The part at the end hints that they did find bias, but in the opposite direction of what was assumed:

> But when it comes to specific claims about biased grant reviewers, search committee members, journal editors, and letter writers, the claims of antifemale bias were not supported, and in one case (tenure-track hiring), the data actually supported the opposite conclusion—that of pro-female hiring bias. This pro-female hiring advantage has continued after the closing of our inclusionary period, 2020 (Henningsen et al, 2021; Solga et al., 2023)."

Ones of the pushes in the league is to make foreign European players appeal more to white Americans. We’re not trying to have the league match US demographics, but make no mistake that diversity is a big deal to the NBA.

Headline: "Research Finds No Gender Bias in Academic Science"

Subheading: "women have an edge over men in hiring."

Paper abstract: "[women] are advantaged over men in a fourth domain (hiring), For teaching ratings and salaries, we found evidence of bias against women; although gender gaps in salary were much smaller than often claimed, they were nevertheless concerning."

Paper contents:

- "Lutter and Schröder (2016) found that women needed 23% to 44% fewer publications than men to obtain a tenured job in German sociology departments"

- "in the authors’ main experiment (N = 363), faculty expressed a significant preference for hiring women. This pro-female preference was similar across fields, types of institution, and gender and rank of faculty"

- "The authors found that all else being equal, faculty were between 5% and 10% more likely to favor a female candidate or a gender nonbinary candidate, respectively, over an identically accomplished male"

- "The authors found a significant pro-female advantage, with faculty rating female applicants’ competence and hirability significantly higher than identically accomplished male applicants"

(Though one can still make mistakes and misrepresent data when not studying oneself, obviously.)

That's certainly an improvement over past behavior but it still leaves millions of poor people shivering in the cold.

The US already does this. Taxation is more progressive than Europe and large amounts of money are redistributed to poor and troubled schools, in some cases as much as twice the European average. It is not correlated with any of the outcomes you are imagining.

Throwing money at the problem doesn’t work. The US has been doing that for decades with nothing to show for it.

You realise that almost all of Europe is poorer than the US?

Yes, you can make people more equal by making the rich poor as well. But what's the point?

Btw, in the US schools in poorer parts already get more funding. That hasn't helped. See https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/education-commentary-is...

> This has all had the unfortunate effect of deepening ignorance about American school spending. We know, for example, that majority-Black and Hispanic schools receive significantly more per-pupil funding than majority-white schools. This fact is so contrary to basic liberal assumptions that they often react angrily to hearing it. But this reality shouldn’t surprise anyone. After all, we’ve been shoveling money at the racial achievement gap for 40 years, to no avail. Part of the problem here is an assumption that public education is dominantly funded by local expenditure, which hasn’t been true for some time. In fact, state funding is at or near parity with local spending in the United States, and state funding is heavily tilted towards areas of perceived need (that is, failing schools or districts). Federal funding, including but hardly limited to Title I funding, is also dominantly directed towards poor or high-minority schools. The rising tide of think tank and foundation money that finds its way into public K-12 school is very hard to track, but we can safely assume that almost all of it is earmarked for the poorest students. We’ve been trying to spend our way our of this problem since before I was born! And yet people who should know better pretend not to understand this reality and repeat the complaint about local funding of public schools, despite the fact that that story is not true.

If you lived here, you would find that European style models barely work in Europe

Looks at tax revenue vs GDP. No matter the tax rates, the percentage stays the same (fluctuations within a couple points) regardless of official tax rates.

When you increase taxes on the wealthy, they don’t pay more. They either pay for loopholes to be created or they reduce/stagnate salaries to compensate.

Meanwhile, Congress cares more about who pays them than who votes (there’s a reason they argue about superficial stuff and agree about all the worst stuff).

When all the taxes get paid by the rich, the poor lose that influence and still wind up making the same amount of money anyway.

Universal sales tax is better. If the rich buy more stuff they pay more. There’s no loopholes to be found. You can also provide tax breaks to the poor by reducing or eliminating sales tax on consumer goods which greatly affects the poor, but only marginally affects the rich.

We know that there is a set of people that can't manage money in a sustainable way for themselves. Surely, giving this set of people money produces zero to negative help. But I don't know the make up of all of the "poor" or why they're poor in the first place.

