I'm not going to track down all the sources right away just for this thread.
This is highly politicized, and the amount of false information in the real world isn't an accident. But I know how and why those numbers should be corrected. It's what I did for a living before I got into IT (not a coincidence - even then we needed computers to do the "statistical heavy lifting").
I already explained at an "AF-appropriate level" how the raw data is being selectively presented to support biased conclusions. And what should be done to provide an accurate picture.
Fortunately it's easy to find highly summarized corrected data (i.e. that the actual pay gap after correction is tiny - that claimed 80-odd percent becomes 99%).
So my facts are clear, and it's easy for anyone to verify.
I didn't exclude WOCs. I mentioned them after you you played the 'Apex Fallacy" card, and moved the discussion from XX/XY to the the most extreme category (XX POC), with the embedded assumption that race is a causal factor rather than correlated with something else.
You've selected (inappropriately) by race only. It's popular OFC, but it's not a "natural" categorization for income. Income is most easily predicted by education. Amusingly, education is a domain were white males have been genuinely oppressed in 21st century USA.
To usefully split by race under income, you need a separate rationale: you have to prove that most bias "under" income is due to "race". You can't, because it's not a direct cause: it's separately correlated with something else (see below).
Here's something to help frame it - but I suggest that discussing your approach to categorization further would become a different discussion, and perhaps should be a different thread.
So:
1. Using race is already an issue, because it's not the best predictor of economic success (education correlates better).
2. White males are not the best paid group even if you only select by race. 'Asian" and "Indian" are both higher up the median income scale.
NB: 'Asians" is a very broad category. Technically it includes the Indian sub-content too, but they are usually called 'South Asian".
Slice/dice the others by income and you find a skew towards Chinese, Japanese, and Korean genetics and culture).
3, If you exclude education by calling it a symptom, culture is a much better predictor of economic success than "race" (genetics). Which is apparently (**) visible if you split POC into the largest categories (US, African, Caribbean). This is good evidence that culture is a significant factor.
PS
OFC I'm aware that the meta-discussion in society as a whole about these things is closer to what you've presented. That doesn't make it correct though.
And there a "hard edge" to it. It's in the political space, so I won't discuss it here, but one thought:
In a healthy, growing economy, with a healthy political dialog, managing income disparities is not a "zero-sum-game. Higher earned incomes for every earner makes things better for everyone.
Suppressing one group to benefit another has the opposite effect. In both the political and the economic domains.
(**)
I've never seen raw data supporting the cultural differences between those three somewhat similar groups within the US, but I've heard/seen it mentioned often, and it's consistent with my personal experience.
Last edited:
