Comments on: Ask the White Guy: Why Are Disparities in Income Distribution Increasing?

By: Luke Visconti

Luke Visconti — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:14:07 +0000

Everyone individually is not equal, but overall, we all fall in a pattern of natural abilities, including intelligence, that is statistically the same for all people – women, men, Black, Latino, Asian, etc., because there is no biological basis for race – we are all one race. There will be people with more and less ability in every group. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. Nor are you entitled to an opinion that runs contrary to the stated values of your employer.
You are entitled to those opinions from the comfort of your couch, as you sit with the remote in your hand, watching FOX. Luke Visconti, CEO of DiversityInc

By: Will R

Will R — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:57:50 +0000

What a ludicrous statement. Everyone is created equal in the eyes of the law, but to say they are created equally in terms of talents, etc. is insane. I want to be in the NFL, but I don’t run a 4.4 forty and am only 5’6″. The NBA is for tall people. I have no musical ability. I can’t get into Harvard or Yale; my grades and scores are not high enough. There is equality before the law, but equality of outcomes is an impossibility because not everyone is motivated the same or born with the same abilities. Utter nonsense is what you espouse.

By: Ought Thoughts

Ought Thoughts — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:46:26 +0000

I appreciate this conversation with you.

Yes, it’s agreed we can’t go backwards and seek less education.

Your article does point to a real issue, and speaks to the burgeoning absurdity of arguing that, as visible minorities tip the 50% portion of general society, we should drop the “minority/majority” labels. Yet, penetration at the highest levels of power, decision-making and access remains below the national average for diversity penetration at other levels.

It’s still an “old boys’ club” at the higher levels. And the growing disparity we recognize is indeed a reflection of a combination of factors including the lack of diversity of hands divvying up the pie.

By: Luke Visconti

Luke Visconti — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:19:31 +0000

You miss my point – whatever the percentage is – 1%, 5%, 30% – if we exclude broad swaths of our population from having the preparation necessary to contribute, we sharply limit our potential. That said, I stand by my estimation. In my experience of being on three boards of higher-education institutions, the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel and having an extremely high degree of interaction with CEOs, senior executives, flag-rank officers and people who have Ph.D’s, I can tell you from observation that I’d estimate that a “precious few,” maybe 5%, of the most highly educated people in this country are truly innovative and are given the sharp delineation of opportunity (that excludes people from being in those groups that I interact with). I think the excluded population can be expected to be no better or worse than the group that is currently INCLUDED. Therefore, if we INCLUDED the groups we currently exclude (which I’d estimate to be 40% of our population), then we’d increase our available pool of truly innovative and contributing citizens by 40%. Our GDP would likely go up by a greater percentage as innovations usually leverage and spawn other innovations. No more deficit. Lower taxes. Problems solved. Luke Visconti, CEO of DiversityInc

By: McCarty

McCarty — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:53:30 +0000

I urge you and your staff to think a little more about how we are going to even out the disparities in income. I think your assertion about limited talent in fact supports the argument that income should be concentrated in the top 1 % to supply the innovative energy that you claim our economy relies on. In my opinion 99% of the population has the ability to innovate. I think your argument about talent is pandering to the more widely held beliefs of capitalism and contradicts and undermines your other assertion that people are created equally and deserve equitable treatment. As long as we continue to believe that talent is rare we will have a system to perpetuate some kind of discrimination for the purpose of concentrating wealth. See part of your opinion piece below.

” In my opinion, only a certain percentage (a small percentage) of people have what it takes to be in the top 5 percent—or the top 1 percent. We need to maximize the ability for people to reach that level because they create the things that the rest of the people live on; their innovation creates wealth, which in turn creates economic (and labor) demand. We destroy our potential by limiting good education to a precious few. I believe that we do this because people intuitively feel that if “they” win, “I” lose.

By: Luke Visconti

Luke Visconti — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:56:50 +0000

The answer is clear: If people are created equally, then anything less than equity in outcome defines a less than optimum outcome for the common good. Therefore, there must be equity in educational OUTCOME regardless of any other factors. In other words, the percentages of graduation and higher-education attendance should be statistically the same across geography and income across our nation. But because poverty and race are connected in the United States, this is not palatable to a definable group of people who are working against our common good (do a web search on the people working against reforming Stand Your Ground laws, go to the SPLC website and check the growth of hate groups, etc.). Equitable outcome may mean building dormitory high schools in poor neighborhoods and keeping schools open 365 days a year – and serving three meals a day. It is poverty that destroys potential as poverty introduces chaos into lives and forces people down Maslow’s Hierarchy. You cannot focus on studying if you are hungry and have unstable/insufficient shelter. Will this be expensive? Sure. But probably not as expensive as maintaining a military/intelligence complex that is larger than the next 17 militaries added together. But I don’t think we have to trade one thing for another – education is an amazingly good investment. Each class of 200 Rutgers Future Scholars is estimated to save the state of New Jersey $40,000,000 in their lifetime. Further, what’s more important to our “security” than a viable world-class innovative workforce? Luke Visconti, CEO of DiversityInc

By: Luke Visconti

Luke Visconti — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:42:19 +0000

You have a point – however, the requirements for the workforce demand more education as the sophistication of the work demanded by the American economy has increased. This makes inclusion more important than ever as I would think it’s logical that as the sophistication of work has increased, the percentage of who is capably talented for the work at hand has narrowed. Luke Visconti, CEO of DiversityInc

By: Ought Thoughts

Ought Thoughts — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:25:57 +0000

The sheer amount of data and information provided in this article, its opinion, and the links, is vast. Much appreciated.

One of the challenges to education as a solution is that supply and demand continues to erode the value of education. There was a time when graduating high school set one apart. Then everyone did it, and getting an undergrad degree made the difference. Then everyone did it, and a post-graduate degree became the thing…the cycle continues, the floor raises.

I like the framework and conclusion you’ve drawn – we’re better with diversity, so it should be recognized as a profitable enterprise to be more diverse and improve access for the best and brightest (and make room for all people at their various levels of contribution to society).

By: James Coles III

James Coles III — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:53:43 +0000

I agree with you that the fundamental problem is education of the children, where influential people can send there kids to better schools. So, how do we make the schools better or allow disadvantaged children to get to a better school? I think that system is broken. There are many ideas that could help: business involvemnt in the local schools, school choice for families, school competition between schools, holding teachers accoutable.