UPenn Law Professor Amy Wax: US "better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your response indicates that you really, truly have no idea what you're talking about, you have a flippant disregard for logic and intellectual rigor, or are discussing this in bad faith (or perhaps all three!). You are indeed the one making the extrapolation that more egalitarian societies are more unequal.

To be more concrete, here is an example that is supported by the article:

In a poor country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are limited, there is less gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, both men and women are similarly risk-averse, patient, altruistic, etc.
In a richer country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are more widely available and evenly distributed, there is more gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, men may be systematically more risk-seeking, less patient, less altruistic, etc, than women.

You are trying to take this specific and narrow evidence and take it as proof of your thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality. You cannot do that. I cannot emphasize enough that this paper does not make that generalizable argument.

Again, it's not me. It's the authors of the study making the conclusion. I can't help it if you won't acknowledge plain English. I just hope others can read and find the information interesting as I did. Good evening.

No, it really is you. They are unequivocally not making that conclusion. This paper says nothing, and makes no effort to say anything at all about gender-based preferences leading to inequality, nevertheless about differences in preferences by race, ethnicity, social class, religion, or any other demographic or socioeconomic division. You are taking a narrow finding about the development of gender-based preferences and trying to apply it to a broader thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality.

After several back-and-forths on this, it's safe to narrow down the source of our disagreement to two possibilities: you don't actually understand this paper or how it relates to your thesis of egalitarianism and inequality, or you are just lying and hoping that nobody calls you out on it.

Direct quote from the article "Previous research has shown that gender differences in fundamental economic preferences are important in explaining gender differences in economic outcomes, such as for occupational choice, financial investment, or educational decisions, among many others."

Learn to read.

I would encourage you to do the same! Perhaps you're not lying after all; you're just profoundly ignorant. Nowhere in that quote, or in the paper, do the authors make a causal connection between egalitarianism and inequality.

I bolded the part I was replying to. You think you are being clever, but the language is very plain. The paper clearly indicates the relationship between gender preferences and outcome inequalities, contrary to your claim that it doesn't.

You may as well be saying that the paper indicates in plain English that the sky is green. It doesn't. And it doesn't attempt to draw a causal connection between egalitarianism and inequalities by gender, much less by race, social class, etc, no matter how much you insist that it does. Anyone can read the paper and plainly see that it does not. Even the excerpt you keep quoting as definitive proof doesn't show that.

I'm honestly at a loss for words here. Just take the loss and move on, dude.

So if someone says "the lack of rain is important in explaining the current drought in California" your understanding is that this is not a reference to a causal relationship? If not, what do you think "important in explaining" means in the context as used in the paper tying together gender preferences and inequality in outcomes? What does that sentence from the paper mean to you? Are you Bill Clinton by any chance?

That's not conclusive evidence of a causal relationship because droughts are the result of a complicated system. It's no different than saying "race is important in explaining income disparities." While it is true that Black people earn less on average than White people, nobody would make the case that there is a causal connection between race and income - well, maybe you would, because by all evidence of your posts in this thread, you are an unserious thinker.

For the millionth time, this paper makes the case that a more equal distribution of resources and opportunities may lead to a condition in which characteristics and attitudes differ by gender which may lead to a condition in which women and men self-select into different jobs. That is a far, far cry away from your thesis that egalitarianism causes inequality. Seriously, how do you not see this?

Here's a concrete application of this paper's findings.
In society A, resources and opportunities are unevenly distributed. As a result of this, women and men have similar characteristics and attitudes. As a result of that, by necessity, both men and women are subsistence farmers or work in grueling sweatshops or assembly line jobs.
In society B, resources and opportunities are more evenly distributed. As a result of this, women and men have divergent characteristics and attitudes. As a result of that, by choice, men self-select into jobs like airline pilots and software engineers, and women self-select into jobs like nurses and teachers.

Your posts have revealed that you have a preference to live in society A, because a lack of egalitarianism has resulted in a more equal society. Have a blast in Bangladesh, I guess.

I have never said anything remotely like this. Having a useful discussion requires both sides to be reasonable. One of us is not. This is useless. I won't respond anymore.

Congratulations on finally summoning the courage to wave the white flag in this tedious "debate."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are so dense and keep blathering about ‘A boost to one person should not be based on racist discrimination against another person.” even though that’s not what’s happening with Affirmative Action all the while REPEATEDLY ignoring the historical antecedents of the US. Which makes me question whether you are American? Your argument smacks of entitlement and ignorance

Of course, that's exactly what's going on with Affirmative Action. The whole point of Affirmative Action is to give preferential treatment to some people in the allocation of limited resources. The benefit provided by Affirmative Action comes at the expense of the person(s) who was displaced because of it.

