Why Did Black Males Begin Earning More After 1960?

Earnings of Black Men After World War II First Question Both men in these peer-reviewed articles -- James P. Smith and James J. Heckman -- agree that the earnings of black males rose relative to the earnings of Caucasian men up until 1980.

How does Smith see the key reason for this phenomenon? That is, why, in Smith's view, did "…income ratios first begin to converge in the 1960s?" First of all according to Morton Zeman's (and others') studies, in the 1950s, a few years after World War II, if anything the relative economic situation for black men had deteriorated (Smith, 1984). Racial differences (and less education for black) apparently factored into this uneven economic situation, according to Smith's article.

But in the 1960s and 1970s, new surveys of census information reflected the fact that the rates of blacks utilizing educational opportunities had been "significantly understated" -- and moreover, incomes for black males did not trail those incomes for "comparable whites as their careers evolved" (Smith, 686). Interestingly, the rise in incomes for black males -- which began to rise "suddenly during the mid-1960s" -- is "roughly coincident" with the legislative success of the 1965 Civil Rights Act, Smith continues (687).

The trends in education into the 20th century show that gradually blacks' access to a high school education increased, and even though in Mississippi and elsewhere in the south, by 1910, far more was spent on white schools and white students than on black schools and black students (Smith, 690). It wasn't until after the Great Depression (1930s) that a high school education became what Smith calls "a realistic goal" (690).

Part of the delay in blacks having the opportunities to get good jobs was the lack of educational opportunities; in fact it took 75 years for black to "…equal the basic literacy rate" that whites had achieved right after the Civil War (Smith, 691). Smith uses numerous data and dates as his examples as to why blacks struggled for so long to reach a point where they could achieve a decent income, and education is obviously one important aspect.

In 1900, about 45% of working black men could not read or write, which, Smith concludes, "depressed their income by 15%" (693). After several pages of data and comparisons, the key question remains: what was Smith's key explanation as to why black male earnings rose relative to white male earnings? He asserts that while the income ratios rose after 1960, they also had risen between 1920 and 1940 but the ratio after 1960 was "clearly larger" than that between the years 1920-1940 (694).

Why this disparity? It can't have been affirmative action alone that caused the jump in black earnings, he states; but he does say that the explanation could be that the "acceleration" in income for blacks was related to "younger cohorts" getting educated (695). In other words, blacks were getting a decent education at a younger age, giving them more background and making them eligible for better jobs.

What factor does Heckman argue that Smith missed in his analysis? Heckman disputes Smith's contention that it was the availability of education -- and to some degree migration out of the south -- that contributed to the rise in black incomes relative to white incomes. Other scholars have pointed to federal policies (Civil Rights Act of 1965, for example), but Heckman writes that the evidence to back up that assertion is "indirect" (Heckman, 1990).

Besides, federal enforcement efforts were not strong in that period of greatest wage gains for blacks, so federal legislative and other policies couldn't be the reason, Heckman continues (243). He insists that because the "vast majority" of blacks lived and worked in the south the black economic progress being discussed was "…predominately southern black economic progress" -- based on manufacturing jobs -- and not national economic progress for blacks.

Yes, Heckman agrees, there were economic improvements for black in the north, but they "died off" by 1975; but the improvements did not die off in the south (243). Southern manufacturing was the livelihood in which blacks made their "greatest advance in operative occupations"; the wage gap between black and white workers shrunk from 38.5% (that is, whites made 38.5% more than blacks in the same field) in 1965 to 12.6% in 1975 (Heckman, 243).

What evidence does Heckman offer? Using the closing of gap of the wage paid to workers is good evidence on the part of Heckman. The lessening of racial discrimination is also reflected in the closing of the earning gap. Further, Heckman chides Smith's assertion that schooling and migration explain the ability of black workers to earn more. What is more applicable to the explanation of this dynamic, Heckman writes, is the "dramatic breakthrough in black employment and wages after 1964" (244).

' Heckman makes no bones about his disagreement with Smith on the education issue, and in the process, Heckman flatly states: "There is as yet no microeconomic evidence supporting the claim that increasing black school quality raised the 'return' (price of) black schooling relative to white schooling" (244). And while Heckman agrees that teacher.