Origins of America’s White Anxiety
By Wei Seng
Cooperate, not fight!
I covered something in relation to America's white anxiety crisis a few months back, reviewed from a Time magazine article, but it seems like now there appears to be a source of which America's white anxiety originates.
Ross Douthat in The New York Times discusses an origin of America's white anxiety: the positive discrimination that America's elite schools practice, in the process excluding many white Christians, which then creates a gap between the liberal, multiracial elite and the conservative and white Christians middle-class. It is quite an interesting observation, that while quite a bitter pill to swallow for liberals and those who believe in multiracialism and affirmative action after decades of racism, it is necessary for governments to be careful with affirmative action because any form of discrimination, positive or otherwise, would create resentment as it is happening in America today.
The chasm between the liberals (quite a significant proportion of the elite, of which many come from the top American universities such as Harvard) and the conservatives (significantly white Christian and male) appears to remain as insurmountable as ever, or even widening, with the Obama administration in the White House. Key figures in the conservative sphere have complained that the liberal administration today is practicing "racism" (preference for the coloured) and its policies a form of "reparations" (for all the past misdeeds against the coloured). Most liberals (and as a self-proclaimed liberal) I find their arguments quite silly as many of the conservatives seem to be practicing their own form of racism (against the coloured) so who started what? But it appears as if there is a source of all this discontent against the elite: the practices of elite universities in America.
According to two Princeton sociologists, a study of the admissions process and affirmative action of "eight highly selective colleges and universities" shows that the admissions procedure "seemed to favour black and Hispanic applicants, while whites and Asians needed higher grades and SAT scores to get in". I do not quite understand why Asians would need better grades, as this seems to be a form of racism as well, but I guess it is meant to be a barrier to entry for hopeful students in Asia. But it seems as if affirmative action is well at work here when black and Hispanic applicants are favoured, given that historically these people were the disadvantaged and discriminated against. But now those most disadvantaged by this process are the (racial majority) white: especially the lower-income, "rural and working-class". It is possible that universities are trying to make their racial profile look multiethnic and reserve financial aid for these students.
"Cultural biases" seem to be at work as well: "most extra-curricular activities " would "increase your odds of admission" but apparently participation in activities like Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), 4-H and Future Farmers of America would actually "jeopardise" your chances. Unknowingly or otherwise, these elite institutions seem to be "incline against candidates who seem too stereotypically rural or right-wing or Red America".
This creates an "underrepresentation" of working-class whites (particularly white Christians) in these universities and eventually in the "ranks these campuses feed into: in law and philanthropy, finance and academia, the media and the arts". According to Douthat this can breed "paranoia, among elite and non-elites alike", which is already evident from the "racially tinged conspiracy theories" against President Obama that conservatives are keen to perpetuate and exploit. Meanwhile the "highly educated and liberal", with minimal contact with "rural, working-class America" and especially with the rise of the Tea Party movement, imagine the Red American heartland to be full of evangelical theocrats and Ku Klux Klansmen.
When affirmative action backfires, are there alternatives? Singapore's practice of meritocracy might be an alternative. Even meritocracy has its own flaws, such as perpetuating inequality amongst the races (the black are, after all, still in general largely disadvantaged - poorer, less educated, more likely to be unemployed) and it would be quite impossible to be fully meritocratic (granted, these elite universities have been practicing quite a fair bit of meritocracy too). It is a tough balancing act for these elite schools, but arent these elite schools, with the cream of the crop, supposed to be able to find solutions to the problems in society? We need to challenge these schools to come out with a fair way that will allow affirmative action and yet ensure that it does not squeeze out the deserving majority.
Title Inflation
By Kevin
Cloud Computing Ninja?
The recent Schumpeter article about title inflation is really pretty hilarious, not so much because of the humour about the leader of North Korea but because it is really true. It's amusing how people try to inflate job titles and it's to their disadvantage because of how opaque it makes the job become.
Fluffing up titles isn't only happening in the corporate sector; there are plenty of clubs and societies at schools and Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs) that does that. It looks good on your portfolio and more presentable when you try to apply for scholarships, internships, attachments or even try to participate in some seminars. The question is whether the title should be 'important-sounding' or that it should appear to bear loads of responsibilities. In any case, the whole affair is much like the classical signaling games in game theory where signaling grows to epic proportions and undermines the purpose itself. It's all part of evolution; much like how deers who may have grown huge anthers find it hard to escape in dense forests (they get caught between trunks) or peacocks with such big nice feathers it is really heavy for them to open them up.