My own perspective on the matter as someone who sorta bootstrapped from a pretty shitty strating position is: no. If we took a cross section of people doing reasonably well what they've done is complied with society's demands, more succinctly they've served the market. They aren't exceptionally smart, talented, or disciplined, they just selflessly (including moving far and wide) elected a corner of the market that was valuable, and where they were themselves valued. And from my experience: they have really poor spending habits, they have shallow economic and political positions. And this is sort of the paradigmatic flaw with throwing money at people, in a lot of cases they do not have the faculties to comport themselves in such a manner where it is a benefit to themselves nor to their fellows. I fear many of these people, when they're put through some serious adversity, will succeed in recovering themselves.

I'm not trying to make an argument which paints me as some superior element to these folks, but rather these are mistakes that I have personally made and lived through while also existing on the precipice of dangerous self-amplifying poverty. To some extent, and with the way that things are structured, I think this very much attends to the "teach a man to fish" logic, and that lending that kind of real, personalized trivium is the way forward.

Italy has (or had) such a program: they would disburse pooled funds to a minimum of 3 unemployed individuals who were then expected to use said funds to start a business. To my knowledge many of these were cooperatives, which I think is an ingenious way of remediating some of the more egregious issues which we see bubbling up in our day-to-day lives in the US.

Now, I won't discount the fact that having a decent starting position is a huge boon; the crux of my argument here is that modifying it without respect to the nuance, as I've seen it, can lead to even worse outcomes. And I think the quasi-exclusive programs also nucleate certain perspectives, culture, and communities which themselves can be pretty detrimental. For instance I grew up in trailer parks, I have some aspects of white trash that I very deliberately maintain to my own detriment because it is part of my identity and a mark of pride, and sequestration of those habits makes me legitimately uncomfortable.

Also don't bother comparing the US and Europe, the latter without the former has historically been very volatile and I don't believe there's any reason to expect that things will have changed. As to why that matters: the US must have certain integral aspects both socially and politically which favor its position as the "world peacekeeping force" (read: world police), including egregious spending on "defense". And this is apparently perceived at large as justified. Moreover, military participation is also quite high, in part because of the way that America at large is structured. It is very much a multifaceted incentive complex. And I think that, over the years, it has very much seated America as the lynchpin of the globalized system. Personally, I don't like it, but I very much anticipate the effacement of America's current position as a global leader is going to lead to a very traumatic shift in the way of the world as we know it. The US is itself structured in a completely different way than is Europe as well, with considerable contrasts in needs and wants in comparison to Europe and in contrast with our own many, varied, and multifaceted communities. Rural America is not urban America.

Also, I think with (real) progressive policies the socioeconomic rules shift, and those shifts tend to make realizing even a modicum of wealth even more difficult in a lot of cases. For instance the big money print over COVID has destroyed a pretty considerable amount of my savings, and the Biden administration pushing for student loan forgiveness - I could've taken loans, shaved many years off of my opportunity cost, and have saved substantially less money to exit my university program with no debt burden, and I wouldn't have to suffer post-COVID university experience. Instead, assuming it was to be passed, I would be out $10k and I will have paid substantially more than previously predicted given the Feds 2% mandate, in addition to the huge shuffling of staff, policies, and the experience all due to policy changes. To the best of my knowledge, I have elected classical fiscal policy, and lost at every turn while trying to drag myself upwards but it was the paradigmatic road to success that I tried to pave.

People having problems with even simple statistics definitely is a cause for racism on the other hand.

I find economists often to be surprisingly bad at math.

Might as well go all the way and start caring about college enrollment and graduation rates at that point no?

That'd find gender bias. Against men.

This paper is making the case that if a person makes it to college, they won’t be discriminated against while there. The question of whether they make it to college is a far different one.

Whether someone makes it to college and the different factors involved there are beyond the scope of this study.

Does historical injustice make it right to behave unjust in the present, almost as if it were a revenge? I don't think so.

I agree about importance of defining poverty though. Both income and wealth should be taken into account and taxed appropriately. It's not only a class issue, but also generational issue with lots of old people sitting on super-expensive property, while young families can't afford a home.