Saturday, September 10, 2011

Diversity is Strength! It's also ... inequality

I'll justify ripping off VDare's recurrent article naming theme by segueing into congratulating the site for getting a much needed aesthetic makeover, and I'll even do so upon discovering that this humble blog has apparently been dropped from VDare's roll as, I hope, an incidental consequence of the revamp. Anyway, I wanted to publish a few odds-and-ends correlations, so instead of cramming them all into the title, I'll just filch it.

At its essence, to celebrate diversity in the contemporary West is to celebrate the portion of the population that is non-white. Contingent upon context, it might also refer to the portion of the population that is non-heterosexual, non-Christian, non-Western European, etc. But in its most recognizable form, diversity is basically synonymous with non-whiteness.

Using that as the definition, the correlation between diversity and income inequality (as measured by the gini coefficient) at the state level in the US is .43 (p = .00).

More than that (much more than that, actually), though, diversity is also poor academic performance. The correlation between NAEP science and math test scores (that I used to estimate average state IQ numbers) and diversity is a vigorous .77 (p = .00).

Parenthetically, one of my earliest recollections of the formation of a personal partisan leaning was after my dad outlined for me the basic differences between the two major parties. I concluded something to the effect of "So, if people are happy and do well, Republicans should do well, too. If they're unhappy and struggling, Democrats should do well." Relative equality isn't sufficient for happiness, but it's probably necessary. And red states are modestly more egalitarian than blue states are--the correlation between McCain's share of the vote and inequality is an inverse .31 (p = .02).

10 comments:

Mike Kenny said...

if i were a cynical democratic strategist taking the long view i might think htis is good--you push for more immigrants to come into the country which presumably will lead to more democrat voters in the long run and a lefward move of the culture, if immigtants are coming from more left leaning cultures, as i think they probably are (economically anyway)--and while this is happening, also the actual inequality palpable to citizens will become more prominent, as more immigrants increase diversity/inequality. democrats would then arguably do better, because they can point to inequality and offer solutions to it, which a more lefty population will be more receptive to. in other words, diversity makes for more inequality and a culture that is more receptive to remedying inequality.

anyway, i am a libertarian, so i don't mind inequality or diversity, but i can see how the politics of increased diversity might damage libertarianism.

basically, as derb has pointed out, we libertarians tend to support immigration, but immigration plausibly will turn the country more economically left-ward, that is, away from libertarianism.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mike,

I wonder how honest libertarians like yourself (presumably!) resolve that conflict. It seems ideologically suicidal (albeit death through very slow bleeding).

Ed Tom Kowalsky said...

At root, "diversity" means blackness. The Leftists who created this dogma have no particular love for Asians, they advocate on behalf of Hispanics only insofar as they're not white, and Amerindians and Arabs are not heavy enough on the ground to serve as a point d'appui.

I constantly hark to corporate TV commercials to make my point. Hispanics are more now more numerous in the US than blacks and they have just as much money to spend, but Hispanics rarely appear in these commercials while blacks appear almost as frequently as whites.

Marketing concerns cannot explain the disparity; only ideology does. White liberals see blacks as the spearhead of the assault on America and the West, and consequently do everything in their power to simultaneously transfigure and enrage blacks. What's more, they are succeeding.

The_King said...

Do you happen to have state IQ estimates for 2011 or predicted for 2012? There has been a noticeable shift in demographics, especially in the New England area. So I'm positive that it affected the IQ average of those states.

Also do you happen to have the IQ averages of nations?

silly girl said...

There is no celebration of diversity.

Look, this blog is the very definition of a different view.

Yet, different views are absolutely shunned.

The celebrate diversity crap is a euphemism for enforcing conformity albeit to a new ethic.

I agree with the point that diversity and inequality are two sides of the same coing

Anonymous said...

"White liberals see blacks as the spearhead of the assault on America and the West, and consequently do everything in their power to simultaneously transfigure and enrage blacks. What's more, they are succeeding."


Yeah, they play on their weaknesses. If blacks were in strict religious schools and constantly preached at to be grateful to the US for freeing them, educating and supporting them, they would have a different ethic. It might not improve academic achievement much, but it would be healthier for their psyche than grievance culture which destroys each individual from within.

Audacious Epigone said...

The_King,

I've updated estimates based on 2009 NAEP scores. Those are the most recent ones I've done.

Re: national averages, see Lynn and Vanhanen.

Anonymous said...

"constantly hark to corporate TV commercials to make my point. Hispanics are more now more numerous in the US than blacks and they have just as much money to spend, but Hispanics rarely appear in these commercials while blacks appear almost as frequently as whites."


Excellent point...and Asians are rarer yet. Of course, to the Elites, if you are doing well--Asians--you can't possibly be a real minority, that is, one that counts.

Mike Kenny said...

audacious, i'm inclined towards reduced immigration, basically--derb characterized the view i think in his saying 'libertarianism in one country.' maybe there are other tricks.

Jerry Blondell said...

"Relative equality isn't sufficient for happiness, but it's probably necessary."
Not true if you consider social mobility. As noted in a comparison of Europe and the USA by Alesina et al. (2001) http://www.cepr.org/pubs/new-dps/dplist.asp?dpno=2877
"social mobility is (or is perceived to be) higher in the US so being poor is not seen as affecting future income. . .There is evidence of ‘inequality generated’ unhappiness in the US only for a sub-group of rich leftists.