When the titles that are exaggerated appear to be ineffective signaling device or would backfire, there would be movements to simplify them and scale down the intensity of use. Perhaps then someday, we'll know of our CEOs as 'boss'.
Distance Fares
By Kevin
New Fares!
On 3 July, 'Distance Fares' were implemented for the buses and rail public transport system in Singapore. I got to try it out first thing in the morning that day (which is basically yesterday) while taking public transport to Tiong Bahru Market.
The journey consists of 2 legs - one bus to a particular bus stop and then I have to walk a short distance to another bus stop on another road for another bus to my destination. Before the distance fare, I had to pay $0.69 for the first bus ride; then $0.19 for the second bus ride (after the rebate of $0.50 from the base fare of $0.69). That cost me $0.88 for the entire journey.
For the 'Distance Fares' system, I had to pay $0.71 for the first bus ride, which was actually 2 cents more than what I had to pay in the past; but on the second bus ride, the fares turned out to be $0.00. In other words, it was still within the 3.2km base distance and therefore I didn't have to pay a single cent more. As a result, the journey cost me only $0.71. I'm not advertising for the new fare system, just pointing out a particular feature of it.
The new system raises the base fares (from $0.69 to $0.71) and thus would cost people much more for short rides that consist only of a single bus. Compared to the past, commuters of this sort of rides would have to pay 2 cents more than the past. For those who need to change buses over short journeys, the new system would cost a little less. These commuters would save approximately 17 to 19 cents. The more buses you originally had to transfer within your journey, the more you would save. Over extremely long distances on a single ride, commuters would pay about the same level; possibly less because of the per kilometre charge that allow you to pay a more 'exact' fare.
Adult Bus Fares MC curve
I've worked out the marginal cost every additional kilometre as you ride on the bus. When you've already 'clocked' 26.2 km, every additional kilometre only cost you 1 cent. The good thing is that you have about 45 minutes lag time between transfers, which gives you ample time to do quite some shopping or eating before moving off to the next stop. That said, you would actually take a bus to CK Tang, walk around for 30 minutes before going back to the bus stop to take a bus to Heeren and then walk around before moving off again. You'd be paying less than if you had done the same in the past, though it makes little sense to do that.
If you're like me in the sense that you are always on the go and need to have meals between destinations, the distance fare is a good thing. I could take a bus, stop by somewhere to have a meal (within 45 minutes that is), and then hop on another bus bound for my destination. That saves me approximately the 17-19 cents that I was talking about earlier. The question really is whether the transport companies are earning more from this whole system. I would say not; the thing is that majority of commuters can't possibly have been taking buses only over short distances.
Majority of the trips taken would be within the 6.2km, where the marginal cost of each additional kilometre is 10 cents, and the profit for the company would be the highest. The difference could be that commuters would be encouraged to make transfer that they otherwise won't, allowing the transport companies to make an additional 1-6 cents or so for these sort of transfers while also utilizing their idle capacity. The company essentially manage to apply a more powerful price discrimination that forces customers to pay for the distance they travel on the bus. This is possible because of the market dominance of the firms though I really wonder how SMRT and SBS Transit would share their revenues later.
Further investigations on the effect of the new 'Distance Fares' system is conducted over my personal blog.
Internet Addict & Such
By Kevin
Right from the thin air...
When I told my little cousin who is 9 year old that I didn't have the Internet to play with when I was at her age, she gave such a shocked face. She simply couldn't imagine how we could entertain ourselves with just a couple of Lego pieces or toy tea sets. Yet here we are, all grown up without the Internet until perhaps a little later. And even then, we didn't have facebook. Having an email was like a pretty cool thing but simply non-essential.
Today, not having an email address seem like a miracle. But The Economist argues it's difficult to generalize the 'net generation' or to think of these kids as being much different from the previous generations.
Yet, there's something more miraculous than not having an email today. It is the fact that we are constantly being bombarded and surrounded with energy that goes unused - what we term 'ambience radiation'. Imagine if we could harness this little-but-constant stream of energy to power our low-power devices. It is now possible, and we could run our clocks, sensors, possibly our transponder devices as well. It'll be great energy savings and perhaps we could get our ordinary calculators to run on them as well.
Finally, while the straw hut didn't work against the Big Bad Wolf, it has proven steady during earthquakes. The tech quarterly from The Economist this time didn't disappoint.
Opening Up
By Kevin
Deal!
The recent Lexington on The Economist gave a pitch on the merits of openness, to migration and trade; and then analysed how far US has come. His analysis on America emphasize the inclination towards isolation and warned how dangerous it could be while urging support for greater openness. Singapore's openness to migration appeared particularly alarming to locals in the recent years and prompted our government to take steps to distinguish the privileges between Permanent Residents and Citizens as well as take more social action to aid the needy citizens. Personally, I think the over-embrace of foreigners here is often disturbing for those who cling to Singapore as home; ironically, that's actually the people whose support the government really needs.
Nevertheless, the arguments for openness were great, I particularly like the anecdote used in the first paragraph.
A LONG time ago, the rising seas turned Tasmania into an island. A few thousand inhabitants were cut off from contact with the Australian mainland. Their technology regressed. They forgot how to make bone tools, catch fish and sew skins into clothes. It was not that they grew less intelligent. Their problem was that they no longer had many people to trade with. It took a lot of effort to learn how to carve needles out of bone. So long as there were plenty of people with whom to swap needles for food, it made sense to acquire such skills. But in a tiny, isolated society, there may have been room only for one or two needle-makers. If they both fell off cliffs, the technology died with them. When the first Europeans reached Tasmania, they found natives whose only shields against the winter chill were seal-fat smeared on their skin and wallaby pelts over their shoulders.
Lessons to learn from Norway
By Wei Seng
Paradise on Earth?
First published in The Guardian on Wednesday, then republished in The Straits Times, Timothy Garton Ash writes about Norway vis-a-vis the European Union, and some of the lessons that can be learnt from Norway and about Norway.
The writer refers to Norway as "close to a paradise on Earth" because of high living standards and social equality. This, he says, allows many people to use Norway as an example for many things. British MPs from the Eurosceptic Conservative party claim that Norway's being out of the EU and its resultant prosperity meant that Britain could leave the EU and probably do as well as Norway could. Researchers also cite Norway as an example of how greater equality could have spillover benefits in terms of education and crime amongst other social indicators. And for those "hydrocarbonists" who support the "drill, baby, drill" faction, Norway is the epitome of how oil drilling can create prosperity and equality, since Norway's economy (and hence social democracy model) is sustained by significant exports of oil and gas drilled in its waters. And there are some who allude Norway's success to its historical and cultural links to the Vikings and their traditions and characteristics.
But the writer would like to remind readers that it is easy to draw "too-simple lessons from the experiences of other countries, or of projecting on to them lessons you want to draw for your own". In short, only highlighting what serves your own purpose and neglecting the rest. One may also fall into a trap, the frequently-commited "fallacy of confusing correlation with cause". The lessons that should be learnt need to be the right ones as well: emulating the success stories of another country in your own, in a totally different context, can produce wildly different results.
And, well, even supposed-Paradise Norway is not immune to the "shockwaves of world politics", as the country struggles (like many other European nations) to integrate its growing Muslim populace and its exports have to be imported by its European neighbours for the country to earn any money at all.
So what can Singapore learn from Norway? Maybe tips on the social democracy model that Norway champions, given that Singapore tends to be averse to some of the ideas of social democracy such as pensions because of disincentives to work. Or perhaps how the country manages to create such an egalitarian society, important given that Singapore is becoming a more unequal society as the country continues to grow and develop.
Innocent Prisoner’s Dilemma
By Kevin
Speaking for those trapped...
You've heard of Prisoner's Dilemma in Economics and Game Theory; but Professor Daniel Medwed of Utah identified and came up with the concept of 'Innocent Prisoner's Dilemma.
It's interesting and if you could imagine yourself in the shoes of those 'innocent criminals', you'll find it really frustrating - much like the good old Prisoner's Dilemma of game theory. Thanks to Justin, I discovered that The New York Times produced a really good video on it, discussing the case of a black man who was jailed for 29 years being wrongly convicted of murder and robbery, now free only on parole. Essentially the life of the man is ruined by the system that serves to trap him within a mistake that was made by others.
Lawyers-to-be, especially those interested in criminal laws should really give this a good thought.
Economist Special Reports
By Kevin
Water. Anyone?
The Economist have special reports frequently in their weekly issues and often they go in depth into topics that we'll get in touch with at some point of our lives. Most importantly, for academic, students and teachers, these reports are opportunity to get a clear picture of topics you've always wanted to read up more on and be updated on that field.
