Yes, this confusion between the individual level and the collective level perspectives is inherently somewhat tricky, but that potential confusion is strategically weaponized by certain ideologies rather than being clarified.
There are two basic models competing here, which I think I can try to describe less verbosely than I sometimes do:
Yes, this confusion between the individual level and the collective level perspectives is inherently somewhat tricky, but that potential confusion is strategically weaponized by certain ideologies rather than being clarified.
There are two basic models competing here, which I think I can try to describe less verbosely than I sometimes do:
Model 1: To the degree that Black people (or whatever group) is disproportionately represented at the aggregate level (for whatever reason, including but not limited to residues of slavery or Jim Crow), that population group will receive disproportionate benefits. If over time a group becomes more or less represented statistically, the aggregate benefits to members of that group will automatically go up and down.
Model 2: Consider all members of a population group to be at the same economic level. Give benefits depending on membership in a population group and at a level decided by the aggregate group means - regardless of the actual financial status of the individuals. Asian individuals would receive no benefits, because Asians in general are statistically at the top of the income hierarchy while Black (or Native American) individuals would receive the most benefits - again, not depending on their individual need or level of success.
I find the self-leveling granular approach #1 to be much more effective and to have much better outcomes for societal cohesion (versus fostering tribal political resentments which can be exploited for political gain).
The differences between the means (or medians) of income for different population groups are vastly smaller than the differences between the top and bottom decile within each group (even leaving aside the top 1 or 0.1% extremes). Sweeping the huge intra-group disparities aside to focus on the far smaller inter-group differences seems like an unwise approach in most cases.
(As an aside, by coincidence the focus on racial groups lets the economic elites - the core socio-political base of neo-progressivism - largely off the hook. Instead of one-percenters attending the ivy league facing a daunting 99%, they either get either to be part of an oppressed collective group, or if white they diffuse their highlighted 'oppressor group' into 2/3 of the population so they are not labeled as any more guilty than the Appalachian dirt farmer.)
And something similar applies to power. It too is extremely unevenly distributed within population groups and is better assessed at the individual level. In addition, even for a given individual, it varies considerably on context so no one number (equivalent to reported annual income) could describe it accurately (even conceptually).
Collective aggregates of power are relevant only to the degree that the group agrees on issues. Right handed people have an outrageous degree of control over democracies, completely controlling every election outcome from dogcatcher to president. However, that's irrelevant unless they tend to vote as a block, which they do not. I don't think racial groups today are very well modeled as nearly monolithic today either (with Black voters being the closest to that status and whites being among the furthest from political unity, in the US).
Yes, this confusion between the individual level and the collective level perspectives is inherently somewhat tricky, but that potential confusion is strategically weaponized by certain ideologies rather than being clarified.
There are two basic models competing here, which I think I can try to describe less verbosely than I sometimes do:
Model 1: To the degree that Black people (or whatever group) is disproportionately represented at the aggregate level (for whatever reason, including but not limited to residues of slavery or Jim Crow), that population group will receive disproportionate benefits. If over time a group becomes more or less represented statistically, the aggregate benefits to members of that group will automatically go up and down.
Model 2: Consider all members of a population group to be at the same economic level. Give benefits depending on membership in a population group and at a level decided by the aggregate group means - regardless of the actual financial status of the individuals. Asian individuals would receive no benefits, because Asians in general are statistically at the top of the income hierarchy while Black (or Native American) individuals would receive the most benefits - again, not depending on their individual need or level of success.
I find the self-leveling granular approach #1 to be much more effective and to have much better outcomes for societal cohesion (versus fostering tribal political resentments which can be exploited for political gain).
The differences between the means (or medians) of income for different population groups are vastly smaller than the differences between the top and bottom decile within each group (even leaving aside the top 1 or 0.1% extremes). Sweeping the huge intra-group disparities aside to focus on the far smaller inter-group differences seems like an unwise approach in most cases.
(As an aside, by coincidence the focus on racial groups lets the economic elites - the core socio-political base of neo-progressivism - largely off the hook. Instead of one-percenters attending the ivy league facing a daunting 99%, they either get either to be part of an oppressed collective group, or if white they diffuse their highlighted 'oppressor group' into 2/3 of the population so they are not labeled as any more guilty than the Appalachian dirt farmer.)
And something similar applies to power. It too is extremely unevenly distributed within population groups and is better assessed at the individual level. In addition, even for a given individual, it varies considerably on context so no one number (equivalent to reported annual income) could describe it accurately (even conceptually).
Collective aggregates of power are relevant only to the degree that the group agrees on issues. Right handed people have an outrageous degree of control over democracies, completely controlling every election outcome from dogcatcher to president. However, that's irrelevant unless they tend to vote as a block, which they do not. I don't think racial groups today are very well modeled as nearly monolithic today either (with Black voters being the closest to that status and whites being among the furthest from political unity, in the US).