Just to add one quick comment to Matt's comments on Becker: The other thing Becker
and all those other human capital theorists refuse to incorporate into their
theories is the concept of power. As long as everyone is equal, then the entire
fault for unequal treatment in the labor market falls to the individual. The minute
some people have more power than others, skill is no longer the equilibrating factor
in the labor market. maggie coleman
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
> The Becker position is that capitalists with a "taste" for discrimination have
> to pay a premium for white only. So those who don't discriminate have lower
> labor costs and higher profits. Competition should of course drive the
> discriminating capitalists out of business. So in his theory, if we observe
> persistent racial wage disparities, either there is not perfect competition or
> the inequalities are not due to discrimination. So he either had to throw out
> perfect competition or discrimination. In the face of evidence documenting over
> 100 years of racial wage disparities (that's the long run, Ian!) some turned to
> models of imperfect competition (Arrow's and Phelps' 'statistical
> discrimination' models, for example). Becker himself could not bear to throw out
> perfect competition, so he dropped the assumption that blacks and whites are
> equally productive and turned to 'human capital' theory--the disparities are not
> due to discrimination but to differences in productivity, rooted in things like
> education, skill, training, family background, job experience, etc. This is
> still a dominant paradigm, but zillions of tests and studies and dissertations
> etc. have never been able to eliminate the "unexplained residual"--there has
> always remained some part of the wage differentials that cannot be explained by
> human capital traits. Convergence of human capital has not led to convergence of
> wage and unemployment rates. For some, this must be discrimination; for others,
> it must be some unobservable trait influencing productivity not captured by the
> other variables--such as "culture." "Culture as human capital." Here you have
> Thomas Sowell and other Black neo-conservatives, and some 'liberal' authors as
> well. And the genetic tradition has still not died, of course, and even some of
> the human capital and culture theorists are really bordering on if not fully
> crossed over into genetic explanations.
>
> Darity and Williams put forward an interesting internal critique of the
> culturalogical position. The culture of poverty theorists accept the idea that
> competitive forces 'cleanse' the economy of discrimination in the long run, as
> in the Becker model. Since cultural traits can be taught, learned, transfered,
> why haven't the same "alert entrepreneurs" whose competitive spirit eliminated
> discrimination also cashed in on the market value of success-producing cultural
> norms? Either competition can eliminate both discrimination and cultural
> disparities or it can eliminate neither.
>
> Mat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 5:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:8871] Racism in the Interest of White Workers?
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/08/01 05:53PM >>>
> ok. then we have a terminology issue here. so probably best not to use the word
> rational.
>
> (((((((((
>
> CB: No problem. I was trying to suggest that we struggle to win the use of
> "rational" as meaning in the interest of everybody, as opposed a few. As I said,
> "rational" must be specified in terms whose ends and means are being discussed.
> What is rational for capitalists is irrational for workers, in general.
>
> However, I see below that I misunderstood some of the earlier quotes of Darrity,
> Myers, Williams and Botwinick. From what you say below, those classical Marxists
> have the same point of view as the other classical Marxists - racism is not in
> the interests of the white workers, on balance ( or even at all). Do I
> understand correctly now ?
>
> I don't quite get the Gary Becker proposition. Racism raises profits . Perlo
> argues this in _Economics of Racism (I and II)_
>
> (((((((((
>
> Usually when people discuss whether discrimination is 'rational' in
> the context of capitalism they mean within the logic of capitalism, so in
> mainstream economics 'rational' means profit-maximizing or cost-minimizing, and
> in Marxist economics it can mean these but also more broadly in terms of the
> 'logic' of capitalist accumulation and social relations. In Gary Becker's
> original work on econ of discrimination capitalists had to pay for their 'taste'
> for discrimination in the form of lower profits. In terms of the radical
> political economy or neo-Marxist tradition, capitalists benefit from racism (as
> do some high wage white workers), so racism is 'rational' from their point of
> view. But white workers as a group are seen to suffer, even in the short term.
> They are 'duped' by capitalist divide-and-conquer tactics. This is the position
> that has been taken on by Darity, Myers, Williams, Botwinick, etc., in work that
> I think is well-worth studying for anyone interested in Marxist economics, race,
> class and gender, etc., and also real life organizing.
>
> Mat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 11:56 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:8855] Racism in the Interest of White Workers?
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/08/01 12:31PM >>>
> irrational for who? what do you people mean by 'rational'?
>
> is class exploitation irrational? is unemployment irrational in a capitalist
> economy?
>
> ((((((((
>
> CB: No doubt "rational" can be calculated from a number of means/ends
> relationships, but the one I would focus on is rational from the standpoint of
> the group of people as a whole, which with more and more globalization gets to
> be from the standpoint of the human species as a whole. This is a link with
> democracy, which has as a first principle Popular Sovereignty or The People as a
> Whole, now the People of the whole world as a Whole - All Power to all the
> People as a Whole. This is not easy to fulfill :>), but it is the goal or
> principle we must aim for as democrats. Even if we just stick to the U.S. and
> its people as a whole, or Detroit and its people as a whole, the first measure
> of the rational is that how does it impact the group _as a whole_ ?
>
> So, class exploitation may be rational for a tiny minority , but the
> "commanding" and first rational test is "how does it impact the People as a
> whole, to a person, every last one of them ? "
>
> >From a philosophical standpoint , we must start with the whole, and then to the
> parts, majority, minority, individual.
>
> ((((((((((
