from eating lovely home-cooked meals together most nights to ordering takeaway in solitude instead, then GDP will go up.

    The right understands the inhumanity of the bureaucratisation if everything through state power but the left understands the inhumanity of the commodification of everything as shown in the fetishization of GDP per capita.

  58. @Anonymous
    Doubtless, Heckman, like others of his ilk, would be the first to make a big virtue signalling show of denouncing the Chinese for the 'despicable' 'human rights abuse' of the Chinese government in taking Uighur children from their families to be educated in 'special boarding schools'.

    Yeah, great point! Amazing!

    If you can’t trust the CCP to show the children of despised minorities tremendous love and care then who can you trust?

  59. @utu
    https://i.ibb.co/HDgDp2s/graph10.png
    https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality

    https://i.ibb.co/c6RGQ2t/graph11.png
    https://wir2018.wid.world/part-4.html

    I wonder what the US trend would be like if we excluded the post-1965 immigrants. You get a hint here.

    https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/are-immigrants-driving-income-inequality/

    • Replies: @128
    The gini coeeficient for North Dakota is not that different from Texas.
  60. @JohnnyWalker123
    You should definitely avoid Appalachia and the Ozarks. Large parts of the Deep South, Rustbelt, and Southwest should be avoided too.

    The Upper Midwest does quite well. Given the affordable cost of living, it should definitely be evaluated when looking for a place to settle down.

    California and much of the Northeast do well too, but the cost of living is quite high. So perhaps only move there if you have a high-paying job.

    There are surprising outcomes from your analysis.

    • The Not-So-Deep South does significantly worse than the Deep South. WV, KY, OK, TN, AR (+OH and NV) all worse than MS, AL, LA, GA, SC.
    Fentanyl effect?

    • Other than empty Vermont and NYC-suburb Connecticut, New England (MA, ME, NH, RI) has a remarkably poor showing.

    • Particularly, New England (traditionally the axis of Brahmin moral and intellectual superiority) comes out well behind NY/NJ (traditionally the axis of crass commercialism).
    I wonder if NY/NJ is disproportionately helped in these stats by all the bright young things flocking to NYC for the lifestyle? Whatever else they do, they don’t overdose (illegally) much, their parents can afford good lawyers so they don’t get incarcerated when they get in mischief, and they don’t birth anything at any age never mind as teens, so statistically they look good, even if I don’t think they make such a great environment to raise kids…

    • Some parts of the Upper Midwest (MN, NE, Dakotas, IA, WI, IL) are more equal than others (MI, IN, OH).
    Presumably MI, IN, OH held back by rust belt effect? But then why doesn’t that pull down IL too?

    • As you mention, CA shows surprisingly well in spite of its manifest pathologies.
    Maybe the teeming homeless are invisible to the statistic makers as they have no address/residency? Plus, CA’s policy of non-prosecution of most crimes means low incarceration rates, but in a bad way.

    • In general, as you say, the “good” states boil down to expensive coasts or less expensive upper midwest (with above caveat).

    Now, about the ingredients …

    incarceration
    As CA shows, there is such a thing as too low an incarceration rate. Incarcerating more isn’t bad when the alternative is more crime. Maybe crime rates would be a more “direct” statistic? But perhaps that is harder to filter by race given the global imperative to hide who commits most crime?

    overdose
    Good misery marker. Still, I wouldn’t want to raise kids among Xanax or Adderall addicts either, but those Sili-Valley and NY-metro substance users aren’t gonna show up in overdose stats.

    teen births
    Can this be made unwed only? I think there is a massive categorical difference between a 19 year old married mother homemaker in UT vs. a 16 year old single mother stripper-tweaker in KY.

    death
    As the death rate remains firmly at 100%, presumably this is early death, or in other words, negative life expectancy? Or maybe violent death?

    obesity
    Good marker. How heavily (heh) is it weighted? I see this everywhere other than the most elite SWPL districts. Particularly, outside of the immediate NYC metro, obesity is nearly ubiquitous in NY/NJ, so their good ranking is surprising. Or the slenderish NYC metro is just enough to keep NY and NJ below the fatocalypse in the rest of the country.

    Obviously, in any state, there are pockets of higher-functioningness, which can lead a life superior to what the mother state has to offer. Zip code- or census block-level data could spot these, but I suppose the statistical ingredients may not be available at that level.

    Anyhow, thanks for a useful and thought provoking analysis.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    • Particularly, New England (traditionally the axis of Brahmin moral and intellectual superiority) comes out well behind NY/NJ (traditionally the axis of crass commercialism).

     

    I think that de-industrialization and brain drain have hit the region pretty hard. Also, gentrification of the large east coast cities has forced many of the less-successful ethnics into some of these places.

    I wonder if NY/NJ is disproportionately helped in these stats by all the bright young things flocking to NYC for the lifestyle? Whatever else they do, they don’t overdose (illegally) much, their parents can afford good lawyers so they don’t get incarcerated when they get in mischief, and they don’t birth anything at any age never mind as teens, so statistically they look good, even if I don’t think they make such a great environment to raise kids…

     

    That's part of it.

    Though there's a lot of evidence that NY has gotten its young people to behave much better of the last 30 years. For example, the current NY teen birth rate is 30% below the national average. Even in the gritty and super diverse Bronx, the teen birth rate is only 6% above the national average.

    • Some parts of the Upper Midwest (MN, NE, Dakotas, IA, WI, IL) are more equal than others (MI, IN, OH).
    Presumably MI, IN, OH held back by rust belt effect? But then why doesn’t that pull down IL to
     
    I agree the Rustbelt effect is probably present. Illinois has Chicago, which is an economic powerhouse for the region. Lots of marginal Whites probably have been driven out of the region.

    As CA shows, there is such a thing as too low an incarceration rate. Incarcerating more isn’t bad when the alternative is more crime. Maybe crime rates would be a more “direct” statistic? But perhaps that is harder to filter by race given the global imperative to hide who commits most crime?

     

    California's homicide rate (which has a 100% reporting rate) is 12% below the national rate. So I don't think it's really that dysfunctional in comparison to the rest of the country.

    There are varying crime-reporting standards by state (also it's hard to disaggregate by race as you pointed out), but incarceration rates are also biased too. So maybe it'd be better to rank states by homicide rate due to the more standard 100% reporting rate?

    Can this be made unwed only? I think there is a massive categorical difference between a 19 year old married mother homemaker in UT vs. a 16 year old single mother stripper-tweaker in KY.

     

    90% of teen births are to unmarried women. Even in Utah, it's close to two-thirds. Honestly, outside of some isolated Mormon communities and the Amish, I think teen marriages are really rare these days.

    As the death rate remains firmly at 100%, presumably this is early death, or in other words, negative life expectancy? Or maybe violent death?

     

    Mortality rate per 100,000. So higher the rate, earlier people die.

    How heavily (heh) is it weighted?

     

    All are equally weighted.

    Obviously, in any state, there are pockets of higher-functioningness, which can lead a life superior to what the mother state has to offer. Zip code- or census block-level data could spot these, but I suppose the statistical ingredients may not be available at that level.

     

    True. Though getting data that granular isn't easy. Academics (like Chetty) often can request non-publicly available data from the Census Bureau, but ordinary people (like me) don't have access to that information.
  61. @eric
    I wonder what the US trend would be like if we excluded the post-1965 immigrants. You get a hint here.

    https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/are-immigrants-driving-income-inequality/

    The gini coeeficient for North Dakota is not that different from Texas.

  62. @Achmed E. Newman
    Right on, Heckman!

    Two points:

    At least in this excerpt from the interview, he doesn't go past nurture in discussing the differences in children. Granted, he notes above that "fear of honest engagement" regarding culture, race and gender, and he never says he's past that fear.

    Check out that last part about current events. You'd think all the bleeding-heart lefties would be against this shutdown of our economy. I guess with an election coming, it doesn't work like that.

    He’s still banging on about those five kids in Ypsilanti that one time back in the sixties. The only place he wants to go with his “culture, race, and gender (sic)” is to black culture and single mothers. That interview fragment (and Heckman’s jabbering more generally) is a model of normie conservative retardation. No 1%, no concentration of wealth, black culture, blah blah blah. He knows better, obviously, but he’s famously obsessed with his reputation.

  63. @Mark P MIller
    "Public discourse, such as it is, cannot speak honestly about matters of culture, race, and gender."

    Wow. He unleashed. What is the source of his bravery? Maybe like Nicholas Wade, he's at a point in life/career that he can give negligibly close to zero Fuchs.

    He’s not talking about genes. No bravery involved.

    • Replies: @Billy Shears
    Race doesn't count?
  64. It has gained traction because it appeals to the negative image of American society held by leading opinion makers like the New York Times and the Atlantic.

    Chetty’s semi junk science “gains traction” because it is specifically goosed to appeal to urban elites and strivers who are looking for a pseudo social scientific excuse to unload underclass undertow negroes on suburbs and rural areas to get them out of their hair.

    • Agree: West Reanimator
  65. @Almost Missouri
    I agree with your criticism of the "Heckman Equation"* Still, I was curious about this Equation and skimmed his site. I think he is not entirely wrong in that the early years do matter more than later years. Though as you (and Steve on occasion) point out, the years that bring the early years into being are more important still, by that logic.

    I haven't seen the 50 year old NC studies but I wonder, in light of the looming shortage of white people, who it is who is going to be doing all the raising of the kids of these feckless single mothers?

    "raised by the government"
     
    Child welfare social work today consists almost entirely of moving children form birth parents (or more usually, birth single-mothers) to supposedly less dubious foster parents (or even foster single-mothers). In an era when the government can no longer institutionalize obviously schizophrenic homeless lunatics, the chances of an institutional orphanage-like solution, even if it would deliver some of Heckman's promised benefits, is approximately zero. Add in the SJW howling that would ensue when it becomes obvious that Heckman orphanages are almost entirely children of color, and the chances go from zero to negative. Or, if Heckman is proposing a vast expansion of state sponsored kidnapping and allocation of "at risk" babies to foster homes, where are all these upright, stable foster homes going to come from? There is already a global surplus of unadoptable black babies. Now Heckamn wants to boost the supply while demand is shriveling even further. I foresee failure.

    -----

    *Is having a portentous (and pretentious) moniker for your misunderstanding of reality a prerequisite to being a successful academic nowadays?

    In the future, the remaining white tax serfs will be paying reparations to the “Stolen Generation” of children raised by the State per Heckman’s thesis.

    • Agree: black sea
  66. @128
    Maybe not go under, but they would have to revise their business model, and certain labor intensive industries, like raisins and almonds in California would not exist at all, how would restaurants adjust if they had to pay a median wage for their waiters of US$20 an hour instead of US$5 an hour, a lot of restaurants on the lower end would basically fold, and as for manufacturing, they would probably automate if they had to raise wages substantially, I do not know how the cruise ship industry would adjust, h0w large are wages as a percentage of costs? It companies that hire H1bs, they may hire very few higher wage US replacements, but a lot of them would try to automate their coding (which can be theoretically done), or relocate to India. So for every 50 low wage foreign legal and illegal worker jobs loss you would see 2 new higher cost US labor hires? If you are replacing 10 dollar an hour H1b specials with 35 an hour US coders.

    > [Absent continued wholesale import of Huddled Masses,] The cruise ship industry would also go under.

    That one was funny.

  67. @Calvin Hobbes
    Heckman has an outfit called “The Heckman Equation” that pushes for the government to raise the babies of “disadvantaged” mothers, which would of course cost a ton of money:

    Invest in Early Childhood Development: Reduce Deficits, Strengthen the Economy

    https://heckmanequation.org/resource/invest-in-early-childhood-development-reduce-deficits-strengthen-the-economy/

    “The highest rate of return in early childhood development comes from investing as early as possible, from birth through age five, in disadvantaged families. Starting at age three or four is too little too late, as it fails to recognize that skills beget skills in a complementary and dynamic way. Efforts should focus on the first years for the greatest efficiency and effectiveness. The best investment is in quality early childhood development from birth to five for disadvantaged children and their families.”—James J. Heckman, December 7, 2012

    Heckman claims that poor black babies turn out much less rotten when raised by the government than when raised by their families, so that the expenditure of that ton of money is worth it. The evidence for those claims is from a couple of boutique studies in North Carolina about 50 years ago. Heckman’s argument that these small-scale experiments 50 years ago justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars now in an attempt to massively scale up whatever might have happened 50 years ago is laughable.

    These old North Carolina studies dealt with black infants, yet Heckman says they justify having the government raise all sorts of “disadvantaged” infants, e.g., Mexicans. Mexicans are just like blacks, right?

    Not allowing immigration by the sorts of people whose babies Heckman thinks the government should be raising makes a lot more sense than Heckman’s idiotic ideas about what we should do with those people and their children. I don’t think there’s one word about immigration on the Heckman Equation web site.

    And if it’s worth it to have the government raise the children of poor black women (to keep those kids from becoming such troublesome adults), then we should also try to bribe such women to not inflict their kids on us. There’s also not one word at The Heckman Equation about convincing women who should not be having children to not have children.

    “The highest rate of return in early childhood development comes from investing as early as possible, from birth through age five,

    Wrong. As early is possible is 9 months before birth when the sperm meets the egg. That moment is probably at least as important as everything that happens in the next 18 years put together. As long as that sperm belongs to violent (but sexy) black felons, the baby mammas are going to keep growing baby felons.

    If we can’t bribe black women not to have babies (and to some extent we have – black fertility is down from the past) then maybe we could at least bribe them to have better babies.

    Heckman is like a lot of Leftist thinkers going back to Marx in that his diagnosis is a lot better than his prescription. You don’t really have to be a rocket scientist to see that the family has been the foundation of human society forever and that you can’t really build a stable society without stable families at its base. The question (which no one seems to be able to answer, certainly not Heckman) is how do you get back to a society where stable families are the norm? We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides – subsidizing single motherhood, destroying jobs that would allow a single breadwinner to support a family, depicting the family as something with a dark underside, glorifying “alternative lifestyles”, etc. How do you put the toothpaste back in the tube? One more government program after dozens that have been tried isn’t going to do it.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "If we can’t bribe black women not to have babies (and to some extent we have – black fertility is down from the past)"
     
    I'm not sure black women have actually been bribed not have babies, at least I can't think of any programs that pay them not to have babies, but most welfare programs do pay them—directly or indirectly—to have babies. I suspect the real reason black fertility has decreased (slightly) is the same reason it has for the rest of the native-born: decaying economics of family formation in the age of mass immigration and capital offshoring. Perhaps along with the cultural celebration of eternal adolescence. Also note that however much black fertility has fallen, it remains above that of whites, Asians, and Amerindians, and on current trends may eclipse even the formerly fecund Hispanics by the end of this decade.

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/total-fertility-rates-by-race-in-the-usa-1980-2013/

    Also, note that graphs such as Hail's somewhat understate effective black fertility since black males interbreed with outgroups more than the males of other groups do, while black females outbreed less than other groups' females do. So while figures are based on race/ethnicity of mothers, a significant chunk of those non-black mothers are birthing mulatto babies, the vast majority of whom will go on to identify with their (often absent) black sires. The mulatto children will get the full throated backing of the Media Industrial Complex as they do this.
    , @Anon

    We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides...
     
    Ain't that the truth, Jack.
    , @Joseph Doaks
    Certainly the government should stop subsidizing single motherhood.

    The government is rewarding female irresponsibility, in fact paying to promote it. When did that start anyway?
    , @Anon

    The question (which no one seems to be able to answer, certainly not Heckman) is how do you get back to a society where stable families are the norm? We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides –
     
    The short answer to your question is: liberalism needs to go die for America to survive. No doubt liberalism discourages family formation with its relentless promotion of feminism and alternative lifestyles. The two pillars of liberalism are the media and academia. This pandemic might give us a chance to attack the latter, which will lead to the demise of the former:

    First, many universities will come out of this economically impaired, esp. if the fall quarter is affected. Families who are facing economic uncertainty will either send their kids to cheaper in-state schools or forego college altogether, and some international students (their cash cow) may not return. States facing tax revenue shortfall may cut funding to public universities. Colleges might have to drastically cut expenses which could mean cuts to frivolous programs like all the Diversity related positions, Climate Change Centers, LGBTQ support etc.

    Second, the quarantine may help many families discover the wonders of homeschooling, and end up not sending their kids back to school, esp. in states like WA, where our (D) dominated legislature just passed an absurd sex ed bill to start teaching Kindergarteners transgenderism and gay sex. Homeschooling greatly undermines liberalism's stranglehold on our young, liberals know that, which is why they may be panicking, like this Harvard law professor who's calling for a ban on homeschooling: https://harvardmagazine.com/2020/05/right-now-risks-homeschooling

    This pandemic will also sour people's love of globalism and urban living. As more people discover they could work remotely, more will move to cheaper areas to live, lessen the need for 2 incomes, so that 1 parent could stop working and homeschool. This would be the one great thing that could come out of this fiasco. Another would be a drastic reduction in immigration as governments seek to protect jobs for unemployed citizens, and tech companies realize they could just as easily have workers work remotely from their home countries.
    , @Anon
    .
    , @jsm
    Why not pay black women not to have babies? We could even formulate it in a "definitely NOT racist" way by saying, any young woman (14-29?) whose mother was ever on welfare, we'll pay you not to get pregnant.
    Market it as... "We all know that it's better to get educated and established first. This will reduce teen pregnancies, but she can have a family, just later on."
    We could say, come to the Break the Cycle office, take a preg test. If neg, get a depo-provera shot and a check. Come back in 3 months, rinse and repeat.

    We of course know that it will "disparately impact" blacks, but we could *say* all daughters of welfare mothers.
    "We must break the cycle of welfare dependance! Educate these young women! Education now and babies later!"


    Couple of things will result: Gov't spending will go way up immediately as black women flock to the Break the Cycle office for their shots and checks, but it will go way down in the future, as far fewer infants of black sexy thugs get made by the young, who are most fertile, underclass black women.

    Fewer underclass infants to support very soon, fewer underclass black felons to imprison later. WIN!
  68. @Almost Missouri
    I agree with your criticism of the "Heckman Equation"* Still, I was curious about this Equation and skimmed his site. I think he is not entirely wrong in that the early years do matter more than later years. Though as you (and Steve on occasion) point out, the years that bring the early years into being are more important still, by that logic.

    I haven't seen the 50 year old NC studies but I wonder, in light of the looming shortage of white people, who it is who is going to be doing all the raising of the kids of these feckless single mothers?

    "raised by the government"
     
    Child welfare social work today consists almost entirely of moving children form birth parents (or more usually, birth single-mothers) to supposedly less dubious foster parents (or even foster single-mothers). In an era when the government can no longer institutionalize obviously schizophrenic homeless lunatics, the chances of an institutional orphanage-like solution, even if it would deliver some of Heckman's promised benefits, is approximately zero. Add in the SJW howling that would ensue when it becomes obvious that Heckman orphanages are almost entirely children of color, and the chances go from zero to negative. Or, if Heckman is proposing a vast expansion of state sponsored kidnapping and allocation of "at risk" babies to foster homes, where are all these upright, stable foster homes going to come from? There is already a global surplus of unadoptable black babies. Now Heckamn wants to boost the supply while demand is shriveling even further. I foresee failure.

