3 ms·

Neither of those links/graphs show that inequality had decreased. His argument is based on the false assumption that one-hump is more equal than two. Here are

Neither of those links/graphs show that inequality had decreased. His argument is based on the false assumption that one-hump is more equal than two. Here are some graphs that argue the other way: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/pikettys-inequality-story-in-six-charts http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/pikettys-inequali.... Note that the decrease in inequality after WW2 is due to the New Deal and other massive social welfare programs that redistributed wealth. The moment we stopped doing that inequality started growing again. The only way to counter the Matthew Effect is to change the feedback loop. The post-WW2 programs and post-civil rights movement Affirmative Action programs (coincidentally affirmed by SCOTUS today) are examples of doing just that. I'll not make an argument for the merits of desegregating society here, but the Parable of the Polygons (http://ncase.me/polygons http://ncase.me/polygons) is another example of how deliberate counteractions are the only way to change the "natural" course of things. Human culture (including evolving social mores, laws and science) is a prime example of changing the natural course of things. Laissez-faire doesn't always work. How do such decisions cause the Matthew Effect? In so many ways! But here's one to get you started: Black Americans are clearly less advantaged than white Americans. That translates to white Americans growing up in a safer environment, being better educated, having more connections to other advantaged people, not being constantly violated (I highly recommend you read Ta-Nehisi Coates's Between the World and Me) the way blacks are -- I could go on and on. So of course whites will more often be "better hires" from a pure business perspective. So more whites get hired for better jobs. So guess whose children get to live in better neighborhoods, get to go to better schools, and all the other advantages I listed earlier? That is the Matthew Effect.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Your polygon parable shows that phase segregation is a natural result of like-dissolves-like (something chemists have long known), and will likely occur naturally as a result of individual choices rather than malicious effects. While this is interesting - it provides strong evidence that various racial disparities may NOT be the result of racism - it doesn't support the Matthew Effect at all. Black Americans are clearly less advantaged than white Americans. No one disputes this. The question is why this will result in differing exponential growth rates. You haven't provided a mechanism for this. Indians and Chinese are also clearly more disadvantaged than black Americans - just think how much effort they need to go through simply to get the natural advantage of being legally permitted to work in the US. Yet their growth rate (in terms of life expectancy, income, etc) is higher. This demonstrates that your "clearly less advantaged" theory does not imply differing exponential growth rates. Also, your source about within-country inequality (i.e. Piketty) is silly. Even if we only assign 3/5 weight to Indians and Chinese people [1], inequality has still decreased. Any discussion of inequality which mentions Balzac more frequently than India/China/Africa (such as Piketty's book) is hopelessly myopic. [1] Is there a reason that the Indian people around me (I'm in India) deserve less weight than Frenchies? I'd love an answer more detailed than "Trump 2016!!! WOO YEAH!"

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Your polygon parable shows that phase segregation is a natural result of like-dissolves-like (something chemists have long known), and will likely occur naturally as a result of individual choices rather than malicious effects. While this is interesting - it provides strong evidence that various racial disparities may NOT be the result of racism - it doesn't support the Matthew Effect at all. Black Americans are clearly less advantaged than white Americans. No one disputes this. The question is why this will result in differing exponential growth rates. You haven't provided a mechanism for this. Indians and Chinese are also clearly more disadvantaged than black Americans - just think how much effort they need to go through simply to get the natural advantage of being legally permitted to work in the US. Yet their growth rate (in terms of life expectancy, income, etc) is higher. This demonstrates that your "clearly less advantaged" theory does not imply differing exponential growth rates. Also, your source about within-country inequality (i.e. Piketty) is silly. Even if we only assign 3/5 weight to Indians and Chinese people [1], inequality has still decreased. Any discussion of inequality which mentions Balzac more frequently than India/China/Africa (such as Piketty's book) is hopelessly myopic. [1] Is there a reason that the Indian people around me (I'm in India) deserve less weight than Frenchies? I'd love an answer more detailed than "Trump 2016!!! WOO YEAH!"