Race and Economics

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
... is the title of a new book by George Mason University professor of economics, Walter Williams. The following is an excerpt from an article by John Stossel. The original article can be seen here: Government against Blacks


Williams elaborates in a new book, "Race and Economics." A chief culprit, he insists, is the minimum wage.

"Let's not look at the intentions behind minimum wage," he said. "We have to ask, what are the effects? Put yourself in the place of an employer who must pay $7.25 no matter whom you hire. Will that employer hire a person who can only add $3 or $4 of value per hour?"

He will not. And so fewer young people get hired and "get their feet on the bottom rung of the economic ladder." This hurts all young people, but black teens most, he says, because "many of them get a fraudulent education in the public school system. So a law that discriminates against low-skill people has a doubly negative effect on black teenagers. The unemployment rate among black teens today is unprecedented in U.S. history. In the '40s, black teenage unemployment was less than white teenage unemployment."

And yet a Pew survey says 83 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage.

"People have the misguided notion that the minimum wage is an antipoverty tool."

Economists understand the truth. A survey of the American Economic Association found that 90 percent of economists say the minimum wage increases unemployment.

Williams says the minimum wage law has also been a tool of racism. In his book "South Africa's War Against Capitalism," he studied that country's labor markets during apartheid:

"White racist unions in South Africa that would never have a black as a member were the major supporters of minimum wage laws. Their stated purpose was to protect white workers from having to compete with low-skill, low-wage black workers. In the United States we found some of the same reasoning for support of a super minimum-wage law," the Davis-Bacon Act, which forces taxpayers to pay union-like wages for government-funded construction projects.

Williams says other programs designed to help the poor — like welfare payments — have wrecked the lives of millions of black people. He likens the welfare state to a "drug pusher" that keeps people dependent and in poverty.

"The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery (and Jim Crow and racism) could not have done ... break up the black family. Today, just slightly over 30 percent of black kids live in two-parent families. Historically, from the 1870s on ... 75-90 percent of black kids lived in two-parent families."

Why does the welfare state create illegitimacy?

"(Without welfare,) people would decide, 'I'm going to go out and get a job, I'm going to live more responsibly.'" And that would include getting married before having children, something the welfare system discourages.

I believe the creators of the welfare state had good intentions, but good intentions aren't good enough. Even if deficit spending were not bankrupting America — which it is — America should end these programs.
 
You know, one of my old bosses was against the minimum wage for the exact reasoning this guy used. He was like "your only worth $4-5 an hour for the first few months of work! I shouldn't have to pay you $8.50! There should be a training wage!"... Fuck that.

If I was making less than that $8.50 I would've at least been on government assistance. Worse yet, I could have gone homeless without the ability to pay my bills, etc etc. I would be a burden to society (TAXPAYERS)...

There are a couple problems with that guys conclusions:

1)the premise that without welfare people are more likely to work - as the data does not support this conclusion. I've spoken 1000000 times about the french welfare/healthcare system and compared French labor to American labor... The bottom line is that the French are just as likely to work as Americans are with near the same level of productivity. They get more vacation time than we do, and report more "life satisfaction" than we do... If his Premise was correct, you'd likely see some significant differences in productivity(among other measures) between these two workforces - you dont.

2)He points to that survey "90% of economist believe the minimum wage law increases unemployment" as if that matters... Ask those SAME economists if they think minimum wage should be abolished and they'd say NO. Why? Because increased unemployment is offset by a plethora of other POSITIVE factors that makes that slight loss in employment worth it. Tell me, since the minimum wage law was introduced how often have we been at "full employment"? Most of the time, yes? Hell, among economists I frequently read (Krugman obviously among them, DeLong, etc) many believe that with minimum wage at it's lowest real levels in 50 years - it's due for a bump.

This man and his conclusions are dangerously dishonest. Does he work for Cato or Heritage BTW? I didn't see any linkage to a source.
 
yeah he can rant against minimum wage 'destroying' black families. it is not that minimum wage in the US is just enough to live in the poorest of conditions, not even enough to afford rent in many places.


you will be hard-pressed to find me a report, a scientific study which definetly proves that minimum wage had the effect of reducing the quality of life of african americans in this country.

that is your challenge sir.

saying something is very easy, proving it as verifiable scientific fact is another.

here is your chance. try to prove that point.

try to prove that minimum wage had the effect of drastically reducing the quality of life for people in this country. i dare you.
 
... is the title of a new book by George Mason University professor of economics, Walter Williams. The following is an excerpt from an article by John Stossel. The original article can be seen here: Government against Blacks


Williams elaborates in a new book, "Race and Economics." A chief culprit, he insists, is the minimum wage.

"Let's not look at the intentions behind minimum wage," he said. "We have to ask, what are the effects? Put yourself in the place of an employer who must pay $7.25 no matter whom you hire. Will that employer hire a person who can only add $3 or $4 of value per hour?"

He will not. And so fewer young people get hired and "get their feet on the bottom rung of the economic ladder." This hurts all young people, but black teens most, he says, because "many of them get a fraudulent education in the public school system. So a law that discriminates against low-skill people has a doubly negative effect on black teenagers. The unemployment rate among black teens today is unprecedented in U.S. history. In the '40s, black teenage unemployment was less than white teenage unemployment."

And yet a Pew survey says 83 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage.

"People have the misguided notion that the minimum wage is an antipoverty tool."

Economists understand the truth. A survey of the American Economic Association found that 90 percent of economists say the minimum wage increases unemployment.

Williams says the minimum wage law has also been a tool of racism. In his book "South Africa's War Against Capitalism," he studied that country's labor markets during apartheid:

"White racist unions in South Africa that would never have a black as a member were the major supporters of minimum wage laws. Their stated purpose was to protect white workers from having to compete with low-skill, low-wage black workers. In the United States we found some of the same reasoning for support of a super minimum-wage law," the Davis-Bacon Act, which forces taxpayers to pay union-like wages for government-funded construction projects.

Williams says other programs designed to help the poor — like welfare payments — have wrecked the lives of millions of black people. He likens the welfare state to a "drug pusher" that keeps people dependent and in poverty.

"The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery (and Jim Crow and racism) could not have done ... break up the black family. Today, just slightly over 30 percent of black kids live in two-parent families. Historically, from the 1870s on ... 75-90 percent of black kids lived in two-parent families."

Why does the welfare state create illegitimacy?

"(Without welfare,) people would decide, 'I'm going to go out and get a job, I'm going to live more responsibly.'" And that would include getting married before having children, something the welfare system discourages.

I believe the creators of the welfare state had good intentions, but good intentions aren't good enough. Even if deficit spending were not bankrupting America — which it is — America should end these programs.


walter williams is a genius. another genius, also black, is thomas sowell. if you search through his editorials you will be amazed at the truth in them.

it is literally a crime what the race hustlers have done to the black family. there are mountains of empirical data that show the condition of the black family was directly destroyed by the welfare programs of the great society.

everything from broken homes, pregnancy, jail, crimes drugs, and everything else is can be directly attributed to the movements of "social justice" and the welfare state.

one of the biggest and most obvious examples is public housing. lets build this 20 story building, give people a free place to live, and they will surely be better off? seriously, who could not see this disaster coming?

remember the people when obama got elected claiming they wont have to worry about gas in their car, or their housing payments anymore? prime example of the social do gooders prodigy.

but the great socialists like mame, will tell you how it only will take a little more "public" money pumped into the economy to fix it.

it hasnt worked anywhere in anyplace, in any society, but he goes to class, listens to little pinheads like krugman (who undoubtedly lives in a mansion and has never had a private sector job) and still thinks its gospel. sad, very sad.
 
yeah he can rant against minimum wage 'destroying' black families. it is not that minimum wage in the US is just enough to live in the poorest of conditions, not even enough to afford rent in many places.


you will be hard-pressed to find me a report, a scientific study which definetly proves that minimum wage had the effect of reducing the quality of life of african americans in this country.

that is your challenge sir.

saying something is very easy, proving it as verifiable scientific fact is another.

here is your chance. try to prove that point.

try to prove that minimum wage had the effect of drastically reducing the quality of life for people in this country. i dare you.

yes, only every study ever done that shows the black family was better off before the great society. but go ahead and keep thinking coralling blacks in free housing units with welfare checks is having a positive effect on them.
 
You know, one of my old bosses was against the minimum wage for the exact reasoning this guy used. He was like "your only worth $4-5 an hour for the first few months of work! I shouldn't have to pay you $8.50! There should be a training wage!"... Fuck that.

If I was making less than that $8.50 I would've at least been on government assistance. Worse yet, I could have gone homeless without the ability to pay my bills, etc etc. I would be a burden to society (TAXPAYERS)...

There are a couple problems with that guys conclusions:

1)the premise that without welfare people are more likely to work - as the data does not support this conclusion. I've spoken 1000000 times about the french welfare/healthcare system and compared French labor to American labor... The bottom line is that the French are just as likely to work as Americans are with near the same level of productivity. They get more vacation time than we do, and report more "life satisfaction" than we do... If his Premise was correct, you'd likely see some significant differences in productivity(among other measures) between these two workforces - you dont.

2)He points to that survey "90% of economist believe the minimum wage law increases unemployment" as if that matters... Ask those SAME economists if they think minimum wage should be abolished and they'd say NO. Why? Because increased unemployment is offset by a plethora of other POSITIVE factors that makes that slight loss in employment worth it. Tell me, since the minimum wage law was introduced how often have we been at "full employment"? Most of the time, yes? Hell, among economists I frequently read (Krugman obviously among them, DeLong, etc) many believe that with minimum wage at it's lowest real levels in 50 years - it's due for a bump.

