Friday, December 29, 2017

Diversity is strength! It's also the death of charity

Riffing off a previous post and a stultifying example of pathological altruism in which a jury who convicted an illegal alien of theft paid her legal fine out of their own pockets (via Derb) comes a graph showing percentages of people, by race, who have made multiple charitable contributions in the last year (N = 5,237):


GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1)(2)(3)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), GIVCHRTY(1-4)(5-6)

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Somewhat surprised at how stingy Hispanics are. Based on personal experience I have always found them to be generous and good tippers, in contrast to blacks who are notorious for leaving no tips. Good example of how you shouldn’t rely on anecdotes.

Anonymous said...

Personal generosity and giving to charity are two different things. The first is immediate in terms of action and effect and disintermediated. The second disconnects the action from result and requires trusting an intermediary to coordinate a collective effort.

Anonymous said...

There seem to be a lot of different factors here, not just class composition. In Britain and Ireland at least, the rich give proportionately less and less often to charity, even foreign aid charities.

Class seems to be a major factor in reverse here but not the only one. If taking only class, then American Indians should be bottom, followed by blacks, then whites and Asians.

Asians and Hispanics seem to be out of kilter perhaps due to both groups being heavily immigrant or of recent immigrant ancestry, taking them down some (But less than I would have imagined) on charitable giving as outsiders who don't care as much about the society they live in.

Andrew Smith said...

I wonder if a sense of victim-hood plays a role here.

For instance, if you feel society is against you, then why should you donate to the less fortunate? Society has told you that you are the less fortunate. Keeping your money is essentially giving it to charity.

The Narrative pushed by the media would have you believe that the 3 lowest giving groups here are victims of the highest giving group.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anons,

Future time orientation conceivably explains a lot here. Another thing that does is presence in an organization where charity is encouraged, notably church or other religious services.

Anon,

There is a clear tendency for members of higher classes to give more to charity than those from lower classes. People with money give away money. Government is viewed as a substitute for personal magnanimity.

Andrew,

Yes, while income and wealth correlate positively with charity, it's not perfect. Asians earn more than whites, but whites give more to charity. Hispanics earn more than blacks, but blacks give more to charity. In the case of blacks especially, I suspect that charity is largely given to black churches that fund things black care about. For us, by us!

JayMan said...

"Pathological altruism" is back?

More accurately, it's runaway universalism.

Audacious Epigone said...

JayMan,

To some extent, it's similar to how "moral posturing" is more descriptive than "virtue signaling"--signaling implies some cost, as in the case of a male peacock's vibrant tail slowing him down and making him more visible to predators--yet the latter has won out as the phrase of choice.

That said, I do make a distinction between runaway universalism and pathological altruism in how I deploy the terms. Caring about an orphan on the other side of the world as much as you care about an orphan down the road is runaway universalism. Caring more about the orphan on the other side of the world than you care about an orphan down the road is pathological altruism.

DissidentRight said...

Christ-cucks are pathologically altruistic. It goes beyond runaway universalism.

Handle said...

In a previous post showing high rates of charitable giving by Jews, you downplayed the disparity by saying it's easier to give if one has more money. Well, why not use the same framework of interpretation with these results? Which is more important in your view, wealth levels or average ethnic character?

scg16121 said...

You'd need to control for income for this to mean anything.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dissident Right,

My wife is Episcopalian. I grew up ELCA Lutheran--the more leftist side of American Lutheranism--and the Episcopalians are still worse. I see this desire to throw resources around to the other side of the world while the front yard is on fire firsthand.

Handle,

The color commentary is just that. In the context of the previous post, which had to do with tax cuts, it was more relevant. But yes, it's relevant here, too. As the US becomes less white its population will become both 1) poorer, and 2) less charitable.

The correlation with wealth is far from perfect though, obviously. Asians earn more in the US than whites do, yet whites are more charitable. Hispanics earn more in the US than blacks do, yet blacks are more charitable.

CJ said...

Somewhat surprised at how stingy Hispanics are. Based on personal experience I have always found them to be generous and good tippers, in contrast to blacks who are notorious for leaving no tips. Good example of how you shouldn’t rely on anecdotes.

Hispanics work in service industries much more often that blacks. They can relate better to the service worker, and because they are more likely to be employed than blacks, they have at least some money. People read about black rappers or athletes throwing money around, but most blacks are chronically broke.