I'm not sure what exact historical "antecedents" you are referring to. I am certainly not ignoring the racism that was in America's past. I am also not ignoring the fact that Affirmative Action existed before and even survived court challenges. However, just because we used to do something, doesn't mean we should keep doing it, especially since I believe Affirmative Action to be evil, as with all cases of racist discrimination.

I'm a first-generation Asian-American immigrant. I am not arguing that I'm entitled to anything, I am just asking not to be discriminated against based on the color of my skin. That's all.

Tell that to the Upenn professor who wants to discriminate against people exactly like you (and me) -- Asian immigrant. That is the point of this thread, not about affirmative action, which not all liberals support, and despite your repeated attempts to state the opposite, universities don't have outright affirmative action policies. They don't have race quotas.

Trump and this professor, oth, do want to limit immigration from sh1thole countries (namely nonwhite countries), and instead import more white people from like Finland, or was it Norway, which is super ironic given that most Finns and Norwegians support progressive policies like high taxes and universal healthcare.

Give it a rest. Trump is no longer the president and his immigration proposal was for a merit based sysfem, which will benefit Asians. Your refusal to acknowledge even this basic fact means you are being irrational.

Amy Wax is one person, she and her ilk is in a small minority. Her views does not represent broad Republican views.

Right. And the sky isn't blue. But enjoy kissing the ring of the man who holds the Republican party by the balls. I'm sure he wouldn't want you anywhere near his estates - too much of a possibility of spreading something.

Both parties harbor racists toward Asians. Democrats just tend to deny it more. Right now, Republican policies benefit Asians a little more at least on the local level. That could easily flip. It makes no sense to blindly vote for either party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are so dense and keep blathering about ‘A boost to one person should not be based on racist discrimination against another person.” even though that’s not what’s happening with Affirmative Action all the while REPEATEDLY ignoring the historical antecedents of the US. Which makes me question whether you are American? Your argument smacks of entitlement and ignorance

Of course, that's exactly what's going on with Affirmative Action. The whole point of Affirmative Action is to give preferential treatment to some people in the allocation of limited resources. The benefit provided by Affirmative Action comes at the expense of the person(s) who was displaced because of it.

I'm not sure what exact historical "antecedents" you are referring to. I am certainly not ignoring the racism that was in America's past. I am also not ignoring the fact that Affirmative Action existed before and even survived court challenges. However, just because we used to do something, doesn't mean we should keep doing it, especially since I believe Affirmative Action to be evil, as with all cases of racist discrimination.

I'm a first-generation Asian-American immigrant. I am not arguing that I'm entitled to anything, I am just asking not to be discriminated against based on the color of my skin. That's all.

Tell that to the Upenn professor who wants to discriminate against people exactly like you (and me) -- Asian immigrant. That is the point of this thread, not about affirmative action, which not all liberals support, and despite your repeated attempts to state the opposite, universities don't have outright affirmative action policies. They don't have race quotas.

Trump and this professor, oth, do want to limit immigration from sh1thole countries (namely nonwhite countries), and instead import more white people from like Finland, or was it Norway, which is super ironic given that most Finns and Norwegians support progressive policies like high taxes and universal healthcare.

Give it a rest. Trump is no longer the president and his immigration proposal was for a merit based sysfem, which will benefit Asians. Your refusal to acknowledge even this basic fact means you are being irrational.

Amy Wax is one person, she and her ilk is in a small minority. Her views does not represent broad Republican views.

Right. And the sky isn't blue. But enjoy kissing the ring of the man who holds the Republican party by the balls. I'm sure he wouldn't want you anywhere near his estates - too much of a possibility of spreading something.

Both parties harbor racists toward Asians. Democrats just tend to deny it more. Right now, Republican policies benefit Asians a little more at least on the local level. That could easily flip. It makes no sense to blindly vote for either party.

Well, at least you admit it.

[Anonymous]

Both parties harbor racists toward Asians. Democrats just tend to deny it more. Right now, Republican policies benefit Asians a little more at least on the local level. That could easily flip. It makes no sense to blindly vote for either party.

Asian American elected politicians are way more likely to be Democrats, though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Americans_in_politics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Asians crack me up.

Guy shoots up three separate Asian-owned and run massage parlors: "That wasn't racist, he just hated masseuses!"

Law professor says all Asians need to be deported: "That wasn't racist either, she's just having a bad day."

