Skip to content

I've written before about the impact of education on racism. There's considerable evidence that many—but not all—systemic effects of racism are really effects of systemically poor education. Black students, on average, graduate from high school reading at about a 9th grade level, and this hamstrings them throughout the rest of their lives.

Here's another example from a recent study:

We all know that COVID-19 mortality is higher in Black communities than in white communities. But this study, which examines 400,000 death certificates and stratifies them by education, presents a different picture. Race continues to have an impact, but once you account for education it turns out that mortality rates are pretty similar among both Black and white people.¹

More generally, the authors conclude that education has a huge impact on COVID-19 mortality rates, as the chart above makes clear. Roughly speaking, high school grads die at a rate 3x higher than college grads, and this is true for every racial group.

This is purely an observational study. It presents the data but doesn't attempt to ascertain why low education levels are so deadly. There are some obvious possibilities—poor access to health care, crowded neighborhoods, inability to work from home, etc.—but concrete answers will have to wait for further research.

¹The study also includes other racial groups. Compared to white people, mortality rates are higher for Native Americans and lower for both Hispanics and Asian Americans.

Conservatives are outraged by the uniformly negative response to Georgia's new voting law. There are, they say, some good things about the law too.

Fair enough. So I went through and tallied up the major good and bad aspects of the law. The bad things are taken from liberal complaints. The good things are taken directly from what conservatives say. Here's the summary:

The most serious problems with the bill are the three bolded red items at the top. As near as I can tell, conservatives don't even bother to say anything about those aside from a pro forma complaint that Fulton County (home of Atlanta) is totally incompetent and deserves to be taken over anyway.

The others are mostly defended as legitimate ways to increase the security of voting, though without any real attempt to demonstrate that there have been any security problems in the first place.

On the good side of things, it's nice to have an extra Saturday of voting and to make an attempt to do something about long voting lines. Codifying early voting hours is an entirely different thing, however: it probably has no effect on urban centers, which already have longer hours, but it does keep polls open longer in rural areas. I assume we all know that rural areas are generally more heavily Republican, don't we?

Long story short, conservatives protest way too much. Even restricting myself to major provisions of the bill, the score is 11-2 in favor of items that make it harder to vote—especially for Democrats. For the most part, I have a feeling that Georgia Republicans will fail in their attempt to suppress the Democratic vote, partly because they've chosen to target things like absentee ballots, which don't really seem to favor Democrats in the first place, and partly because the other provisions won't have more than a small effect. Nevertheless, the intent to restrict voting is plain as day, and there are only a couple of token provisions that expand voting rights. It's disgraceful, and Republicans have no call to complain that major corporations in Georgia, who don't want to be viewed as accessories to partisan voter suppression that impacts Black voters more than white voters, are publicly complaining about it. What else could they expect?

POSTSCRIPT: I've deliberately omitted lots of minor provisions in the bill. However, if I've missed any major provisions on either side let me know and I'll add them.

UPDATE: I've been convinced that the ban on allowing provisional ballots if you show up at the wrong precinct is probably a fairly major problem. It's been added to the table.

My M-protein level has become so steady it's almost eerie:

But stable means my multiple myeloma is being held at bay, so I have no complaints. (Aside from the Evil Dex, of course.)

Lots of writers these days are moving to Substack, where they can charge subscription fees for their keen insights. But who else offers you a monthly look at their brave fight against cancer in EZ chart form? That's what I call giving the people what they want. How come everyone doesn't do this?

Catherine Rampell provides us with this chart today showing job losses during the pandemic:

Back in December, men and women with children had both lost jobs at about the same rate—and it was a lower rate than men and women without kids. In January, women with kids ticked downward and they haven't made up any ground since then.

There are two possible lessons here. Lesson #1 is that although it took a while to show up, women with kids really have borne the brunt of the recession. Lesson #2 is that there's a lot of noise in the trendlines and you shouldn't draw any firm conclusions from just a few months of data. My personal guess is that in the end, it will turn out that women with children really did lose jobs at a higher rate than others, but the difference is likely to be smallish. It will probably be six months before we know for sure.