Another 'first black ...' story
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Jasandjules said:
Fittster said:
Lots of negativity on this thread. Don't most of you think role models are important?
Yes. But does it REALLY matter what colour they are? Did Mr Armstrong get reported as the First White Man on the moon? Someone is either a good person and a role model or they are not. I don't care if they are black, white, brown, green or orange quite frankly... It may just be me.
If no black men have achieved something (such as run as FTSE company) I think it is wise to ask why?
turbobloke said:
Bushmaster said:
The Times reported today that Obama was 'red-faced' about some gaffe he made on a talk show. The reporter must have chuckled!
Probably the one about people Obama works with in Washington all being like Sinon Cowell. Maybe they all look the same to BO.Fittster said:
If no black men have achieved something (such as run as FTSE company) I think it is wise to ask why?
It is, but that's not what the BBC were primarily about, nor secondarily at a rough guess. With all the positive discrimination about it's definitely a question well worth asking.
rich1231 said:
turbobloke said:
Bushmaster said:
The Times reported today that Obama was 'red-faced' about some gaffe he made on a talk show. The reporter must have chuckled!
Probably the one about people Obama works with in Washington all being like Sinon Cowell. Maybe they all look the same to BO.
Fittster said:
If no black men have achieved something (such as run as FTSE company) I think it is wise to ask why?
Why? To do so implies automatically that there must be a racist element in any such failure. That to me is in itself racist..... It reminds me a bit of Airplane - light reading - Jewish Sporting Legends. Perhaps it is due to non-jews imposing religious discrimination?
turbobloke said:
rich1231 said:
turbobloke said:
Bushmaster said:
The Times reported today that Obama was 'red-faced' about some gaffe he made on a talk show. The reporter must have chuckled!
Probably the one about people Obama works with in Washington all being like Sinon Cowell. Maybe they all look the same to BO.Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 20th March 18:26
Nadyenka said:
Fittster said:
Lots of negativity on this thread. Don't most of you think role models are important?
No."The New Nation's list of influential black people is intended to "[dispel] the recently trumpeted belief that there is a dearth of African Caribbean role models."
Good. Role models are important. They are not just PR flummery. They matter, because conventional economic thinking is woefully inadequate.
This thinking is that people acquire human capital, and this gets transformed into wages.
This leaves two questions unanswered.
One is: how exactly do people get human capital? We usually think it's about innate ability and school quality. But this is only part of the story. It's also about individual students' perceptions of what's feasible, and what the pay-offs to learning are.
On both counts, role models help. My own experience shows how. When I was 17, I never thought about going to university; none of my family, neighbours or friends' family had ever been. It was only when a teacher told me that Oxford would have me that I thought about going. I needed a role model to show what I could do. Why shouldn't young men need one today?
The second gap in the conventional account is: how does human capital get transformed into wages? It's only by individuals working out what jobs they can do with their skills. Again, role models point the way. And again, my experience shows the point. When I was at university, I didn't know what job to do: the only graduates I'd ever met were teachers. Then I saw a City economist (Bill Martin) on TV. "Hey" I thought. "I can do that. I know how many beans make five." The rest was easy.
These two failings in conventional economics have a common theme. It's (again) all to do with knowledge.
The fact is that individuals must know what they want to study before acquiring human capital, must know that studying is worth the effort, and must know how to convert that studying into wages.
Neoclassical economics assumes people have this knowledge. They don't. Role models help by providing it.
I suspect an overlooked reason why people follow in their fathers' footsteps is this knowledge effect, rather than the inheritance of "talent" (an over-rated notion). Here's one data-point of corroboration - Stuart Broad. Had he inherited his dad's bowling ability, he'd never have gotten near to playing for England, and still less for God's own county. Instead, what his dad provided was a love of cricket and evidence one could make a good living from it. That's what role models do."
source
Fittster said:
Nadyenka said:
Fittster said:
Lots of negativity on this thread. Don't most of you think role models are important?
No."The New Nation's list of influential black people is intended to "[dispel] the recently trumpeted belief that there is a dearth of African Caribbean role models."
Good. Role models are important. They are not just PR flummery. They matter, because conventional economic thinking is woefully inadequate.
This thinking is that people acquire human capital, and this gets transformed into wages.
This leaves two questions unanswered.
One is: how exactly do people get human capital? We usually think it's about innate ability and school quality. But this is only part of the story. It's also about individual students' perceptions of what's feasible, and what the pay-offs to learning are.
On both counts, role models help. My own experience shows how. When I was 17, I never thought about going to university; none of my family, neighbours or friends' family had ever been. It was only when a teacher told me that Oxford would have me that I thought about going. I needed a role model to show what I could do. Why shouldn't young men need one today?
The second gap in the conventional account is: how does human capital get transformed into wages? It's only by individuals working out what jobs they can do with their skills. Again, role models point the way. And again, my experience shows the point. When I was at university, I didn't know what job to do: the only graduates I'd ever met were teachers. Then I saw a City economist (Bill Martin) on TV. "Hey" I thought. "I can do that. I know how many beans make five." The rest was easy.
These two failings in conventional economics have a common theme. It's (again) all to do with knowledge.
The fact is that individuals must know what they want to study before acquiring human capital, must know that studying is worth the effort, and must know how to convert that studying into wages.
Neoclassical economics assumes people have this knowledge. They don't. Role models help by providing it.
I suspect an overlooked reason why people follow in their fathers' footsteps is this knowledge effect, rather than the inheritance of "talent" (an over-rated notion). Here's one data-point of corroboration - Stuart Broad. Had he inherited his dad's bowling ability, he'd never have gotten near to playing for England, and still less for God's own county. Instead, what his dad provided was a love of cricket and evidence one could make a good living from it. That's what role models do."
source
Jasandjules said:
Jimbeaux said:
Jasandjules said:
Hopefully eminem will win a MOBO......
The white rapper?Jimbeaux said:
Jasandjules said:
Jimbeaux said:
Jasandjules said:
Hopefully eminem will win a MOBO......
The white rapper?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff