Saying the mean outcomes should be similar is another way of saying that the finishing points should be the same. The causes of differences are complex, and can't be boiled down to systemic racism. It may play a part, and wherever it does exist, then we should reform that system.
No it’s not. Mean is a statistical measure. If there are no differences in opportunity between two populations, you would expect the mean outcomes for these populations to be similar. If the outcomes are not different, there is something affecting the outcomes. People are people, especially if your sample size is huge as in the entire population of the country.
I would have to review those studies on kids. I think people want to believe there is racism, and don’t look for other explanations. I suspect that the infractions usually are not the same. I have heard about sentences not being meted out evenly, but whenever I follow a case, the sentences seem fair. Do you believe black women may die more frequently during childbirth because of racists doctors or because they don’t have as much money to afford extra care? I think the latter is more likely, and that isn’t racism. That happens to all poor, regardless of their race.
The DA is being charged as appropriate, and the 3 white men got convicted with life sentences, as appropriate. In other words, this defies the popular belief that justice isn't blind. I'm not naïve enough to believe that it is truly blind, but it is a lot more near-sighted than popular belief. I suspect that the vast majority of injustices were due to poor legal representation, not due to racism. The correlation to race will probably be due to the proportions of society of each race that is poor.
I largely agree with you, but I think most income inequality is due to non-wage wealth growth. We need to tax passive non-wage income similar to earned wages. I would tax all passive new capital, such as gifts, short term capital gains and stocks distributions, similar to earned wages. I wouldn't go as far as to tax existing capital that increases in value, because I don't believe it is fair to make people sell off their assets to pay taxes. They can pay when and if they choose to sell. Sometimes those assets lose value, and we don't give people money back, unless they sell at a loss, so we shouldn't make them pay just for holding assets that happen to increase in value.
That is probably because that real estate is undesirable, so it is cheaper, and that means it’ll be populated by poorer people. Air pollution is something that all should want to improve, and I think that has been happening for decades.
Because everyone can’t have the best legal council. It is a fantasy to think poorer people will get the best representation on a regular basis; however, tools such as DNA and video are closing the gap.
Why would the real estate be undesirable?
All real estate should hold the same value regardless of terrain, location, accessibility? Equity of real estate?
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