This man and his conclusions are dangerously dishonest. Does he work for Cato or Heritage BTW? I didn't see any linkage to a source.

simply clueless
 
yes, only every study ever done that shows the black family was better off before the great society. but go ahead and keep thinking coralling blacks in free housing units with welfare checks is having a positive effect on them.
I searched Google and only found a few mildly related studies by Cato and Heritage. I hope you're not relying on those "think tanks" for your information as they're chronically wrong - mostly because they're just right-wing propaganda machines...
 
I searched Google and only found a few mildly related studies by Cato and Heritage. I hope you're not relying on those "think tanks" for your information as they're chronically wrong - mostly because they're just right-wing propaganda machines...

CATO is a Libertarian think tank.
 
I searched Google and only found a few mildly related studies by Cato and Heritage. I hope you're not relying on those "think tanks" for your information as they're chronically wrong - mostly because they're just right-wing propaganda machines...
LOL I can't wait for you to use some source so i can call it stupidly wrong since your source is a Liberal left wing crazies point of view. That should invalidate every argument you ever come up with. You either argue your point of view or if you can't do that then you should attack the source, always deflect and turn the argument into something else entirely so people will not know that you have failed.
 
CATO is a Libertarian think tank.
Anything that isn't a liberal left wing crazies point of view is automatically republican, there is nothing else to these people, you either see it their way or you are a right wing extremist republican. There is no middle ground with these folks, there is no such thing as a centrist, its either Dems or Repubs, nothing else exists to these people.
 
First, I certainly agree that minimum wage is not an effective anti-poverty tool. Federal poverty level for a family of two is $14,710 and a minimum wage job earns only $12,688 (35 hr/wk, 50 wk/yr). So using the federal guidelines a pregnant woman working at a full-time minimum wage job is in poverty.

I don't, however, understand how paying less per hour would be helpful. I think we'd have more in poverty working, but they wouldn't get out of poverty that way. I to agree that minimum wage increases unemployment, but I also think that if business could hire for less, they would just keep a certain number of employees at that pay level.

What is needed are the industrial jobs where unskilled workers can earn a respectable wage-- like our grandparents had. The artificially high dollar has driven these jobs out of the US, and has left our cities full of unemployable poor people.

I don't have references at present, but I did read an alternate view of minimum wage that proposed that it actually suppresses wages. Having a minimum wage legitimizes paying employees at that level, and so businesses don't have to pay what the marketplace would 'set' the wage at. I certainly don't think that if minimum wage were 'bad for business' it would be around anymore.

On another note, remember that stunt by Jon Stewart where he publicized work on Farms where immigrants were supposedly 'taking jobs away from Americans?' Nobody showed. Those jobs were near minimum wage....
 
just put up a link for the 'study' that proves that quality of life for black folks was better before social safety net programs.

i know poor, middle class and rich people of all races and colors, so trying to group races doesnt' make sense to me.

i have traveled to areas of the world where government programs for assisting the poor aren't as well developed as they are here and i have seen shantytowns with homes made out of debris and people literally living in rubble...

if that's the result of not having social safety net programs for the poor, i wouldn't give those up.
 
minimum wage is a slave wage; period. to blame having a bottom baseline for unemployment is ludicrous. the clear implication here is that ppl would be better off if corporations could get by with paying them LESS!?! how is that a solution to anything but enhancing the already rich? minimum wage should be increased to a living wage; period. somebody's not worth it? fine. don't hire em, but fucking pay your workers enough to earn a decent living. some of you people are so eat up with right wing double-speak it makes me dizzy just watching YOUR heads spin in confusion...
 
CATO is a Libertarian think tank.
Again, right wing propaganda machine.

Who funds CATO? Corporations. For example, the Cato Institute, heavily funded by tobacco companies, hired Robert Levy and Rosalind Marimont to denounce statistics about smoking related deaths in their article "Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths." they assert that government is lying to us and that "the war on smoking...has grown into a monster of deceit and greed".

I can find more, if you wish. Facts are, the Cato Institute is a “libertarian” quasi-academic think-tank that acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. There is no significant participation in Cato by its tiny libertarian minority. These libertarians do not fund Cato or affect its goals. Cato is a creature of corporations and foundations. A propaganda machine. A fraud.
 
Again, right wing propaganda machine.

Who funds CATO? Corporations. For example, the Cato Institute, heavily funded by tobacco companies, hired Robert Levy and Rosalind Marimont to denounce statistics about smoking related deaths in their article "Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths." they assert that government is lying to us and that "the war on smoking...has grown into a monster of deceit and greed".

I can find more, if you wish. Facts are, the Cato Institute is a “libertarian” quasi-academic think-tank that acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. There is no significant participation in Cato by its tiny libertarian minority. These libertarians do not fund Cato or affect its goals. Cato is a creature of corporations and foundations. A propaganda machine. A fraud.

actually it's a non-profit, tax-exempt, free speech entity....lol
 
Back
Top