> Basically, when you control for education level, Asians come out just behind whites while black and Hispanic minorities still get shafted. The Post convenien

> Basically, when you control for education level, Asians come out just behind whites while black and Hispanic minorities still get shafted. The Post conveniently leaves out important parts of the paper's findings because it contradicts the conclusion they wanted to draw: The process of institutional economic discrimination against Asians in America was equal to and in many cases stronger than that against black Americans. Hillger's paper argues that, once institutional discrimination was lifted, high-gradient societal discrimination was no match for market forces (suppressed wages for the same productivity from an Asian employee is an opportunity for easy arbitrage by a competent capitalist). These market forces did not have a similar convergence-to-white-income effect on the black labor pool, and Hillger's paper uses measures of productivity not dependent on education to at largely explain the variation. I'm of the opinion that statistical discrimination is pretty messed up too, so this doesn't mean everything is right with the world and no further problems with racism exist. I also get that many people think that statistical racial discrimination is warranted, which leads to the kind of mental backflips necessary to write an article like this. But that doesn't change the fact that pretending that productivity differences are irrelevant is simply bad reporting by the Post: At best, it's shockingly shoddy and at worst it's simply dishonest. Hillger's original paper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8J_qdFYwNJ6TXdRVkM5S3lMNUU/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8J_qdFYwNJ6TXdRVkM5S3lMNUU... Some more concise analysis with excerpts from the paper: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/11/upward-mobility-discrimination-asians-african-americans.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/11/upw...