f_man
01-18-2008, 10:15 AM
http://www.slate.com/id/2181822/
A few years ago, Bill Cosby set off a firestorm with a speech excoriating his fellow African-Americans for, among other things, buying $500 sneakers instead of educational toys for their children. In a recent book, Come On People, he repeats his argument that black Americans spend too much money on designer clothes and fancy cars, and don't invest sufficiently in their futures.
Many in the black community have been critical of Cosby for blaming poor people rather than poor public policies. Others have defended Cosby's comments as an honest expression of uncomfortable truths. But notably absent from the Cosby affair have been the underlying economic facts. Do blacks actually spend more on consumerist indulgences than whites? And if so, what, exactly, makes black Americans more vulnerable to the allure of these luxury goods?
and i know people dont bother to click and read articles, so here are some of the main points:
Economists Kerwin Charles, Erik Hurst, and Nikolai Roussanov have taken up this rather sensitive question in a recent unpublished study, "Conspicuous Consumption and Race." Using data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey for 1986-2002, they find that blacks and Hispanics indeed spend more than whites with comparable incomes on what the authors classify as "visible goods" (clothes, cars, and jewelry). A lot more, in fact—up to an additional 30 percent. The authors provide evidence, however, that this is not because of some inherent weakness on the part of blacks and Hispanics. The disparity, they suggest, is related to the way that all people—black, Hispanic, and white—strive for social status within their respective communities.
Why would otherwise-similar black and white households have different incentives to signal their wealth? Charles, Hurst, and Roussanov argue that it's because blacks and whites are seeking status in different communities. In the racially divided society we live in, whites are trying to impress other whites, and blacks are trying to impress other blacks. But because poor blacks are more likely to live among other poor blacks than poor whites are to live among other poor whites, poor black families are more susceptible to being pulled into a signaling game with their neighbors.
It's not that black Americans are more inclined to signal wealth; rather, poor blacks are more likely than poor whites to be a part of communities where they are relatively rich enough to participate in the signaling game.
and for you trolls:
"7. Racism is a delicate subject and may be discussed, but threads or posts that are made to be demeaning to any particular race are NOT allowed. This goes the same for issues on sexual orientation."
so lets have an intelligent discussion:
1) do you think cosby is wrong and that its all the governments fault for not going out there and preaching to families "hey, why are you spending money on those lebrons, get yourself a math tutor"?
2) based on your personal observations (please describe the kind of neighborhood you live in), does the above argued seem to hold true?
3) i know how reading comprehension works on srk. some of you will argue "but everyone, not just minorities, is subject to conspicuous consumption!" this was a study done scientifically. and theyre evidence is this:
they find that blacks and Hispanics indeed spend more than whites with comparable incomes on what the authors classify as "visible goods" (clothes, cars, and jewelry). A lot more, in fact—up to an additional 30 percent.
if you feel its bs, and that economics in general is bs and has no quanitative argument, please check out this article.
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/erik.hurst/research/race_consumption_qje_submission.pdf
so is economics just a buncha bs in general? or is it something that can be taken with a grain of salt?
A few years ago, Bill Cosby set off a firestorm with a speech excoriating his fellow African-Americans for, among other things, buying $500 sneakers instead of educational toys for their children. In a recent book, Come On People, he repeats his argument that black Americans spend too much money on designer clothes and fancy cars, and don't invest sufficiently in their futures.
Many in the black community have been critical of Cosby for blaming poor people rather than poor public policies. Others have defended Cosby's comments as an honest expression of uncomfortable truths. But notably absent from the Cosby affair have been the underlying economic facts. Do blacks actually spend more on consumerist indulgences than whites? And if so, what, exactly, makes black Americans more vulnerable to the allure of these luxury goods?
and i know people dont bother to click and read articles, so here are some of the main points:
Economists Kerwin Charles, Erik Hurst, and Nikolai Roussanov have taken up this rather sensitive question in a recent unpublished study, "Conspicuous Consumption and Race." Using data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey for 1986-2002, they find that blacks and Hispanics indeed spend more than whites with comparable incomes on what the authors classify as "visible goods" (clothes, cars, and jewelry). A lot more, in fact—up to an additional 30 percent. The authors provide evidence, however, that this is not because of some inherent weakness on the part of blacks and Hispanics. The disparity, they suggest, is related to the way that all people—black, Hispanic, and white—strive for social status within their respective communities.
Why would otherwise-similar black and white households have different incentives to signal their wealth? Charles, Hurst, and Roussanov argue that it's because blacks and whites are seeking status in different communities. In the racially divided society we live in, whites are trying to impress other whites, and blacks are trying to impress other blacks. But because poor blacks are more likely to live among other poor blacks than poor whites are to live among other poor whites, poor black families are more susceptible to being pulled into a signaling game with their neighbors.
It's not that black Americans are more inclined to signal wealth; rather, poor blacks are more likely than poor whites to be a part of communities where they are relatively rich enough to participate in the signaling game.
and for you trolls:
"7. Racism is a delicate subject and may be discussed, but threads or posts that are made to be demeaning to any particular race are NOT allowed. This goes the same for issues on sexual orientation."
so lets have an intelligent discussion:
1) do you think cosby is wrong and that its all the governments fault for not going out there and preaching to families "hey, why are you spending money on those lebrons, get yourself a math tutor"?
2) based on your personal observations (please describe the kind of neighborhood you live in), does the above argued seem to hold true?
3) i know how reading comprehension works on srk. some of you will argue "but everyone, not just minorities, is subject to conspicuous consumption!" this was a study done scientifically. and theyre evidence is this:
they find that blacks and Hispanics indeed spend more than whites with comparable incomes on what the authors classify as "visible goods" (clothes, cars, and jewelry). A lot more, in fact—up to an additional 30 percent.
if you feel its bs, and that economics in general is bs and has no quanitative argument, please check out this article.
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/erik.hurst/research/race_consumption_qje_submission.pdf
so is economics just a buncha bs in general? or is it something that can be taken with a grain of salt?