From: nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:50:12 GMT


From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk)

>>  I agree.  In fact the male lifespan in Harlem is currently **less** 
>>  than the male fifespan in Bangladesh.   But look at why:  in 
>>  Bangladesh it's wretched poverty, poor sanitary conditions,
>>  and frequent massive floods -- not things they have much
>>  control over. They do have a high birth-rate but they're 
>>  also illiterate and come from an agrarian culture emphasizing 
>>  big families and its hard to break old cultural habits. 
>>  Compare this to Harlem:  Homicide and AIDS are the two
>>  biggest cause of death -- these result from *behaviors*,
>>  *choices*.   And the rate of unwed births in the black 
>>  community in 1950 was about the same as whites.  Today 
>>  it's 60% overall and in the large city ghettoes its 80%.
>
>Yes, but why?  Do you have a reasonable explanation for the change?
>The culture of black people in the city has not changed so much since
>1950, and (see William Julius Williams for this) is more self-help- and
>work-oriented than white culture. 

  Could you be more specific about this source, I'm curious?

  There was a series of essays in Utne Reader (yes, I read
  publications all OVER the spectrum) about this which was
  designed to present different black views of the situation
  recently.  And while there was quite a bit of diversity 
  it was interesting that several writers DID suggest that
  black culture had changed quite dramatically since the
  1950's.  BTW, a number of noted conservative blacks such
  as Tony Brown, have made similar obeservations.  There seems 
  to be a feeling that many black social institutions such
  as the church have declined in importance.  Moreover, it was
  claimed that there *used to* exist much more of a sense of 
  community than today.   So it isn't clear to me that black
  culture HASN'T changed a great deal since the 1950's (he
  said, whitely).  



>>  how does it follow that because one is out of work one should 
>>  feel compelled to shoot someone, stick a needle in one's 
>>  arm, or have a baby?   You can't argue that it's an 
>>  emotional escape from the wretchedness of poverty since
>>  the poor in other places are just as wretched, if not more
>>  so, but don't make these choices to the same extent.  
>
>Drug use follows from the resources (stealable) to buy drugs. 

 So you seem to be saying that, ironically, it is that the 
 poor are not POORER that accounts for this.  So this should 
 testable:  we should be able to see whether the poor in places 
 where drugs are cheap (because they're grown there) are also
 as likely to become addicts. 

 
> Violence follows from several factors: drugs, availability of weapons, and the
>weight of perceived inequality.

 This is an interesting argument.  Again it ought to be testable.
 Note that the US leads the world even in gunless crimes.  In fact
 the non-gun murder rate in the US is 2.5 times the TOTAL murder
 rate in Europe.   Also, if inequality is the issue then we would 
 expect to see the violence directed against the wealthy and power-
 ful.  One thing which has always amazed me, given the spread between
 rich and poor in the US is that the US has little significant
 history of POLITICAL violence.  We have nothing like the Red
 Army Faction, the Bader-Meinhoff Gang, The Red Brigade, Black
 September, etc.   Groups like the SDS and Black Panthers were
 *amateurs* compared to these guys and they're all stockbrokers
 or retired now.   



>  Pregnancy follows from something much
>simpler and more direct: better nutrition resulting in a reduced age at
>menarche.  American girls, including most of the poor ones, now become
>fertile around age 13 or 14.  The children of most third world countries
>don't until about 17 or 18, when they are considered marriageable.

 This is a very interesting argument.  Again, it ought to testable.
 Has the unwed motherhood rate in the US tracked the age of menarche?
 I still say its cultural because it varies so widely between cultures,
 even among the poor. 

 Still, thanks for some through provoking points of view.

---peter
Newsgroups: sci.econ