I have heard much about Thomas Sowell. He comes highly recommended by numerous Right-wing authors and commentators. He is an African American economist who has many insightful things to say concerning the disparities we find in modern American society.
Sowell acknowledges that there are many disparities in American society between people. Some are very rich and some are very poor. Some seem to reap all the benefits of a capitalist society while others clearly miss out. Sowell claims there have been traditionally two ways to understand why there are disparities between individuals or groups of people. One, is that some people are genetically inferior to others (1). This is what the Nazis believed about Jewish people. On the other end of the spectrum, people assume there are disparities because certain individuals or groups are discriminated against by those in power. Sowell will argue that both assumptions are not substantiated by empirical evidence (6).
Sowell contends that success typically depends upon a number of factors, not just one (2). He also notes that not all of those factors are within the control of the individual in question. He cites a study by Turman, who studied 1,470 people with IQ’s of 140 or higher (3). Having a genius IQ did not in itself guarantee people success. 20% of the people studied were clearly disappointments in life. Those who experienced the most success came from middle to upper class families. The presence of books in the home also was a factor. Of the least successful people, one third had a parent who had dropped out of school. Obviously being a genius was not, in itself, enough to guarantee success. Sowell concludes: “Given the multiple prerequisites for many human endeavors, we should not be surprised if economic or social advances are not evenly or randomly distributed among individuals, groups, institutions or nations at any given time” (4).
Sowell cites a number of interesting international studies. These studies demonstrate that first born children generally have a higher IQ than second born children and that the IQ level diminishes as you study younger siblings (7). In France, 18% of only children attended university. 16% of first born children attended. While the percentages decreased as you went down the birth order (8). Sowell notes that these children had almost identical upbringings and the same parents, social class, etc. The only differential was the amount of undivided attention they received from their parents. Only children received the most parental attention while first-borns received the most from multi children families. Correspondingly, twins score slightly lower on IQ tests than their peers because they never had parental attention all to themselves. Sowell also notes that children raised in professional homes hear, on average, 2,100 words spoken per hour. Children in working class homes hear 1,200 words and children whose parents are on welfare hear 600 words on average (9). It is clear that how children are raised has a dramatic effect on their success as adults.
Sowell also notes that certain traits, such as a desire to succeed and a willingness to do whatever is necessary to succeed are some of the most important prerequisites for success. It matters not how brilliant you are if you are lazy and unmotivated.
Sowell notes that there are many factors in the world that are not equal. The USA experiences 90% of the world’s tornadoes (17). There are more occurrences of lightning in Africa than in Europe and Asia combined. His point is that if even one factor for success is missing, it can radically affect the results. Sowell notes that coastal peoples worldwide tend to be more prosperous than inland people (18). Areas near the sea in temperate climates make up 8% of the total land area (18), yet they contain 23% of the population and 57% of the GDP.
Sowell identifies several types of discrimination. Discrimination 1 is discriminating people based on an individual basis. Discrimination 2 is broadly applying discrimination to groups of people as a whole (21). The motivation between how people discriminate is often done based on cost. For example, he suggests there are subcategories of discrimination called Discrimination 1a and 1b. Discrimination 1a is based in individuals. However, for example. If you are an employer and you do a police check on all job applicants, then you might choose not to hire those with criminal records. That is discriminating against particular individuals based on what you learn from their police records. However, the government, in an attempt to prevent you from discriminating against African Americans, might pass a law that prohibits you from doing a police check on job applicants because 40% of African Americans have police records. The result is that you simply don’t hire any African Americans, because you cannot be sure they are one of the 40% who have criminal records. Sowell calls this Discrimination 1b. The result is that the 60% of African Americans who have no criminal record fail to be hired because you have no way of weeding out the 40% who do (23). Sowell would refer to this as a law of unintended consequences.
Sowell notes that “we cannot simply go directly from attitudes to outcome” (33). He notes that in the South after the Civil War, there were many whites who held racist attitudes toward African Americans. Nevertheless, plantation owners needed black labor if they were to get their crops planted and harvested. As a result, they hired black workers and even gave them increased pay in an effort to enlist sufficient numbers of workers. As a result, the income of African Americans actually grew throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century despite the racism of whites (35). Sowell concludes: “While racists, by definition, prefer their race to other races, individual racists, like other people, tend to prefer themselves most of all (37).
Sowell notes that racist actions are largely influenced by cost. While many white Southerners held racist ideas, it would have been financially disastrous to snub black workers or to pay them below the market rate. Conversely, there is not the same cost to government run business or utilities, so they can make decisions without feeling the brunt of the consequences (37). Sowell gives several examples where politicians pass a law that prescribes how businesses or public schools should act. At times the law is not in the best interests of those involved and may even have adverse consequences. Nevertheless, it does not cost the politician anything and may in fact gain him popularity.
Sowell points out that people sort themselves. However, when government forcibly integrates people into communities and schools, the performance of all parties declines. He concludes: Clearly, racially segregated schools were not inherently inferior” (65). He notes that there was no educational improvement by forcibly integrating black children into white schools (66). He also notes the failure at government attempts to subsidize housing in respectable neighborhoods (70). Interestingly, Sowell points out that it was often black neighbors who complained the most about bringing in subsidized, poor, black people into their neighborhood.
