Study: Eliminating Racism and Sexism Would Boost US Workers’ Output by 10 Percent or More

Danielle Kurtzleben, Vox, April 13, 2015

{snip}

{snip} Researchers from the University of Chicago and Stanford’s business schools have found that up to one-fifth of the labor force’s productivity growth between 1960 and 2008 came from simply making it easier for women and minorities to get better jobs.

What they studied

Chicago’s Chang-Tai Hsieh and Erik Hurst and Stanford’s Charles Jones and Peter Klenow discovered a massive “convergence” in many highly skilled occupations after 1960–that is, those occupations grew less dominated by white men as women and minorities moved into them.

The researchers started from the assumption that different people’s unique, innate abilities shouldn’t differ by demographic group. So when women and minorities were dissuaded from taking high-skill jobs in the 1960s, that meant the economy wasn’t growing as fast as it could because its workers weren’t fulfilling their full potential. (The researchers point to Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman appointed to the US Supreme Court, as one example–even after graduating third in her Stanford law school class, she could only find work as a legal secretary at first.)

So the researchers assumed that removing occupational barriers like discrimination naturally makes the workforce more productive, by putting people into occupations to which they are better suited–if Sandra Day O’Connor has a comparative advantage at being a lawyer, then it makes sense for her to pursue that. Whether it’s through active discrimination or indirect routes, like fewer educational opportunities, it affects more than just one person. And if there are enough of these barriers, it can keep the entire economy from its highest potential growth.

The researchers used data on the changing numbers of white women, black men, and black women in different occupations, plus changing wages, as a way to approximate the size of occupational barriers and the economic benefits to removing those barriers. To measure this, they treated discrimination and other barriers to employment as a sort of “tax.” Those “taxes” are measures of inefficiency in the labor market–they represent workers or firms paying unnecessarily for inequality.

{snip}

{snip} The researchers concluded that 15 to 20 percent of the productivity growth per worker in the US economy since 1960 has been due to the decline of barriers to employment like discrimination and systemic inequality. That’s up to 40 percent bigger than simple calculations based on wage gaps would imply.

Most of that growth in productivity is due to women entering high-skill occupations, the researchers write. In addition, black men and both black and white women experienced massive wage gains.

“We infer that changes in occupational barriers may have raised real wages by roughly 40% for white women, 60% for black women, and 45% for black men,” they write. In addition, white men’s wages declined as a result, by 5 percent.

Of course, women and minorities still face some of the same hurdles that they did back in 1960–women famously face a “motherhood penalty” right now, for example, that prevents them from advancing in their careers once they’ve had children. And nearly everyone has subconscious racial or ethnic biases–one illustrative example is a study in which lawyers rated otherwise equal legal memos more poorly when the author was nonwhite. If those remaining barriers were removed, output would grow even more, by 10 to 14 percent, the researchers estimate.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Jason Lewis

    Sounds like an admission that a multicultural workplace in not the most ideal.

    • Oil Can Harry

      The study is a fraud. In reality, NAMs are a massive drain on the economy: with their poor job performances, their endless shakedown lawsuits, the bogus jobs created for them (“Assistant Director of Diversity”) and the huge tax burden caused by them lazing on public assistance.

      It’s no coincidence that Silicon Valley, the most successful and dynamic new sector of the US economy, has a workforce only 1% black and 2% Hispanic. Don’t worry, diversity is now coming to Silicon Valley to help make it as successful as Detroit.

      • ElComadreja

        Those must be the janitorial staff.

  • Silly me. I’ve been sitting here thinking that Moore’s Law was mostly responsible for per employee productivity growth and quality GDP growth ever since the phrase “Moore’s Law” was coined.

    • propagandaoftruth

      They certainly make Marxist approved assumptions throughout this propaganda. Ah “science” – so much fertile ground for conflation of cause and effect.

      The brainwashed, hard at work brainwashing straight from the brainwashing factories!

      Science.

    • Reverend Bacon

      You’re right. This study probably represents the transfer of wealth to those groups. There’s nothing in this study that goes deep enough to examine the productivity of the affirmative action hires. It’s simply post hoc ergo propter hoc. “We made lots of productivity gains, and we hired lots of minorities. Ergo, those minorities were responsible for the productivity gains.” Brilliant.

