Discuss amongst yourselves

I don’t even remember what I wrote on this week. Ah well.

It’s the way that he moves, the things that he do

Whoa-oh-oh. And we hear again from JB:

Yeah, I agree it was a poor e-mail that I originally wrote. I should’ve just summarized my objection in one sentence: if it’s better for women to stay home because it reduces supply, why not keep most of the men home, too, putting salaries through the roof?

JB – who is actually a decent guy – isn’t referring to the previous email posted here, but one sent to me several weeks ago that I ignored. (You may wish to note that the longer and more meandering an email, the greater the chance that I will not respond to it. Either present a complete case or ask straightforward questions.)

While I won’t say that he now presents a good question, it is at least a straightforward one. But to address the question directly, an economy with dearth of men will not thrive in the short and intermediate terms, because economic growth depends on technological advancement. As has been demonstrated quite conclusively over thirty years of equalitarianism, technological advancement is a man’s game, and indeed, largely a young man’s game* at that.

In the long term, the economy requires more women to stay home and raise families than currently do because working women are less likely to marry, less likely to have children and more likely to have fewer children. Men simply can’t do that and the alternative, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is to import Muslims and Mexicans. Subsituting gastarbeiter for children has not worked well for the Bundesrepublik and it is unlikely to work any better in America.

*I was once invited to an elite gathering of 20 CEOs. Andy Grove of Intel was the host, and the head of Viacom was there along with several other Fortune 500 organizations. When one of the big kahunas wondered aloud why there were three young guys with leather jackets and earrings at the table with his respectable ilk, Grove explained that we were there as representatives of the game industry and the only ones pressuring Intel to make faster computers.

Now I’m the one wondering what anyone needs a 3GHz computer for. But I’m not so old that the thought of a physics model accelerator doesn’t give me a momentary thrill.

Fred anticipates the arena

It’s not hard to understand why he’s kicking back in Mexico, watching events unfold with sardonic amusement:

From the Washington Post: “Nearly half of the nation’s children under 5 are racial or ethnic minorities, and the percentage is increasing mainly because the Hispanic population is growing so rapidly, according to a census
report released today.”

Now in newspaper parlance, “minorities” means “permanently underperforming and inassimilable minorities,” which is to say blacks, Latinos and, when anybody remembers, American Indians. It very seldom means successful minorities, such as Chinese, Greeks, white men, Jews, or Anglo-Saxons.

As we look forward to a massive slewing away from the dominance of European whites in America, what may we expect? What will these huge minority populations do? It is instructive to look at what they have done so far….

Law enforcement in America relies on having a white population that is mostly law-abiding. It has no good way of responding to large numbers of violent criminals, especially when they are backed by politically potent voting blocs. The crucial question, or a crucial question, is what proportion of the new minorities will fall into the permanent underclass? How much permanent underclass can the nation stand?

Another crucial question is this: If half the children today are of minorities, then in no more than eighteen years half the kids of college age will be. Unless they show a sudden scholarly afflatus which has not heretofore been in evidence, this means that soon the US will have to compete with China with the brains of only half the nation. This is not to mention secondary effects, such as enstupidating all schools to hide the failures of the minorities.

Here’s my prediction. Within 20 years, the vast majority of White Americans who are today so proudly pro-diversity and anti-racist will be more openly and virulently racist than was ever seen in South during the Civil Rights struggle. Those who have read Thomas Sowell or have travelled widely will know USA that daily exposure to significant ethnic and cultural differences increases tensions and the potential for violence, it does not reduce it.

Most Americans would be shocked at the way Italians discuss Germans, the way Germans talk about the French and the way the English talk about everyone, especially the “pakkis” in their midst.

Multiculturalism is a slow-acting social disease.

For want of a nail, a hammer is useless

Dan badly needs a new tool:

Vox Day is still claiming that women in the workforce are bad for the economy. I still stand by my assertations that: (A) women in the workforce give employers more choice in selecting employees and allow for better overall employee value (in the absence of government interference in selection of employees or amounts paid to them), and (B) any drops in wage rates are compensated by drops in prices and better selection due to the increased productivity of having a larger worker pool in a free market. However, just in case there was something I overlooked, I checked the empirical evidence.

I pulled up Google Gapminder (previously blogged on here) and checked some data. First I pulled up a graph of Income per Capita vs. Percent of women in the workforce. I set the date at its earliest time and “played” the graph (this let the graph move through time). There was no correlation. I did the same for economic growth vs percent of women in the workforce (hint, put the economic growth axis on a log scale). While playing it through was entertaining, it did NOT show any correlation either. Finally, I did the same for fertility rates vs women in the workforce. Here, actually I was expecting to see some correlation, but I STILL didn’t find any. In fact, after playing through a number of other factors, the only correlations I could find were by inference. Women in the workforce correlate fairly well with time (the little bubbles tended to go up in general) and they correlate very well with Geographic Region (the balls clumped fairly closely together according to color).

Now, Correlation does not equal causation. However, causation DOES lead to correlation – unless the cause is so weak that it can be masked by background noise. In any case, percent of women in the workforce is NOT a significant factor an empirical look at income per capita, economic growth or even fertility rates – contrary to what Vox would have you believe.

I began to put together a comprehensive rebuttal, until it became quite clear that one was unneccessary. Dan’s tools simply aren’t up to the task and his entire argument is structured on their faulty foundation. This is what comes from relying on pretty Internet graphs instead of looking up the actual data yourself.

To give the most blatant example, Dan states that the percent of women in the American workforce is not a significant factor in fertility rates. However, the statistics clearly show otherwise.

Percentage women in the workforce 1960: 37.7 percent
Percentage women in the workforce 2000: 60.2 percent
Delta: 61.8 percent increase

Births per 1000 women 1960: 118.0
Births per 1000 women 2000: 66.3
Delta: 56.2 percent decrease

Far from being background noise, that’s a tremendous correlation and further investigation will reveal the obvious causation, as no one will be surprised to learn that working women are less likely to marry, less likely to have children if they do marry and have fewer children if they do have children.

As for the theoretical meanderings which these errant facts are supposed to support, the less said the better. Spurious and shallow are two of the first adjectives that spring to mind. And again, my original statement was that women working are bad for wage rates, which creates a host of other social ills. It is bad for the economy in many ways, beneficial in others and I have not worked out the net.

Back to the blackboard, Dan. You’re certainly welcome to try again, but I suggest doing your research next time.