A new Fed paper tries to estimate the difference in unemployment benefits between Black and white workers. Here's the raw data:
Fewer Black workers are eligible for UI benefits compared to white workers. However, even among those eligible for UI, Black workers receive UI benefits at a much lower rate than white workers (42% vs. 55%) and receive much lower benefits ($1,799 vs. $3,098).
The difference in benefit amount is largely due to lower Black earnings. However, the difference in being authorized to receive benefits in the first place is not. The authors performed a decomposition and concluded that lower earnings and living in the South (which is generally stingier about UI benefits) accounted for about half the difference in UI receipt among eligible workers, while other demographic factors accounted for nearly nothing. This suggests that about 50% of the difference in receipt of UI is likely due to racial factors:
Racial gaps in UI receipt are sizable. Among individuals that are eligible for UI, raising the Black take-up rate to the white level would lead to a 14 percentage point increase in the share of individuals that receive UI and a $1,299 increase in mean UI benefits. To put the size of this gap in perspective, Black individuals that are eligible for UI earn an average of $28,055 per year, $12,657 less than white individuals on average. Thus the UI gap is equal to 5% of Black individuals’ yearly earnings and 10% of the Black-white earnings gap.
This should be considered tentative data until it's confirmed by other studies. However, it's very likely real, and for people (like me!) who are always asking for current examples of systemic racism, this is one of them. For reasons that appear to be related to race and nothing more, Black workers who are eligible for UI simply aren't approved to receive it as frequently as white workers.
Progressives in the 1930's often believed in local authority--power to the people--that, plus the power of the Democrats who were the power in the Senate meant that many of the programs, including UI, were administrated by locals, which IMO usually meant representatives of the elite, which meant whites in the South. That was true in farm programs so I'm not surprised to see a similar pattern in UI.
Black workers who are eligible for UI simply aren't approved to receive it as frequently
Is this issue applying and not being approved, or not applying even when eligible? I'm not seeing anything in the data to distinguish the two.
The Fed paper uses the term "take-up", in "the vast majority of this gap in UI receipt is due to lower take-up of UI benefits among those who are eligible for UI."
I think this means that eligible black unemployed are less likely to apply. Some are saying no to the system before the system has a chance to say yes to them.
Is the failure to apply actually strong evidence of racism? Or might it be evidence of say lack of education.
I would think a bias in the rejection of applicants would, potentially, be more compelling evidence of bias.
Middleoftheroaddem is Charles Murray.
I knew it!
What does "eligible for UI simply aren't approved to receive it " mean?
You have to go to an office, submit a request, get interviewed, and someone decides if you get benefits? You have to submit a form and provide evidence of three criteria?
I'm loathe to get worked up here until I understand exactly what is or is not happening. I thought, for the most part, unemployment insurance in the US was pretty mechanical these days, not some business of interviews and people judging whether you are "worthy" or not.
When I look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_insurance_in_the_United_States#Eligibility
the only one of these that seems like it could be even slightly controversial is
"A worker must be available for work and must accept a suitable offer of employment"
so is this what the argument is about? Some combination of unemployed people refusing to accept employment as being "non-suitable" whereas the official in charge believes it is "suitable"?
Found this online: https://decisionhr.com/unemployment-insurance/#:~:text=The%20state%20makes%20the%20ultimate,agencies%20and%20non%2Dprofits).
Here are a few reasons that benefits may be allowed:
A permanent separation due to lack of work
Still working part-time, on call or as needed based on business needs
Quit with good cause attributable to the employer
Discharged due to reasons that are not considered willful misconduct
Some reasons that benefits may be denied include:
Quit without good cause related to the work
Still working full time
Still working a set, part-time schedule that does not change or fluctuate and was agreed upon at the time of hire (certain states only)
Discharged for willful misconduct related to the work
Lots of room for judgment.
Are "black" workers fired for cause more often than others? I'm thinking probably yes. Where I work, a young black man was fired for cause last fall. And another one murdered by his gang buddies. Both were temps I think. To be fair... some white dude where I work was murdered by his wife so... you know, not really a racial thing. It happens in a big place.
My employer last had a lay off in 2019. Mostly all old people. I can't say if any were black. Probably not.
If Drum thinks this is a case of systemic racism then he doesn't understand what systemic racism is.
If it isnt this, what is it then?
Not every racial difference is due to racism. Asian people have better academic performance, Hispanic people tend to live in multi generational homes, Middle easterners tend to have large families. Does this mean society considered their race and made them do these things or did they just make the deliberate choice?
If we can prove more black people are rejected unfairly that’s one thing, but just saying less black people got UI doesn’t prove anything. It’s just bad social science
You state "For reasons that appear to be related to race and nothing more, Black workers who are eligible for UI simply aren't approved to receive it as frequently as white workers."
Is it not POSSIBLE that the data shows something different. For example, it could be that people with lower educational attainment apply for unemployment benefits less frequently. Blacks, at a national level do have lower educational attainment than white or Asians.
Thus, its POSSIBLE that this data is capturing something different than the conclusion you state. I am not suggesting one ignores the data; rather, take the next step and have control groups (for example, similarly educated whites in the same state) THEN test the concept.
These days you don't generally apply in person for these benefits. So the "system" doesn't know what your race is-- and a fair number of people who work in those offices are black themselves. I doubt it's a case of a gang of racist twits at the UI office rubber stamping denials on black workers.
There's a concept "God of the gaps," i.e., Christian apologists attribute anything that science can't currently explain (e.g., the Big Bang) to God. Kevin has the "system racism of the gaps": any racial disparity he can't explain is evidence of systemic racism.
If you're accusing Kevin Drum of being woke, you are sadly mistaken.
You’re right on that, but he does hit this pitfall frequently. The burden of proof for systemic racism is scraping bedrock at this point, it’s pretty much “difference = racism”
If the application system is automated, maybe the system design reflects white ways of thinking, such as privileging analysis over narrative. So Black people have difficulty navigating the system. That really would be a good example of what CRT theorists mean by systemic racism.
No, then blacks are dumb. Many blacks are paranoid. But they miss the point, especially down south where the negro is very religious. Singing the hymns and swinging the arms. I drove down to Alabama in the 00's with my cousin(her boyfriend was getting wisdom teeth pulled. The huge riffs between Ohio black vs Alabama's blacks were well........large.
Oh Jesus Christ.
So this is the kind, woke, way of saying "Blacks are too stupid to apply for UI"?
Assuming this theory is correct, how is it proposed that we fix this? If "privileging analysis over narrative" is unacceptable, what form of "better education" do you imagine will actually improve things, especially if that form of education will be called "cultural genocide" if it actually SUCCEEDS in changing these ways of thought.
Gets to be stretch to claim "systemic racism" when the best you can do is say government computer algorithms are racist. Worse yet, the algorithms were written to follow the laws and specifically be race neutral.
Now if you say simply finding unequal outcomes anywhere proves systemic racism, then sure this study proves racism, end of story. But also the NFL must have systemic racism in favor of blacks. And Asians make higher incomes than other racial groups including whites, so there must be systemic racism to help them, and so on.
"privileging analysis over narrative"
What on Earth does this mean - political narrative is supposed to trump analytical analysis? Come on.