Very often you'd also find them cross-disciplinary, covering economics, geography, science and definitely General Paper. Take the recent report on Water for example. It raise natural water issues studied deeply in geography but also propose policy (economics) and technological (science) solutions. It is also great that nowadays these reports are available for download free because they are sponsored by some big company. This are materials that anyone can access, even those who are not subscribers of The Economist magazine.
The Economist is not always about economics and you just got to get in touch with the content they offer to understand how good it is. I'm glad they've came up with an economic solution to offer their content to a wider audience.
Been Out
By Kevin
Gone for a while
For some time I seem to be missing from ERPZ, though probably as much as Martin or Scherzo, or Yuan Jun for that matter. Work has been really busy and life in general after the 15 academic years of the past introduces new challenges. But it remains important to be optimistic about the future and things to come, while appreciating all that you're currently blessed with.
As one mature, you learn that things should be shared rather than fought over, and you have to wonder if you're really hurting others or yourself when you get into fights. One should appreciate the fact that collaboration and combining strengths can produce far more returns in long run than doing too much fighting though competition may sometimes bring greater benefits to everyone in aggregate. Cost and benefits of things have long been hard to balance and somewhat confusing to us. Maybe that is why, we need to be conscious.
Sometimes, it's important that we ponder about life, through current affairs.
White in America – the new minority?
By Wei Seng
Not back to these days I hope
The last idea from the '10 Ideas for the Next 10 Years' column in Time magazine that caught my eye is one that pertains to America in particular though it could have ramifications in future for other countries facing a similar fate (even Singapore, for example).
Gregory Rodriguez writes about the "white anxiety crisis" and how "native-born white Americans" are poised to become the minority in America soon, as early as 2050 according to estimates by the US Census Bureau. This could certainly cause a backlash (amongst the white, that is) about what it means to be American, as well as attitudes of positive discrimination towards black / coloured minorities. Thus far the image of America has been one that is white, with African-Americans and Hispanics seen as the minority, the same way that the image of Africa conjured up is black while whites are the minority (usually remnants of colonial rule). How palatable (to the white as well as the black) would it be to have an America that is in proportion no longer majority white but still viewed or governed as a white-majority nation? The colouring of the United States would probably be seen as disturbing for "native-born whites" (in all honesty, the true natives of America are the native Indians, who have long been shunted and sidelined by the government). As the minority (at the moment still Hispanic and African-American, even Asian) clamour for more representation and more rights, the majority would now fight back as they see the threat of being overwhelmed in near future.
Worse still, could the threat of becoming the new minority cause the revival of white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan? I shudder to think of such an eventuality, but I am quite certain white supremacist thinking in some is still alive, just as much as blacks still think that the whites still have something against them.
However, it must be noted that the colouring of America is taking place in select states such as California, such that a convoluted situation would occur: 'majority' (in terms of land size / number of states) of the United States is still white but "strong white-minority political consciousness is most likely to arise in regions that are nowhere near... becoming majority-minority". The current minority are unlikely to expand to become the majority in many states such as Montana (think of the mountainous, central states of America), but it could well be people from states such as these that might be making the most noise about the colouring of America. I am reminded of the movie The Blind Side which I watched, where the black-white suspicion-tension often surfaced throughout the storyline and where racial segregation and discrimination is still not dead. It might not be an accurate reflection of the whole of America, but movies tend to portray some form of indication of societal views as well as perceptions.
So how is this all relevant to Singapore at all? There are parallels. Frequently in the papers articles emerge with regard to the Singapore government's promotion and welcoming of immigrants into Singapore, and then there will be letters and commentary about how native-born Singaporeans are being threatened and face a high likelihood of becoming the minority (just like the whites in America in 2050). Such fears are not exactly irrational, as this article from The Kent Ridge Common suggests. Studying the figures from the Statistics Singapore website, after some rough calculation the current non-resident (non-resident refers to people who are neither citizens or Permanent Residents) proportion of the population of Singapore as of 2009 is 25% while Permanent Residents form 11% of our total population and 16% of the resident population. These numbers are not huge but they are not exactly negligible either. Whether native citizens of Singapore will become the new minority in future remains to be seen; after all Singapore was created by immigrants centuries ago... though America was also created by immigrants centuries ago.
There may be lessons to learn from how America deals with this demographic situation.