    -----

    *Is having a portentous (and pretentious) moniker for your misunderstanding of reality a prerequisite to being a successful academic nowadays?

    My “raised by the government” here means dawn-to-dusk daycare on business days. I don’t think Heckman proposes orphanages.

    But here’s another idiotic angle to what Heckman proposes. He would lessen the burden of having babies specifically for women who should not be having babies (because he says they don’t take proper care of their babies). It seems likely that these women who should not be having babies would react by having even more babies than they do now. You’d think that an economist would consider how people might change their behavior when incentives are changed. Heckman is supposed to be some sort of economist, right?

  69. One more government program after dozens that have been tried isn’t going to do it.

    Government officials are notoriously reluctant to entertain the possibility that some programs do more harm than good, and simply need to be abandoned. As Thomas Sowell once said in one of his many interviews, the best thing that the US government could have done for blacks in 1950s would have been to secure their constitutional rights, and then leave them the hell alone.

  70. @JohnnyWalker123
    You should definitely avoid Appalachia and the Ozarks. Large parts of the Deep South, Rustbelt, and Southwest should be avoided too.

    The Upper Midwest does quite well. Given the affordable cost of living, it should definitely be evaluated when looking for a place to settle down.

    California and much of the Northeast do well too, but the cost of living is quite high. So perhaps only move there if you have a high-paying job.

    The Upper Midwest is too cold for the average American to consider. Much, much too cold. Please let everyone know it is too cold and we would appreciate it if they stayed in their current state.

    • LOL: Joseph Doaks
  71. @Calvin Hobbes
    Heckman has an outfit called “The Heckman Equation” that pushes for the government to raise the babies of “disadvantaged” mothers, which would of course cost a ton of money:

    Invest in Early Childhood Development: Reduce Deficits, Strengthen the Economy

    https://heckmanequation.org/resource/invest-in-early-childhood-development-reduce-deficits-strengthen-the-economy/

    “The highest rate of return in early childhood development comes from investing as early as possible, from birth through age five, in disadvantaged families. Starting at age three or four is too little too late, as it fails to recognize that skills beget skills in a complementary and dynamic way. Efforts should focus on the first years for the greatest efficiency and effectiveness. The best investment is in quality early childhood development from birth to five for disadvantaged children and their families.”—James J. Heckman, December 7, 2012

    Heckman claims that poor black babies turn out much less rotten when raised by the government than when raised by their families, so that the expenditure of that ton of money is worth it. The evidence for those claims is from a couple of boutique studies in North Carolina about 50 years ago. Heckman’s argument that these small-scale experiments 50 years ago justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars now in an attempt to massively scale up whatever might have happened 50 years ago is laughable.

    These old North Carolina studies dealt with black infants, yet Heckman says they justify having the government raise all sorts of “disadvantaged” infants, e.g., Mexicans. Mexicans are just like blacks, right?

    Not allowing immigration by the sorts of people whose babies Heckman thinks the government should be raising makes a lot more sense than Heckman’s idiotic ideas about what we should do with those people and their children. I don’t think there’s one word about immigration on the Heckman Equation web site.

    And if it’s worth it to have the government raise the children of poor black women (to keep those kids from becoming such troublesome adults), then we should also try to bribe such women to not inflict their kids on us. There’s also not one word at The Heckman Equation about convincing women who should not be having children to not have children.

    The intervention should be done even earlier. Condoms are much cheaper than baby sitting.

  72. The way of thinking of our “American conservatives” is very, very limited. Most seem to think that going to Eisenhower-era values is desirable.

    Well- not.

    The point is when you have a capable population, you don’t have to live by conservative values (or at least the major part of the people). Countries as different as Iceland & Israel are examples you can get rid of most of conservative morality of the 40s & 50s- and still have highly functioning societies.

    You just have to:

    a) have the will to live, prosper; you have to be basically optimistic

    b) you should not have blacks & Muslims in position of power, or guilt-ridden white dominant stock

    c) otherwise- you may have feminism, gays, non-traditional families- and that ultimately means nothing, if ..

    If you don’t niqqerize your culture & don’t let your behavior be dictated by loony libs who masochistically cling to those parasites

    https://articles.aplus.com/a/iceland-most-unwed-parents

    Iceland Leads The World In Unwed Parents — With Pride, Not Shame

    In Iceland, 67 percent of babies are born out of wedlock, the highest rate in the world.

    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/israel-is-the-gayest-country-on-earth/

    Israel is the gayest country on earth

  73. @JohnnyWalker123
    Let me reintroduce a post that I made a few years ago.

    I did my own analysis to determine the best states to live and raise a child.

    Here’s what I did to create my list.

    1. I inputed the rates of incarceration, overdose, teen births, death, and obesity for each state. However, I only utilized the data for the Non-Hispanic white populations of each state. That allows interstate comparisons, without race becoming a confounding factor.
    2. For America’s entire non-Hispanic white population, I found the national medians on the rates of incarceration, overdose, teen births, death, and obesity.
    3. I divided each state’s incarceration, overdose, teen pregnancy, death, and obesity rates by the respective national medians.
    4. By averaging together these modified rates, I computed an “Index of Misery” for each state.
    5. Higher the index, the worse off the population. Lower the index, better off the state. Above 1 = worse than average. Below 1 = better than average. You can make a relative comparison among our various states.
    6. The below chart applies only to NH-Whites.


    https://imgur.com/a/wgQdSwX


    If you're looking for a good place to raise children, the above chart is useful.

    Joisy? Second best? That’s a turn up for the books.

  74. @PiltdownMan

    What is the quasi-Nobel?
     
    Mr. Sailer's gentle dig at the pretensions of the economics profession.

    From Wikipedia:

    Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

    The prize was established in 1968 by a donation from Sweden's central bank Sveriges Riksbank to the Nobel Foundation to commemorate the bank's 300th anniversary.

    As it is not one of the prizes that Alfred Nobel established in his will in 1895, it is not a Nobel Prize.

    However, it is administered and referred to along with the Nobel Prizes by the Nobel Foundation. Laureates are announced with the Nobel Prize laureates, and receive the award at the same ceremony.
     

    I refer to it as the Counterfeit Nobel, which seems apposite.

  75. @Calvin Hobbes
    Heckman has an outfit called “The Heckman Equation” that pushes for the government to raise the babies of “disadvantaged” mothers, which would of course cost a ton of money:

    Invest in Early Childhood Development: Reduce Deficits, Strengthen the Economy

    https://heckmanequation.org/resource/invest-in-early-childhood-development-reduce-deficits-strengthen-the-economy/

    “The highest rate of return in early childhood development comes from investing as early as possible, from birth through age five, in disadvantaged families. Starting at age three or four is too little too late, as it fails to recognize that skills beget skills in a complementary and dynamic way. Efforts should focus on the first years for the greatest efficiency and effectiveness. The best investment is in quality early childhood development from birth to five for disadvantaged children and their families.”—James J. Heckman, December 7, 2012

    Heckman claims that poor black babies turn out much less rotten when raised by the government than when raised by their families, so that the expenditure of that ton of money is worth it. The evidence for those claims is from a couple of boutique studies in North Carolina about 50 years ago. Heckman’s argument that these small-scale experiments 50 years ago justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars now in an attempt to massively scale up whatever might have happened 50 years ago is laughable.

    These old North Carolina studies dealt with black infants, yet Heckman says they justify having the government raise all sorts of “disadvantaged” infants, e.g., Mexicans. Mexicans are just like blacks, right?

    Not allowing immigration by the sorts of people whose babies Heckman thinks the government should be raising makes a lot more sense than Heckman’s idiotic ideas about what we should do with those people and their children. I don’t think there’s one word about immigration on the Heckman Equation web site.

    And if it’s worth it to have the government raise the children of poor black women (to keep those kids from becoming such troublesome adults), then we should also try to bribe such women to not inflict their kids on us. There’s also not one word at The Heckman Equation about convincing women who should not be having children to not have children.

    I read of some longitudinal studies that indicate that Head Start, Smart Start and More at Four have all been shown to be failures. This Heckman fella seems to be working a nice grift.

  76. @Almost Missouri
    https://twitter.com/RuckCohlchez/status/1250960027101171712

    In case Twitter doesn't post through:


    David Brooks @nytdavidbrooks
    Excellence is not an action, it’s a habit. Tenacity is doing what you were trained to do. It manifests in those whose training embraced hardship and taught students to deal with it.
    Opinion | The Age of Coddling Is Over

    Ken Klippenstein @kenklippenstein
    If David Brooks hates millennials so much then why did he marry one #EndChildTrafficking

    Fatt Yglazyass @RuckCohlchez
    every David Brooks column is a thinly-veiled projection of whatever his personal issue is at the moment, he's writing about millennials so much entirely because of various annoyances he has with her
     
    In the case of his "nuclear family" brain fart, after having been raised in a nuclear family, and having wafted to prestige and riches of a lofty sinecure in a nuclear family, he chucked over his own nuclear family so he could screw his research assistant-ette. So now, to maintain his pundit prestige, he has to circle back and create the meta-justification for this. Hence: the Atlantic piece.

    Never mistake something these people write for anything more than their id responses to their own personal psychodramas. They really have nothing to offer.

    At best, Brooks is an overpaid busker to inner-beltway pseuds.

    American Renaissance had a good column in the last couple of weeks about newspaper pundits. It used as an example a newspaper columnist from the first half of the 20th Century named Drew Pearson who was very widely published. He was essentially a pro Soviet Commie, two members of his staff were caught passing information to the Soviets. Pearson is so forgotten today, if you search his name in Google, the first four pages of results are all for the wide receiver of the same name who played for the Dallas Cowboys in the 1970s and early 1980s. Columnists like Pearson in his day and Brooks, George Will, Krugman, etc. today, are just highly paid gatekeepers trying to keep public opinion within a certain pre-approved range. Nothing they write has any lasting value. The column also mentioned David Broder and William Safire as columnists who were a huge deal during their careers but that no one talked about now. David Brooks will be forgotten with ten years of his death.

  77. @res

    The same can be said of the academics who write about the growth of the Top 1%. Careful studies show much less growth in disparity than what is picked up in the popular press and by populist politicians.
     
    Does anyone know more about this? I thought it was fairly well established that income disparity was increasing significantly. Any counter-evidence from Heckman?

    P.S. Has Heckman elaborated on his criticism of Chetty's work anywhere?

    I have never really understood this ‘income disparity’ nonsense. When you live in a country that has between fifteen and twenty millions illegal – essentially peasant – aliens, and accepts nearly a million mostly poor immigrants a year, yeah, you’ve built a system guarenteeing huge income disparity. So what?

  78. @utu
    https://i.ibb.co/HDgDp2s/graph10.png
    https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality

    https://i.ibb.co/c6RGQ2t/graph11.png
    https://wir2018.wid.world/part-4.html

    Right, that is the kind of evidence I had in mind. What is Heckman’s counter evidence? Or am I misunderstanding what he is asserting with:

    The same can be said of the academics who write about the growth of the Top 1%. Careful studies show much less growth in disparity than what is picked up in the popular press and by populist politicians.

  79. The American Dream was a perfectly horrible piece of theatre from the late 1940s. Have you ever heard the phrase used by anyone outside the word-merchant sector? And have you ever heard it used as anything but a set up for a discourse on how American life sucks?

    Of course it doesn’t, and the people who say it does have no constructive ideas about how to address its actual flaws. They are, in fact, dead set against any salutary measures because these would contravene the logic of the status strata they’ve constructed in their own minds and contravene the social fictions to which they adhere.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Morton's toes

    Have you ever heard the phrase used by anyone outside the word-merchant sector?
     
    See Deirdre McCloskey,s Bourgeois Trilogy.

    It goes something like this: my 4 grandparents were born peasants and two of them died peasants. My parents were born peasants. I was born inside (albeit bottom of) the middle class. Trickle down economics works perfectly fine and dandy for me and millions of others!

    Don't be a hater.

    The books are long and repetitious but she has built a formidable argument. It is very similar to Rush Limbaugh's spiel about how there are more healthier productive prosperous people right now than ever before by far so how can anybody argue that things are terrible? Also, the CIA's favorite torture-assist psychologist, Martin Seligman, will tell you that if you were more optimistic you would be making more money. : )
  80. @128
    It just funny how you see all of these people complaining about muh economy during the lockdown, I mean if you people gout your wish, and immigration is halted for the next 20 years, and all of the cheap Mexican, Indian H1B, and Asian labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more, I mean the meat packers and processors would go under, almost the entire fast food and restaurant industry would go under, much of the IT sector depending on H1B programmers would go under, a lot of farmers would go under, large parts of manufacturing, energy, the hospitality industry, and the agriculture industry which depends on cheap foreign labor would go under, or at least have to drastically change their business model from hiring workers at 5 dollars an hour to having to hire them at 20 per hour. Walmart, Home Depot, Amazon, and Lowes would either automate or would end up hiring a lot less workers due to higher wage rates caused by restricted labour supply caused by the loss of cheap legal and illegal foreign labour. The cruise ship industry would also go under. The economic dislocation would be as large as that being caused by the current lockdowns.

    >much of the IT sector depending on H1B programmers would go under,

    May it be so.

  81. Heckman is at least honest enough to admit that early childhood education is primarily about getting kids away from their dysfunctional homes/parents for a bit every day in the hope that the accumulated effect will mean they are someway more responsible as adults than the people that raised them. Obviously this effect will not last on a great many, but it would be interesting to know much much of a dent academics thinks this will make on incarceration, personal health, and higher lifetime earnings.

    Now, the one thing that much of academia and polite society still won’t admit/entertain is that we just have a certain percentage of the population whose potential is fairly low no matter what we do, and that inequality, crime, poor health outcomes and all the rest flows from this and is largely immune to policy interventions.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "Heckman is at least honest enough to admit that early childhood education is primarily about getting kids away from their dysfunctional homes/parents for a bit every day in the hope that the accumulated effect will mean they are someway more responsible as adults than the people that raised them."
     
    Yes. Golf clap for Heckman.

    "the one thing that much of academia and polite society still won’t admit/entertain is that we just have a certain percentage of the population whose potential is fairly low no matter what we do, and that inequality, crime, poor health outcomes and all the rest flows from this and is largely immune to policy interventions."
     
    Also yes. So in other words, that massive "investment" (Heckman's favorite word) in the underclass is really just wasted.

    I wish the waste were only money.
  82. @128
    Maybe not go under, but they would have to revise their business model, and certain labor intensive industries, like raisins and almonds in California would not exist at all, how would restaurants adjust if they had to pay a median wage for their waiters of US$20 an hour instead of US$5 an hour, a lot of restaurants on the lower end would basically fold, and as for manufacturing, they would probably automate if they had to raise wages substantially, I do not know how the cruise ship industry would adjust, h0w large are wages as a percentage of costs? It companies that hire H1bs, they may hire very few higher wage US replacements, but a lot of them would try to automate their coding (which can be theoretically done), or relocate to India. So for every 50 low wage foreign legal and illegal worker jobs loss you would see 2 new higher cost US labor hires? If you are replacing 10 dollar an hour H1b specials with 35 an hour US coders.

    minimum wage in CA right now is $12. A server with tips can make $20/hour easily. At a restaurant like BJ’s (extremely popular), the servers share their tips with bussers, making even their menial jobs worthwhile. My 17 year old worked at a sandwich shop making minimum wage with other teens. It was very much worth it for all of them.

    I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

    As to almond orchards, count on CA taking away more and more water so that the need for harvesters in future will contract. Grapes are being picked by machines and will continue in that trend. If the price of berries and cilantro rises, we’ll be okay. Water will be more of a problem in CA’s future than cheap labor.

    We visited a sake factory here locally, and the manager had a great time showing us all the new technology that was eliminating labor right and left. He can produce more sake with fewer employees than ever before. same thing with a Kikkoman factory.

    Coders? There are plenty of Americans that would excel at those jobs who aren’t even being considered. Start publicizing the opportunities for high schoolers who are wasting their hours in video games and you’ll see people start working.

    Construction? do you have any idea how much those guys make? $20/hour is pretty much base wage right now. Again, American guys (of all colors) love those jobs and would flood into them without the illegals and their racist employers keeping them out. Yes, racist employers: They want to hire Mexican/Central American guys who speak Spanish.

  83. @Jack D

    “The highest rate of return in early childhood development comes from investing as early as possible, from birth through age five,
     
    Wrong. As early is possible is 9 months before birth when the sperm meets the egg. That moment is probably at least as important as everything that happens in the next 18 years put together. As long as that sperm belongs to violent (but sexy) black felons, the baby mammas are going to keep growing baby felons.

    If we can't bribe black women not to have babies (and to some extent we have - black fertility is down from the past) then maybe we could at least bribe them to have better babies.

    Heckman is like a lot of Leftist thinkers going back to Marx in that his diagnosis is a lot better than his prescription. You don't really have to be a rocket scientist to see that the family has been the foundation of human society forever and that you can't really build a stable society without stable families at its base. The question (which no one seems to be able to answer, certainly not Heckman) is how do you get back to a society where stable families are the norm? We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides - subsidizing single motherhood, destroying jobs that would allow a single breadwinner to support a family, depicting the family as something with a dark underside, glorifying "alternative lifestyles", etc. How do you put the toothpaste back in the tube? One more government program after dozens that have been tried isn't going to do it.

    “If we can’t bribe black women not to have babies (and to some extent we have – black fertility is down from the past)”

    I’m not sure black women have actually been bribed not have babies, at least I can’t think of any programs that pay them not to have babies, but most welfare programs do pay them—directly or indirectly—to have babies. I suspect the real reason black fertility has decreased (slightly) is the same reason it has for the rest of the native-born: decaying economics of family formation in the age of mass immigration and capital offshoring. Perhaps along with the cultural celebration of eternal adolescence. Also note that however much black fertility has fallen, it remains above that of whites, Asians, and Amerindians, and on current trends may eclipse even the formerly fecund Hispanics by the end of this decade.

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/total-fertility-rates-by-race-in-the-usa-1980-2013/

    Also, note that graphs such as Hail’s somewhat understate effective black fertility since black males interbreed with outgroups more than the males of other groups do, while black females outbreed less than other groups’ females do. So while figures are based on race/ethnicity of mothers, a significant chunk of those non-black mothers are birthing mulatto babies, the vast majority of whom will go on to identify with their (often absent) black sires. The mulatto children will get the full throated backing of the Media Industrial Complex as they do this.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I’m not sure black women have actually been bribed not have babies, at least I can’t think of any programs that pay them not to have babies, but most welfare programs do pay them—directly or indirectly—to have babies. I suspect the real reason black fertility has decreased (slightly) is the same reason it has for the rest of the native-born: decaying economics of family formation in the age of mass immigration and capital offshoring. Perhaps along with the cultural celebration of eternal adolescence. Also note that however much black fertility has fallen, it remains above that of whites, Asians, and Amerindians, and on current trends may eclipse even the formerly fecund Hispanics by the end of this decade.

