Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Black-Owned Businesses Received Less Than 2% of PPP Loans, White-Owned Got 83%

moguldom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: Black-Owned Businesses Received Less Than 2% of PPP Loans, White-Owned Got 83%

#41

Post by andrewla »

ugwigr wrote: post #35
andrewla wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I noted in my other comment, in the linked paper, only 14% of business chose to self-identify race, so it's not clear how biased this data set is.

a majority of modern studies on race rely on sampling. The sample size here (14%) was large enough statistically

This is not a sample in the statistical sense. This is a self-selected subset. Any bias in the groups in question towards answering or not answering this question is not assessed by the study, and the assumption that the sample is representative of the population is entirely unfounded.

Re: Black-Owned Businesses Received Less Than 2% of PPP Loans, White-Owned Got 83%

#42

Post by ugwigr »

andrewla wrote: post #41
ugwigr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a majority of modern studies on race rely on sampling. The sample size here (14%) was large enough statistically

This is not a sample in the statistical sense. This is a self-selected subset. Any bias in the groups in question towards answering or not answering this question is not assessed by the study, and the assumption that the sample is representative of the population is entirely unfounded.

A vast majority of studies in the US on race use self-reported data.

Re: Black-Owned Businesses Received Less Than 2% of PPP Loans, White-Owned Got 83%

#43

Post by andrewla »

ugwigr wrote: post #40
andrewla wrote: post #16

To be clear: > The full list of Paycheck Protection Program recipients released by the Small Business Administration on Monday shows that of the 14 percent of businesses that chose to identify race in their loan application, Black-owned businesses received 1.9 percent of loans while White-owned businesses received 83 percent. So the actual percentage of black-owned businesses receiving PPP loans is somewhere from 0.2…

majority of studies are based on sampling

You don’t understand what sampling is.

Re: Black-Owned Businesses Received Less Than 2% of PPP Loans, White-Owned Got 83%

#44

Post by ugwigr »

andrewla wrote: post #43
ugwigr wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

majority of studies are based on sampling

You don’t understand what sampling is.

it is a self-selected sample - which is a sample. Ofcourse it introduces seld self-selection bias. However a vast majority of studies on race in the US rely on self reported data (for thical and legal reasons) and include some element of self selection bias. The end.

Re: Black-Owned Businesses Received Less Than 2% of PPP Loans, White-Owned Got 83%

#45

Post by dpbriggs »

aSplash0fDerp wrote: post #27
dpbriggs wrote: post #8

In other news, larger corporations are more white-owned, and had the resources to wrangle the PPP loans. This is a case of small businesses not having the resources to acquire the loans in the first place. Mixing in race obfuscates and distracts from the real issue here. It should have been easier for small businesses and harder for larger ones to balance the scales.

We actually have a snapshot on Youtube of personal wealth channels promoting PPP and EIDL during that window. You can see exactly who was stepping up with quality information and even sort/poll by race if thats your thing. It was being promoted as free money by some and many offered solid strategies for small businesses to make the 2nd cut and skip the lines.

Could you elaborate?

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

Businesses are only concerned with ethics if it improves their bottom line. 'Free' money in uncertain times is an opportunity any business will seize if it has the means to obtain it.

Re: Black-Owned Businesses Received Less Than 2% of PPP Loans, White-Owned Got 83%

#46

Post by kyleee »

ugwigr wrote: post #42
andrewla wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a sample in the statistical sense. This is a self-selected subset. Any bias in the groups in question towards answering or not answering this question is not assessed by the study, and the assumption that the sample is representative of the population is entirely unfounded.

A vast majority of studies in the US on race use self-reported data.

Which lets us know we should be taking the results of such so called studies with large grains of salt

Re: Black-Owned Businesses Received Less Than 2% of PPP Loans, White-Owned Got 83%

#47

Post by aSplash0fDerp »

dpbriggs wrote: post #45
aSplash0fDerp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We actually have a snapshot on Youtube of personal wealth channels promoting PPP and EIDL during that window. You can see exactly who was stepping up with quality information and even sort/poll by race if thats your thing. It was being promoted as free money by some and many offered solid strategies for small businesses to make the 2nd cut and skip the lines.

