For my book, I read Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner, which explores alot of the overlooked aspects of economics in daily life. One of the things the authors discuss is the correlation between names and the socioeconomic trends associated with those names. Levitt and Dubner point out the most common "white" names and the most common "black" names and compare the results of having these names. For example, if a "Jake Williams" (the first name being the "whitest" male name in America according to Levitt and Dubner) and a "DeShawn Williams" (the "blackest" male name according to Levitt and Dubner) each submit identical resumes to an employer, "Jake" is far more likely to get a callback.
Does this situation mean that having a historically "black" name carries an economic toll? Would DeShawn have had a better chance had his parents named him a "whiter" (and perhaps more appealing to employers) name? Or is the name not what makes the difference, but rather more complex social issues pertaining to race? Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is an interesting subject. When I was born, my great-grandmother was strongly opposed to my name because she believed it was a "black" name, because she the three African-American friends she had were all named Audrey. Most people, on the other hand, think of Audrey Hepburn when they hear the name Audrey. I believe that it is not the name which makes the difference, but the people the name is associated with (similar to how it is not the words that matter, but their connotations). If the only Jake the employer knew was African-American, he or she might assume that Jake Williams was too.
ReplyDelete-Audrey
Sorry forgot my name. -Bryce
ReplyDelete