    Once more with feeling. The total fertility rate for black women is 2.1 children per woman per lifetime, i.e. the replacement rate. The median age black women give birth to a first child is 23, precisely what it was for women-in-general in this country in 1980. About 19% of the blacks in the United States in 1994 lived in households collecting AFDC. Up until February of this year, the share living in households collecting TANF was about 4%. The only other welfare programs of note targeted at children are the SCHIP component of Medicaid and some of the nutrition subsidies offered by the USDA. About $35 bn are spent on these programs and about 30% of the beneficiaries are non-hispanic blacks. That's about $10.5 bn in expenditure on 9.3 million youths, or just north of $1,100 per youth. Among the rest of the population, you have about $25 bn distributed to just shy of 64 million youths, or about $385 per youth. I tend to doubt the extra $750 per child per year has much of an effect on child-bearing decisions.

    , @anon
    An easy way to achieve this is by providing free Plan-B tablets in women's restrooms along with sanitary napkins, hand washing soap/moisturizer.
    , @Kim

    I suspect the real reason black fertility has decreased (slightly) is the same reason it has for the rest of the native-born: decaying economics of family formation in the age of mass immigration and capital offshoring.
     
    Don't blacks have high rates of abortion? Because if they don't, they should.
  84. @Arclight
    Heckman is at least honest enough to admit that early childhood education is primarily about getting kids away from their dysfunctional homes/parents for a bit every day in the hope that the accumulated effect will mean they are someway more responsible as adults than the people that raised them. Obviously this effect will not last on a great many, but it would be interesting to know much much of a dent academics thinks this will make on incarceration, personal health, and higher lifetime earnings.

    Now, the one thing that much of academia and polite society still won't admit/entertain is that we just have a certain percentage of the population whose potential is fairly low no matter what we do, and that inequality, crime, poor health outcomes and all the rest flows from this and is largely immune to policy interventions.

    “Heckman is at least honest enough to admit that early childhood education is primarily about getting kids away from their dysfunctional homes/parents for a bit every day in the hope that the accumulated effect will mean they are someway more responsible as adults than the people that raised them.”

    Yes. Golf clap for Heckman.

    “the one thing that much of academia and polite society still won’t admit/entertain is that we just have a certain percentage of the population whose potential is fairly low no matter what we do, and that inequality, crime, poor health outcomes and all the rest flows from this and is largely immune to policy interventions.”

    Also yes. So in other words, that massive “investment” (Heckman’s favorite word) in the underclass is really just wasted.

    I wish the waste were only money.

  85. Anon[694] • Disclaimer says:

    As cruel as this sounds, I have wondered whether Covid-19 is nature’s way of correcting the overpopulation of the earth. So far the hardest hit are over populated countries like China, over congested cities in Southern Europe and NYC, and in the US, the poor, homeless, old, weak, sick, are the hardest hit, i.e. Scrooge’s “surplus population”. This really is a game of survival of the fittest.

    • Replies: @UK
    It is hardly a game of survival and it barely touches the fertile. It will therefore have no long-term effect on population size.

    Perhaps the grinding economic recession from locking people at home will though? Or maybe it'll increase the number of babies...

    Haha but I guess it'll be amusing if annoying when everyone starts using the sensationalised term "Covid survivor". Yuck.

  86. @Calvin Hobbes
    Heckman has an outfit called “The Heckman Equation” that pushes for the government to raise the babies of “disadvantaged” mothers, which would of course cost a ton of money:

    Invest in Early Childhood Development: Reduce Deficits, Strengthen the Economy

    https://heckmanequation.org/resource/invest-in-early-childhood-development-reduce-deficits-strengthen-the-economy/

    “The highest rate of return in early childhood development comes from investing as early as possible, from birth through age five, in disadvantaged families. Starting at age three or four is too little too late, as it fails to recognize that skills beget skills in a complementary and dynamic way. Efforts should focus on the first years for the greatest efficiency and effectiveness. The best investment is in quality early childhood development from birth to five for disadvantaged children and their families.”—James J. Heckman, December 7, 2012

    Heckman claims that poor black babies turn out much less rotten when raised by the government than when raised by their families, so that the expenditure of that ton of money is worth it. The evidence for those claims is from a couple of boutique studies in North Carolina about 50 years ago. Heckman’s argument that these small-scale experiments 50 years ago justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars now in an attempt to massively scale up whatever might have happened 50 years ago is laughable.

    These old North Carolina studies dealt with black infants, yet Heckman says they justify having the government raise all sorts of “disadvantaged” infants, e.g., Mexicans. Mexicans are just like blacks, right?

    Not allowing immigration by the sorts of people whose babies Heckman thinks the government should be raising makes a lot more sense than Heckman’s idiotic ideas about what we should do with those people and their children. I don’t think there’s one word about immigration on the Heckman Equation web site.

    And if it’s worth it to have the government raise the children of poor black women (to keep those kids from becoming such troublesome adults), then we should also try to bribe such women to not inflict their kids on us. There’s also not one word at The Heckman Equation about convincing women who should not be having children to not have children.

    “Not allowing immigration by the sorts of people whose babies Heckman thinks the government should be raising makes a lot more sense than Heckman’s idiotic ideas about what we should do with those people and their children.”

    Good point. It’s like feminists who get upset about sex doll brothels, arguing that they will cause men to become misogynistic, but who have no problem importing men from deeply misogynistic societies. Easier to stop them from coming in.

    I wonder if he knows that next to the Holocaust(TM), immigration and diversity is the next shibboleth on the list. After all, he mentioned censorship.

  87. @Jack D

    “The highest rate of return in early childhood development comes from investing as early as possible, from birth through age five,
     
    Wrong. As early is possible is 9 months before birth when the sperm meets the egg. That moment is probably at least as important as everything that happens in the next 18 years put together. As long as that sperm belongs to violent (but sexy) black felons, the baby mammas are going to keep growing baby felons.

    If we can't bribe black women not to have babies (and to some extent we have - black fertility is down from the past) then maybe we could at least bribe them to have better babies.

    Heckman is like a lot of Leftist thinkers going back to Marx in that his diagnosis is a lot better than his prescription. You don't really have to be a rocket scientist to see that the family has been the foundation of human society forever and that you can't really build a stable society without stable families at its base. The question (which no one seems to be able to answer, certainly not Heckman) is how do you get back to a society where stable families are the norm? We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides - subsidizing single motherhood, destroying jobs that would allow a single breadwinner to support a family, depicting the family as something with a dark underside, glorifying "alternative lifestyles", etc. How do you put the toothpaste back in the tube? One more government program after dozens that have been tried isn't going to do it.

    We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides…

    Ain’t that the truth, Jack.

    • Replies: @Hambone
    "We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides…"

    Lol. To (((We))) or not to We, that is the Question.

  88. Heckman’s analysis is of itself not without its merits; but if we are to take this as a full summation of the whole problem, coming from a pointy-headed expert who’s studied it at length, then Heckman is so simple-minded, narrow and shallow as to beggar belief. Even accounting for his caveats about political third rails and naughty no-no words.

    If this is all that the people who have the nerve and the brains to /oppose/ malevolent weaponized Dimwits of Color like Chetty can come up with, then we are indeed doomed.

  89. @Jack D

    “The highest rate of return in early childhood development comes from investing as early as possible, from birth through age five,
     
    Wrong. As early is possible is 9 months before birth when the sperm meets the egg. That moment is probably at least as important as everything that happens in the next 18 years put together. As long as that sperm belongs to violent (but sexy) black felons, the baby mammas are going to keep growing baby felons.

    If we can't bribe black women not to have babies (and to some extent we have - black fertility is down from the past) then maybe we could at least bribe them to have better babies.

    Heckman is like a lot of Leftist thinkers going back to Marx in that his diagnosis is a lot better than his prescription. You don't really have to be a rocket scientist to see that the family has been the foundation of human society forever and that you can't really build a stable society without stable families at its base. The question (which no one seems to be able to answer, certainly not Heckman) is how do you get back to a society where stable families are the norm? We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides - subsidizing single motherhood, destroying jobs that would allow a single breadwinner to support a family, depicting the family as something with a dark underside, glorifying "alternative lifestyles", etc. How do you put the toothpaste back in the tube? One more government program after dozens that have been tried isn't going to do it.

    Certainly the government should stop subsidizing single motherhood.

    The government is rewarding female irresponsibility, in fact paying to promote it. When did that start anyway?

  90. @Bill
    He's not talking about genes. No bravery involved.

    Race doesn’t count?

  91. @Almost Missouri

    "If we can’t bribe black women not to have babies (and to some extent we have – black fertility is down from the past)"
     
    I'm not sure black women have actually been bribed not have babies, at least I can't think of any programs that pay them not to have babies, but most welfare programs do pay them—directly or indirectly—to have babies. I suspect the real reason black fertility has decreased (slightly) is the same reason it has for the rest of the native-born: decaying economics of family formation in the age of mass immigration and capital offshoring. Perhaps along with the cultural celebration of eternal adolescence. Also note that however much black fertility has fallen, it remains above that of whites, Asians, and Amerindians, and on current trends may eclipse even the formerly fecund Hispanics by the end of this decade.

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/total-fertility-rates-by-race-in-the-usa-1980-2013/

    Also, note that graphs such as Hail's somewhat understate effective black fertility since black males interbreed with outgroups more than the males of other groups do, while black females outbreed less than other groups' females do. So while figures are based on race/ethnicity of mothers, a significant chunk of those non-black mothers are birthing mulatto babies, the vast majority of whom will go on to identify with their (often absent) black sires. The mulatto children will get the full throated backing of the Media Industrial Complex as they do this.

    I’m not sure black women have actually been bribed not have babies, at least I can’t think of any programs that pay them not to have babies, but most welfare programs do pay them—directly or indirectly—to have babies. I suspect the real reason black fertility has decreased (slightly) is the same reason it has for the rest of the native-born: decaying economics of family formation in the age of mass immigration and capital offshoring. Perhaps along with the cultural celebration of eternal adolescence. Also note that however much black fertility has fallen, it remains above that of whites, Asians, and Amerindians, and on current trends may eclipse even the formerly fecund Hispanics by the end of this decade.

    Once more with feeling. The total fertility rate for black women is 2.1 children per woman per lifetime, i.e. the replacement rate. The median age black women give birth to a first child is 23, precisely what it was for women-in-general in this country in 1980. About 19% of the blacks in the United States in 1994 lived in households collecting AFDC. Up until February of this year, the share living in households collecting TANF was about 4%. The only other welfare programs of note targeted at children are the SCHIP component of Medicaid and some of the nutrition subsidies offered by the USDA. About $35 bn are spent on these programs and about 30% of the beneficiaries are non-hispanic blacks. That’s about $10.5 bn in expenditure on 9.3 million youths, or just north of $1,100 per youth. Among the rest of the population, you have about $25 bn distributed to just shy of 64 million youths, or about $385 per youth. I tend to doubt the extra $750 per child per year has much of an effect on child-bearing decisions.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "The total fertility rate for black women is 2.1 children per woman per lifetime, i.e. the replacement rate."
     
    As mentioned in my comment, the black fertility rate is understated while everyone else's is overstated. Additionally, since the crucial fulcrum point for fertility rate is 2, when blacks are a little above that while everyone else is a little below that, it doesn't take too long for the magic of compounding to turn "a little" rate difference into a lot people on the ground. Demography is destiny.

    "The median age black women give birth to a first child is 23, precisely what it was for women-in-general in this country in 1980. "
     
    News Flash: it ain't 1980 anymore. [Why cite obsolete figures?] Today, as before, blacks continue not only to reproduce more but also to reproduce faster. So you can multiply my above remark about compounding by a rapidity differential as well.

    "About 19% of the blacks ...
    ... in 1994 [!?!] ...
    ... effect on child-bearing decisions."
     
    What I gather you're saying is, hey these specific programs only waste $750 per head per year, so relax! Or at least they did 26 years ago.

    But of course, these specific programs are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and various other anti-poverty programs by themselves have been immensely costly, so much so that I don't know that anyone has ever dared calculate the total. And even if someone had, that would only be the most visible part of the register. Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals have chipped in time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes, and various other initiatives to a value beyond reckoning. And that's just the direct contributions. Governments, businesses and the academy all engage in ubiquitous and deleterious discrimination in favor of the less qualified and against the more qualified. They obey onerous regulations, employ proliferating and destructive diversity officers, and run an endless gauntlet of private litigation, all in the name of lifting up "the disadvantaged". The massive distortion of both public and private sectors to accommodate the welfare imperative has drained trillions upon trillions from the real economy. And all of that is as nothing compared to the cultural and genetic losses that the welfare imperative has imposed.

    As bomag said above, "cheap" labor is a terribly expensive indulgence.
  92. Anon[189] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    “The highest rate of return in early childhood development comes from investing as early as possible, from birth through age five,
     
    Wrong. As early is possible is 9 months before birth when the sperm meets the egg. That moment is probably at least as important as everything that happens in the next 18 years put together. As long as that sperm belongs to violent (but sexy) black felons, the baby mammas are going to keep growing baby felons.

    If we can't bribe black women not to have babies (and to some extent we have - black fertility is down from the past) then maybe we could at least bribe them to have better babies.

    Heckman is like a lot of Leftist thinkers going back to Marx in that his diagnosis is a lot better than his prescription. You don't really have to be a rocket scientist to see that the family has been the foundation of human society forever and that you can't really build a stable society without stable families at its base. The question (which no one seems to be able to answer, certainly not Heckman) is how do you get back to a society where stable families are the norm? We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides - subsidizing single motherhood, destroying jobs that would allow a single breadwinner to support a family, depicting the family as something with a dark underside, glorifying "alternative lifestyles", etc. How do you put the toothpaste back in the tube? One more government program after dozens that have been tried isn't going to do it.

    The question (which no one seems to be able to answer, certainly not Heckman) is how do you get back to a society where stable families are the norm? We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides –

    The short answer to your question is: liberalism needs to go die for America to survive. No doubt liberalism discourages family formation with its relentless promotion of feminism and alternative lifestyles. The two pillars of liberalism are the media and academia. This pandemic might give us a chance to attack the latter, which will lead to the demise of the former:

    First, many universities will come out of this economically impaired, esp. if the fall quarter is affected. Families who are facing economic uncertainty will either send their kids to cheaper in-state schools or forego college altogether, and some international students (their cash cow) may not return. States facing tax revenue shortfall may cut funding to public universities. Colleges might have to drastically cut expenses which could mean cuts to frivolous programs like all the Diversity related positions, Climate Change Centers, LGBTQ support etc.

    Second, the quarantine may help many families discover the wonders of homeschooling, and end up not sending their kids back to school, esp. in states like WA, where our (D) dominated legislature just passed an absurd sex ed bill to start teaching Kindergarteners transgenderism and gay sex. Homeschooling greatly undermines liberalism’s stranglehold on our young, liberals know that, which is why they may be panicking, like this Harvard law professor who’s calling for a ban on homeschooling: https://harvardmagazine.com/2020/05/right-now-risks-homeschooling

    This pandemic will also sour people’s love of globalism and urban living. As more people discover they could work remotely, more will move to cheaper areas to live, lessen the need for 2 incomes, so that 1 parent could stop working and homeschool. This would be the one great thing that could come out of this fiasco. Another would be a drastic reduction in immigration as governments seek to protect jobs for unemployed citizens, and tech companies realize they could just as easily have workers work remotely from their home countries.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    Colleges might have to drastically cut expenses which could mean cuts to frivolous programs like all the Diversity related positions, Climate Change Centers, LGBTQ support etc.
     
    What if instead they kept the ones you want to cut and instead cut math, engineering etc.? Consider who is in charge of universities and what their priorities are. They aint' the same as yours.

    I think it's too late to root out liberalism. It will require a complete societal collapse and/or conquest, with the new society reconstituted under the flag of a different religion, ala Houellebecq’s Submission (Liberalism itself is a new religion, the replacement for Christianity). Unlike some here, I am not eager to see this happen. You've got to break a lot of eggs to make an omelet, except in this case eggs means human lives.

    Or else the liberal birth rate has to be driven so low that the religious minorities come to outnumber them. This is already happening for Jews in NY - the Orthodox, once a tiny handful of Holocaust survivors, are become the predominant form of Jews in NY because the non-Orthodox are dying and not being replaced. But in the case of the general population, this would mean the replacement of white people by blacks and browns. The latter are not really "liberal" but they are in favor of gibmedats so that puts them on the "liberal" side.
  93. Anon[322] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    “The highest rate of return in early childhood development comes from investing as early as possible, from birth through age five,
     
    Wrong. As early is possible is 9 months before birth when the sperm meets the egg. That moment is probably at least as important as everything that happens in the next 18 years put together. As long as that sperm belongs to violent (but sexy) black felons, the baby mammas are going to keep growing baby felons.

    If we can't bribe black women not to have babies (and to some extent we have - black fertility is down from the past) then maybe we could at least bribe them to have better babies.

    Heckman is like a lot of Leftist thinkers going back to Marx in that his diagnosis is a lot better than his prescription. You don't really have to be a rocket scientist to see that the family has been the foundation of human society forever and that you can't really build a stable society without stable families at its base. The question (which no one seems to be able to answer, certainly not Heckman) is how do you get back to a society where stable families are the norm? We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides - subsidizing single motherhood, destroying jobs that would allow a single breadwinner to support a family, depicting the family as something with a dark underside, glorifying "alternative lifestyles", etc. How do you put the toothpaste back in the tube? One more government program after dozens that have been tried isn't going to do it.

    .

  94. @UK
    I suspect a lot of people who grow up in even a half-way decent environment have no idea what it is like growing up in an incredibly dysfunctional one. It isn't like having a bad time in your adult life where at least you can know what a bad time is. Instead, it is all you know and essentially it is you, because you have no other experiences. It therefore forms instincts and, most insidiously, the lack of them that you may not even know you should have.

    Deeply believing that you're irredeemably bad and defective from age 4 upwards is quite a trip. Especially when you can't even conceive how bizarre that is.

    This will also lead you to end up in patterns which echo that childhood. For example, someone who grows up in a very abusive household will still obviously know what most types of abuse are. They will recognise that being hit or stolen from are bad. Nonetheless, if they don't happen to have an objective measure by which to label the abuse as it is, they will lack the emotional warning sign that usually leads people to leave or fix their situation. Instead they may fall back on their childish coping mechanisms, which will likely be some form of self-harm, no matter how subtle. This is a childish way of re-asserting control. Essentially, people who lack an instinctive feel for their boundaries from having them broken so many times as a child will allow themselves a lot of suffering and barely realise it. They may also unwittingly encourage it and, through a sort of hidden hand process of trial and error, seek it out.

    I'm dubious of either the solution that somehow makes the nuclear family sacrosanct and I'm equally dubious of early childhood education. Lives are complicated and people are complicated, a simple formula is unlikey to be the answer.