Sowell also points out that people often omit information that is not supportive of the narrative they want to promote. For example, an outcry went out in one area because black people were not granted as many mortgages as were white people (78). What was omitted was that white applicants, on average, had higher credit scores than did black mortgage applicants and that Asian applicants had a higher average credit score than did whites. The loans granted followed the same percentages as the credit scores, demonstrating that there was no inherent bias. Ironically, a black-run bank actually turned down more black loan applicants than a white bank rejected! Yet these statistics were not promoted because the people involved wanted to create a narrative of racism toward blacks (79).
Sowell has much to say about how income is measured. He claims it is misleading to evaluate “household income.” People often talk about the “rich” and the “poor” in various studies. Yet Sowell argues that in one study between 1975-1991, only 5% of those classified as poor, remained in the lowest 20%, by the end of the study (82). Likewise, those in the highest income bracket typically were only in it for one or two years (87). His point is that there is not a static class of rich and poor. Rather, it is fluid and the majority of the poor are not remaining poor over time.
Sowell claims that many statistics are misused in an effort to make a particular case. For example, he suggests that it would be foolish to complain that black NBA players received far more fouls from the referees than is equal to their 13% of the American population (83). That, of course, is because there is a much higher percentage of black NBA players than their overall percentage in the American population. It would be foolish to claim that NBA refs were profiling black NBA players because they were receiving more than 13% of the fouls handed out. Likewise, he notes that in one study where black drivers were receiving more speeding tickets than were white drivers, a study was done that proved that black drivers were, on average, driving faster on the highways in question (85).
Sowell also notes that statistically it is incorrect to talk about “tax deductions for the rich” (98). He demonstrates how when taxes have been lowered, the wealthy have actually paid more in taxes. He also notes that, while there may be a higher percentage of black inmates in prison, it is also true that the majority of people in prison were raised by one or none of their parents (102). Because the black population suffers a much higher percentage of children raised in single parent homes, it can be misleading to blame the percentage of black inmates on racial profiling as opposed to the result of broken homes in raising black children. Sowell notes: “Yet morally neutral factors seem to attract far less attention than other causal factors which stir moral outrage, such as discrimination or exploitation” (103).
Sowell critiques efforts like George Bush’s “no child left behind” program where poor children were integrated into public schools. Sowell notes that not all children wanted to learn or to follow the rules. As a result, not only did they not learn, but they degraded the learning environment for other students who wanted to learn (105). Sowell critiques the socialist and communist ideas that the rich should be forced to share with the poor so that they are not exploited and they are not held down in poverty. He notes: “it would be difficult to find even one single country, ruled by Marxists, where the standard of living of working class people has been as high as that of working class people in a number of capitalist countries” (106). Sowell argues that any country that has forced the wealthy to share or give away their wealth to the poor, has ended up with a lower standard of living for everyone, including the poor.
Sowell says many things that are not popular today. He notes that although the Left heralds many of the social reforms that have occurred in American history, it was actually Republicans who voted for them far more than did the Democrats (111). He also critiques the idea that modern society should pay reparations for the sins committed against minorities in earlier generations. He argues: “But what can any society today hope to gain by having newborn babies in that society enter the world as heirs to prepackaged grievances against other babies born into that same society on the same day?” (115). Sowell also critiques educators who argue that it is racist and oppressive to expect black children to learn to use standard English in their speech (116). Sowell argues that this will only perpetuate poverty as such educated children will struggle to gain reputable jobs in a society that relies on proper communication. He concludes: “’Solutions’ can be society’s biggest problem—and especially governmental ‘solutions’ – because government is essentially a categorical institution in an incremental world” (118).
Sowell argues many of the efforts to battle for social justice ignore inconvenient facts. He comments: “How people with difficulty keeping food on the table can be overweight, even more often than other Americans, is a mystery he did not explain. Words trump realities” (119). Sowell is pretty scathing of government “fixes” that are done for political reasons, not because they work. He points out that the government of Detroit passed laws that chased out the rich and brought the city to bankruptcy, but it kept them in power with poor voters for twenty years (124). Clearly their answers were not working, but it was politically popular among the lower classes that kept electing them.
Interestingly, Sowell also takes on history. He notes that black people actually enslaved more white Europeans than the number of blacks who were enslaved and brought to America (126). However, that is not the narrative that is popular today. He argues that we cannot judge people in history based on our modern values and beliefs. Rather, people must be judged based on what was possible for them at the time (126). He concludes: “Because human beings can make choices only among options actually available, events in the past can be understood and judged only within the inherent constraints of their particular times and places” (126).
I found this book to be quite provocative. Without analyzing his facts and sources, the statistic and studies he cites are devastating to many current campaigns and social movements. He has the courage to challenge conventional wisdom. As an African American himself, he is able to critique opinions that a white person would have difficulty in disputing. He certainly is not denying that racism and discrimination occurs. However, he argues that economics and self interest can rectify many of those issues better than can government regulation that is not based on empirical evidence.
This is not a long book, but it is packed with heavy arguments and covers a lot of ground. He certainly is a voice to be heeded, whether he supports your narrative or social campaign or not. His scientific approach cuts through the emotional appeals that are not substantiated by evidence. I found his approach thought-provoking and enlightening. This is a book that will make you think, and maybe even change your mind.
Rating: 4