  • Chip Carver

    Eliminating blacks and hispanics and H1B Indians and… well, for the most part removing them and their enablers from the US would turn America into a an unrivaled powerhouse and would return “the future” that was stolen from this country once the neo-bolsheviks took full control in the 1960’s.

    • Michigan Patriot

      neo-Bolsheviks ? Like that terminology very much ; bravo !

  • mp

    Why don’t we just eliminate white men altogether. Think how robust the economy would be then! On the other hand, anyone with a memory from the ’50s and early ’60s realizes how much routine services have now essentially become staffed by incompetents. Sadly the most affected area appears to be the medical field, where minorities predominate, and quality of care has plummeted. But it’s good for the economy, so who cares? Right?

    • Michigan Patriot

      What about the quality at NASA ? With its Marxist diversity; not much there the last few decades; a coincidence or direct result ? My gut feeling ? The latter.

  • The researchers started from the assumption that different people’s unique, innate abilities shouldn’t differ by demographic group.

    ——————————————————————–
    When you start with a false premise, you will always reach false conclusions.

    Maybe some economists will do a study that refutes this one. I’ll offer an anecdote that refutes this nonsense. At my university, I would routinely work on Saturday, Sunday, and evenings in my office on campus. The only other professors I ever saw at those times were white men and turban tops. No women, no Mexicans. My university had so few blacks that I reached no conclusions about them.

    Sure university profs publish more, but because of computers and the Internet, not because of the influx of women. As more women are PUSHED into science, which they are not suited for, the situation will worsen unless there’s some offsetting factors.

    • Atheist Realist

      how did you get let go of your job? Didn’t you have tenure?

  • superlloyd

    More spurious academic research based on a faulty promise of innate equality by demographic group. This alone is enough to ignore this leftist, social engineering propaganda clarion call.

    Productivity could be boosted significantly if there were no affirmative action and fewer governmental jobs for lazy, unqualified blacks, specifically, and other leftist pet groups. Expecting the protected black species to actually work in these AA jobs is something that we cannot ever expect.

    • Michigan Patriot

      You are wrong ! Morgan Freeman has been shown to be the superior to all White scientists, combined, no less ! Hollywood leftist elites would not lie to us in their propaganda movies, would they ?

  • LHathaway

    Well, if they eliminated racism against White men, women and people of color wouldn’t feel so special on the job. That would reduce productivity. All they ever do is redouble their efforts at being insensitive and racist.

  • Christopher Perrien

    Danielle Kurtzleben?, Let me guess.

  • newscomments70

    I worked with some computer programmers recently. There were whites, Asians, Indians, even a couple of black females. I have to say I was impressed by their intelligence and competence. I didn’t detect any racism or anyone with a chip on their shoulder. There was productivtiy because there was no white bashing. Brain dead liberals hysterically scream about white racism. Whites are so racist, that’s why minorities and women have such a bad work experience. The reality is that work productivity is hindered by white bashing, and the fact that whites have to walk on egg shells. White males are fairly respectful to women. If they are not, they face expensive lawsuits and termination. White women, and women in general have to endure unbelievable sexual harassment at the hands of black and hispanic males. Not much is done to stop them because no one wants to appear racist. East Asian males don’t typically sexually harass women, but many have little respect for them in the work place. Liberals live in this bizarre fantasy world of “racist white males” harassing and raping everyone. Their entire ideology is based on fiction. Forced integration causes downtime and sexual harassment…not “evil white males”.

  • TheHBD

    Right…eliminating racism in the form of affirmative action/racial quotas would boost productivity by allowing American businesses to fire all of their shiftless dead weight.

    They need a study to figure this out??

    • dukem1

      Considering their stated premise, it was not a study…it was an excuse to pen a polemic.

  • Screamin_Ruffed_Grouse

    Yup. Sure. Because technology, which has grown by leaps and bounds in both quality and abundance, in exactly that same time period, couldn’t have had anything to do with all that increased productivity. Nope. Must have been minorities.

  • Deacon Blue

    I was going to read this until I saw that it came from Ezra Klein’s “Vox” and then I
    decided that it would be 5 minutes of my life I would not get back.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    We will never be free of these anti-Whites and I’m sick and tired of them telling us “how it’s gonna be.”

    The only solution is separation.

    I always see “When will Whites fight back? When? How much more can we take?”

    In South Africa, a glimmer of hope:

    April, 2015:

    The far-right Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB) is training thousands of youths in military-style bootcamps northwest of Johannesburg to fight for a separate white state.

    By day, they are pushed to their physical limits with assault courses and self-defence lessons, all the while being told of the danger from ‘the millions of blacks trying to kill you’.

    Article like the Daily Mail is anti-White.

    Other than that: Finally! and Right on!

    dailymail co uk/news/article-3038508/Preparing-race-war-South-African-white-supremacist-bootcamps-training-thousands-youths-fight-blacks-create-apartheid-state html#ixzz3XKpQh1oK

    • George Moriarty

      As I said in a comment yesterday, Afrikaners have had enough, they have nowhere to go, they have nothing to lose and they are not limp wristed liberals. It will be very interesting to see if they get any support from the international community. (Another term that I am very suspicious of)

    • newscomments70

      Thanks for sharing that with us, that made my day.

      “Rest of article in the Daily Mail is anti-White, blathering on about “White supremacists” Isn’t the Daily Mail conservative? I know I am beating a dead horse when I say this, but today’s mainstream conservatives are spineless, liberal pussies.

    • john miles

      Would the white South Afrikaners not be smart to just leave the country? The world will never abide a “racist” separate state and they only suffer mistreatment where they are. They should pool their resources, pick a country that will have them—I’m sure there must be some—and just leave.

      • Bon, From the Land of Babble

        The ones I’ve corresponded with and spoken to are adamant that they won’t leave – they and their ancestors created, built, and shed blood for South Africa. They made it a first world nation. Their people have been in SA since the 1600s and they have no intention of giving it over to murderous blacks.

        I know how they feel – I live in California which is the capital of the Third World. Taxes are horrendous (it’s tax day today) for us productive Whites, we are a minority, the state government continues to welcome hordes of destitute 3rd world mexicans and central Americans and offer them every welfare program imaginable and we have no water.

        I can’t imagine leaving, this is my home. — but I may be forced to.

        • john miles

          I must tell you that your last line really says it all, “I can’t imagine leaving, this is my home.—but i may be forced to. There are many white people in Nevada, Washington State and elsewhere who have fled California in the past few years even though conditions are not even half as bad as they are in South Africa. I realize that the white South Africans have been there for centuries, but the sad truth is that the world has turned against them. I saw photo’s on a web site some time back of buildings in South Africa before black rule and then today. Needless to say the buildings were run down and nearly destroyed after little more than 20 years. Yet most American’s seem to think that Mandela and company worked wonders over there. The bottom line is that whites in South Africa must either leave or be subjected to increasing indignities which will, in the end, most likely lead to their demise. There will be no separate homeland for them. Sad but true.

    • carriewhite64

      People with the desire not to be murdered in their beds. Just wanting to be left alone. Yep, that’s White supremacy all right.It sounds like they have the discipline and desire to succeed. Good luck to them.

  • MekongDelta69

    In the last 50 years, the left has gone completely mentally insane.

    • George Moriarty

      And in the real world where real products are manufactured and real wealth is generated companies such as Hyundai, Toyota, Samsung, Panasonic, Sony and many others have done extremely well without diversity. We now see recently successful USA companies such Microsoft, Intel and Apple embracing diversity, I personally feel that they will be heading towards disaster. (Windows 8 comes to my mind)
      Diversity may get women and minorities (I hate that term) better pay and promotion in government jobs including education but that is about as far as it goes. I will let others comment on the effects of diversity in the military or at NASA but I don’t think the results are good. Yes the whole system is going completely mentally insane and just what will happen when there are no white male taxpayers left to fund it all.

  • phillyguy

    They always try to lump women together with the blacks and browns, if the work place were 100 percent white it would work like the 1950’s, the best Industrial output in the world.

    • John Smith

      White women are demographically carrying the other two with their productivity.

    • ElComadreja

      The target is the white male.

    • john miles

      That was why the Jews funded the women’s movement in the first place. To politically separate white men and women.

  • TheMaskedUnit

    The Idiocracy marches on …

  • JohnEngelman

    The researchers started from the assumption that different people’s unique, innate abilities shouldn’t differ by demographic group.

    – Danielle Kurtzleben, Vox, April 13, 2015

    This sentence is somewhat puzzling to me. If the researchers are assuming that a black man or woman who performs better than a white man should get a job or promotion instead of that white man, I agree.

    However, I suspect they are assuming that black men, women, and white men perform on the average equally as well in every job category. This is obviously not true, and can be easily proven not to be true.

    Ending racial and gender discrimination does not achieve racial and gender equality because whites tend to be more intelligent than blacks, and men tend to be stronger than women. Everyone knows that this is true. This truth has legitimate policy implications. Unfortunately, it has become dangerous to express this truth.

    • Deacon Blue

      >However, I suspect they are assuming that black men, women, and white >men perform on the average equally as well in every job category. This is >obviously not true, and can be easily proven not to be true.

      Yes, but the Progressive narrative could not care less about any type of
      empirical, clinical data, John. It insists that all people are all
      equal all of the time. There are no differences between men and women
      when it comes to occupational ability and no differences between
      Whites & Blacks when it comes to occupational abilities.

      To postulate that on average, say men perform better in military combat roles than women is “sexist” even before we get to test that hypothesis against real data. To theorize that Asians have better visual-spatial ability than Blacks is
      “racist” even before we get to test that hypothesis also.

      What’s perplexing to me {OK, not really anymore} is that the ivory tower
      academics claim to use “science” to debunk “race” as some non-existent
      societal construct with these “social studies” that don’t really
      test any hypothesis but merely state a case and then try to construct supporting
      data around this assumed truism/factoid by cherry picking. This garbage is lauded as groundbreaking and enlightening “science” and “proof”.

      Yet if someone(s) in the academy tried to use metadata or a retrospective
      analysis to show a statistically significant correlation to something that
      runs counter to the Progressive narrative such a someone would at
      the very least be ostracized and could be in danger of losing their job
      and being made permanently unemployable in their chosen field merely for wanting to “speak truth” and conduct a robust and fair investigation.

      My assumption here John is you don’t need me to post examples of said scenarios?

      John, you’re a bright individual sosurely you know that all peoples are not created equal. In America, we’re {in theory} supposed to be afforded equal opportunity to succeed or do whatever we like. Opportunity has never equalled absolute success amongst all participants in any endeavor and the logical fallacy that it does is a keystone in the Progressivist cultural plan.

      Someone has to “win” the 100 yard dash. Someone is going to be
      faster, even if only for today or for one race. But look at what these
      people have done to kids sports? They don’t even keep score {even
      if the kids do} at tot soccer matches and everyone gets the same
      special trophy and nobody is recognized as being exceptional.

      Because we’re all equal under the Progressive mantra! Isn’t that just
      wonderful? I know I am excited by it. Any day now I expect “them” to
      call me and tell me they need a middle-aged, White guy who is 5’10”
      to play on an NBA team because there is no difference between me
      and a 6’9″ power forward who hails from West Africa. I’m holding
      my breath waiting for my multi-year, multi-million dollar contract with
      the NBA and Coke/Nike, John.

      >Ending racial and gender discrimination does not achieve racial and gender >equality because whites tend to be more intelligent than blacks, and men tend >to be stronger than women.

      Any measurable metric can be reduced ad absurdum into “racism” or
      “sexism” by gilded tongued Progs with an agenda.

      I have never met a Black who is able to qualify “expert” or “sharpshooter”
      when I was in the service – most could qualify as “marksman” with some
      prodding and “help” – I also do not see (m)any Blacks competing in IPSA
      competitions either. There may indeed be a non-racial explanation for this
      but we don’t even get to ask the question in the form of an empirical
      study, “Are there differences between Whites & Blacks regarding
      proficiency with firearms?” Because if we do ask that and we do find
      a statistically significant difference before we even consider attributing such
      to genetics {race} we’re going to be tarred and feathered by the diversity
      crowd. I might add that I have seen plenty of White women who can
      shoot “expert” with a .45 and who do enter competitive target shooting
      competitions. So I am inclined, albeit by lengthy anecdote, to think that
      Blacks are genetically different in a way that makes it hard or impossible for
      most to use a firearm precisely and accurately. Whether this is true or
      not will never be tested – I am a racist because I would even consider such.

      >Everyone knows that this is true. This truth has legitimate policy implications. >Unfortunately, it has become dangerous to express this truth.