Nothing is racist and everyone walks all over you.

Who is saying this? The backlash among my circle has been pretty noticeable. It's been widely shared among Asian Americans who are nearly universal in condemning it as racist. We can also see it in this thread. I don't see many people making excuses.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t seen a breakdown in how Asian Americans voted in CA regarding the repeal of the anti-affirmative action measure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Both parties harbor racists toward Asians. Democrats just tend to deny it more. Right now, Republican policies benefit Asians a little more at least on the local level. That could easily flip. It makes no sense to blindly vote for either party.

Asian American elected politicians are way more likely to be Democrats, though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Americans_in_politics

That's a non sequitur argument. Political party alliance is not a perfect predictor of whether the party is beneficial to the voter. African Americans have been supporting Democratic politicians in urban environments for decades. What did that get them? Are they better off?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are so dense and keep blathering about ‘A boost to one person should not be based on racist discrimination against another person.” even though that’s not what’s happening with Affirmative Action all the while REPEATEDLY ignoring the historical antecedents of the US. Which makes me question whether you are American? Your argument smacks of entitlement and ignorance

Of course, that's exactly what's going on with Affirmative Action. The whole point of Affirmative Action is to give preferential treatment to some people in the allocation of limited resources. The benefit provided by Affirmative Action comes at the expense of the person(s) who was displaced because of it.

I'm not sure what exact historical "antecedents" you are referring to. I am certainly not ignoring the racism that was in America's past. I am also not ignoring the fact that Affirmative Action existed before and even survived court challenges. However, just because we used to do something, doesn't mean we should keep doing it, especially since I believe Affirmative Action to be evil, as with all cases of racist discrimination.

I'm a first-generation Asian-American immigrant. I am not arguing that I'm entitled to anything, I am just asking not to be discriminated against based on the color of my skin. That's all.

Tell that to the Upenn professor who wants to discriminate against people exactly like you (and me) -- Asian immigrant. That is the point of this thread, not about affirmative action, which not all liberals support, and despite your repeated attempts to state the opposite, universities don't have outright affirmative action policies. They don't have race quotas.

Trump and this professor, oth, do want to limit immigration from sh1thole countries (namely nonwhite countries), and instead import more white people from like Finland, or was it Norway, which is super ironic given that most Finns and Norwegians support progressive policies like high taxes and universal healthcare.

Give it a rest. Trump is no longer the president and his immigration proposal was for a merit based sysfem, which will benefit Asians. Your refusal to acknowledge even this basic fact means you are being irrational.

Amy Wax is one person, she and her ilk is in a small minority. Her views does not represent broad Republican views.

eh. tell that the R base.

Asians also benefit from HlB visas, but the R base, and Trump, want to get rid of it, except for white people like his wife. You refuse to acknowledge that Trump and Rs don't like Asians, unless they are useful to them.

You know what's irrational -- that the majority of Asian Americans who vote R (and support Trump bigly) are of Vietnamese descent. Those are the Asian immigrants that this professor would want. Trump, oth, wouldn't want them because Vietnamese immigrants tend to be uneducated and from a "sh1thole" country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Both parties harbor racists toward Asians. Democrats just tend to deny it more. Right now, Republican policies benefit Asians a little more at least on the local level. That could easily flip. It makes no sense to blindly vote for either party.

Asian American elected politicians are way more likely to be Democrats, though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Americans_in_politics

That's a non sequitur argument. Political party alliance is not a perfect predictor of whether the party is beneficial to the voter. African Americans have been supporting Democratic politicians in urban environments for decades. What did that get them? Are they better off?

How would African Americans be better of under Rs, who don't believe in a living wage or helping the poor or "affirmative action" of any kind, and who want to whitewash history and the impacts of Jim Crow laws and bigotry on POC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians crack me up.

Guy shoots up three separate Asian-owned and run massage parlors: "That wasn't racist, he just hated masseuses!"

Law professor says all Asians need to be deported: "That wasn't racist either, she's just having a bad day."

Nothing is racist and everyone walks all over you.

Who is saying this? The backlash among my circle has been pretty noticeable. It's been widely shared among Asian Americans who are nearly universal in condemning it as racist. We can also see it in this thread. I don't see many people making excuses.

This entire thread is excuses and sharing it on private whatsapp groups is the exact opposite of noticeable. The reason things like this keeps happening is because Asian Americans don't protest. Why aren't majority Asian American group UPENN students and parents outside of her office 24/7? Why didn't the National Asian Pacific Bar Association lead a march to Philly city hall? PENN Law has 4 Asian American professors - none of whom resigned in protest from shared committees or boards or even wrote a Washington Post Op-Ed critiquing their colleague.

