By John C. Goodman
Saturday, August 31, 2013
The 50 year anniversary of Martin Luther King's march on
Washington is causing a lot of people in my generation to reminisce.
In doing so, it is hard not to be struck by two puzzling
facts: (a) the fall of racial barriers to success almost everywhere and (b) the
lack of economic progress in the black community as a whole, relative to
whites. On the one hand, it would seem that a black in America can achieve
almost anything, even being elected president of the United States. On the
other hand, if we compare the economic condition of blacks and whites as a
whole, you would be tempted to conclude that almost no progress has been made.
For example, blogger Brad Plummer reminds us that:
· The gap in
household income between blacks and whites hasn't really narrowed at all in the
last 50 years.
· The black
unemployment rate has consistently been twice as high as the white unemployment
rate for 50 years.
· For the past
50 years, black unemployment has almost always been at recession levels.
This incongruity has given rise to two liberal myths —
repeated frequently on television talk shows over the past week: (a) that the
fall in racial barriers is the result of liberal legislation, designed to
outlaw discrimination in the private sector and (b) that the lack of economic
progress is evidence that liberals haven't done enough — that still more
intervention is needed to correct the effects of current and past
discrimination.
The reality I believe is just the reverse. The decline of
racial barriers in the job market and throughout the economic system — at least
outside the south — had very little to do with liberal legislation. But the
lack of economic progress by the black community as a whole is in many ways the
result of the liberal approach to politics. On balance, liberalism has been an
obstacle to black progress, not a help.
The natural assumption is to believe that a lot of labor
market regulation is preventing discrimination — against blacks and other minorities,
against women, against…Well, against just about everybody who isn't a young,
white male with an Ivy League degree. However, June O'Neill, an economist who
used to direct the Congressional Budget Office, and her husband Dave O'Neill
have produced a comprehensive study of this issue and they find that the
natural assumption is wrong.
Take the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The O'Neills find that
the black/white wage gap was narrowing at about the same rate in the two
decades leading up to the passage of the act as it did in the years that
followed. Only in the South is there evidence that the legislation mattered.
Outside the South, federal legislation basically followed social change rather
than lead it. The wages of blacks rose relative to those of whites over time
for two primary reasons: (1) more schooling and better schooling and (2) the
migration of blacks out of the South.
[The approach of the Kennedy White House to race
relations, by the way, was similar to the way Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama
approached gay rights. One is tempted to call it "cowardly." In all
these cases, the politicians waited until public opinion had clearly shifted
before announcing their own change of heart and before doing or saying anything
that would be considered politically risky. In other words, these presidents
didn't lead. They followed.]
But isn't there a lot of discrimination going on right
now? Isn't regulation combatting it? Take the difference in pay for black and
white men. The O'Neills find that the difference narrows to just 4% after
adjusting for years of schooling and it reduces to zero when you factor in test
scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT), which is basically an
intelligence test. In other words, after adjusting for just two factors that cause
people to be different, the pay gap between black and white men disappears
entirely. Among women, the gap actually reverses after adjusting for education
and AFQT scores. Black women get paid more than white women.
Among Hispanic and white men, the pay gap narrows to 8%
after adjusting for years of schooling and disappears altogether with the
addition of AFQT scores. Among the women, these two variables cause the pay gap
to reverse. As in the case of race, Hispanic women are actually paid somewhat
more than white women.
But if discrimination isn't holding back black Americans,
what is? Answer: the liberal economics.
The political genius of Roosevelt was to combine people
who had nothing in common and who didn't even like each other into one grand
coalition. This included farmers, labor union members, civil servants, the
elderly, southern racists, blacks, etc. [Yes, black and white racists in the
South both voted Democrat for years!] For each group, the liberal Democrat
approach was to use the power of government to intervene in the marketplace. In
return they expected political support. For example, the farmers got price
supports; the steel workers got tariffs; the elderly got Social Security, etc.
In the Franklin Roosevelt era, the Interstate Commerce
Commission (ICC) became a cartel agent for the trucking industry as well as the
railroads. The Civil Aeronautics Board became a cartel agent for the airlines.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) became a cartel agent for the
broadcasters. The primary goal of all these agencies was to suppress
"ruinous competition" and make sure the industries were profitable.
Of course, you could argue (and some economists did) that regulation served the
interest of both consumers and producers — a viewpoint that largely rejects
almost everything Adam Smith said in the Wealth of Nations. However, even the
pretense of consumer protection was blatantly tossed aside with the passage of
the National Industrial Recovery Act.
The goal of the NIRA (modeled after Italian fascism) was
to allow each industry to set its own prices, set its own wages and control its
own output. Had Roosevelt gotten his way, we would have had predatory
monopolies in every market. Fortunately, the NIRA was declared unconstitutional
by the Supreme Court. But suppose the court had ruled the other way? Or suppose
president Roosevelt had succeeded in his effort to overturn the decision by
packing the court? Can you imagine what would have happened to blacks,
immigrants, other minorities and any new entrants to the labor market?
Almost all government intervention in the labor market
was designed to help establish unions (the modern equivalent of medieval
guilds) and to promote their interests. Minimum wage laws were seen not as a
way of lifting people out of poverty, but as a way of preventing blacks and
other outsiders from competing for jobs. Skilled labor competes against
unskilled labor. And the political goal of skilled labor has always been to
price its competition out of the market.
Similarly, equal-pay-for-equal-work laws and the Davis
Bacon Act (requiring that all workers on federal projects be paid the prevailing
union wage) were seen as ways to prevent black workers from
"stealing" white worker's jobs. In the old days, before there was
"political correctness," politicians actually said these things in
congressional debates.
What I'm describing contradicts not only Adam Smith, but
also almost all of modern economics. Special monopoly privileges designed for
one group create benefits for that group, but harm everyone else. And the harm
to society as a whole is inevitably much greater than the benefits to the special
interests.
That's where black Americans come in. Liberal government
promises them a pittance or two. But these are mere crumbs compared to the harm
of being closed out of huge portions of the labor market. Of being forced to
send their children to bad schools because they cannot afford the price of an
expensive house. Of being denied the right to choose better schools for their
children because of counter promises made to the teacher's unions. Of being
forced to rely on public provision of housing, transportation, and medical care
because government regulation has priced low-cost alternatives out of the
market. Of being seduced by a welfare state that subsidizes and enables single
black mothers who try to provide for the 73% of all black children who are born
out of wedlock. Of watching traditional black culture disintegrate along with
the black family.
Here is background reading:
On the Democrats' unholy history on the question of race,
see Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past.
On the consequences of liberal policies for black
America, see Walter Williams, The State Against Blacks and other writings.
On an editorial that makes some of these same points, see
Dr. Ben Carson, MLK Would Be Alarmed by Black-on-Black Violence, Lack of Family
Values.
No comments:
Post a Comment