Is Marriage For White People?

[Brazilophile]

A controversial new book titled “Is Marriage For White People?” suggests that interracial  marriage may be a solution for middle-class African-American women who  can’t find a “suitable” Black husband.

Ralph Richard Banks, a professor at Stanford University who is African-American, addresses the issue of declining marriage rates among African-Americans, and questions why Black women are so loyal to Black men.


“Part of the answer lies in the gender imbalance within the black community — where two African American women graduate from college for every one African American male. Despite this imbalance, there is still enormous social pressure on black women to only marry black men — to “sustain” the race and build strong black families. And this means marrying black men even if they are less educated or earn less money. In short, no matter the personal cost, black woman are encourage to marry “down” before they marry “out,” Banks said.


I am surprised that someone as knowledgeable as a Stanford law professor seems to omit international marriage.  There are LOTS of Black American men who find that marrying a Latina is a better deal than marrying an American woman of any race or ethnicity.  I think ignoring that aspect lessens his book.

[piglett]

does this professor at Stanford University say anything about the cause of the problem? you know the welfare state instituted in the 60's that has destroyed the black community & gives many incentives for young blacks to not marry. my understanding is most blacks before the welfare state were homeowners & were married, the same can't be said now.....can it ?

 
 
pig

[Brazilophile]

does this professor at Stanford University say anything about the cause of the problem? you know the welfare state instituted in the 60's that has destroyed the black community & gives many incentives for young blacks to not marry. my understanding is most blacks before the welfare state were homeowners & were married, the same can't be said now.....can it ?
 
pig

I haven't read the book so I don't know for sure.  He was interviewed on cable TV a few times and he said nothing about government income supports.  He kept repeating that Black men don't deserve the loyalty of Black women because they have too rates of higher education, too high rates of incarceration, too high rates of unemployment, and too low wages to support a family.

[Jeff S]

Walter Williams wrote a column on this recently:

Overall U.S. unemployment is 9.1 percent. For white adults, it's 8 percent, and for white teens, 23 percent. Black adult unemployment stands at 17 percent, and for black teens, it's 40 percent, more than 50 percent in some cities, for example, Washington.


Chapter 3 of "Race and Economics," my most recent book, starts out, "Some might find it puzzling that during times of gross racial discrimination, black unemployment was lower and blacks were more active in the labor force than they are today." Up until the late 1950s, the labor force participation rate of black teens and adults was equal to or greater than their white counterparts. In fact, in 1910, 71 percent of black males older than 9 were employed, compared with 51 percent for whites. As early as 1890, the duration of unemployment among blacks was shorter than it was among whites, whereas today unemployment is both higher and longer-lasting among blacks than among whites.


How might one explain yesteryear's lower black unemployment and greater labor force participation? The usual academic, civil rights or media racial discrimination explanation for black/white socio-economic differences just wouldn't hold up. I can't imagine even the most harebrained professor, civil rights leader or media "expert" arguing that there was less discrimination a century ago and that explains why there was greater black labor market participation. Racial discrimination or low skills can explain low wages but not unemployment.


During the 1930s, there were a number of federal government interventions that changed the black employment picture. The first was the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, which mandated minimum wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects. During the bill's legislative debate, the racial objectives were clear. Rep. John Cochran, D-Mo., said he had "received numerous complaints ... about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South." Rep. Clayton Allgood, D-Ala., complained: "Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. ... That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country." Rep. William Upshaw, D-Ga., spoke of the "superabundance or large aggregation of Negro labor." American Federation of Labor President William Green said, "Colored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates." For decades after Davis-Bacon enactment, black workers on federally financed or assisted construction projects virtually disappeared. The Davis-Bacon Act is still on the books, and tragically today's black congressmen, doing the bidding of their labor union allies, vote against any effort to modify or eliminate its restrictions.


The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 broadened the number of workers covered by minimum wages, with negative consequences for black employment across a much wider range of industries. Good intentions motivate most Americans in their support for minimum wage laws, but for compassionate public policy, one should examine the laws' effect. That's seen by putting oneself in the place of an employer and asking, "If I must pay $7.25 an hour to no matter whom I hire, does it pay me to hire a worker who's so unfortunate as to have skills that enable him to produce, say, only $4 worth of value an hour?" Most employers would view hiring such a worker as a losing economic proposition; therefore, a minimum wage law discriminates against low-skilled workers by reducing employment opportunity.


Being unemployed has significant negative social consequences, one of them noted in the 1960s by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who raised the alarm about the link between joblessness and the decline of the black family, saying that men without work become less attractive as marriage partners. Between 1890 and 1940, a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. Today black marriage rates have fallen precipitously, where 72 percent of black children are born to unwed mothers.

Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/08/31/race_and_economics

[Brazilophile]

Regarding Black unemployment, I remember hearing something similar in college.  An economics course had a lecture on job discrimination. 

The gist was that observation that Blacks were paid less than Whites for the same work doesn't make economic sense.  If Blacks and Whites are truly doing the same work, then profit is being lost by hiring Whites at a higher wage.  So a profit-maximizing firm should pay everyone the same or hire only the lower paid labor.  Firms with racist (White) owners will hire White labor and endure lower profits.  Firms with non-racist owners will pay Whites and Blacks the same wage. 

A free labor market should then result in Whites working for higher wages in racist owned firms that earn less than maximum profit, and Blacks working for non-racist owned firms that earn maximum profit.  There would be segregated workplaces until the non-racist owners earn enough profit to buy the (under-valued) firms of the racist owners.  The non-racist owners of the formerly racist firms would then increase the value of those firms by lowering the wages of Whites to the same level as Blacks.   

The conclusion was that the current high unemployment for Blacks wasn't explained by racial prejudice and discrimination.  Racism would explain lower wages and segregation, but not unemployment.

The line I hear these days is that high Black unemployment compared to Whites is due to lower quantity of, and lower quality of, education compared to Whites.  I believe that; because, at least in regard to computers, FAR more White households make regular use of computers at home and have high speed Internet access compared to Black households.  The really tragic things is that Whites in the US are behind Western Europe and certain Asian countries, like Japan and Singapore, in regular home computer use and high speed Internet access.

I wonder if that is part of the reason I see more White American women with Asian men now than I did 25 years ago?

[piglett]

I wonder if that is part of the reason I see more White American women with Asian men now than I did 25 years ago?

it may be due to the fact that more & more white men don't want those nagging self centered wenches. the Asian guys can have all they want IMHO
 
pig