      Yes, and I despair that it will become even more dangerous in the future
      if we have another Clinton as president.

      • Lexonaut

        “I am a racist because I would even consider such.”

        My assumption is that confession is good for the soul. You’ve confessed. From this I conclude that you feel better. Since you feel better there is no longer a need for you to be concerned about these things. Therefore I feel comfortable erasing your ability to see the obvious sending you to school … or something.

      • JohnEngelman

        Yes, and I despair that it will become even more dangerous in the future if we have another Clinton as president.

        – Deacon Blue

        I am optimistic enough to believe that the lies protected by political correctness cannot be protected forever. Eventually the truth will out. More will be learned about genetics. Expensive efforts like No Child Left Behind will continue to fail.

  • pennawhytmn

    Oh my. I will never get that minute of my life back.

  • listenupbub

    This research is impossible to understand. They “start” from the premise that different demographics have equal capacities? The whole study is obviously flawed, then.

    How can blacks be making the economy more efficient when almost every example of people I know who work with blacks shows how utterly lazy they are at work?

    Most of that growth in productivity is due to women entering high-skill occupations, the researchers write.

    Oh. So it is just all the white women driving wages down, making things more “efficient”…

  • connorhus

    And what was their criteria for productive? Companies making more money? Overall GDP compared from 1960 to 2000? What other common factors were studied? As usual with most pro-Affrimative Action studies they fail to identify a baseline then proclaim sweeping generalities with no core identified and absolutely no other factors even considered.

    The real reason productivity has increased since the 60’s, besides creative accounting techniques that increase paper productivity by simply not counting things, is overall government spending, increased automation and mechanical breakthroughs. The government spending juggernaut in itself accounts for so much of the national GDP directly and/or indirectly that I would estimate fully half the large companies that are surviving today are only doing so because of government stimulus.

    Whenever a company begins broadcasting their productivity numbers have increased it almost always corresponds to a massive layoff followed by automation which decreases payroll, or an overall reduction in gross sales but greater profit as they scale back risk. Therefore productivity increasing considering the US’s labor participation rate is at the lowest it has ever been makes perfect sense. Minorities or Women have absolutely nothing to do with it and in fact an increase in productivity under these circumstances is not a good thing.

  • IstvanIN

    Modern Social “Science”: coming to a conclusion and then bending reality to prove it.

  • “The researchers started from the assumption that different people’s unique, innate abilities shouldn’t differ by demographic group. So when women and minorities were dissuaded from taking high-skill jobs in the 1960s, that meant the economy wasn’t growing as fast as it could because its workers weren’t fulfilling their full potential.”

    Okay, I will confess. I stopped reading right there. What an ASSUMPTION, that is based on ZERO evidence. Also, it is of interest to note that the time period of the fifties and early sixties, that awful “racist” time when “people of color” were so held back, happened to be also the most prosperous time in this country’s history. And recently, with all this “sensitivity” to these “oppressed” groups in employment, how has that worked out? Gee, funny, China just surpassed us economically last year! Yeah, clever those…never mind. Gosh, just when I think an article can’t have more B.S. one comes up like this. Again, I didn’t even bother reading all of it to comment.

  • RaySist27

    If women and minorities had just built the country from the beginning, instead of evil White men, just think about how far ahead we would be by now. Oh, wait a minute…

  • Michigan Patriot

    Never mentioned or any concern by the leftists; negative impact on White males; especially the Christian variety !

  • John Smith

    Spending the time and money on a fool’s errand like this would cost way more than that, and I don’t even believe this would be true for a second.

  • Light from the East

    I should revise the title:

    Study: Eliminating low IQ savages Would Boost US Workers’ Output by 10 Percent or More

    • Spikeygrrl

      So high-IQ white women are STILL, comparatively, “low-IQ savages”? With that attitude, good luck finding one to bear your White, high-IQ children.

      I’ll shut up now, I promise. I just HATE to see y’all continue to alienate the most natural allies you already have.

      E.g., What you just did there in your post is callled “parallelism.” COMPLETELY UNJUSTIFIED parallelism. Which we all learned in 4th- and/or 5th-grade English. For you, apparantly, the lession didn’t stick.

      BACK TO GRADE-SCHOOL STANDARD AMERICAN ENGLISH with you!

