Positive Money claim that top jobs at the Bank of England should reflect the racial mix of the country of a whole and moreover that there should be more women in top BoE jobs.
Shouldn't the Bank of England’s leadership should reflect the whole of society @PhilipHammondUK ? #wherearethewomen https://t.co/nJuKPboSBU— Positive Money (@PositiveMoneyUK) October 21, 2017
I suggest there is just one criterion for choosing people for a job, and one only: ability to do the job. Moreover, it could be that white males excel at economics related jobs (in that the performance of central banks or economists in general can be described as “excellent”, which of course is debatable.)
About 95% of the letters to the Financial Times are from men rather than women, which is prima facie evidence that women are just not all that interested in economics.
Moreover, while corruption in white countries is bad enough, corruption in Africa and Arab countries is even worse, which is prima facie evidence that blacks and Arabs are more corrupt than whites, and we do not want corruption at the top of central banks, or any more corruption than there already is at central banks.
Also, some psychologists claim blacks and Arabs have lower IQs than whites: see image just below.
Moreover, the IQ distribution of males and females is not the same: there are more genius IQ and idiot IQ males than in the female section of the population. Thus assuming top jobs at central banks go to top IQ individuals, you'd expect to see more males there than females.
Speaking as a white male, I have no objection at all to people from the Indian sub-continent being over-represented when it comes to running convenience stores. I have no objection to women being over-represented in some professions, e.g. medicine: at least around ten years ago 60% of trainee doctors were female. As for law, about 67% of trainees are female in the UK.
To repeat, there should be just one criterion for choosing people for jobs: ability to do the job.
Ralph writes:
ReplyDelete"To repeat, there should be just one criterion for choosing people for jobs: ability to do the job."
This is only true if everyone has the same equality of opportunity to acquire that ability to do the job. Otherwise, those who do these high-paying jobs end up passing advantages on to their children in the form of higher education and then you get what a recent article called "embedded inequality".
So the solution to is correct the problem elsewhere, which is to say allow everyone the same ability to get an education, similar to Denmark where post-secondary education is available to all plus a living stipend.
As for Africans and Arabs having low IQs, this is a function of environment, not genetics. The best society for high IQs is a middle class society. In the graph you show, you either have extreme poverty or extreme riches in some of the Arab Gulf countries. Extreme poverty means a lack of access to education, extreme riches means a lack of incentive.
Incidentally, corruption also ties into the things above.
The standard way of settling the "environment versus genetics" question is to look at identical twins separated at birth. I'm not the expert on this, but I think psychologists' answer to that one is "a bit of both".
Delete