In the U.S. you can always sue someone. It's easier (and more profitable) than blaming your own behavior.
Your hypothesis is that inequality = privation => crime.
Mine is that single teens who drop out of high school to have kids will almost certainly be poor. Many single teens' kids will be poor, poorly supervised, not fully socialized, and likely to imitate their (one) parent's example.
That's a set of choices, but describes ~70% of black kids born in America today, and an increasing share of all American kids.
cial ills are worse in less equal societies. It compares both a bunch of ad vanced industrial countries and the separate states of the USA and finds pr etty much the same trends in both cases.
cs.
ISTM inequality is a good thing.
If one man works forty hours a week and another works eighty, paying the second guy more creates an inequality, but shouldn't the second guy make more than the first? Didn't he earn it?
Suppose the first guy is married with kids and the second guy is trying to save money before starting his family. Should the first guy be entitled to subsidy, at the expense of guy #2?
In truth there's no such thing as equality. It's just a word to appeal to a peoples' baser instincts.
It may be that the kinds of ghettos that Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowe ll lived were completely safe. It more likely that calling on the police fo r help was known to be a waste of time, so there wasn't a lot of reported c rime.
Elderly conservative who meet with James Arthur's approval are not the most reliable of witnesses.
It's more that US social security doesn't adequately supported mothers whos e partners have skived off. Being the off-spring of a single mother is much less of a disadvantage in Sweden than it is in the US.
Johnson's Great Society might have funded them adequately - apparently blac k mother didn't get funded at all until the 1960s - but they now get less t han they used to
formatting link
y
-race
Today 40.3% of all US babies are born out of wedlock.
formatting link
The fact that the parents aren't married doesn't mean that the couple isn't living together.
Not having the father around isn't a good idea - mostly. Some fathers are l ess than ideal, but many father do stick around even though they haven't bo thered marrying the mother of their children, or perhaps haven't been accep ted as a person one would want to be married to.
Confusing "out of wedlock" with single motherhood is the kind of thing elde rly conservatives do routinely. It's dishonest, but James Arthur won't noti ce. If he can find the story he wants to tell, he becomes decidedly gullibl e about the content.
social ills are worse in less equal societies. It compares both a bunch of advanced industrial countries and the separate states of the USA and finds pretty much the same trends in both cases.
tics.
The top 1% of the US income distribution collect 17% of the national income .
It's difficult to imagine that they are twenty times as productive as the r est of the income distribution. Most other countries get by paying their el ite a whole lot less, less than half as much.
o
to
This isn't the nature, or the magnitude of the inequality that we are seein g.
o
Nobody is proposing total equality. Even in Sweden the top 1% of the income distribution collects 7% of the national income - up from 4% in 1980.
What "The Spirit Level" points out
formatting link
most_Always_Do_Better
is that if you sort countries (or US states) by inequality, the more equal ones tend to be better places to live.
It may be that if you set up a society where everybody got exactly the same income, it wouldn't be a good place to live, but nobody has done that expe riment, nor are they likely to. Some people are more competent than others, or better at keeping complicated operations running smoothly, and the free market scheme of paying them more to take on more demanding jobs does seem to work.
Sadly, there are people around who will work that kind of system to get the mselves incomes that are orders of magnitude higher than those of the peopl e who work for them, where the skill being rewarded is that of milking the system, rather than that of getting things done, and that crew does seem to be having a fine time in the US at the moment.
The paper you cited was talking about honey-bees and yeasts - not humans.
There might be hereditary elements in sociopathy and distruptive behavoir, but that's exactly the kind of behavior that gets selected out of slaves and serfs.
Claiming that the behavior you object to is heritable, and heritable by an epigenetic mechanism, is hand-waving argument by buzz-word generation.
70% of black kids born in America today are born of un-married parents, but 40.3% of all kids born in America today are born to parents who haven't yet got married.
In a lot of cases the father will be living with the mother and supporting her.
It's the single mothers trying to raise a kid or kids without the support of a father (or some other partner) who have it tough.
The confusion of un-married mothers with single mothers is false and dishonest, and very popular with right-wng nitwits, who probably don't even notice the sleigh of hand involved.
It might have been, a century ago. Helping young women control their own fertility isn't eugenics - the people who supported eugenics were all for sterilising the unfit, with them - rather than the unfit - choosing who got sterilised.
Krw doesn't understand much, and probably can't see the difference.
Nah but I don't recall any statistical projections from election polling data that put her chances of winning at 100%. IIRC the highest I saw right before election night was like 70-75%.
Clickbait, and a title that's easily taken out of context. The 'claim' isn't the science, it's just a hypothesis that can be tested by others. Claims in a simulation were shown to be false, not in real studies. No one reading the title would know to examine the simulation...
And John Larkin has high regard for the article: sadly, he isn't usually a knowledgable statistician. He just likes the clickbait title.
No, Mr. Larkin, you cannot sweep your arms and claim 'all those other people' are "probably wrong". It only becomes meaningful if you find a particular wrongness, and can demonstrate it, and if you do that, you become one of 'all those other people'.
Is butter of margerine healthier? Skim or whole milk? Do vitamin pills increase or decrease your chances of getting cancer? Are carbs good for you are or they poison? Is fat good or bad? How about sunlight? Statins? Gluten?
Google and find any answer that you like.
Most soft-science research is wrong for a lot of reasons.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Some people are that lazy - though the one's that claim to be that lazy are mostly actually insane, and can't get along with people well enough to hol d down a job.
People who have looked at decent-sized samples of the unemployed find that most of them are desperate to find some kind of job (not necessarily one wo rth reporting to the dole-distributing authorities) because a job tends to be most people's major social contact, and the unemployed get bored and lon ely.
That doesn't follow. Theft doesn't pay well - you can't fence what you stea l anything like its full value, and people who steal stuff do it because th ey can't sell their services on any better-paying market.
True. It has been tried from time to time, but seems to be something of an over-kill.
The impoverished aren't all thieves, and what makes them impoverished isn't all that heritable. Most of the heritable tendencies we know about exhibit regression to the mean from one generation to the next, so stopping this g eneration of the impoverished from breeding wouldn't prevent a new generati on of the impoverished being born to the slightly better off.
Eugenics didn't work when it was tried. We know a good deal more about what 's inherited now, and how inheritance works, and it looks to be a much wors e idea now than it did back then - and it was only popular with right-wing lunatics even back when it was respectable enough to be used as an excuse f or some really nasty antics.
A more useful statistical analysis would sort the numbers by economic status as well as by race.
Most US statistics, when analysed that way, show poor whites looking very like poor blacks, and draw attention to the fact that a higher proportion of blacks are poor.
The problem with the US is not that it's unkind to blacks - though it is - but that it is unkind to the poor (many of whom are black).
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.