We also see that there are lower unemployment rates for post-grads than for college graduates, and lower unemployment rates for college graduates than high school graduates, and lower unemployment rates for high school graduates than for high school drop-outs. Skills and intelligence are very clearly significant confounding variables in the race-focused unemployment analysis.
So a comparison of black-white in terms of unemployment needs to equalize for lower levels of black education level and mean level of group black IQ. We do see that when IQ is controlled for that income disparity evaporates, so it's plausible that in an environment where there is no discrimination being detected with regards to pay that there also would be some reduction in unemployment levels when skill and intelligence are controlled for.
It's completely fine to note that blacks have a higher level of unemployment than whites. The interesting question to me is why this is so. If some parties wish to suggest that this is because of discrimination, then I want them to prove that this is so, not simply assume it as the null hypothesis.
And I acknowledge your point and agree with it. As I noted, this is a process of probability which says nothing about any individual.
We would still see that even in an environment devoid of stereotypes, see the first part of my comment. I will agree with you that this contributes a part of the problem, but it certainly is not the whole problem.
Racial wage disparity disappeared back in the 1970s when cognition as a confounding variable is controlled. Report from
MANAGERIAL AND DECISION ECONOMICS:
The Myth of Racial Discrimination in Pay in the United States
The analyses of the General Social Survey data from 1974 to 2000 replicate earlier findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth that racial disparity in earnings disappears once cognitive ability is controlled for. The results are robust across many alternative specifications, and further show that blacks receive significantly greater returns to their cognitive ability than nonblacks. The trend data show that there was no sign of racial discrimination in the United States as early as 1970s. The analyses call into question the necessity of and justification for preferential treatment of ethnic minorities.
The market will sort this out. There are a lot of people in positions of authority who are responsible for hiring and who believe that stereotypes are nothing more than useless trash. They will be entirely neutral in the hiring process. All of the research I've seen shows that there is a varied environment in the labor market when it comes to stereotypes and purported discrimination, meaning that
most employers are not discriminators. This means that there are two fundamentally different processes at work - one or the other must be more successful than the other.
Secondly, the information scarcity which drives the usefulness of stereotypes applies mostly to applicants who can't provide disconfirming information. People with good work histories, irrespective of race, have the tools to invalidate the stereotype when they face a potential employer. Now the million dollar question is what proportion of these job applicants who have accumulated work histories confirm the stereotype compared to the proportion which disconfirm the stereotype. There's little that can be done for individuals who present work histories which confirm the stereotype for they are not being judged by stereotype, they are being judged as individuals based on their own work history.