This is a UPENN Law colleague of Amy Wax with a Japanese background - the only thing she posted about was her upcoming blog post on disability rights but I'm sure she had a lot to say privately in FB/Whatsapp messages. Not that that changes anything.

https://twitter.com/kmtani

The answer of 'nothing' is pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are so dense and keep blathering about ‘A boost to one person should not be based on racist discrimination against another person.” even though that’s not what’s happening with Affirmative Action all the while REPEATEDLY ignoring the historical antecedents of the US. Which makes me question whether you are American? Your argument smacks of entitlement and ignorance

Of course, that's exactly what's going on with Affirmative Action. The whole point of Affirmative Action is to give preferential treatment to some people in the allocation of limited resources. The benefit provided by Affirmative Action comes at the expense of the person(s) who was displaced because of it.

I'm not sure what exact historical "antecedents" you are referring to. I am certainly not ignoring the racism that was in America's past. I am also not ignoring the fact that Affirmative Action existed before and even survived court challenges. However, just because we used to do something, doesn't mean we should keep doing it, especially since I believe Affirmative Action to be evil, as with all cases of racist discrimination.

I'm a first-generation Asian-American immigrant. I am not arguing that I'm entitled to anything, I am just asking not to be discriminated against based on the color of my skin. That's all.

Tell that to the Upenn professor who wants to discriminate against people exactly like you (and me) -- Asian immigrant. That is the point of this thread, not about affirmative action, which not all liberals support, and despite your repeated attempts to state the opposite, universities don't have outright affirmative action policies. They don't have race quotas.

Trump and this professor, oth, do want to limit immigration from sh1thole countries (namely nonwhite countries), and instead import more white people from like Finland, or was it Norway, which is super ironic given that most Finns and Norwegians support progressive policies like high taxes and universal healthcare.

Give it a rest. Trump is no longer the president and his immigration proposal was for a merit based sysfem, which will benefit Asians. Your refusal to acknowledge even this basic fact means you are being irrational.

Amy Wax is one person, she and her ilk is in a small minority. Her views does not represent broad Republican views.

eh. tell that the R base.

Asians also benefit from HlB visas, but the R base, and Trump, want to get rid of it, except for white people like his wife. You refuse to acknowledge that Trump and Rs don't like Asians, unless they are useful to them.

You know what's irrational -- that the majority of Asian Americans who vote R (and support Trump bigly) are of Vietnamese descent. Those are the Asian immigrants that this professor would want. Trump, oth, wouldn't want them because Vietnamese immigrants tend to be uneducated and from a "sh1thole" country.

Citation needed, and COVID related travel/visa restrictions don't count. Frankly, I don't care what the professor thinks because she is an ignorant bigot and she does not represent the Republican platform. Here's a direct cut and paste from Republican proposal on immigration reform:

RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee calls upon the President and Congress to implement immigration reform during the 2013 session based upon a merit system that emphasizes the economic contribution of each working immigrant can add to our nation;

See? facts. What do you have aside from anecdotes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians crack me up.

Guy shoots up three separate Asian-owned and run massage parlors: "That wasn't racist, he just hated masseuses!"

Law professor says all Asians need to be deported: "That wasn't racist either, she's just having a bad day."

Nothing is racist and everyone walks all over you.

Who is saying this? The backlash among my circle has been pretty noticeable. It's been widely shared among Asian Americans who are nearly universal in condemning it as racist. We can also see it in this thread. I don't see many people making excuses.

This entire thread is excuses and sharing it on private whatsapp groups is the exact opposite of noticeable. The reason things like this keeps happening is because Asian Americans don't protest. Why aren't majority Asian American group UPENN students and parents outside of her office 24/7? Why didn't the National Asian Pacific Bar Association lead a march to Philly city hall? PENN Law has 4 Asian American professors - none of whom resigned in protest from shared committees or boards or even wrote a Washington Post Op-Ed critiquing their colleague.

This is a UPENN Law colleague of Amy Wax with a Japanese background - the only thing she posted about was her upcoming blog post on disability rights but I'm sure she had a lot to say privately in FB/Whatsapp messages. Not that that changes anything.

https://twitter.com/kmtani

The answer of 'nothing' is pathetic.

