3 ms·

The problem is that the concept isn't precise enough. You'll find striking differences within a given "racial group" once you break it down into more useful des

The problem is that the concept isn't precise enough. You'll find striking differences within a given "racial group" once you break it down into more useful descriptors. See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U... Look at Native Americans, where the median household income is almost double for some subgroups compared to others. For Asians, the income difference is more than double between Indians and Bangladeshis. American Turks seem to do extremely well, while I expect the numbers for German Turks would be a fair bit lower. So if you're trying to analyze things, whether for medicine (blood pressure), or sociology (impacts of racism, benefits of economic intervention), racial groups are a pretty poor categorization, vulnerable to Simpson's paradox. One classic conservative argument against reparations is that it lumps in rich Nigerian immigrants with poor African-American descendants of slavery. Seems like their logic could actually be used to support this change.

tristor 4y ago
I agree that a more precise indicator (like ethnicity) is probably more useful. I think becoming even more precise than this likely is even more useful, however with precision comes added complexity/specificity as well. That said, your example about Native American income groups isn't the argument you likely think it is. That has been investigated pretty thoroughly and found to be nearly entirely based on shared tribal ownership of businesses like casinos or oil fields, which pay out to the entire tribe. Overall Native Americans in the US are at a socioeconomic disadvantage compared to non-NA populations, primarily because they are in largely undeveloped (from a business/economic perspective) areas of the country, which are not considered targets of development. They suffer from both ethnic disparities as well as the same disparities that generally affect rural vs urban populations.

tristor 4y ago

I agree that a more precise indicator (like ethnicity) is probably more useful. I think becoming even more precise than this likely is even more useful, however with precision comes added complexity/specificity as well. That said, your example about Native American income groups isn't the argument you likely think it is. That has been investigated pretty thoroughly and found to be nearly entirely based on shared tribal ownership of businesses like casinos or oil fields, which pay out to the entire tribe. Overall Native Americans in the US are at a socioeconomic disadvantage compared to non-NA populations, primarily because they are in largely undeveloped (from a business/economic perspective) areas of the country, which are not considered targets of development. They suffer from both ethnic disparities as well as the same disparities that generally affect rural vs urban populations.