    As for the things that lead to ineqality of people's innate assets - there are 5 things that you carry with you as a young adult wherever you go. They are your intelligence, your looks, your health, your education and your upbringing. The first three are a bit random, the 4th depends on the others (except your looks) and we already use the government to work on it; only the 5th is absolutely external to you. This leads decent compassionate people to highlight it every now and again. It is the crucial factor that we might help fix and don't currently. The problem though is that efforts tend to lead to Rabbit Proof Fence...

    If you're going to build institutions that make up for toxic homes then they need to be staffed by saints. The patience you need for other people's awful children is inhuman and the power you have over them is corrupting. Furthermore, the peer group can't be all toxic too - which, as they'll all be abused little terrors, will be pretty unlikely. You'd also need to overcome the incredible pain that a child feels when so obviously rejected and pushed into special treatment. And there's no real way around that, it is what the situation is.

    Even worse, you'll have a problem working out which children are in that terrible upbringing. It is normal for a child to try to persuade the world that their home life I absolutely fine and normal. They essentially are their home life and so they are simply trying to convince others that they are normal, and not bad, awful people themselves. Again, this will sound absurd to most, but five year olds most certainly can think this way.

    These tremendous obstacles, and there are more, may be why people hope something straightforward like emphasising the nuclear family will lead to some sort of organic fixing of the situation. I'm not sure. One of the problems I speculate would be that with people having few children, children in turn have few uncles or aunts. And it is those relations that traditionally could have provided a lifeline to the products of awful upbringings. The later age of childbirth can remove grandparents from the picture as well.

    Indeed, marriage was undermined by the now adult products of very awful marriages.

    I suppose it isn't an all or nothing solution and I deeply appreciate Heckman's wisdom in highlighting this area. Solutions need not be from government and just lots of clever people thinking about it will lead to interesting ideas.

    I personally feel that a more tribal structure through relaxed and informal polyamory is promising. It is the only way I can think of to restore greater kinship structures that cannot exist with current childbirth levels.

    This will no doubt cause convulsions in many who read it. All I can say is that having a wider pool of adults who can provide love to a child than two increases the probability that they will actually receive it. And yes, there are lots of weird cults and whatever, filled with wackos, that show the dangers of this...but as with Unz.com, that which is verboten will end up carrying more than its fair share of the complete crazy. It is also the wackos who will be reported upon.

    Alternatively, one might look to religious institutions to provide this. I suspect one advantage of the Catholic church having unmarried priests was that all of the parishioners' children were also their children. The problem though is that this seems to have led to even more wackos and general evil. It is this that my suggestion might be properly compared too...

    In summary, abused children are generally pretty difficult to look after so they require great people. They also don't deep down feel they deserve anything good and so they even reject being looked after completely. So you need to overcome their family, their own objections and their bad behaviour in order to help them or even identify them. And you have to somehow care enough to do so. Without your own intense personal connection, I don't think there are many people who can fit that bill. So who do you staff the institutions with? There are some who will recognise all of the above and be able to make an effort for a limited period of time, but not the type of long-term committed and sustained effort that is needed. Again, you end up with Rabbit Proof Fence.

    To even think of solving such a difficult problem requires an entirely safe environment for discussion. One where people can speak absolutely freely without fear of being punished for saying the wrong thing. Anything else just leads to the same old inquisitorial finger-pointing and one-upmanship. Heckman gets this right.

    Thanks for this. It is quite a good start to describing the problem of increasing amounts of dysfunctional children.

    I think that religion used to provide a framework to maintain semi-functional families. In our post-religious world, this framework is gone and there is nothing replacing it except in the more intelligent families.

    While there are many good foster homes; as you say, there are not nearly enough. I hold foster parents in great regard – what they do is incredibly difficult.

  95. @UK
    I suspect a lot of people who grow up in even a half-way decent environment have no idea what it is like growing up in an incredibly dysfunctional one. It isn't like having a bad time in your adult life where at least you can know what a bad time is. Instead, it is all you know and essentially it is you, because you have no other experiences. It therefore forms instincts and, most insidiously, the lack of them that you may not even know you should have.

    Deeply believing that you're irredeemably bad and defective from age 4 upwards is quite a trip. Especially when you can't even conceive how bizarre that is.

    This will also lead you to end up in patterns which echo that childhood. For example, someone who grows up in a very abusive household will still obviously know what most types of abuse are. They will recognise that being hit or stolen from are bad. Nonetheless, if they don't happen to have an objective measure by which to label the abuse as it is, they will lack the emotional warning sign that usually leads people to leave or fix their situation. Instead they may fall back on their childish coping mechanisms, which will likely be some form of self-harm, no matter how subtle. This is a childish way of re-asserting control. Essentially, people who lack an instinctive feel for their boundaries from having them broken so many times as a child will allow themselves a lot of suffering and barely realise it. They may also unwittingly encourage it and, through a sort of hidden hand process of trial and error, seek it out.

    I'm dubious of either the solution that somehow makes the nuclear family sacrosanct and I'm equally dubious of early childhood education. Lives are complicated and people are complicated, a simple formula is unlikey to be the answer.

    As for the things that lead to ineqality of people's innate assets - there are 5 things that you carry with you as a young adult wherever you go. They are your intelligence, your looks, your health, your education and your upbringing. The first three are a bit random, the 4th depends on the others (except your looks) and we already use the government to work on it; only the 5th is absolutely external to you. This leads decent compassionate people to highlight it every now and again. It is the crucial factor that we might help fix and don't currently. The problem though is that efforts tend to lead to Rabbit Proof Fence...

    If you're going to build institutions that make up for toxic homes then they need to be staffed by saints. The patience you need for other people's awful children is inhuman and the power you have over them is corrupting. Furthermore, the peer group can't be all toxic too - which, as they'll all be abused little terrors, will be pretty unlikely. You'd also need to overcome the incredible pain that a child feels when so obviously rejected and pushed into special treatment. And there's no real way around that, it is what the situation is.

    Even worse, you'll have a problem working out which children are in that terrible upbringing. It is normal for a child to try to persuade the world that their home life I absolutely fine and normal. They essentially are their home life and so they are simply trying to convince others that they are normal, and not bad, awful people themselves. Again, this will sound absurd to most, but five year olds most certainly can think this way.

    These tremendous obstacles, and there are more, may be why people hope something straightforward like emphasising the nuclear family will lead to some sort of organic fixing of the situation. I'm not sure. One of the problems I speculate would be that with people having few children, children in turn have few uncles or aunts. And it is those relations that traditionally could have provided a lifeline to the products of awful upbringings. The later age of childbirth can remove grandparents from the picture as well.

    Indeed, marriage was undermined by the now adult products of very awful marriages.

    I suppose it isn't an all or nothing solution and I deeply appreciate Heckman's wisdom in highlighting this area. Solutions need not be from government and just lots of clever people thinking about it will lead to interesting ideas.

    I personally feel that a more tribal structure through relaxed and informal polyamory is promising. It is the only way I can think of to restore greater kinship structures that cannot exist with current childbirth levels.

    This will no doubt cause convulsions in many who read it. All I can say is that having a wider pool of adults who can provide love to a child than two increases the probability that they will actually receive it. And yes, there are lots of weird cults and whatever, filled with wackos, that show the dangers of this...but as with Unz.com, that which is verboten will end up carrying more than its fair share of the complete crazy. It is also the wackos who will be reported upon.

    Alternatively, one might look to religious institutions to provide this. I suspect one advantage of the Catholic church having unmarried priests was that all of the parishioners' children were also their children. The problem though is that this seems to have led to even more wackos and general evil. It is this that my suggestion might be properly compared too...

    In summary, abused children are generally pretty difficult to look after so they require great people. They also don't deep down feel they deserve anything good and so they even reject being looked after completely. So you need to overcome their family, their own objections and their bad behaviour in order to help them or even identify them. And you have to somehow care enough to do so. Without your own intense personal connection, I don't think there are many people who can fit that bill. So who do you staff the institutions with? There are some who will recognise all of the above and be able to make an effort for a limited period of time, but not the type of long-term committed and sustained effort that is needed. Again, you end up with Rabbit Proof Fence.

    To even think of solving such a difficult problem requires an entirely safe environment for discussion. One where people can speak absolutely freely without fear of being punished for saying the wrong thing. Anything else just leads to the same old inquisitorial finger-pointing and one-upmanship. Heckman gets this right.

    Thank you for this superb comment. I feel educated after reading it.

    I’m dubious of either the solution that somehow makes the nuclear family sacrosanct and I’m equally dubious of early childhood education.

    Concur. Many families are hell. And ‘early childhood education’ (i.e. systematically getting kids out of unhealthy, abusive, dangerous situations) cannot repair the damage done by non-loving/ dysfunctional/absent parents. Or bad genes.
    A happy childhood is not and has never been the default option. You could say a happy childhood for your kids used to be the main object of societal struggle up until ca. 40 years ago and is still an aim many struggle to achieve, but there have always been losers in that struggle (say, the remorseful, but relapsing alcoholic) and there have always been people who procreate rather thoughtlessly, and they create a lot of misery. There’s people who deliberately take out their own childhood on their kids, and others who don’t know why they’re abusing their offspring. Some single-moms treat their kids as a pet, a statement, a project, a substitute for a partner etc. There are so many different kinds of wrong people who still have children and would probably claim they love them with all their heart. Not sure society can fix all this. Not sure it should try.
    Liberalism is a sickness that promises a solution to every problem and has no room for suffering. For the reality of human failure, and, since ‘erare humanum est’, for humans.

    First, we must fight the lying, everything else falls into place. If we can’t fight it by open opposition, we have to ridicule it, satirize it, make it embarrassing.

  96. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Heckman:

    The current research in the field is shoddy. It has gained traction because it appeals to the negative image of American society held by leading opinion makers like the New York Times and the Atlantic.
     

    The family is the source of life and growth. Families build values, encourage (or discourage) their children in school and out. Families — far more than schools — create or inhibit life opportunities. A huge body of evidence shows the powerful role of families in shaping the lives of their children.
     
    David “Soppressata” Brooks has some ideas about families.

    Writing recently in The Atlantic:

    The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake

    The family structure we’ve held up as the cultural ideal for the past half century has been a catastrophe for many. It’s time to figure out better ways to live together.
     
    TLDR: Brooks waxes nostalgic about extended families and “tribal bands” and thinks a new polyamorous(?) collection of “chosen families” and “forged families” is the way to go. Yeeek.

    I have been waiting for legalized polygamy ever since the legalization of homosexual marriage. It is very much the same argument: Actions between consenting adults which don’t harm others should not be regulated by the state.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Actions between consenting adults which don’t harm others should not be regulated by the state.
     
    I’m not sure Brooks is even touting legalized polygamy—he seems to want to redefine family as any loose collection of adults—married or not, related or not—taking care of kids. Sounds like a good setup for abuse.

    Brooks:

    The modern chosen-family movement came to prominence in San Francisco in the 1980s among gay men and lesbians, many of whom had become estranged from their biological families and had only one another for support in coping with the trauma of the AIDS crisis.
     

    Over the past several decades, the decline of the nuclear family has created an epidemic of trauma—millions have been set adrift because what should have been the most loving and secure relationship in their life broke. Slowly, but with increasing frequency, these drifting individuals are coming together to create forged families. These forged families have a feeling of determined commitment.
     

    On Pinterest you can find placards to hang on the kitchen wall where forged families gather: “Family isn’t always blood. It’s the people in your life who want you in theirs; the ones who accept you for who you are. The ones who would do anything to see you smile & who love you no matter what.”
     
    From Brooks’s self-promoted project:

    Weave: The Social Fabric Project began with the idea that America’s social fabric is being ripped to shreds by distrust, loneliness, alienation, inequality, racism, spiritual emptiness and tribal enmity.
     
    Sounds like a preamble to some real tikkun olam poz flim flam.

    Brooks:

    This is a significant opportunity, a chance to thicken and broaden family relationships, a chance to allow more adults and children to live and grow under the loving gaze of a dozen pairs of eyes, and be caught, when they fall, by a dozen pairs of arms.
     
    , @Anon

    I have been waiting for legalized polygamy ever since the legalization of homosexual marriage. It is very much the same argument: Actions between consenting adults which don’t harm others should not be regulated by the state.
     
    That is the whole point of this article. As we become more selfish and narcissistic as a society thanks to liberalism, actions between consenting adults are often morally reprehensive, harmful to their children, their loved ones and their society.
  97. @Hypnotoad666
    Chetty's work IMHO is really intellectually dishonest. He just uses a rigged and arbitrary definition of "upward mobility" that only identifies blacks and Native Americans as lacking mobility due to the fact they tend to regress toward a different mean.

    I don't know what Heckman's detailed analysis would show about families. But sometimes it's too easy to ascribe everything to "good family environment." As Judith Rich Harris showed "good families" are probably a symptom of being being functional people, more often than the cause of it.

    I agree with you, Mr. Toad, but that’s not what I got out of Judith Harris’ The Nurture Assumption (my review there). Her point was that almost all the nurture effects on people’s traits are due to peers rather than parents. Anyway, it was a good book. I assumed that’s the book you meant.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    Her point was that almost all the nurture effects on people’s traits are due to peers rather than parents.
     
    That was definitely her main point. But as I recall, she also did a masterful job of debunking the mountain of Group Think academic literature on family environment by showing that it was basically just assuming causation from correlation.

    For example, it's easy to show that kids who experience violence in their home are more likely to be violent as adults. So everyone reported this result as "A causes B." But they never considered various confounds, like the extent to which the kids' own dysfunction, lack of impulse control, etc., is itself contributing to the chaotic and violent family. Harris found that when both genetics and all the environmental confounds were controlled for, parental behavior ("nurture"), practically dropped out of the picture as a causative factor.

    The "environmental" factors that count, it seems, are a combination of random luck and peer influence.

    It's been a long time since I read her book. But I was struck by how well she made the case. It was a real paradigm shift as far as I was concerned.
    , @anon
    Her point was that almost all the nurture effects on people’s traits are due to peers rather than parents

    Then clever-sillies like John Derbyshire took that idea and ran with it; "Parents have no effect on their children" which is just retarded.

    I dunno what is so difficult about the power of "and", as seen in "nature AND nurture" but it seems to be insurmountable for a large swath of the polity.

    Probably no one knows how many studies have been done over the last 50 years to "prove" that Head Start "works", but the most recent one in 2002 once again showed the same results: Head Start kids in the 3rd grade cannot be distinguished from non Head Start kids. The effects of all that expensive early childhood intervention is gone by the age of 8 or 9, as if it had never been performed.

    The worthlessness of Head Start shows the Nature side is stronger than any blank-slate true believer can stand, so they continue to tinker around the edges with it because it ought to work. Therefore like some Soviet 5 year plan, with enough money and human time it can work. There's no end to repeating the same experiment in the hope that "this time it's different".

    Early childhood intervention works well with children of average to above average IQ (100+) and an average amount of self control / medium time horizon. It doesn't work that well with the 80 IQ who have virtually no impulse control. Silk purse, sow's ear.

    tl;dr
    Chetty is a scam artist and Heckman is a cargo cultist. Let them fight, but cut their Federal funding.

    , @Reg Cæsar

    Her point was that almost all the nurture effects on people’s traits are due to peers rather than parents.
     
    Ah, but parents have some say in who those peers are. They move to this or that neighborhood, allow their children in this or that school, or send them off to boarding school.


    Mostly OT, but in garbled Indian English, is this phrase in a link at Drudge:

    ...Karelia, a peninsula in northern Russia.

    https://newsclicks.in/he-found-one-of-stalins-mass-graves-now-hes-in-jail/

     

    I think they mean "a peninsula in occupied Finland". I'm sure they'd be much more careful in an article about Kashmir!
  98. @Anon
    As cruel as this sounds, I have wondered whether Covid-19 is nature's way of correcting the overpopulation of the earth. So far the hardest hit are over populated countries like China, over congested cities in Southern Europe and NYC, and in the US, the poor, homeless, old, weak, sick, are the hardest hit, i.e. Scrooge's "surplus population". This really is a game of survival of the fittest.

    It is hardly a game of survival and it barely touches the fertile. It will therefore have no long-term effect on population size.

    Perhaps the grinding economic recession from locking people at home will though? Or maybe it’ll increase the number of babies…

    Haha but I guess it’ll be amusing if annoying when everyone starts using the sensationalised term “Covid survivor”. Yuck.

  99. “It is politically incorrect to express the truth and go to the source of problems. Public discourse, such as it is, cannot speak honestly about matters of culture, race, and gender. Powerful censorship is at play across the entire society.”

    Whew, he’s almost going right to the point. So close yet so far though. We need “genetics”, “recession to the mean” and “long-term civilizational consequences of genetic racial ancestry” in there too.

  100. What a lying chump. This Heck Man just makes a bunch of disconnected assertions and then you think he wins? No wonder the logic on here is so “shoddy.” (And I don’t care who Chetty is, and if or whether he is wrong. It doesn’t matter. Because Heck Man is not even right or wrong. He’s too stupid.)

    Yeah, right. The rich aren’t getting richer. That’s just propaganda. Are you kidding with this utter tripe shit from retardville? The rich aren’t getting richer. The poor aren’t getting poorer. The middle class isn’t disappearing. Fuck you, idiot economist. They are too.

    Oh, yeah, and nothing but good families will make us all rich or something. Check. Righto. That works for me!

    I knew it. The coronavirus starts to let up just a little and you clucks are right back to this stupid braindead libertarian claptrap like flies to shit. I knew it. I predicted it. Nothing. Not the evidence of your eyes. Not your own impoverishment. Not bodies in the streets. Nothing will shake you from your profound unwakable slumber.

    For your information, the results of libertarian governments’ response to coronavirus vs. the results of communist governments’ response to coronavirus, proves beyond the shadow of a doubt the bankruptcy of your moribund superstition.

  101. @Almost Missouri

    "If we can’t bribe black women not to have babies (and to some extent we have – black fertility is down from the past)"
     
    I'm not sure black women have actually been bribed not have babies, at least I can't think of any programs that pay them not to have babies, but most welfare programs do pay them—directly or indirectly—to have babies. I suspect the real reason black fertility has decreased (slightly) is the same reason it has for the rest of the native-born: decaying economics of family formation in the age of mass immigration and capital offshoring. Perhaps along with the cultural celebration of eternal adolescence. Also note that however much black fertility has fallen, it remains above that of whites, Asians, and Amerindians, and on current trends may eclipse even the formerly fecund Hispanics by the end of this decade.

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/total-fertility-rates-by-race-in-the-usa-1980-2013/

    Also, note that graphs such as Hail's somewhat understate effective black fertility since black males interbreed with outgroups more than the males of other groups do, while black females outbreed less than other groups' females do. So while figures are based on race/ethnicity of mothers, a significant chunk of those non-black mothers are birthing mulatto babies, the vast majority of whom will go on to identify with their (often absent) black sires. The mulatto children will get the full throated backing of the Media Industrial Complex as they do this.