      • Light from the East

        I thought you totally misunderstood my original intent. The revised title of mine simply shows the fact, a fact that can be proved, nothing else here. If you want to talk about “parallelism”, here are definition and examples:

        Parallelism
        Parallelism is the term used to refer to the repetition of similar grammatical constructions in a sentence or over successive lines of prose or poetry. Parallelismhelps to create coherence by adding rhythm and flow to sentences and lines of text.

        Examples of Parallelism:
        1. On vacation, our family went fishing, went swimming, and went horse-back riding.
        2. I am woman; I am mother; I am fierce.
        3. In class, at work, and on the field, Martin strives for excellence.
        4. Easy come, easy go.
        5. The phone was ringing, the dishes were washing, and the dinner was burning.

        First, I didn’t parallel two sentences together like
        “Eliminating low IQ savages Would Boost US Workers’ Output by 10 Percent or More” + “Eliminating Racism and Sexism Would Boost US Workers’ Output by 10 Percent or More”.

        If you still think it is a parallelism, then your logic is “low IQ savages” = “Racism and Sexism” = “white women”. Why do you think “racism and sexism” = “white women” and “low IQ savages” = “white women”? Your reasoning process is unwarranted. You came up the term “white women” first while I didn’t do it.

        What I did is to replace term A with term B. That dose not mean term A = term B, not even to mention both of them are not equal to term C you created. Next time try not to be sensitive and use your brain not your feeling. What I do here is a clear communication by facts, not ambiguous literature by feelings.

  • Light from the East

    “The researchers concluded that 15 to 20 percent of the productivity
    growth per worker in the US economy since 1960 has been due to the
    decline of barriers to employment like discrimination and systemic
    inequality. That’s up to 40 percent bigger than simple calculations
    based on wage gaps would imply.”

    “Most of that growth in productivity is due to women entering
    high-skill occupations, the researchers write. In addition, black men
    and both black and white women experienced massive wage gains.”

    The study admits it, it most has something to do with white women. If they mention how black people perform in terms of productivity, the validity of this article is destroyed. I bet those leftists will never do this.

  • KenelmDigby

    Yet another ‘economic report’ with about as much credibility as a Sponge Bob Square Pants cartoon.
    Basically it’s ‘think of a number and then double it’.

  • UncleSham

    The reality is that White men invented a bunch of technology that boosted everyone’s productivity. This has benefited everyone in terms of increased wages, except for White men. I think that our extreme individualism and lack of solidarity my have reached the end of its usefulness.

    • cyrusthevirus

      Yes—if we wish to survive then we have to become TRIBAL-call it racist if you like –always treat your own better and deal wherever possible with ONLY your own !!

  • KenelmDigby

    The premise of this ‘study’ is just appallingly flawed.
    For example, consider that silly anecdote – anecdotes have no place in serious work – about Sandra Day O’Connor.
    I’m sorry, but lawyers do absolutely nothing whatsoever to add to the economic potential of the nation, economic well being is generated by productive industry that is making, building or growing things, areas still run more or less by White men.
    Consider who are the biggest money earners for America. Think of computers, micro electronics, aerospace etc. Think of the shale gas revolution. Think of the output of American farming, of the great grain producing regions. Now who is doing all this?

  • Lexonaut

    I’m reminded of Ann Coulter’s description of what the Congressional Budget Office was required to do when analyzing the impact of the proposed Obamacare legislation …

    Assume this saves money. Now answer the following question: Does it save money?

  • Basketeddie

    And stupid me always thought that advances in technology might have had something to do with the increased productivity. I see the light now. It’s all due to affirmative action.

  • David Ashton

    Two (stale?) comments: (1) Different groups are likely to differ on average in specific abilities, as shown so long ago as 1952 in a UNESCO study by G.M. Morant and 1961 in “Human Races” by S. M. Garn. (2) The purpose of “gender egalitarianism” is to turn human females from companions in racial reproduction into competitors in industrial production.

  • Earl P. Holt III

    There may be a grain of truth in this study: As everyone on this site knows, when an employer is forced to hire a nigro, he must simultaneously hire a White or Asian person to do the actual work that the nigro was hired to do, but is either unwilling or incapable of doing.

    So, at least in this sense, society is spared the vastly greater sums required for each welfare beneficiary, since the savings to society equals the welfare cost minus the employer’s cost for that nigro employee. (Lawsuits for “Workman’s Compensation” or “Discrimination” or some other Cause of Action make the nigro employee significantly more expensive, with far greater losses to society.)

  • mikefromwichita

    Yeah……………my experience in engineering indicates that average productivity has declined since 1980 as Whites must do their own work and that of the black AA hires also.

  • Alexandra1973

    Yeah right. Just about all blacks I’ve worked with have been lazy. A long time ago when I was working in a factory I was asked to train this black girl. My husband, who worked in the same department, same shift, at the time, warned me that she was lazy. Sure enough, she was more or less expecting me to do all the work. I just ignored her and made her bust her behind. LOL

    My first job was at a fast-food place. It was 1989, I was 16 and rather unaware. I was the only White employee there–everyone else was black. I think that’s what started my awakening.

  • Spikeygrrl

    Ummm…what’s wrong with degreed women starting in the secretarial pool, just like degreed men start in the mail room or on the factory floor or in commission-only sales? Unless your alma mater is an Ivy or a Seven Sisters, what more can you reasonably expect?!

    Of course, your employer knows whether or not you are degreed, from where, how high, how many, in what. Some employers look upon degrees with disdain. Others look at degrees as an open door: “Put in your time here and we’ll figure out real soon whether or not you’re worth the executive/managerial/high-function techie track.”

  • slobotnavich

    Adding qualified women and Hispanics to a workforce certainly wouldn’t hurt, and might well help, productivity. Adding often unqualified blacks in the name of “diversity” to any workforce is an invitation to increased absenteeism, workplace violence, and lowered productivity. I speak from rueful experience.

    • USofAntiWhite

      Adding latinos or browns to a workforce merely drives down wages and raises taxes to compensate for the fantastic costs they bring due to their endless propensity for breeding and committing crimes.

      • Ragnarök

        I’ve worked with “Hispanics” before and a lot of them can be as lazy & incompetent as Blacks.

      • slobotnavich

        Well, I’ve had a fair amount of experience with Hispanics, first in the US Army, both stateside and in Vietnam for two tours, one in a rifle company and the second with the 5th SF Gp. They performed about like anybody else, and some were outstanding. Later I worked throughout Latin America as a service rep for Ford, working with Latino mechanics, training them on new models and helping them solve difficult technical problems. If they were less capable than FoMoCo dealership techs in the US it wasn’t obvious to me. As for crime, it would appear that Hispanics are more crime-prone than whites overall, but not nearly at the level of blacks. In any event, this country clearly doesn’t need any further immigration from Third World nations and should begin the wholesale expulsion of illegals and shut off the flow of Third World immigrants – right now. The verminous Democrat Party has and will continue to resist any effort to curb immigration from Third World nations, since it furnishes them with an endless supply of reliable Democrat voters. That’s the whole illegal immigrant game in a nutshell.

        • What type of hispanics did you work with? Lilly white ones or brown Indian ones?

          • slobotnavich

            Both.

          • slobotnavich

            Actually, both. The pure whites generally seemed a bit smarter than those of mixed Indian and white blood. But both types were generally hard and good workers. Without them most of the produce in CA would end up rotting in the fields and orchards.

  • Scott Rosen

    “The researchers started from the assumption that different people’s unique, innate abilities shouldn’t differ by demographic group.”
    Start with an erroneous assumption, you get erroneous results.

    • Alexandra1973

      When you assume…you make an ASS of U and ME.

    • The researchers started from the assumption that different people’s
      unique, innate abilities shouldn’t differ by demographic group. So when
      women and pigmies were dissuaded from playing in the NBA, that meant Basketball wasn’t growing as fast as it could because
      its athletes weren’t fulfilling their full potential.

  • If we cut to the chase with this line of thinking, whites are a problem holding non-whites back. Therefore, to these people, only the removal of whites, whether via their roles, jobs, or physical presence on the planet will solve this problem.

    Nationalists have a different solution to these kinds of problems. Racial separation and national homelands being respected. In this scenario there would be no real nor imagined discrimination. No holding back. No prejudice or injustice.

    They could then rise phoenix-like from the underfoot of our jackboots and fly free to their full potential….or whatever the non-racially aware dullards expect of these people.