3 ms·

You have to be careful with 'disparate impact' because it cuts both ways. For example let's say we live in some utopian world where there is no racial bias but

You have to be careful with 'disparate impact' because it cuts both ways. For example let's say we live in some utopian world where there is no racial bias but for some random reasons different groups of people will break different laws at different rates but overall on average outcomes of the law are the same. If you wanted to introduce racial bias in this system in favour of some group then you could just find the laws that disproportionately effect your favoured group then argue for their removal under the theory of 'disparate impact'. Our world of course is much more complicated but I think it should be clear that 'disparate impact' can be a way to introduce more racial bias into the system.

runako 3y ago
I provided background information and toeholds for further research to underline the fact that this is not a topic that warrants armchair theorizing. Instead, this is a subject that has undergone extended scrutiny over the last 100 years or so, in academia, governing bodies, executive branches, and courts at the local, state, and federal levels. Your perspective has been considered and is present in the literature alongside situations when it may or may not be relevant. > let's say we live in some utopian world where there is no racial bias but for some random reasons different groups of people will break different laws at different rates but overall on average outcomes of the law are the same This scenario has zero relationship to anything in the article, at any level. I'm not sure why you introduced it here.
- DonHopkins 3y ago
  Hey, how about first we improve society enough that we live in some utopian world, then we can worry about dealing with that edge case scenario from a better position than we're in now.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  I think the question is, reasonably, being asked why a government spending benefit that targets one racial group is legal when the audit activity that relates to the spending benefit is not, because the spending benefit targets one racial group.
  - runako 3y ago
    That's a completely different question than that raised by benmmurphy. Again, this is something that will have been discussed at extreme length in the literature, legislative bodies, and the courts over a period of many decades (EITC dates to the '70s, but the scholarship, discussion, and thinking behind it go back further than that). If I had to guess, it would look something like: - poverty is bad for our country, so we should try to alleviate it. - here's a plan that will help - but it will help Black people more than white people, maybe we shouldn't do it (this is a recurring theme in US governance) - that's not ideal, but there is a history to consider (said "history" ended legislatively 7 years prior to the EITC being enacted so a nudge in the other direction likely did not feel unfair to those enacting the EITC). Generally, Americans are more okay with having government help the needy than actively target anybody. This is why there's not a broad push (yet) to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, etc.
- safety1st 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - runako 3y ago
    I thought about rewording my comment, perhaps I should have. I was responding to a comment that tried to muddy the waters by essentially changing the subject. I likely should not have responded, since the comment may not have been in good faith. But obviously people on HN debate all kinds of stuff without having any background, that's part of the fun! Also entirely reasonable for others to inform folks that there is a background of which they may be unaware. The point I was making is that none of the decisions around the EITC are flippant, and one is unlikely to pop onto HN with a novel idea. Your comment is nothing like that, you're citing papers and Congressional testimony. There is absolutely debate here, but helpful debate must be informed by a basic understanding of the lay of the land. For what it's worth, Heriot's position in the cited paper is intellectually interesting (and not similar to the parent comment) but not currently represented at all in our laws or legal precedents.
    - safety1st 3y ago
      Fair enough, thank you for the thoughtful response!

runako 3y ago

I provided background information and toeholds for further research to underline the fact that this is not a topic that warrants armchair theorizing. Instead, this is a subject that has undergone extended scrutiny over the last 100 years or so, in academia, governing bodies, executive branches, and courts at the local, state, and federal levels. Your perspective has been considered and is present in the literature alongside situations when it may or may not be relevant. > let's say we live in some utopian world where there is no racial bias but for some random reasons different groups of people will break different laws at different rates but overall on average outcomes of the law are the same This scenario has zero relationship to anything in the article, at any level. I'm not sure why you introduced it here.

DonHopkins 3y ago
Hey, how about first we improve society enough that we live in some utopian world, then we can worry about dealing with that edge case scenario from a better position than we're in now.
NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
I think the question is, reasonably, being asked why a government spending benefit that targets one racial group is legal when the audit activity that relates to the spending benefit is not, because the spending benefit targets one racial group.
- runako 3y ago
  That's a completely different question than that raised by benmmurphy. Again, this is something that will have been discussed at extreme length in the literature, legislative bodies, and the courts over a period of many decades (EITC dates to the '70s, but the scholarship, discussion, and thinking behind it go back further than that). If I had to guess, it would look something like: - poverty is bad for our country, so we should try to alleviate it. - here's a plan that will help - but it will help Black people more than white people, maybe we shouldn't do it (this is a recurring theme in US governance) - that's not ideal, but there is a history to consider (said "history" ended legislatively 7 years prior to the EITC being enacted so a nudge in the other direction likely did not feel unfair to those enacting the EITC). Generally, Americans are more okay with having government help the needy than actively target anybody. This is why there's not a broad push (yet) to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, etc.
safety1st 3y ago
[flagged]
- runako 3y ago
  I thought about rewording my comment, perhaps I should have. I was responding to a comment that tried to muddy the waters by essentially changing the subject. I likely should not have responded, since the comment may not have been in good faith. But obviously people on HN debate all kinds of stuff without having any background, that's part of the fun! Also entirely reasonable for others to inform folks that there is a background of which they may be unaware. The point I was making is that none of the decisions around the EITC are flippant, and one is unlikely to pop onto HN with a novel idea. Your comment is nothing like that, you're citing papers and Congressional testimony. There is absolutely debate here, but helpful debate must be informed by a basic understanding of the lay of the land. For what it's worth, Heriot's position in the cited paper is intellectually interesting (and not similar to the parent comment) but not currently represented at all in our laws or legal precedents.
  - safety1st 3y ago
    Fair enough, thank you for the thoughtful response!