>Yoshie type:
>> >Let's set aside the long run for the moment. Do white workers gain
>>_increases in real wages & social programs that outpace rises in
>>productivity_ by practicing racism _even in the very short term_?
>
>According to Heather Boushe, they don't gain this even if they greatly
>reduce racism.
_Where_ does Boushey say that "white workers don't gain increases in real wages & social programs that outpace rises in productivity by greatly reducing racism"? She doesn't take _social programs_ into account _at all_ in her paper. She only discusses _earnings_. Nowhere does she discuss the effect of a _great reduction_ of racism on anyone, black or white, either.
Andrew Kilman wrote on LBO-talk:
***** From: "Andrew Kliman" <Andrew_Kliman at email.msn.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 04:43:15 -0400
<snip>
She writes that "the unemployment rate of [blacks and women] does not have a strong effect on the earnings of the aggregate population. ... Increases in unemployment for discriminated-against workers lowers all earnings, but to a *lesser extent* than the unemployment of non-discriminated-against groups."
Hence, the evidence indicates that an increase in unemployment among Blacks *does* lower the pay of white workers. It just does not lower their pay as much as does an increase in unemployment among whites. The evidence thus suggests that the answer to Gar's final question -- "Is it possible that non-skin privileged unemployment does lower wages for everybody -- just not as much as white unemployment?" -- is yes.
It should come as no surprise, BTW, that a rise in the white unemployment rate has a stronger negative effect on pay (of whites and Blacks) than does a comparable rise in the Black unemployment rate. Whites greatly outnumber Blacks, so a rise in the white rate corresponds to a much greater rise in the *aggregate* (white & Black) unemployment rate than does a comparable rise in the Black rate. Thus, if, as is in fact the case, wages of *both* groups are inversely related to the aggregate rate, a rise in the white rate will reduce wages for both groups much more than will a comparable rise in the Black rate.
<snip> *****
Do you understand Andrew's argument above? He's saying that the only thing that Boushey's numbers amount to is that a rise in the unemployment rate of the majority corresponds to a much greater rise in the aggregate unemployment rate than does a comparable rise in the unemployment rate of a minority. One can see, _even_ without doing any empirical research, that this has to be _logically and statistically_ true.
>The point that seems to be made is that in the short and
>medium term whites income is greater than it would be if racism was
>greatly lowered.
Boushey's numbers don't demonstrate the above, since according to her own findings "[i]ncreases in unemployment for discriminated-against workers lowers all earnings" (p. 6).
>In terms of racism, if Boushe is wrong, I'd like to see someone show the
>mistake in her numbers -- rather than just trying to refutes facts
>(facts which of course may be wrong) with Marxist theory. [This is not
>an argument against Marxist theory, but against trying to refute factual
>claims by purely theoretical arguments.
The problem is not a mistake in Boushey's numbers but Boushey draws a conclusion that she can't support based upon her own numbers (to say nothing of anyone else's).
What I am asking is whether white workers gain _increases in real wages & social programs that outpace rises in productivity_ by practicing racism _even in the very short term_, about which Boushey has _nothing_ to say one way or another.
Yoshie