    An easy way to achieve this is by providing free Plan-B tablets in women’s restrooms along with sanitary napkins, hand washing soap/moisturizer.

  102. @Calvin Hobbes
    Heckman has an outfit called “The Heckman Equation” that pushes for the government to raise the babies of “disadvantaged” mothers, which would of course cost a ton of money:

    Invest in Early Childhood Development: Reduce Deficits, Strengthen the Economy

    https://heckmanequation.org/resource/invest-in-early-childhood-development-reduce-deficits-strengthen-the-economy/

    “The highest rate of return in early childhood development comes from investing as early as possible, from birth through age five, in disadvantaged families. Starting at age three or four is too little too late, as it fails to recognize that skills beget skills in a complementary and dynamic way. Efforts should focus on the first years for the greatest efficiency and effectiveness. The best investment is in quality early childhood development from birth to five for disadvantaged children and their families.”—James J. Heckman, December 7, 2012

    Heckman claims that poor black babies turn out much less rotten when raised by the government than when raised by their families, so that the expenditure of that ton of money is worth it. The evidence for those claims is from a couple of boutique studies in North Carolina about 50 years ago. Heckman’s argument that these small-scale experiments 50 years ago justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars now in an attempt to massively scale up whatever might have happened 50 years ago is laughable.

    These old North Carolina studies dealt with black infants, yet Heckman says they justify having the government raise all sorts of “disadvantaged” infants, e.g., Mexicans. Mexicans are just like blacks, right?

    Not allowing immigration by the sorts of people whose babies Heckman thinks the government should be raising makes a lot more sense than Heckman’s idiotic ideas about what we should do with those people and their children. I don’t think there’s one word about immigration on the Heckman Equation web site.

    And if it’s worth it to have the government raise the children of poor black women (to keep those kids from becoming such troublesome adults), then we should also try to bribe such women to not inflict their kids on us. There’s also not one word at The Heckman Equation about convincing women who should not be having children to not have children.

    The evidence for those claims is from a couple of boutique studies in North Carolina about 50 years ago. Heckman’s argument that these small-scale experiments 50 years ago justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars now in an attempt to massively scale up whatever might have happened 50 years ago is laughable.

    It is quite usual for bad social policy to be based on the impressive results of pilot studies. Pilot studies are staffed by highly motivated, well educated, enthusiastic leaders. This almost guarantees good results, even if the “clients” are not cherry-picked, and even if the outcomes are honestly reported.

    Rolling out the program across an entire continent is a different matter. With ordinary employees, with average levels of motivation, the success of pilot studies can seldom be replicated.

    In this case, you have to ask who the surrogate parents will be. Responsible women, chiefly white? It would be better for everyone if they raised more children of their own.

    The proposal itself has parallels with the transfer of indigenous children to residential schools in Canada and Australia. Rightly or wrongly, its purpose is the same – to erase the culture of the children and replace it with white culture. If Heckman’s plan goes ahead, 30 years later there will be a multi-billion-dollar class-action lawsuit.

    Not allowing immigration by the sorts of people whose babies Heckman thinks the government should be raising makes a lot more sense than Heckman’s idiotic ideas about what we should do with those people and their children. I don’t think there’s one word about immigration on the Heckman Equation web site.

    Allowing immigration by people who immediately qualify as members of a disadvantaged minority is batshit insane.

    • Replies: @dvorak

    The proposal itself has parallels with the transfer of indigenous children to residential schools in Canada and Australia. Rightly or wrongly, its purpose is the same – to erase the culture of the children and replace it with white culture. If Heckman’s plan goes ahead, 30 years later there will be a multi-billion-dollar class-action lawsuit.
     
    Exact parallels, thank you.

    iSteve will jump all over this - the Australian "Stolen Generations" episode is one of the amazing examples of Progressive governance retconned as right-wing evil.
  103. @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree with you, Mr. Toad, but that's not what I got out of Judith Harris' The Nurture Assumption (my review there). Her point was that almost all the nurture effects on people's traits are due to peers rather than parents. Anyway, it was a good book. I assumed that's the book you meant.

    Her point was that almost all the nurture effects on people’s traits are due to peers rather than parents.

    That was definitely her main point. But as I recall, she also did a masterful job of debunking the mountain of Group Think academic literature on family environment by showing that it was basically just assuming causation from correlation.

    For example, it’s easy to show that kids who experience violence in their home are more likely to be violent as adults. So everyone reported this result as “A causes B.” But they never considered various confounds, like the extent to which the kids’ own dysfunction, lack of impulse control, etc., is itself contributing to the chaotic and violent family. Harris found that when both genetics and all the environmental confounds were controlled for, parental behavior (“nurture”), practically dropped out of the picture as a causative factor.

    The “environmental” factors that count, it seems, are a combination of random luck and peer influence.

    It’s been a long time since I read her book. But I was struck by how well she made the case. It was a real paradigm shift as far as I was concerned.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Thanks for the reply - you remember as least as much as I do - I think I read it roughly 5 years back. Yes, what I also liked is she gave a bunch of grief to the psychologists and their bunko stuff, even though that was her field. That was near the beginning of the book.
  104. @JohnnyWalker123
    Let me reintroduce a post that I made a few years ago.

    I did my own analysis to determine the best states to live and raise a child.

    Here’s what I did to create my list.

    1. I inputed the rates of incarceration, overdose, teen births, death, and obesity for each state. However, I only utilized the data for the Non-Hispanic white populations of each state. That allows interstate comparisons, without race becoming a confounding factor.
    2. For America’s entire non-Hispanic white population, I found the national medians on the rates of incarceration, overdose, teen births, death, and obesity.
    3. I divided each state’s incarceration, overdose, teen pregnancy, death, and obesity rates by the respective national medians.
    4. By averaging together these modified rates, I computed an “Index of Misery” for each state.
    5. Higher the index, the worse off the population. Lower the index, better off the state. Above 1 = worse than average. Below 1 = better than average. You can make a relative comparison among our various states.
    6. The below chart applies only to NH-Whites.


    https://imgur.com/a/wgQdSwX


    If you're looking for a good place to raise children, the above chart is useful.

    Thanks for the graph. Some of the more interesting results, to me, are the neighboring (and seemingly similar) states with big differences in ranking:

    New Hampshire (36) versus Vermont (8)
    Wyoming (32) and Idaho (30) versus Montana (18)
    Oklahoma (48) versus Kansas (20)

    It might be worth a deeper look to see what are the possible causes of the differences between these pairings.

  105. @Anon

    The question (which no one seems to be able to answer, certainly not Heckman) is how do you get back to a society where stable families are the norm? We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides –
     
    The short answer to your question is: liberalism needs to go die for America to survive. No doubt liberalism discourages family formation with its relentless promotion of feminism and alternative lifestyles. The two pillars of liberalism are the media and academia. This pandemic might give us a chance to attack the latter, which will lead to the demise of the former:

    First, many universities will come out of this economically impaired, esp. if the fall quarter is affected. Families who are facing economic uncertainty will either send their kids to cheaper in-state schools or forego college altogether, and some international students (their cash cow) may not return. States facing tax revenue shortfall may cut funding to public universities. Colleges might have to drastically cut expenses which could mean cuts to frivolous programs like all the Diversity related positions, Climate Change Centers, LGBTQ support etc.

    Second, the quarantine may help many families discover the wonders of homeschooling, and end up not sending their kids back to school, esp. in states like WA, where our (D) dominated legislature just passed an absurd sex ed bill to start teaching Kindergarteners transgenderism and gay sex. Homeschooling greatly undermines liberalism's stranglehold on our young, liberals know that, which is why they may be panicking, like this Harvard law professor who's calling for a ban on homeschooling: https://harvardmagazine.com/2020/05/right-now-risks-homeschooling

    This pandemic will also sour people's love of globalism and urban living. As more people discover they could work remotely, more will move to cheaper areas to live, lessen the need for 2 incomes, so that 1 parent could stop working and homeschool. This would be the one great thing that could come out of this fiasco. Another would be a drastic reduction in immigration as governments seek to protect jobs for unemployed citizens, and tech companies realize they could just as easily have workers work remotely from their home countries.

    Colleges might have to drastically cut expenses which could mean cuts to frivolous programs like all the Diversity related positions, Climate Change Centers, LGBTQ support etc.

    What if instead they kept the ones you want to cut and instead cut math, engineering etc.? Consider who is in charge of universities and what their priorities are. They aint’ the same as yours.

    I think it’s too late to root out liberalism. It will require a complete societal collapse and/or conquest, with the new society reconstituted under the flag of a different religion, ala Houellebecq’s Submission (Liberalism itself is a new religion, the replacement for Christianity). Unlike some here, I am not eager to see this happen. You’ve got to break a lot of eggs to make an omelet, except in this case eggs means human lives.

    Or else the liberal birth rate has to be driven so low that the religious minorities come to outnumber them. This is already happening for Jews in NY – the Orthodox, once a tiny handful of Holocaust survivors, are become the predominant form of Jews in NY because the non-Orthodox are dying and not being replaced. But in the case of the general population, this would mean the replacement of white people by blacks and browns. The latter are not really “liberal” but they are in favor of gibmedats so that puts them on the “liberal” side.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    Too many what ifs.

    We simply don't know what the world (or western civilization) will look like in next 10-30 years (which is not such a long period).
    , @Anonymous Jew
    IIRC there’s a direct positive correlation with fertility and moving left to right on the political spectrum. Since political attitudes are roughly 0.4 heritable, Whites most certainly will be more inclined to be right of center in the future. Unfortunately, that change will be far too slow to keep up with demographic replacement.

    At least in the short term, it’s not so good for the Jews. The ultra Orthodox are less economically productive and use greater public resources. But it’s impossible to see how that will play out 100 years from now.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson Three

    I think it’s too late to root out liberalism.
     
    I think you are wrong. Reality is a harsh mistress, and reality has been unkind to liberalism. History is strewed with ideological certitudes that were rooted out by the disinfecting qualities of a hot sun in an unforgiving environment.

    The Cult of Liberalism will go the way of other mystical cults, e.g., Heaven's Gate, the Branch Davidians and the Peoples Temple. The foundations are identical. The result will be the same. The downside is that they will suck many into their vortex of imbecility before they move from this side to the other side of the drain.
  106. @128
    It just funny how you see all of these people complaining about muh economy during the lockdown, I mean if you people gout your wish, and immigration is halted for the next 20 years, and all of the cheap Mexican, Indian H1B, and Asian labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more, I mean the meat packers and processors would go under, almost the entire fast food and restaurant industry would go under, much of the IT sector depending on H1B programmers would go under, a lot of farmers would go under, large parts of manufacturing, energy, the hospitality industry, and the agriculture industry which depends on cheap foreign labor would go under, or at least have to drastically change their business model from hiring workers at 5 dollars an hour to having to hire them at 20 per hour. Walmart, Home Depot, Amazon, and Lowes would either automate or would end up hiring a lot less workers due to higher wage rates caused by restricted labour supply caused by the loss of cheap legal and illegal foreign labour. The cruise ship industry would also go under. The economic dislocation would be as large as that being caused by the current lockdowns.

    industry which depends on cheap foreign labor would go under, or at least have to drastically change their business model from hiring workers at 5 dollars an hour to having to hire them at 20 per hour

    See, you’re starting to figure it out.

  107. anon[136] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree with you, Mr. Toad, but that's not what I got out of Judith Harris' The Nurture Assumption (my review there). Her point was that almost all the nurture effects on people's traits are due to peers rather than parents. Anyway, it was a good book. I assumed that's the book you meant.

    Her point was that almost all the nurture effects on people’s traits are due to peers rather than parents

    Then clever-sillies like John Derbyshire took that idea and ran with it; “Parents have no effect on their children” which is just retarded.

    I dunno what is so difficult about the power of “and”, as seen in “nature AND nurture” but it seems to be insurmountable for a large swath of the polity.

    Probably no one knows how many studies have been done over the last 50 years to “prove” that Head Start “works”, but the most recent one in 2002 once again showed the same results: Head Start kids in the 3rd grade cannot be distinguished from non Head Start kids. The effects of all that expensive early childhood intervention is gone by the age of 8 or 9, as if it had never been performed.

    The worthlessness of Head Start shows the Nature side is stronger than any blank-slate true believer can stand, so they continue to tinker around the edges with it because it ought to work. Therefore like some Soviet 5 year plan, with enough money and human time it can work. There’s no end to repeating the same experiment in the hope that “this time it’s different”.

    Early childhood intervention works well with children of average to above average IQ (100+) and an average amount of self control / medium time horizon. It doesn’t work that well with the 80 IQ who have virtually no impulse control. Silk purse, sow’s ear.

    tl;dr
    Chetty is a scam artist and Heckman is a cargo cultist. Let them fight, but cut their Federal funding.

  108. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "David Brooks: Excellence is not an action, it's a habit."

    Says David Brooks, the force behind nothing excellent, ever.

    David Brooks knows precisely zero about excellence, and would not recognize it if it strapped him down and covered his scrawny pitiful body with a tattoo of the full text of "A Good Man Is Hard To Find."

    Poll for denizens of iSteveistan: who has the most punchable face in America? Is it...

    a) David Brooks,
    b) Bill Maher,
    c) Scott Pelley, or
    d) Beto O'Rourke?

    Wait, wait! I want to write in Jared Kushner! That face is eminently punchable.

  109. @128
    Maybe not go under, but they would have to revise their business model, and certain labor intensive industries, like raisins and almonds in California would not exist at all, how would restaurants adjust if they had to pay a median wage for their waiters of US$20 an hour instead of US$5 an hour, a lot of restaurants on the lower end would basically fold, and as for manufacturing, they would probably automate if they had to raise wages substantially, I do not know how the cruise ship industry would adjust, h0w large are wages as a percentage of costs? It companies that hire H1bs, they may hire very few higher wage US replacements, but a lot of them would try to automate their coding (which can be theoretically done), or relocate to India. So for every 50 low wage foreign legal and illegal worker jobs loss you would see 2 new higher cost US labor hires? If you are replacing 10 dollar an hour H1b specials with 35 an hour US coders.

    how would restaurants adjust if they had to pay a median wage for their waiters of US$20 an hour instead of US$5 an hour

    Australia and New Zealand both have minimum wage requirements at around US$13/hour. And that’s for the whole country – in the more expensive cities, they’re getting more than that. They’re getting by somehow.

  110. Anon[694] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sincerity.net
    "It is politically incorrect to express the truth and go to the source of problems."
    Heckman states EXACTLY the topic of sincerity .net: #TrueSpeech is not permissible to avoid (accurate) prejudice. Mandatory omission and lies are the root cause for our faulty policies and social sciences.

    Science, problem solving, and democratic voting cannot happen while we live under censorship, the #PCGagOrder.
    Western Censorship is very similar to China's, just the dogmas and taboos are different.

    Heckman speaks so many truths. He certainly must have skills to avoid the real taboos, the third rails. He probably avoids speaking directly about race, and race differences. Or else he would be Watsoned.

    Heckman has it all wrong. As a member of our academic elite, he is part and parcel to the increasing inequality and social stratification of the US, just like Chetty.

    As Daniel Markovits pointed out in his book The Meritocracy Trap, today’s meritocrats are the new aristocrats. Instead of the idle rich and the working poor, today we have the hard working rich and the idle poor. The rich today are increasingly people who work long hours in human capital intensive industries like finance, law, management consulting, tech, medicine and corporate C-suite, what Markovits called “glossy jobs”. Through technological, financial and management innovations, this group of highly skilled workers came up with ways to replace many mid skilled workers, e.g. middle managers and loan officers were replaced by highly trained consultants or upper management through heavy use of computer analysis. The end result is, our economy is left with an ever more elite workers in high skilled, highly paid “glossy jobs”, and everyone else trapped in low skilled, low paid “gloomy jobs” in service, retail, transportation, farm.

    Markovits sees this as a trap in that the elite workers are overwhelmingly graduates of expensive elite universities, who then spend large sums training their children to ensure they attend the same expensive elite schools and graduate to the top of the heap like their parents. Elite education and elite jobs work hand in hand to exacerbate inequality. Elite education leads to creation of elite jobs that eliminate non-elite jobs. A while back someone did a study and found that over 60% of our political, social and economic trends are influenced by graduates of only 12 schools — HYPSM, Columbia, Cornell, UChicago, Duke, UPenn, Dartmouth and Northwestern.

    Inequality will continue to exacerbate in the US as long as we allow graduates of a handful of schools to have such outsize influence on our society. The first thing we need to do to achieve more equality in the US is to neutralize the power of our elite universities, who work as gatekeepers to determine who deserve to join the ranks of the elite, i.e. children of the (((elite))) with a few bones thrown to the “underrepresented minorities” who pose no real threat. How do we accomplish that?

    Hopefully this pandemic will offer us a new start in that direction. First, more families can now try to work remotely and move to rural, smaller communities. The lower cost of living will enable one parent to quit and become a homeschooling parent, which takes away the power of K-12. Then, smart middle class kids need to stop applying to elite universities in droves, and simply go to the cheapest local state university they could attend, if at all. A new mindset that stops worshipping wealth and luxury will cause more people to turn away from soul sucking jobs like finance, law and management consulting. Once those jobs lose their appeal, elite universities who supply majority of those workers will lose their luster.

  111. @Art Deco
    The American Dream was a perfectly horrible piece of theatre from the late 1940s. Have you ever heard the phrase used by anyone outside the word-merchant sector? And have you ever heard it used as anything but a set up for a discourse on how American life sucks?

    Of course it doesn't, and the people who say it does have no constructive ideas about how to address its actual flaws. They are, in fact, dead set against any salutary measures because these would contravene the logic of the status strata they've constructed in their own minds and contravene the social fictions to which they adhere.

    Have you ever heard the phrase used by anyone outside the word-merchant sector?

    See Deirdre McCloskey,s Bourgeois Trilogy.

    It goes something like this: my 4 grandparents were born peasants and two of them died peasants. My parents were born peasants. I was born inside (albeit bottom of) the middle class. Trickle down economics works perfectly fine and dandy for me and millions of others!

    Don’t be a hater.

    The books are long and repetitious but she has built a formidable argument. It is very similar to Rush Limbaugh’s spiel about how there are more healthier productive prosperous people right now than ever before by far so how can anybody argue that things are terrible? Also, the CIA’s favorite torture-assist psychologist, Martin Seligman, will tell you that if you were more optimistic you would be making more money. : )

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say or why you conceived of it as a response to my post. I have no idea why you've attributed either actual or fancied abuses by CIA employees to someone on the Penn faculty, either.
  112. @Jack D

    “The highest rate of return in early childhood development comes from investing as early as possible, from birth through age five,
     
    Wrong. As early is possible is 9 months before birth when the sperm meets the egg. That moment is probably at least as important as everything that happens in the next 18 years put together. As long as that sperm belongs to violent (but sexy) black felons, the baby mammas are going to keep growing baby felons.

    If we can't bribe black women not to have babies (and to some extent we have - black fertility is down from the past) then maybe we could at least bribe them to have better babies.

    Heckman is like a lot of Leftist thinkers going back to Marx in that his diagnosis is a lot better than his prescription. You don't really have to be a rocket scientist to see that the family has been the foundation of human society forever and that you can't really build a stable society without stable families at its base. The question (which no one seems to be able to answer, certainly not Heckman) is how do you get back to a society where stable families are the norm? We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides - subsidizing single motherhood, destroying jobs that would allow a single breadwinner to support a family, depicting the family as something with a dark underside, glorifying "alternative lifestyles", etc. How do you put the toothpaste back in the tube? One more government program after dozens that have been tried isn't going to do it.

    Why not pay black women not to have babies? We could even formulate it in a “definitely NOT racist” way by saying, any young woman (14-29?) whose mother was ever on welfare, we’ll pay you not to get pregnant.
    Market it as… “We all know that it’s better to get educated and established first. This will reduce teen pregnancies, but she can have a family, just later on.”
    We could say, come to the Break the Cycle office, take a preg test. If neg, get a depo-provera shot and a check. Come back in 3 months, rinse and repeat.

    We of course know that it will “disparately impact” blacks, but we could *say* all daughters of welfare mothers.
    “We must break the cycle of welfare dependance! Educate these young women! Education now and babies later!”

    Couple of things will result: Gov’t spending will go way up immediately as black women flock to the Break the Cycle office for their shots and checks, but it will go way down in the future, as far fewer infants of black sexy thugs get made by the young, who are most fertile, underclass black women.

    Fewer underclass infants to support very soon, fewer underclass black felons to imprison later. WIN!

  113. @Jack D

    Colleges might have to drastically cut expenses which could mean cuts to frivolous programs like all the Diversity related positions, Climate Change Centers, LGBTQ support etc.
     
    What if instead they kept the ones you want to cut and instead cut math, engineering etc.? Consider who is in charge of universities and what their priorities are. They aint' the same as yours.

    I think it's too late to root out liberalism. It will require a complete societal collapse and/or conquest, with the new society reconstituted under the flag of a different religion, ala Houellebecq’s Submission (Liberalism itself is a new religion, the replacement for Christianity). Unlike some here, I am not eager to see this happen. You've got to break a lot of eggs to make an omelet, except in this case eggs means human lives.

    Or else the liberal birth rate has to be driven so low that the religious minorities come to outnumber them. This is already happening for Jews in NY - the Orthodox, once a tiny handful of Holocaust survivors, are become the predominant form of Jews in NY because the non-Orthodox are dying and not being replaced. But in the case of the general population, this would mean the replacement of white people by blacks and browns. The latter are not really "liberal" but they are in favor of gibmedats so that puts them on the "liberal" side.

    Too many what ifs.

    We simply don’t know what the world (or western civilization) will look like in next 10-30 years (which is not such a long period).

  114. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "David Brooks: Excellence is not an action, it's a habit."

    Says David Brooks, the force behind nothing excellent, ever.

    David Brooks knows precisely zero about excellence, and would not recognize it if it strapped him down and covered his scrawny pitiful body with a tattoo of the full text of "A Good Man Is Hard To Find."

    Poll for denizens of iSteveistan: who has the most punchable face in America? Is it...

    a) David Brooks,
    b) Bill Maher,
    c) Scott Pelley, or
    d) Beto O'Rourke?

    Bill Maher. Hands down.

    IMO the guy has the most punchable face in the history of America. Even if he wasn’t unfunny and a total jerk, he’s got punch me written all over him.

  115. @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree with you, Mr. Toad, but that's not what I got out of Judith Harris' The Nurture Assumption (my review there). Her point was that almost all the nurture effects on people's traits are due to peers rather than parents. Anyway, it was a good book. I assumed that's the book you meant.

    Her point was that almost all the nurture effects on people’s traits are due to peers rather than parents.

    Ah, but parents have some say in who those peers are. They move to this or that neighborhood, allow their children in this or that school, or send them off to boarding school.

    Mostly OT, but in garbled Indian English, is this phrase in a link at Drudge:

    …Karelia, a peninsula in northern Russia.

    https://newsclicks.in/he-found-one-of-stalins-mass-graves-now-hes-in-jail/

    I think they mean “a peninsula in occupied Finland”. I’m sure they’d be much more careful in an article about Kashmir!

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Hey, Reg, your first paragraph (not counting your excerpt of my comment) is EXACTLY what I would have said next, and is, in fact, in my review linked to above. CTFL, as they say! ;-}
  116. @Almost Missouri
    NH has a somewhat redneckish population by New England standards. I think it dates back to some colonial era thing I no longer remember. Maybe Albion's Seed said something about it.

    Of course, some of us don't mind rednecks, but yeah, if you're raising children, maybe not the best...

    By making this a Whites Only survey, JW excluded all the black and brown dysfunction that would otherwise have buoyed NH up. And then low taxes boost NH on Fortune magazine-type lists, and light govt on libertarian lists, but JW didn't use those criteria.

    Southern NH is now a bedroom suburb for Boston and people working in office parks north of Boston. Which is why it is no longer a hard Republican state. When I lived in MA it still was.

    Back then the very conservative Manchester Union Leader had strong influence and could push the candidates it liked.

  117. @Seneca44
    I have been waiting for legalized polygamy ever since the legalization of homosexual marriage. It is very much the same argument: Actions between consenting adults which don't harm others should not be regulated by the state.

    Actions between consenting adults which don’t harm others should not be regulated by the state.

    I’m not sure Brooks is even touting legalized polygamy—he seems to want to redefine family as any loose collection of adults—married or not, related or not—taking care of kids. Sounds like a good setup for abuse.

    Brooks:

    The modern chosen-family movement came to prominence in San Francisco in the 1980s among gay men and lesbians, many of whom had become estranged from their biological families and had only one another for support in coping with the trauma of the AIDS crisis.

    Over the past several decades, the decline of the nuclear family has created an epidemic of trauma—millions have been set adrift because what should have been the most loving and secure relationship in their life broke. Slowly, but with increasing frequency, these drifting individuals are coming together to create forged families. These forged families have a feeling of determined commitment.

    On Pinterest you can find placards to hang on the kitchen wall where forged families gather: “Family isn’t always blood. It’s the people in your life who want you in theirs; the ones who accept you for who you are. The ones who would do anything to see you smile & who love you no matter what.”

    From Brooks’s self-promoted project:

    Weave: The Social Fabric Project began with the idea that America’s social fabric is being ripped to shreds by distrust, loneliness, alienation, inequality, racism, spiritual emptiness and tribal enmity.

    Sounds like a preamble to some real tikkun olam poz flim flam.

    Brooks:

    This is a significant opportunity, a chance to thicken and broaden family relationships, a chance to allow more adults and children to live and grow under the loving gaze of a dozen pairs of eyes, and be caught, when they fall, by a dozen pairs of arms.

  118. anon[173] • Disclaimer says:

    Inequality in health and earnings will be exacerbated by it. Poverty and disadvantage foster disease. Inequality in access to health care fosters inequality in health and poor health inhibits the ability to contribute to society. With so many people now out of work — and out of health benefits — short-run inequality generated by poor health will increase in addition to the inequality created by the loss of jobs. We know this is true because those in poor health before COVID-19 struck are the primary victims of the new pandemic.

    Heckman picks the safest bet in social science. Whatever the statistic, blacks will do worse. Outside of some sports.

    However, the “correct” way to look at outcomes is to adjust for all non racial variables, no? Like the New York data that showed them twice as likely to have antibodies. Normalize their rates for obesity and diabetes. Adjust for income, education, etc. until you get no difference or whatever you want.

  119. @utu
    "Don’t conflate wealth with income." - Don't you think that they positively correlate, particularly their gradients?

    Yea, but…No one seriously thinks that the bottom quartile should accumulate wealth. A lot of social programs means test for it to prevent it. So at least some wealth inequality is mandated and shouldn’t be considered a problem.

  120. @Hypnotoad666

    Her point was that almost all the nurture effects on people’s traits are due to peers rather than parents.
     
    That was definitely her main point. But as I recall, she also did a masterful job of debunking the mountain of Group Think academic literature on family environment by showing that it was basically just assuming causation from correlation.

    For example, it's easy to show that kids who experience violence in their home are more likely to be violent as adults. So everyone reported this result as "A causes B." But they never considered various confounds, like the extent to which the kids' own dysfunction, lack of impulse control, etc., is itself contributing to the chaotic and violent family. Harris found that when both genetics and all the environmental confounds were controlled for, parental behavior ("nurture"), practically dropped out of the picture as a causative factor.

    The "environmental" factors that count, it seems, are a combination of random luck and peer influence.

    It's been a long time since I read her book. But I was struck by how well she made the case. It was a real paradigm shift as far as I was concerned.

    Thanks for the reply – you remember as least as much as I do – I think I read it roughly 5 years back. Yes, what I also liked is she gave a bunch of grief to the psychologists and their bunko stuff, even though that was her field. That was near the beginning of the book.

  121. @Reg Cæsar

    Her point was that almost all the nurture effects on people’s traits are due to peers rather than parents.
     
    Ah, but parents have some say in who those peers are. They move to this or that neighborhood, allow their children in this or that school, or send them off to boarding school.


    Mostly OT, but in garbled Indian English, is this phrase in a link at Drudge:

    ...Karelia, a peninsula in northern Russia.

    https://newsclicks.in/he-found-one-of-stalins-mass-graves-now-hes-in-jail/

     

    I think they mean "a peninsula in occupied Finland". I'm sure they'd be much more careful in an article about Kashmir!

    Hey, Reg, your first paragraph (not counting your excerpt of my comment) is EXACTLY what I would have said next, and is, in fact, in my review linked to above. CTFL, as they say! ;-}

  122. @128
    It just funny how you see all of these people complaining about muh economy during the lockdown, I mean if you people gout your wish, and immigration is halted for the next 20 years, and all of the cheap Mexican, Indian H1B, and Asian labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more, I mean the meat packers and processors would go under, almost the entire fast food and restaurant industry would go under, much of the IT sector depending on H1B programmers would go under, a lot of farmers would go under, large parts of manufacturing, energy, the hospitality industry, and the agriculture industry which depends on cheap foreign labor would go under, or at least have to drastically change their business model from hiring workers at 5 dollars an hour to having to hire them at 20 per hour. Walmart, Home Depot, Amazon, and Lowes would either automate or would end up hiring a lot less workers due to higher wage rates caused by restricted labour supply caused by the loss of cheap legal and illegal foreign labour. The cruise ship industry would also go under. The economic dislocation would be as large as that being caused by the current lockdowns.

    I mean if you people gout your wish, and immigration is halted for the next 20 years, and all of the cheap Mexican, Indian H1B, and Asian labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more, I mean the meat packers and processors would go under, ….

    It’s amazing the level of sheer idiocy one can finds, among people smart enough to be interested in Sailer’s blog.

    Idiocy that is debunk by the simple observation that we had all that stuff before the immigration deluge.

    Idiocy for which the theoretical debunking was provided by Adam Smith coming up on 250 years ago.

  123. This is a significant opportunity, a chance to thicken and broaden family relationships, a chance to allow more adults and children to live and grow under the loving gaze of a dozen pairs of eyes, and be caught, when they fall, by a dozen pairs of arms.

    Didn’t they try this commune crap in the ’70s and didn’t it flame out as you would expect? It’s always year 1 with these people..

    • Replies: @anon
    Didn’t they try this commune crap in the ’70s and didn’t it flame out as you would expect? It’s always year 1 with these people..

    One example worked really good until it didn't. Not a flame out per se. But now a famous figure of speech!

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Peoples_Temple
  124. @Almost Missouri
    There are surprising outcomes from your analysis.

    • The Not-So-Deep South does significantly worse than the Deep South. WV, KY, OK, TN, AR (+OH and NV) all worse than MS, AL, LA, GA, SC.
    Fentanyl effect?

    • Other than empty Vermont and NYC-suburb Connecticut, New England (MA, ME, NH, RI) has a remarkably poor showing.

    • Particularly, New England (traditionally the axis of Brahmin moral and intellectual superiority) comes out well behind NY/NJ (traditionally the axis of crass commercialism).
    I wonder if NY/NJ is disproportionately helped in these stats by all the bright young things flocking to NYC for the lifestyle? Whatever else they do, they don't overdose (illegally) much, their parents can afford good lawyers so they don't get incarcerated when they get in mischief, and they don't birth anything at any age never mind as teens, so statistically they look good, even if I don't think they make such a great environment to raise kids...

    • Some parts of the Upper Midwest (MN, NE, Dakotas, IA, WI, IL) are more equal than others (MI, IN, OH).
    Presumably MI, IN, OH held back by rust belt effect? But then why doesn't that pull down IL too?

    • As you mention, CA shows surprisingly well in spite of its manifest pathologies.
    Maybe the teeming homeless are invisible to the statistic makers as they have no address/residency? Plus, CA's policy of non-prosecution of most crimes means low incarceration rates, but in a bad way.

    • In general, as you say, the "good" states boil down to expensive coasts or less expensive upper midwest (with above caveat).

    Now, about the ingredients ...

    incarceration
    As CA shows, there is such a thing as too low an incarceration rate. Incarcerating more isn't bad when the alternative is more crime. Maybe crime rates would be a more "direct" statistic? But perhaps that is harder to filter by race given the global imperative to hide who commits most crime?

    overdose
    Good misery marker. Still, I wouldn't want to raise kids among Xanax or Adderall addicts either, but those Sili-Valley and NY-metro substance users aren't gonna show up in overdose stats.

    teen births
    Can this be made unwed only? I think there is a massive categorical difference between a 19 year old married mother homemaker in UT vs. a 16 year old single mother stripper-tweaker in KY.

    death
    As the death rate remains firmly at 100%, presumably this is early death, or in other words, negative life expectancy? Or maybe violent death?

    obesity
    Good marker. How heavily (heh) is it weighted? I see this everywhere other than the most elite SWPL districts. Particularly, outside of the immediate NYC metro, obesity is nearly ubiquitous in NY/NJ, so their good ranking is surprising. Or the slenderish NYC metro is just enough to keep NY and NJ below the fatocalypse in the rest of the country.

    Obviously, in any state, there are pockets of higher-functioningness, which can lead a life superior to what the mother state has to offer. Zip code- or census block-level data could spot these, but I suppose the statistical ingredients may not be available at that level.

    Anyhow, thanks for a useful and thought provoking analysis.

    • Particularly, New England (traditionally the axis of Brahmin moral and intellectual superiority) comes out well behind NY/NJ (traditionally the axis of crass commercialism).

    I think that de-industrialization and brain drain have hit the region pretty hard. Also, gentrification of the large east coast cities has forced many of the less-successful ethnics into some of these places.

    I wonder if NY/NJ is disproportionately helped in these stats by all the bright young things flocking to NYC for the lifestyle? Whatever else they do, they don’t overdose (illegally) much, their parents can afford good lawyers so they don’t get incarcerated when they get in mischief, and they don’t birth anything at any age never mind as teens, so statistically they look good, even if I don’t think they make such a great environment to raise kids…

    That’s part of it.

    Though there’s a lot of evidence that NY has gotten its young people to behave much better of the last 30 years. For example, the current NY teen birth rate is 30% below the national average. Even in the gritty and super diverse Bronx, the teen birth rate is only 6% above the national average.

    • Some parts of the Upper Midwest (MN, NE, Dakotas, IA, WI, IL) are more equal than others (MI, IN, OH).
    Presumably MI, IN, OH held back by rust belt effect? But then why doesn’t that pull down IL to

    I agree the Rustbelt effect is probably present. Illinois has Chicago, which is an economic powerhouse for the region. Lots of marginal Whites probably have been driven out of the region.

    As CA shows, there is such a thing as too low an incarceration rate. Incarcerating more isn’t bad when the alternative is more crime. Maybe crime rates would be a more “direct” statistic? But perhaps that is harder to filter by race given the global imperative to hide who commits most crime?

    California’s homicide rate (which has a 100% reporting rate) is 12% below the national rate. So I don’t think it’s really that dysfunctional in comparison to the rest of the country.

    There are varying crime-reporting standards by state (also it’s hard to disaggregate by race as you pointed out), but incarceration rates are also biased too. So maybe it’d be better to rank states by homicide rate due to the more standard 100% reporting rate?

    Can this be made unwed only? I think there is a massive categorical difference between a 19 year old married mother homemaker in UT vs. a 16 year old single mother stripper-tweaker in KY.

    90% of teen births are to unmarried women. Even in Utah, it’s close to two-thirds. Honestly, outside of some isolated Mormon communities and the Amish, I think teen marriages are really rare these days.

    As the death rate remains firmly at 100%, presumably this is early death, or in other words, negative life expectancy? Or maybe violent death?

    Mortality rate per 100,000. So higher the rate, earlier people die.

    How heavily (heh) is it weighted?

    All are equally weighted.

    Obviously, in any state, there are pockets of higher-functioningness, which can lead a life superior to what the mother state has to offer. Zip code- or census block-level data could spot these, but I suppose the statistical ingredients may not be available at that level.

    True. Though getting data that granular isn’t easy. Academics (like Chetty) often can request non-publicly available data from the Census Bureau, but ordinary people (like me) don’t have access to that information.

  125. @James N. Kennett

    The evidence for those claims is from a couple of boutique studies in North Carolina about 50 years ago. Heckman’s argument that these small-scale experiments 50 years ago justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars now in an attempt to massively scale up whatever might have happened 50 years ago is laughable.
     
    It is quite usual for bad social policy to be based on the impressive results of pilot studies. Pilot studies are staffed by highly motivated, well educated, enthusiastic leaders. This almost guarantees good results, even if the "clients" are not cherry-picked, and even if the outcomes are honestly reported.

    Rolling out the program across an entire continent is a different matter. With ordinary employees, with average levels of motivation, the success of pilot studies can seldom be replicated.

    In this case, you have to ask who the surrogate parents will be. Responsible women, chiefly white? It would be better for everyone if they raised more children of their own.

    The proposal itself has parallels with the transfer of indigenous children to residential schools in Canada and Australia. Rightly or wrongly, its purpose is the same - to erase the culture of the children and replace it with white culture. If Heckman's plan goes ahead, 30 years later there will be a multi-billion-dollar class-action lawsuit.


    Not allowing immigration by the sorts of people whose babies Heckman thinks the government should be raising makes a lot more sense than Heckman’s idiotic ideas about what we should do with those people and their children. I don’t think there’s one word about immigration on the Heckman Equation web site.
     
    Allowing immigration by people who immediately qualify as members of a disadvantaged minority is batshit insane.

    The proposal itself has parallels with the transfer of indigenous children to residential schools in Canada and Australia. Rightly or wrongly, its purpose is the same – to erase the culture of the children and replace it with white culture. If Heckman’s plan goes ahead, 30 years later there will be a multi-billion-dollar class-action lawsuit.

    Exact parallels, thank you.

    iSteve will jump all over this – the Australian “Stolen Generations” episode is one of the amazing examples of Progressive governance retconned as right-wing evil.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    the Australian “Stolen Generations” episode is one of the amazing examples of Progressive governance retconned as right-wing evil.
     
    Same thing happened in Canada because they sent some Injuns to wypipo schools. There was a big apology tour and, of course, lots of money.
  126. @J.Ross
    If we get rid of no-fault divorce, even with all our other problems still in place, people will start getting married again. Until we deal with our effortful and deliberate elimination of marriage, people should not get married. The lawyer's lobby will never allow us to deal with the ways lawyers have destroyed society to make a buck and temporarily feel important, which ways include the civil rights disaster and notably divorce, but a healthy society would also address the complete surrender of our legislative process to whoever has the cash to buy (or protect) a bad law. No good outcomes should be expected with these fundamental problems left intact. The picking-over and corruption of our academy by opportunistic third world beach crabs is pretty inevitable and low down on that list. If we can't figure out family formation (let alone class mobile family formation) we deserve Chetty.

    If we get rid of no-fault divorce, even with all our other problems still in place, people will start getting married again. Until we deal with our effortful and deliberate elimination of marriage, people should not get married.

    I agree with the sentiments, but i don’t think “no fault” is really the key legal issue anymore.

    The social consensus–not unreasonable–is that people should not have to be in a marriage they no longer wish to be in. There is no longer a strong social taboo. So even if you could outlaw “no fault” divorce you’d just get a lot of long separations/desertions.

    I think the key reform is joint-custody. No more cash and prizes to women–it’s usually women pull the trigger on this–blowing up their marriages. No more settling scores with your ex via child custody.

    — Joint custody.
    — Each spouse supports the children during their custody period.
    — No monetary transfers. The only exception being when one party is unable–child abuse, drug addiction, being in jail, etc.–or unwilling to take on custody. Then they pay.

    Eliminate cash and prizes for blowing up marriages and force both parties to understand that when the marriage is over, it’s over, but their parental duties remain and they are fully responsible for their half … and you’ll see more stable marriages. Probably more re-marriages.

    • Replies: @Kim
    Criminalize/Severe civil penalties/awards against third parties (adulterers) who contribute to the breakup of a marrage.

    A divorce is something that can have brutal economic, emotional, and social consequences for (very ofteny) a man, who can through no fault of his own lose what he may have spent decades working for as well as being alienated from his children and having various legal costs and other financial burdens imposed upon him through no fault of his own.

    That a 3rd party can act to destroy a marriage and cause such damage with impunity and often even benefit from destroying a marriage is disgraceful.

    It seems that in some states it is still possible to sue or obtain some relief:

    https://www.smithdebnamlaw.com/2014/06/beware-of-interference-with-a-marriage-under-north-carolina-law/

    North Carolina is one of only five states that still allow, without limitation, the claims of alienation of affection and criminal conversation. These legal claims arise when a third party interferes with a marital relationship, typically by tempting a spouse into an extramarital affair. For example, when a wife develops a romantic relationship with someone at work and that relationship results in the breakup of her marriage, her husband may be able to sue for damages against the man with whom she had the affair.

    Over the past ten years or so, these claims have generated a lot of publicity. Verdicts have been entered in excess of a million dollars in a few cases in which aggravated conduct by the offending party was involved. But there have also been verdicts rendered on similar claims in amounts of about five thousand dollars here in Wake County. It is nearly impossible to predict what a jury will decide in this type of case.
  127. @Lex
    OT,
    I just found the funniest thing in the world about Donald Sterling, fragment of his deposition from 2003:

    http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/696851831633207979.png

    a memorable senior moment.

  128. anon[796] • Disclaimer says:
    @kaganovitch
    This is a significant opportunity, a chance to thicken and broaden family relationships, a chance to allow more adults and children to live and grow under the loving gaze of a dozen pairs of eyes, and be caught, when they fall, by a dozen pairs of arms.


    Didn't they try this commune crap in the '70s and didn't it flame out as you would expect? It's always year 1 with these people..

    Didn’t they try this commune crap in the ’70s and didn’t it flame out as you would expect? It’s always year 1 with these people..

    One example worked really good until it didn’t. Not a flame out per se. But now a famous figure of speech!

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Peoples_Temple

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    One example worked really good until it didn’t. Not a flame out per se. But now a famous figure of speech!

    I don't know, mass suicide seems like a flame out to me.
  129. @Goddard

    Western Censorship is very similar to China’s, just the dogmas and taboos are different.
     
    I used to live in Shanghai. You can talk freely about racial differences there. The Chinese are kicking the Africans out of Guangzhou and make no apologies for it. On the other hand, I used to say to my Chinese friends, white people established the modern world, not you, and they'd agree.

    Chinese friends who visited parts of the United States used to say to me, disapprovingly, "Why are there so many immigrants?" A girl I met once said, "I know you're American. But are you a real American?" Her eyes lit up when I told her that I could trace my American ancestry to the 1600s.

    In America, the TV is much more of a conditioning tool than in China. In China, newscasts show maps of Taiwan the same color as China. In America, you can't run an ad without at least one black person in it. White men are nutcases or stooges.

    In certain ways, the government of China is more responsive to its people than our elites are to Americans. They lie less to their people. In our country, clear majorities have expressed their preference for dramatically curtailed immigration. In response, you get Trump conning us once again with his promise of an executive order that turns out to be a dud. If Chinese leaders acted so childishly, there would be riots.

    Bottom line: Chinese, from their leaders, corrupt as they are, down to the lowliest citizen, take themselves and their country seriously. Our leaders are narcissists who are into irony and subversion. They take neither themselves nor their country seriously.

    china is run by patriots. Half of our elite are israeli patriots.

  130. @Anon

    We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides...
     
    Ain't that the truth, Jack.

    “We have spent the last 50 years undermining the family from all sides…”

    Lol. To (((We))) or not to We, that is the Question.

  131. @anon
    Didn’t they try this commune crap in the ’70s and didn’t it flame out as you would expect? It’s always year 1 with these people..

    One example worked really good until it didn't. Not a flame out per se. But now a famous figure of speech!

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Peoples_Temple

    One example worked really good until it didn’t. Not a flame out per se. But now a famous figure of speech!

    I don’t know, mass suicide seems like a flame out to me.

  132. @AnotherDad

    If we get rid of no-fault divorce, even with all our other problems still in place, people will start getting married again. Until we deal with our effortful and deliberate elimination of marriage, people should not get married.
     
    I agree with the sentiments, but i don't think "no fault" is really the key legal issue anymore.

    The social consensus--not unreasonable--is that people should not have to be in a marriage they no longer wish to be in. There is no longer a strong social taboo. So even if you could outlaw "no fault" divorce you'd just get a lot of long separations/desertions.

    I think the key reform is joint-custody. No more cash and prizes to women--it's usually women pull the trigger on this--blowing up their marriages. No more settling scores with your ex via child custody.

    -- Joint custody.
    -- Each spouse supports the children during their custody period.
    -- No monetary transfers. The only exception being when one party is unable--child abuse, drug addiction, being in jail, etc.--or unwilling to take on custody. Then they pay.

    Eliminate cash and prizes for blowing up marriages and force both parties to understand that when the marriage is over, it's over, but their parental duties remain and they are fully responsible for their half ... and you'll see more stable marriages. Probably more re-marriages.

    Criminalize/Severe civil penalties/awards against third parties (adulterers) who contribute to the breakup of a marrage.

    A divorce is something that can have brutal economic, emotional, and social consequences for (very ofteny) a man, who can through no fault of his own lose what he may have spent decades working for as well as being alienated from his children and having various legal costs and other financial burdens imposed upon him through no fault of his own.

    That a 3rd party can act to destroy a marriage and cause such damage with impunity and often even benefit from destroying a marriage is disgraceful.

    It seems that in some states it is still possible to sue or obtain some relief:

    https://www.smithdebnamlaw.com/2014/06/beware-of-interference-with-a-marriage-under-north-carolina-law/

    North Carolina is one of only five states that still allow, without limitation, the claims of alienation of affection and criminal conversation. These legal claims arise when a third party interferes with a marital relationship, typically by tempting a spouse into an extramarital affair. For example, when a wife develops a romantic relationship with someone at work and that relationship results in the breakup of her marriage, her husband may be able to sue for damages against the man with whom she had the affair.

    Over the past ten years or so, these claims have generated a lot of publicity. Verdicts have been entered in excess of a million dollars in a few cases in which aggravated conduct by the offending party was involved. But there have also been verdicts rendered on similar claims in amounts of about five thousand dollars here in Wake County. It is nearly impossible to predict what a jury will decide in this type of case.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Agree.

    Alienation of affection and criminal conversation used to be nearly ubiquitous causes of action in common law jurisdictions the world over. Indeed, in many cases they were required prior to divorce.

    In the 20th century they were gradually stripped away almost everywhere in the name of ... well, I'm not sure exactly ... "free love" or something ... but anyway they're mostly gone now.

    Nice to see that North Carolina preserves this common-sensical tradition along with folk music, down home cooking and the Queen's English (Queen Elizabeth I).
  133. @Almost Missouri

    "If we can’t bribe black women not to have babies (and to some extent we have – black fertility is down from the past)"
     
    I'm not sure black women have actually been bribed not have babies, at least I can't think of any programs that pay them not to have babies, but most welfare programs do pay them—directly or indirectly—to have babies. I suspect the real reason black fertility has decreased (slightly) is the same reason it has for the rest of the native-born: decaying economics of family formation in the age of mass immigration and capital offshoring. Perhaps along with the cultural celebration of eternal adolescence. Also note that however much black fertility has fallen, it remains above that of whites, Asians, and Amerindians, and on current trends may eclipse even the formerly fecund Hispanics by the end of this decade.

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/total-fertility-rates-by-race-in-the-usa-1980-2013/

    Also, note that graphs such as Hail's somewhat understate effective black fertility since black males interbreed with outgroups more than the males of other groups do, while black females outbreed less than other groups' females do. So while figures are based on race/ethnicity of mothers, a significant chunk of those non-black mothers are birthing mulatto babies, the vast majority of whom will go on to identify with their (often absent) black sires. The mulatto children will get the full throated backing of the Media Industrial Complex as they do this.

    I suspect the real reason black fertility has decreased (slightly) is the same reason it has for the rest of the native-born: decaying economics of family formation in the age of mass immigration and capital offshoring.

    Don’t blacks have high rates of abortion? Because if they don’t, they should.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Leaving aside miscarriages, about 38% of black women's pregnancies end in surgical abortion.


    The ideal abortion rate for all racial groups is the same: 0%.
  134. @Morton's toes

    Have you ever heard the phrase used by anyone outside the word-merchant sector?
     
    See Deirdre McCloskey,s Bourgeois Trilogy.

    It goes something like this: my 4 grandparents were born peasants and two of them died peasants. My parents were born peasants. I was born inside (albeit bottom of) the middle class. Trickle down economics works perfectly fine and dandy for me and millions of others!

    Don't be a hater.

    The books are long and repetitious but she has built a formidable argument. It is very similar to Rush Limbaugh's spiel about how there are more healthier productive prosperous people right now than ever before by far so how can anybody argue that things are terrible? Also, the CIA's favorite torture-assist psychologist, Martin Seligman, will tell you that if you were more optimistic you would be making more money. : )

    I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say or why you conceived of it as a response to my post. I have no idea why you’ve attributed either actual or fancied abuses by CIA employees to someone on the Penn faculty, either.

  135. @Kim

    I suspect the real reason black fertility has decreased (slightly) is the same reason it has for the rest of the native-born: decaying economics of family formation in the age of mass immigration and capital offshoring.
     
    Don't blacks have high rates of abortion? Because if they don't, they should.

    Leaving aside miscarriages, about 38% of black women’s pregnancies end in surgical abortion.

    The ideal abortion rate for all racial groups is the same: 0%.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Does it bother you to have so much useless information?
  136. @128
    It just funny how you see all of these people complaining about muh economy during the lockdown, I mean if you people gout your wish, and immigration is halted for the next 20 years, and all of the cheap Mexican, Indian H1B, and Asian labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more, I mean the meat packers and processors would go under, almost the entire fast food and restaurant industry would go under, much of the IT sector depending on H1B programmers would go under, a lot of farmers would go under, large parts of manufacturing, energy, the hospitality industry, and the agriculture industry which depends on cheap foreign labor would go under, or at least have to drastically change their business model from hiring workers at 5 dollars an hour to having to hire them at 20 per hour. Walmart, Home Depot, Amazon, and Lowes would either automate or would end up hiring a lot less workers due to higher wage rates caused by restricted labour supply caused by the loss of cheap legal and illegal foreign labour. The cruise ship industry would also go under. The economic dislocation would be as large as that being caused by the current lockdowns.

    George Borjas was addressing this question in his econometric modeling 25 years ago. The present-tense welfare benefits from trade in labor (i.e. immigration-and-remittances) he calculated at 0.1% of domestic product per year. You’re not going to notice that. There would be some distributional implications of re-arranging the cost structure within certain sectors and some consumer segments would face small losses. It would hurt fruit growers in the southwest (as would market pricing of water). Long-term care in California would grow more expensive. Not a big deal.

    The issue with immigration is always cultural, no matter what red herrings are offered by advocates of open borders. You have an urban gentry who despise ordinary non-exotic Americans and wish to reduce their influence, insult them, and injure them. The same people like to build patron-client relationships with people they fancy have a ‘plight’. A junior partner to this urban gentry would be rude chauvinists out of certain ethnic populations.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @UK
    It is worse than that. People always forget government.

    1. It operates at a deficit.

    2. It is highly progressive in its tax system.

    3. It is even more highly progressive in its spending.

    This means that anyone being paid even quite some chunk above the national average will end up receiving more from the government than they pay in.

    4. The vast majority of immigrants do not massively over the average wage.

    In other words, the vast majority of immigrants make us worse off in purely economic terms, and they would be easy to exclude.

    The companies that complain about not finding labour and needing immigrants are trying to socialise their labour costs. It is a stupid scam.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    A junior partner to this urban gentry would be rude chauvinists out of certain ethnic populations.
     
    E.g., Chetty.
    , @J.Ross
    Twenty-five years ago, and just counting the fruit-pickers (necessarily missing the destruction of IT by desis because that wasn't nearly as far along then), and ignoring revenue lost from undertaxed remittances, and ignoring cultural influence, and ignoring electoral consequences, and "refigee" warehousing, and real estate scams which depend heavily on immigrants. Okay.
  137. Chetty’s work is excellent, per the standards by which it is judged. Chetty is a Harvard professor. “Being right” isn’t on the list of criteria by which Chetty’s work is judged to be praiseworthy or not, he is a professor at Harvard University. So pointing out that his work is not right is irrelevant.

  138. @128
    It just funny how you see all of these people complaining about muh economy during the lockdown, I mean if you people gout your wish, and immigration is halted for the next 20 years, and all of the cheap Mexican, Indian H1B, and Asian labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more, I mean the meat packers and processors would go under, almost the entire fast food and restaurant industry would go under, much of the IT sector depending on H1B programmers would go under, a lot of farmers would go under, large parts of manufacturing, energy, the hospitality industry, and the agriculture industry which depends on cheap foreign labor would go under, or at least have to drastically change their business model from hiring workers at 5 dollars an hour to having to hire them at 20 per hour. Walmart, Home Depot, Amazon, and Lowes would either automate or would end up hiring a lot less workers due to higher wage rates caused by restricted labour supply caused by the loss of cheap legal and illegal foreign labour. The cruise ship industry would also go under. The economic dislocation would be as large as that being caused by the current lockdowns.

    much of the IT sector depending on H1B programmers would go under

    You mean like the ones that wrote the Boeing 737-Max 8 software? Or the ones that AT&T and Disney had Americans train before the H1Bs took their jobs? 128! Your 7-bit-witticisms are appropriate for the Intel 8080 world, not the present.

  139. @Jack D

    Colleges might have to drastically cut expenses which could mean cuts to frivolous programs like all the Diversity related positions, Climate Change Centers, LGBTQ support etc.
     
    What if instead they kept the ones you want to cut and instead cut math, engineering etc.? Consider who is in charge of universities and what their priorities are. They aint' the same as yours.

    I think it's too late to root out liberalism. It will require a complete societal collapse and/or conquest, with the new society reconstituted under the flag of a different religion, ala Houellebecq’s Submission (Liberalism itself is a new religion, the replacement for Christianity). Unlike some here, I am not eager to see this happen. You've got to break a lot of eggs to make an omelet, except in this case eggs means human lives.

    Or else the liberal birth rate has to be driven so low that the religious minorities come to outnumber them. This is already happening for Jews in NY - the Orthodox, once a tiny handful of Holocaust survivors, are become the predominant form of Jews in NY because the non-Orthodox are dying and not being replaced. But in the case of the general population, this would mean the replacement of white people by blacks and browns. The latter are not really "liberal" but they are in favor of gibmedats so that puts them on the "liberal" side.

    IIRC there’s a direct positive correlation with fertility and moving left to right on the political spectrum. Since political attitudes are roughly 0.4 heritable, Whites most certainly will be more inclined to be right of center in the future. Unfortunately, that change will be far too slow to keep up with demographic replacement.

    At least in the short term, it’s not so good for the Jews. The ultra Orthodox are less economically productive and use greater public resources. But it’s impossible to see how that will play out 100 years from now.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    But it’s impossible to see how that will play out 100 years from now.
     
    I foresee that their will be future bleeding off of the ultra-Orthodox who will provide the last untapped source of purebred Ashkenazi genius. Some future Einstein or Salk will have a grandpa who was ultra-Orthodox just as the actual grandpas of Einstein and Salk were the same.
    , @Dissident

    The ultra Orthodox are less economically productive and use greater public resources.
     
    That is admittedly a problem (though one that is often overstated*). Nonetheless, there are a number of other areas in which Orthodox Jews (including, and even especially those you call "ultra-Orthodox"**) can be /favorably/ distinguished from both non-Orthodox Jews as well as the general population. As such, I do not see how anyone not heavily biased against Orthodox Jews to begin with could conclude that even in the short-term, having them increasingly demographically replace their non-Orthodox brethren is, on balance, a net-negative.

    I have seen at least a few commenters here acknowledge that as undesirable as they may find Jews of the rigorously and conspicuously Orthodox variety in their own right, said Jews have nonetheless been responsible for far less harm to whites and Christians, and pose far less of a threat to same, than Jews of the non-Orthodox variety.

    *To read many around these parts ("commenters" as well as featured writers, present host excepted), one could easily come away with the impression that for the demographic-in-question, honest work is practically unheard of. That is not the reality, however. I know firsthand that it is not.

    **The characterization "Ultra-Orthodox", as it is used, only makes sense if predicated upon the tendentious premise that what is known as "Modern-Orthodox" or which calls itself "Centrist Orthodox" is the normative standard against which all other strains within or subsets of Orthodox Judaism are judged. While far from perfect, the standard Israeli Haredi*, effectively considered the equivalent of "Ultra-Orthodox", is nonetheless much preferable to the odiousness that is the latter.
    (*alt. Charedi, or even, and arguably less ambiguously as transliterations go but vanishingly rare, Kharedi. I believe the most proper, scholarly form of transliterating the sound of the Hebrew letters khes and khof into English would be to place a dot under the English letter H.)
  140. UK says:
    @Art Deco
    George Borjas was addressing this question in his econometric modeling 25 years ago. The present-tense welfare benefits from trade in labor (i.e. immigration-and-remittances) he calculated at 0.1% of domestic product per year. You're not going to notice that. There would be some distributional implications of re-arranging the cost structure within certain sectors and some consumer segments would face small losses. It would hurt fruit growers in the southwest (as would market pricing of water). Long-term care in California would grow more expensive. Not a big deal.

    The issue with immigration is always cultural, no matter what red herrings are offered by advocates of open borders. You have an urban gentry who despise ordinary non-exotic Americans and wish to reduce their influence, insult them, and injure them. The same people like to build patron-client relationships with people they fancy have a 'plight'. A junior partner to this urban gentry would be rude chauvinists out of certain ethnic populations.

    It is worse than that. People always forget government.

    1. It operates at a deficit.

    2. It is highly progressive in its tax system.

    3. It is even more highly progressive in its spending.

    This means that anyone being paid even quite some chunk above the national average will end up receiving more from the government than they pay in.

    4. The vast majority of immigrants do not massively over the average wage.

    In other words, the vast majority of immigrants make us worse off in purely economic terms, and they would be easy to exclude.

    The companies that complain about not finding labour and needing immigrants are trying to socialise their labour costs. It is a stupid scam.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  141. @Art Deco
    George Borjas was addressing this question in his econometric modeling 25 years ago. The present-tense welfare benefits from trade in labor (i.e. immigration-and-remittances) he calculated at 0.1% of domestic product per year. You're not going to notice that. There would be some distributional implications of re-arranging the cost structure within certain sectors and some consumer segments would face small losses. It would hurt fruit growers in the southwest (as would market pricing of water). Long-term care in California would grow more expensive. Not a big deal.

    The issue with immigration is always cultural, no matter what red herrings are offered by advocates of open borders. You have an urban gentry who despise ordinary non-exotic Americans and wish to reduce their influence, insult them, and injure them. The same people like to build patron-client relationships with people they fancy have a 'plight'. A junior partner to this urban gentry would be rude chauvinists out of certain ethnic populations.

    A junior partner to this urban gentry would be rude chauvinists out of certain ethnic populations.

    E.g., Chetty.

  142. @Anonymous Jew
    IIRC there’s a direct positive correlation with fertility and moving left to right on the political spectrum. Since political attitudes are roughly 0.4 heritable, Whites most certainly will be more inclined to be right of center in the future. Unfortunately, that change will be far too slow to keep up with demographic replacement.

    At least in the short term, it’s not so good for the Jews. The ultra Orthodox are less economically productive and use greater public resources. But it’s impossible to see how that will play out 100 years from now.

    But it’s impossible to see how that will play out 100 years from now.

    I foresee that their will be future bleeding off of the ultra-Orthodox who will provide the last untapped source of purebred Ashkenazi genius. Some future Einstein or Salk will have a grandpa who was ultra-Orthodox just as the actual grandpas of Einstein and Salk were the same.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    And I foresee his brilliance squashed by our new alien intellectual caste, sacrificing achievement to maintain office, and demonstrating an anti-Semitism not seen coming because it did not originate in the more "logical" feuds of theology or geography, but from the practical matter of competition.
  143. @Jack D

    Colleges might have to drastically cut expenses which could mean cuts to frivolous programs like all the Diversity related positions, Climate Change Centers, LGBTQ support etc.
     
    What if instead they kept the ones you want to cut and instead cut math, engineering etc.? Consider who is in charge of universities and what their priorities are. They aint' the same as yours.

    I think it's too late to root out liberalism. It will require a complete societal collapse and/or conquest, with the new society reconstituted under the flag of a different religion, ala Houellebecq’s Submission (Liberalism itself is a new religion, the replacement for Christianity). Unlike some here, I am not eager to see this happen. You've got to break a lot of eggs to make an omelet, except in this case eggs means human lives.

    Or else the liberal birth rate has to be driven so low that the religious minorities come to outnumber them. This is already happening for Jews in NY - the Orthodox, once a tiny handful of Holocaust survivors, are become the predominant form of Jews in NY because the non-Orthodox are dying and not being replaced. But in the case of the general population, this would mean the replacement of white people by blacks and browns. The latter are not really "liberal" but they are in favor of gibmedats so that puts them on the "liberal" side.

    I think it’s too late to root out liberalism.

    I think you are wrong. Reality is a harsh mistress, and reality has been unkind to liberalism. History is strewed with ideological certitudes that were rooted out by the disinfecting qualities of a hot sun in an unforgiving environment.

    The Cult of Liberalism will go the way of other mystical cults, e.g., Heaven’s Gate, the Branch Davidians and the Peoples Temple. The foundations are identical. The result will be the same. The downside is that they will suck many into their vortex of imbecility before they move from this side to the other side of the drain.

  144. Anon[694] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri
    https://twitter.com/RuckCohlchez/status/1250960027101171712

    In case Twitter doesn't post through:


    David Brooks @nytdavidbrooks
    Excellence is not an action, it’s a habit. Tenacity is doing what you were trained to do. It manifests in those whose training embraced hardship and taught students to deal with it.
    Opinion | The Age of Coddling Is Over

    Ken Klippenstein @kenklippenstein
    If David Brooks hates millennials so much then why did he marry one #EndChildTrafficking

    Fatt Yglazyass @RuckCohlchez
    every David Brooks column is a thinly-veiled projection of whatever his personal issue is at the moment, he's writing about millennials so much entirely because of various annoyances he has with her
     
    In the case of his "nuclear family" brain fart, after having been raised in a nuclear family, and having wafted to prestige and riches of a lofty sinecure in a nuclear family, he chucked over his own nuclear family so he could screw his research assistant-ette. So now, to maintain his pundit prestige, he has to circle back and create the meta-justification for this. Hence: the Atlantic piece.

    Never mistake something these people write for anything more than their id responses to their own personal psychodramas. They really have nothing to offer.

    At best, Brooks is an overpaid busker to inner-beltway pseuds.

    Always thought David Brooks was a insufferable pretentious nitwit pretender living off the reputation of a famous school he lucked into. His book Bobos in Paradise was an embarrassingly shallow self-adulation in disguise. It amazes me that he continues to be called a conservative columnist for the NYTimes. With conservatives like him, who needs liberals? Now that I know he’s ditched his first wife of nearly 30 years who converted to Judaism for him to marry a woman 23 years his junior, I’m even more disgusted by him. He’s nothing but a pretentious dim-witted phony, a fake conservative who is now trying to tear down nuclear families the way (((liberals))) do just because his own fell apart due to his Jewish propensity for lust and infidelity. How pathetic.

  145. Anon[322] • Disclaimer says:
    @Seneca44
    I have been waiting for legalized polygamy ever since the legalization of homosexual marriage. It is very much the same argument: Actions between consenting adults which don't harm others should not be regulated by the state.

    I have been waiting for legalized polygamy ever since the legalization of homosexual marriage. It is very much the same argument: Actions between consenting adults which don’t harm others should not be regulated by the state.

    That is the whole point of this article. As we become more selfish and narcissistic as a society thanks to liberalism, actions between consenting adults are often morally reprehensive, harmful to their children, their loved ones and their society.

  146. @Art Deco
    George Borjas was addressing this question in his econometric modeling 25 years ago. The present-tense welfare benefits from trade in labor (i.e. immigration-and-remittances) he calculated at 0.1% of domestic product per year. You're not going to notice that. There would be some distributional implications of re-arranging the cost structure within certain sectors and some consumer segments would face small losses. It would hurt fruit growers in the southwest (as would market pricing of water). Long-term care in California would grow more expensive. Not a big deal.

    The issue with immigration is always cultural, no matter what red herrings are offered by advocates of open borders. You have an urban gentry who despise ordinary non-exotic Americans and wish to reduce their influence, insult them, and injure them. The same people like to build patron-client relationships with people they fancy have a 'plight'. A junior partner to this urban gentry would be rude chauvinists out of certain ethnic populations.

    Twenty-five years ago, and just counting the fruit-pickers (necessarily missing the destruction of IT by desis because that wasn’t nearly as far along then), and ignoring revenue lost from undertaxed remittances, and ignoring cultural influence, and ignoring electoral consequences, and “refigee” warehousing, and real estate scams which depend heavily on immigrants. Okay.

  147. @Jack D

    But it’s impossible to see how that will play out 100 years from now.
     
    I foresee that their will be future bleeding off of the ultra-Orthodox who will provide the last untapped source of purebred Ashkenazi genius. Some future Einstein or Salk will have a grandpa who was ultra-Orthodox just as the actual grandpas of Einstein and Salk were the same.

    And I foresee his brilliance squashed by our new alien intellectual caste, sacrificing achievement to maintain office, and demonstrating an anti-Semitism not seen coming because it did not originate in the more “logical” feuds of theology or geography, but from the practical matter of competition.

  148. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    Leaving aside miscarriages, about 38% of black women's pregnancies end in surgical abortion.


    The ideal abortion rate for all racial groups is the same: 0%.

    Does it bother you to have so much useless information?

  149. @Art Deco
    I’m not sure black women have actually been bribed not have babies, at least I can’t think of any programs that pay them not to have babies, but most welfare programs do pay them—directly or indirectly—to have babies. I suspect the real reason black fertility has decreased (slightly) is the same reason it has for the rest of the native-born: decaying economics of family formation in the age of mass immigration and capital offshoring. Perhaps along with the cultural celebration of eternal adolescence. Also note that however much black fertility has fallen, it remains above that of whites, Asians, and Amerindians, and on current trends may eclipse even the formerly fecund Hispanics by the end of this decade.

    Once more with feeling. The total fertility rate for black women is 2.1 children per woman per lifetime, i.e. the replacement rate. The median age black women give birth to a first child is 23, precisely what it was for women-in-general in this country in 1980. About 19% of the blacks in the United States in 1994 lived in households collecting AFDC. Up until February of this year, the share living in households collecting TANF was about 4%. The only other welfare programs of note targeted at children are the SCHIP component of Medicaid and some of the nutrition subsidies offered by the USDA. About $35 bn are spent on these programs and about 30% of the beneficiaries are non-hispanic blacks. That's about $10.5 bn in expenditure on 9.3 million youths, or just north of $1,100 per youth. Among the rest of the population, you have about $25 bn distributed to just shy of 64 million youths, or about $385 per youth. I tend to doubt the extra $750 per child per year has much of an effect on child-bearing decisions.

    “The total fertility rate for black women is 2.1 children per woman per lifetime, i.e. the replacement rate.”

    As mentioned in my comment, the black fertility rate is understated while everyone else’s is overstated. Additionally, since the crucial fulcrum point for fertility rate is 2, when blacks are a little above that while everyone else is a little below that, it doesn’t take too long for the magic of compounding to turn “a little” rate difference into a lot people on the ground. Demography is destiny.

    “The median age black women give birth to a first child is 23, precisely what it was for women-in-general in this country in 1980. “

    News Flash: it ain’t 1980 anymore. [Why cite obsolete figures?] Today, as before, blacks continue not only to reproduce more but also to reproduce faster. So you can multiply my above remark about compounding by a rapidity differential as well.

    “About 19% of the blacks …
    … in 1994 [!?!] …
    … effect on child-bearing decisions.”

    What I gather you’re saying is, hey these specific programs only waste $750 per head per year, so relax! Or at least they did 26 years ago.

    But of course, these specific programs are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and various other anti-poverty programs by themselves have been immensely costly, so much so that I don’t know that anyone has ever dared calculate the total. And even if someone had, that would only be the most visible part of the register. Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals have chipped in time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes, and various other initiatives to a value beyond reckoning. And that’s just the direct contributions. Governments, businesses and the academy all engage in ubiquitous and deleterious discrimination in favor of the less qualified and against the more qualified. They obey onerous regulations, employ proliferating and destructive diversity officers, and run an endless gauntlet of private litigation, all in the name of lifting up “the disadvantaged”. The massive distortion of both public and private sectors to accommodate the welfare imperative has drained trillions upon trillions from the real economy. And all of that is as nothing compared to the cultural and genetic losses that the welfare imperative has imposed.

    As bomag said above, “cheap” labor is a terribly expensive indulgence.

  150. @Kim
    Criminalize/Severe civil penalties/awards against third parties (adulterers) who contribute to the breakup of a marrage.

    A divorce is something that can have brutal economic, emotional, and social consequences for (very ofteny) a man, who can through no fault of his own lose what he may have spent decades working for as well as being alienated from his children and having various legal costs and other financial burdens imposed upon him through no fault of his own.

    That a 3rd party can act to destroy a marriage and cause such damage with impunity and often even benefit from destroying a marriage is disgraceful.

    It seems that in some states it is still possible to sue or obtain some relief:

    https://www.smithdebnamlaw.com/2014/06/beware-of-interference-with-a-marriage-under-north-carolina-law/

    North Carolina is one of only five states that still allow, without limitation, the claims of alienation of affection and criminal conversation. These legal claims arise when a third party interferes with a marital relationship, typically by tempting a spouse into an extramarital affair. For example, when a wife develops a romantic relationship with someone at work and that relationship results in the breakup of her marriage, her husband may be able to sue for damages against the man with whom she had the affair.

    Over the past ten years or so, these claims have generated a lot of publicity. Verdicts have been entered in excess of a million dollars in a few cases in which aggravated conduct by the offending party was involved. But there have also been verdicts rendered on similar claims in amounts of about five thousand dollars here in Wake County. It is nearly impossible to predict what a jury will decide in this type of case.

    Agree.

    Alienation of affection and criminal conversation used to be nearly ubiquitous causes of action in common law jurisdictions the world over. Indeed, in many cases they were required prior to divorce.

    In the 20th century they were gradually stripped away almost everywhere in the name of … well, I’m not sure exactly … “free love” or something … but anyway they’re mostly gone now.

    Nice to see that North Carolina preserves this common-sensical tradition along with folk music, down home cooking and the Queen’s English (Queen Elizabeth I).

  151. @dvorak

    The proposal itself has parallels with the transfer of indigenous children to residential schools in Canada and Australia. Rightly or wrongly, its purpose is the same – to erase the culture of the children and replace it with white culture. If Heckman’s plan goes ahead, 30 years later there will be a multi-billion-dollar class-action lawsuit.
     
    Exact parallels, thank you.

    iSteve will jump all over this - the Australian "Stolen Generations" episode is one of the amazing examples of Progressive governance retconned as right-wing evil.

    the Australian “Stolen Generations” episode is one of the amazing examples of Progressive governance retconned as right-wing evil.

    Same thing happened in Canada because they sent some Injuns to wypipo schools. There was a big apology tour and, of course, lots of money.

  152. @128
    It just funny how you see all of these people complaining about muh economy during the lockdown, I mean if you people gout your wish, and immigration is halted for the next 20 years, and all of the cheap Mexican, Indian H1B, and Asian labour is expelled from the US workforce, entire portions of the US economy that depend on cheap labour would be bankrupt, that would probably amount to 15 percent of GDP or more, I mean the meat packers and processors would go under, almost the entire fast food and restaurant industry would go under, much of the IT sector depending on H1B programmers would go under, a lot of farmers would go under, large parts of manufacturing, energy, the hospitality industry, and the agriculture industry which depends on cheap foreign labor would go under, or at least have to drastically change their business model from hiring workers at 5 dollars an hour to having to hire them at 20 per hour. Walmart, Home Depot, Amazon, and Lowes would either automate or would end up hiring a lot less workers due to higher wage rates caused by restricted labour supply caused by the loss of cheap legal and illegal foreign labour. The cruise ship industry would also go under. The economic dislocation would be as large as that being caused by the current lockdowns.

    I’d be glad to pay $3 for a head of lettuce if it meant, for example, that the emergency room at my local hospital didn’t look like the third world. Immigration privatizes the profits and socializes the costs. I don’t remember voting for any politician who said he was fine with importing 50 million people in this country who don’t speak English at home.

  153. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "David Brooks: Excellence is not an action, it's a habit."

    Says David Brooks, the force behind nothing excellent, ever.

    David Brooks knows precisely zero about excellence, and would not recognize it if it strapped him down and covered his scrawny pitiful body with a tattoo of the full text of "A Good Man Is Hard To Find."

    Poll for denizens of iSteveistan: who has the most punchable face in America? Is it...

    a) David Brooks,
    b) Bill Maher,
    c) Scott Pelley, or
    d) Beto O'Rourke?

    You forgot Bill Kristol. I once thought that he and Brooks were smart guys, but DJT drove them round the bend.

  154. @Anonymous Jew
    IIRC there’s a direct positive correlation with fertility and moving left to right on the political spectrum. Since political attitudes are roughly 0.4 heritable, Whites most certainly will be more inclined to be right of center in the future. Unfortunately, that change will be far too slow to keep up with demographic replacement.

    At least in the short term, it’s not so good for the Jews. The ultra Orthodox are less economically productive and use greater public resources. But it’s impossible to see how that will play out 100 years from now.

    The ultra Orthodox are less economically productive and use greater public resources.

    That is admittedly a problem (though one that is often overstated*). Nonetheless, there are a number of other areas in which Orthodox Jews (including, and even especially those you call “ultra-Orthodox”**) can be /favorably/ distinguished from both non-Orthodox Jews as well as the general population. As such, I do not see how anyone not heavily biased against Orthodox Jews to begin with could conclude that even in the short-term, having them increasingly demographically replace their non-Orthodox brethren is, on balance, a net-negative.

    I have seen at least a few commenters here acknowledge that as undesirable as they may find Jews of the rigorously and conspicuously Orthodox variety in their own right, said Jews have nonetheless been responsible for far less harm to whites and Christians, and pose far less of a threat to same, than Jews of the non-Orthodox variety.

    [MORE]

    *To read many around these parts (“commenters” as well as featured writers, present host excepted), one could easily come away with the impression that for the demographic-in-question, honest work is practically unheard of. That is not the reality, however. I know firsthand that it is not.

    **The characterization “Ultra-Orthodox”, as it is used, only makes sense if predicated upon the tendentious premise that what is known as “Modern-Orthodox” or which calls itself “Centrist Orthodox” is the normative standard against which all other strains within or subsets of Orthodox Judaism are judged. While far from perfect, the standard Israeli Haredi*, effectively considered the equivalent of “Ultra-Orthodox”, is nonetheless much preferable to the odiousness that is the latter.
    (*alt. Charedi, or even, and arguably less ambiguously as transliterations go but vanishingly rare, Kharedi. I believe the most proper, scholarly form of transliterating the sound of the Hebrew letters khes and khof into English would be to place a dot under the English letter H.)

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2