I wonder if Jeff agrees that this entire thread is an attempt to give excuses to Amy Wax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t seen a breakdown in how Asian Americans voted in CA regarding the repeal of the anti-affirmative action measure.

https://www.businessinsider.com/big-asian-american-generation-gap-on-california-affirmative-action-question-2020-10

Generation gap -- older and/or more recent immigrants don't have contextual knowledge of the impact of school funding in CA (Prop 13). More recent Asian immigrants see things in black and white, and bring their home cultural experience here. Asian Americans who grew up or were born here have a different perspective.

I was practically born in the US, and saw firsthand how Prop 13 impacted public school funding in CA (I'm a product of LAUSD). While I don't support affirmative action per se, I do support providing more support for under privileged families.

Short answer: Most CA, including Asian Americans, don't want to over turn Prop 209, but they do support providing better support and access to URM (which is what I support, as well).

https://aapidata.com/blog/2020-prop16-affaction/

The US immigration rules have always favored white Europeans -- first with quotas, then "family connections" for those already here. Many of those European countries that had large emigres were formerly sh1thole countries, but as those countries have gotten wealthier, less and less of them wanted to immigrate here. Many Asian Americans came to the US via family connections (my family included). So, now Rs want to change it to purely merit based in hopes of still limiting poor brown/black people from coming here. Coupled with their desire to reduce work visas like HIB for the highly skilled which benefits Asians the most, Rs still want to limit immigration to only wealthy/white people.

Trump and Rs desire to limit family migration would impact Asians:

Under the RAISE Act, among the immigrant-sending countries that currently make up the top ten, those that would see the sharpest absolute drops in immigrant admissions are Mexico, India, China, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and the Philippines

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Both parties harbor racists toward Asians. Democrats just tend to deny it more. Right now, Republican policies benefit Asians a little more at least on the local level. That could easily flip. It makes no sense to blindly vote for either party.

Asian American elected politicians are way more likely to be Democrats, though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Americans_in_politics

That's a non sequitur argument. Political party alliance is not a perfect predictor of whether the party is beneficial to the voter. African Americans have been supporting Democratic politicians in urban environments for decades. What did that get them? Are they better off?

How would African Americans be better of under Rs, who don't believe in a living wage or helping the poor or "affirmative action" of any kind, and who want to whitewash history and the impacts of Jim Crow laws and bigotry on POC?

I don't think you genuinely want to know the answer when you attribute so many evil intentions to Republicans. With the hope that you are indeed interested in learning, I'll just start with one simple observation that Republican efforts on controlling the southern border significantly reduced illegal immigration of low-skilled workers, which contributed to significant growth of African American wages, outpacing the speed of white worker wage growth. Note that Hispanic worker wages also grew faster than white workers at the same time, as compared to overall negative wage growth under the Obama years, emphasizing that controlling immigration to a reasonable degree also promotes the welfare of Hispanics in the US. Under the current administration, wage growth has continued due to the huge social program spending. But under these current Democratic policies, inflation has skyrocketed which has outsized impacts on low-wage earners, while white worker wage growth is now happening at the same rate as that of Hispanic and African American workers, meaning the wage gap is no longer closing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Both parties harbor racists toward Asians. Democrats just tend to deny it more. Right now, Republican policies benefit Asians a little more at least on the local level. That could easily flip. It makes no sense to blindly vote for either party.

Asian American elected politicians are way more likely to be Democrats, though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Americans_in_politics

That's a non sequitur argument. Political party alliance is not a perfect predictor of whether the party is beneficial to the voter. African Americans have been supporting Democratic politicians in urban environments for decades. What did that get them? Are they better off?

How would African Americans be better of under Rs, who don't believe in a living wage or helping the poor or "affirmative action" of any kind, and who want to whitewash history and the impacts of Jim Crow laws and bigotry on POC?

I don't think you genuinely want to know the answer when you attribute so many evil intentions to Republicans. With the hope that you are indeed interested in learning, I'll just start with one simple observation that Republican efforts on controlling the southern border significantly reduced illegal immigration of low-skilled workers, which contributed to significant growth of African American wages, outpacing the speed of white worker wage growth. Note that Hispanic worker wages also grew faster than white workers at the same time, as compared to overall negative wage growth under the Obama years, emphasizing that controlling immigration to a reasonable degree also promotes the welfare of Hispanics in the US. Under the current administration, wage growth has continued due to the huge social program spending. But under these current Democratic policies, inflation has skyrocketed which has outsized impacts on low-wage earners, while white worker wage growth is now happening at the same rate as that of Hispanic and African American workers, meaning the wage gap is no longer closing.

Border entry was significantly lower under Obama than under Trump. Trump just talked about it a lot.