Could you elaborate? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Businesses are only concerned with ethics if it improves their bottom line. 'Free' money in uncertain times is an opportunity any business will seize if it has the means to obtain it.

I think this is the video that piqued my interest on March 28th. The "how-tos" and "what-is-its" spread like wildfire after that day.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=dwuUAGpWtlo

We are 15 days into SIP at this point. I do not need PPP/EIDL, but as a prior SBO, I followed this topic with interest. The quality of info was high and SB's had days and sometimes weeks notice on navigating the process.

I read that CVT went on to make $300k a day on YT (somedays) by providing daily updates on stimulus, PPP, EIDL, etc, so the incentive was there to get the word out.

If race is a factor, you'll find it was being discussed in their circles with the same delivery as Brian on YT. If not.. They should have picked a better accountant.

Re: Black-Owned Businesses Received Less Than 2% of PPP Loans, White-Owned Got 83%

#48

Post by dpbriggs »

ugwigr wrote: post #28
dpbriggs wrote: post #8

In other news, larger corporations are more white-owned, and had the resources to wrangle the PPP loans. This is a case of small businesses not having the resources to acquire the loans in the first place. Mixing in race obfuscates and distracts from the real issue here. It should have been easier for small businesses and harder for larger ones to balance the scales.

I acknowledge there are other issues but I wanted to shed light on an issue (racial issues) I care about. Even if larger corporations are more white-owned it is worth noting the US Treasury is transferring wealth to White people

I appreciate you sharing the article, and shedding further light on these important issues.

I personally don't see 'other' issues in this case, as this article describes a symptom and not a cause. The focus on race is at best a distraction from class, which is the real predictor on the ability to wrangle benefits from the government.

> US Treasury is transferring wealth to White people

I don't really interact with social media - why is white capitalized here? I'm not being facetious, just curious.

And wouldn't the explanation here be that the vast majority of wealth is in pension / passive funds, which primarily invest in large corporations, which are the most capable to wrangle benefits? Racist policies in the past and current discrimination limit the aggregate capital of this group, and therefore they're under-represented as presented here.

Obviously surveys are important but I worry that stating a conclusion allows leeway in choosing a hypothesis that fits personal bias and not reality.

Re: Black-Owned Businesses Received Less Than 2% of PPP Loans, White-Owned Got 83%

#49

Post by nickff »

ugwigr wrote: post #36
nickff wrote: post #4

According to the US Census Bureau, 9.4% of businesses were black-owned, as of 2012. According to the same report, 78% of businesses were white-owned in 2012. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-209...

I, the author, was not seeking to show intent to discrimate. I as only showing the policy effectively did discriminate. In order to show intent I would need the statistics you mentioned but to show the effect the stats you mentioned are entirely irrelvant

I added my comment not to imply intentional discrimination, but as a slightly better 'base-rate' than the statistic you offered, which was African-Americans as a proportion of Americans.

I personally think it is most likely that more of the money went to larger corporations than intended.

Re: Black-Owned Businesses Received Less Than 2% of PPP Loans, White-Owned Got 83%

#50

Post by ugwigr »

dpbriggs wrote: post #48
ugwigr wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I acknowledge there are other issues but I wanted to shed light on an issue (racial issues) I care about. Even if larger corporations are more white-owned it is worth noting the US Treasury is transferring wealth to White people

I appreciate you sharing the article, and shedding further light on these important issues. I personally don't see 'other' issues in this case, as this article describes a symptom and not a cause. The focus on race is at best a distraction from class, which is the real predictor on the ability to wrangle benefits from the government. > US Treasury is transferring wealth to White people I don't really interact with so…

- This article describes how the government PPP policy effectively discriminates against Black People - that is a problem in my view - once again there could be other problems.

- 'White' is capitalize cause as used it represents a racial identiy, please see https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/time-to-ca...

- The article is not attempting to establish an "intent" to discrminate so it is irrelevant if Black people are underrespresented as owners of eligible companies. The article is only showing the policy does effectively discrminiate (whether as an intended or unintended consequence).

Post reply on HN