Randoms

Immigration in the old days.

Half Sigma has more on divorce rates and education/income, which backs up what I said the other day. I’m guessing the likelihood of divorce, if you marry a smart chick who’s not slutty (pre-marriage), is less than 10%.

The fundamental difference between progressivess and conservatives is that when progressives see "a problem" they think they understand the problem and can fix it. For example, here’s Matthew Yglesias concluding that a "gender pay gap" exists because a study that controlled for college majors has found that, within majors, women earn less right out of college. It’s time to confront the fact that women make different career choices than men (in this case, the progressive errs in identifying a problem). DC is filled with women who come here right after college and want to work for various non-profits. In the last month, three women in their mid-to-late-twenties have told me that they moved here to "work in sustainability." No man has ever said something that stupid to me.

Simon Rierdon: "there is only one country in the world that is keeping the status quo alive in the western hemisphere and that’s Germany."

When people elect shitty leaders why is the resultant crappy governance the fault of the leaders and not the people?

Prisons are apparently destroying the family. Because prisoners routinely come from such close-knit families and communities . . .

Andrew Sullivan temporarily stops blogging about the real mother of Trig Palin for long enough to blog that people should respect Weiner’s privacy. There really is no dumber species than the mainstream pundit.

Advertisements

22 Responses to Randoms

  1. aretae says:

    Prisons, families.

    There has been a MASSIVE decrease in 2-parent families, particularly among poor and blacks in the last 50 years.

    As far as I can tell, there are a rather limited number of suspects.

    1. Less social opprobrium to being unmarried
    2. Prisons (now massively filled with poor/minorities)
    3. Welfare, and specifically AFDC.
    4. Generally rising incomes, and relatively high costs of marriage.

    As with almost all social issues, it’s probably a complex combination of the 4. Saying prisons ain’t a (big) part of the problem seems to be quite a stretch.

    How do you explain, not the fact, but the shift?

    • Foseti says:

      You really want to argue that all the black guys in prison would otherwise be good family men?

      • aretae says:

        The question is not ALL…the question is what happens on the margin.

        You and I disagree (from before) on what percentage of drug users’ criminality is caused by the drug war. Of the low IQ druggies I know in CA, for most of them their only crime is smoking weed. My estimate is that on the order of 50% (+/- 25%) of drug users are otherwise non-criminal.

        My contention:
        (b) black guys were apparently mostly good family men in 1950. Now, 60 years later, it obviously ain’t the genetics that have changed…it’s some other features.
        One of the major changes is that now, 1 in 3 black men get incarcerated, with between 1/4 and 1/2 of all offenders in prison/jail specifically for drug crimes, and NOTHING ELSE.

        So…play the game…what has made the rate of black divorce go from 30% in the ’70 to 70% in 2010?

        If you don’t count inordinate incarceration of black men as responsible for a notable part of that, then you’re smoking something that puts you in danger of prison…or at least it would if you were black.

      • Handle says:

        Not necessarily disagreeing with you Aretae, but from a purely argument-structure analysis perspective, there’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem here if you’re going to frame it that way, n’est pas?

      • Leonard says:

        It’s not whether or not prisoners would be good family men. It is whether they can be family men at all. With 10% of the black male population in jail at any given time, there is a skew in the black male:female ratio. In some inner cities, a much higher percentage of the population is incarcerated. This skews the sex ratio hugely.

        Black women, being less attractive than the majority, cannot easily substitute non-black men. When the male:female ratio drops in a population, we can expect the women to compete for male attention via sluttiness.

        That said, I agree with others posting here that the main factor is welfare. The black family disintegrated before America started getting serious about the associated criminality. If you penalize marriage and subsidize children, you get unwed mothers. Imprisonment did not cause this dynamic, but it probably worsened it.

      • Foseti says:

        Interesting points

    • K(yle) says:

      You’d have to be functionally retarded to get married as a young fertile black woman. That’s what happened. That’s excluding hypergamy as well, where black women have systematically outstripped black men in terms of social status even among the cohort of black males that never does any real time.

      You get paid lots of money to have kids and not get married. Mystery solved.

      • Satanam in computatrum says:

        ^^^ This; If you subsidize something, you get more of it. It all goes back to feedback. The ’60s and ’70s saw a lot of social and legal consequences (i.e. negative feedback) of things like divorce and children out of wedlock removed. As a result, you have more of both. These things were done for noble reasons, but have resulted in many undesired consequences, some of them disastrous. It is perhaps the greatest living example we have of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

    • More Anon says:

      “Less social opprobrium to being unmarried… How do you explain, not the fact, but the shift?”

      One marginal cause: some forms of opprobium are actually outlawed now. Back in the ’60s, I think, college students who wanted to shack up without guilt worked to pass laws outlawing housing discrimination on the basis of marital status.

      This meant that neighborhoods and hotels, even in minority areas, could less easily self-segregate into “respectable” and “disreputable.”

      And since these laws passed in California and New York first (I think), that meant the stock character of the “nosy landlord/landlady policing virtue” was no longer a realistic character for Hollywood and the New York media to portray, even to spoof.

      Social benefits for marrying, such as informal employer preferences for married men, are also outlawed by feminist equal pay standards.

  2. Lester Hunt says:

    So Sullivan, and the people he quotes, think that all America behaves this way but is ashamed to admit it, that this sort of thing is “ubiquitous”?? Sheesh. He must live in Mondo Creepo.

  3. Tschafer says:

    There’s never any need to refute libertarian “arguments”… all you need to do is let them keep talking, because since they hate authority far more than they love liberty, it’s only a matter of (very little) time before they say something stupid.

  4. CTD says:

    5. Drug War

  5. stephen says:

    Marriage has never been much of an African thing (from what I have read). Perhaps the question isn’t why has marriage amongst blacks been such a weak institution in the post civil rights era, but what made it as strong as it was before.

  6. Tschafer says:

    The problem with the “prison causes social dysfunction” theory is that crime rates among all races went up significantly BEFORE prison populations went up, with a lag of almost twenhty years. Rates of incareration actually declined in the 1960’s and 1970’s, as crime rates rose. I’m not saying that locking people up for smoking reefer is a good idea, but you certainly can’t say that the drug war led to social dysfunction, since the social dysfunction started first.

  7. RS says:

    > a smart chick who’s not slutty

    A priori I should think C is somewhat more determinant of divorce – and probably also somewhat more correlative – than IQ is. Since C is hard to assess precisely, a priori such thoughts may always remain.

    Of course, C probably is partly a direct result of intelligence – and furthermore, separately, linked to it through assortative mating. So IQ and C may correlate rather highly.

    Of course, even if C is a stronger cause of nondivorce, IQ could still be a stronger correlative – pretty sure that is mathematically possible – and thus a better scalar predictor. But there is no need to restrict oneself to a scalar; one can assess IQ and C both.

    • aretae says:

      RS,

      I think you’re referencing C as Conscientiousness from big-5 personality traits?

      While I’m inclined to agree that C should be a big player here as well, I thought that last thing I read suggested that IQ and C were mildly negatively correlated, as are IQ and Agreeableness IQ and Openness to new experience are positively correlated.

  8. RS says:

    > The fundamental difference between progressivess and conservatives is that when progressives see “a problem” they think they understand the problem and can fix it.

    I think you only say that because eugenics is under the ban since before our birth, and every other sane notion has also subsided in one extent or another.

    If I were king, you’d be saying, ‘wow, Imperator RS is blasting away at all ills with rationalistic intervention!’. And vice versa if you were king.

  9. RS says:

    > black guys were apparently mostly good family men in 1950. Now, 60 years later, it obviously ain’t the genetics that have changed

    I think it’s likely that they have materially changed, perhaps enough to cause about 33% of the change. 60 years is four generations for a significant band of Blacks, or barely less than four.

    The dysgenesis for IQ just in terms of differential parity is quite strong, and has been strong, about 1.8x worse than in Whites. Throw in differential generation time by IQ and…

    But IQ isn’t the only trait that’s changed. It’s likely C has declined; as I discussed about a week ago, it’s likely a priori that A has declined.

  10. Simon Rierdon says:

    Thanks Foseti for the link. The comments on this post have been enlightening to say the least.

  11. Jehu says:

    Mass immigration since the 1960s has also seriously hurt black employment levels for men. This hurts black ‘dad’s vs ‘cads’.

  12. dearieme says:

    “When people elect shitty leaders why is the resultant crappy governance the fault of the leaders and not the people?” Because you can’t hang the people?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: