I think the use of 'prejudice' to describe the response of Whites to actual contact with non-Whites. 'Prejudice' indicates *prejudgement*. But this obviously not the case. Whites are *rejecting* non-Whites after having direct experience and reacting a *reasoned judgement*.
Hey brother - I'd like to interview you for my platform (70k followers). I recently released a 3 hour documentary entitled "White Sentience" that examined some of the same studies (and other lenses) on the cost of diversity. I think you would enjoy it, link below. Send me a DM or email to discuss collaboration! beholdentotruth@yahoo.com
Isn't it possible the Whites pay a slightly smaller tax relative to their socioeconomic position because of the fact they're more present in red states, which have lower taxes on average?
You’re sending me stuff that’s already included in the meta-analysis I cited. Stop. I’ve read more literature on this than anyone will ever need to. Also, Meer & Tolsma (2014) is a poorly done paper (doesn’t distinguish between ethnic and racial diversity, weird binning method, and IIRC they also believe in contact theory which is fake).
I am aware lol. I just felt like being harsh last night when I wrote this since I was tired, but I will change the wording a bit if it bothers you that much. I didn’t expect to see the star from Cato himself, it’s quite the surprise!
Update: changed the wording, hope that resolves it.
Let's assume a black person receives $1,304 per month in welfare, and pays $633 per month in taxes (to keep your numbers constant). This is a net loss in terms of the public government budget of -$670. But what about the private economy? If this black person earns only $8,040 per year (a pitiful amount), then the net contribution to GDP is positive.
People who don't work are much more negative to GDP than black people, which is mostly old people (16% of the population) and the disabled (9%, under 65). The elderly and disabled are 25% of the population -- a clear drain on GDP, and growing!
What you don't calculate here is how crime artificially increases the cost of real estate via zoning, and affirmative action is a tax on firms. I estimate it on the range of ~10% of GDP but will release exact figures in future article.
That doesn't mean much on its own, see the stuff on immigration surplus, directly relevant. The immigration surplus however, is just surface level stuff, plenty of indirect fiscal costs you could throw in there (examples provided in the post). There are general equilibrium models that attempt to estimate the indirect fiscal benefits of a lower-skilled group via between-skill complementary effects, but those models are highly assumption-laden, and that's why the 2017 NAS report avoided trying this method. I am personally skeptical of them myself (see my immigration post), but I don't have exact numbers to give on those.
>People who don't work are much more negative to GDP than black people, which is mostly old people (16% of the population) and the disabled (9%, under 65). The elderly and disabled are 25% of the population -- a clear drain on GDP, and growing!
I agree, we should abolish Social Security and force old people to subsidize young people! Most of the government consumption from whites is due to Social Security and Medicaid, not surprising since they're older than other racial groups on average.
>What you don't calculate here is how crime artificially increases the cost of real estate via zoning, and affirmative action is a tax on firms. I estimate it on the range of ~10% of GDP but will release exact figures in future article.
I would certainly be interested to see your calculations for this in the future. If you could capture the full costs of crime, that would be extremely insightful. Maybe send your calculations to me in an Excel file when you're done, would be appreciated.
I think the use of 'prejudice' to describe the response of Whites to actual contact with non-Whites. 'Prejudice' indicates *prejudgement*. But this obviously not the case. Whites are *rejecting* non-Whites after having direct experience and reacting a *reasoned judgement*.
'Prejudice' clearly is not applicable.
You’re right, it’s postjudice not prejudice.
Hey brother - I'd like to interview you for my platform (70k followers). I recently released a 3 hour documentary entitled "White Sentience" that examined some of the same studies (and other lenses) on the cost of diversity. I think you would enjoy it, link below. Send me a DM or email to discuss collaboration! beholdentotruth@yahoo.com
https://beholdentotruth.substack.com/p/white-sentience-full-documentary
Isn't it possible the Whites pay a slightly smaller tax relative to their socioeconomic position because of the fact they're more present in red states, which have lower taxes on average?
Sure, but red states also have less generous welfare programs, so it goes both ways.
True
White liberals are so hypocritical I think eric coffman has well established that liberals don't practice what they preach
I I was researching and I found another literature review on diversity and ethnic https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/133583/1/133583.pdf Once again it replicated Bowling alone's findings
You’re sending me stuff that’s already included in the meta-analysis I cited. Stop. I’ve read more literature on this than anyone will ever need to. Also, Meer & Tolsma (2014) is a poorly done paper (doesn’t distinguish between ethnic and racial diversity, weird binning method, and IIRC they also believe in contact theory which is fake).
Sorry about that
Could you add this to the price of diversity post https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052918-020708 and https://x.com/UBERSOY1/status/1849309558226698395
Most of the food is fake.Anyway it's https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmoCLt24erd6jhzcgu7YPIVPQWVVLrtnJ There's an excellent video on this topic
The title of our piece contains the word “probably” and is based on David Shor’s work.
Of course, if you know what I think about Trump, the conclusion of our pieces isn’t positive.
I am aware lol. I just felt like being harsh last night when I wrote this since I was tired, but I will change the wording a bit if it bothers you that much. I didn’t expect to see the star from Cato himself, it’s quite the surprise!
Update: changed the wording, hope that resolves it.
Didn’t mean for you to change it! Sorry, I was a little too harsh.
Let's assume a black person receives $1,304 per month in welfare, and pays $633 per month in taxes (to keep your numbers constant). This is a net loss in terms of the public government budget of -$670. But what about the private economy? If this black person earns only $8,040 per year (a pitiful amount), then the net contribution to GDP is positive.
People who don't work are much more negative to GDP than black people, which is mostly old people (16% of the population) and the disabled (9%, under 65). The elderly and disabled are 25% of the population -- a clear drain on GDP, and growing!
What you don't calculate here is how crime artificially increases the cost of real estate via zoning, and affirmative action is a tax on firms. I estimate it on the range of ~10% of GDP but will release exact figures in future article.
>then the net contribution to GDP is positive
That doesn't mean much on its own, see the stuff on immigration surplus, directly relevant. The immigration surplus however, is just surface level stuff, plenty of indirect fiscal costs you could throw in there (examples provided in the post). There are general equilibrium models that attempt to estimate the indirect fiscal benefits of a lower-skilled group via between-skill complementary effects, but those models are highly assumption-laden, and that's why the 2017 NAS report avoided trying this method. I am personally skeptical of them myself (see my immigration post), but I don't have exact numbers to give on those.
>People who don't work are much more negative to GDP than black people, which is mostly old people (16% of the population) and the disabled (9%, under 65). The elderly and disabled are 25% of the population -- a clear drain on GDP, and growing!
I agree, we should abolish Social Security and force old people to subsidize young people! Most of the government consumption from whites is due to Social Security and Medicaid, not surprising since they're older than other racial groups on average.
>What you don't calculate here is how crime artificially increases the cost of real estate via zoning, and affirmative action is a tax on firms. I estimate it on the range of ~10% of GDP but will release exact figures in future article.
I would certainly be interested to see your calculations for this in the future. If you could capture the full costs of crime, that would be extremely insightful. Maybe send your calculations to me in an Excel file when you're done, would be appreciated.
not an excel file, but here's the article:
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-dei-the-cost-of-civil/
Very thorough and impressive! Thanks!
If Whites cannot help each other financially, what's the point?
An economic system that serves only narrow interests is not worth asserting to.