Note: This question is not about the conclusions of Flynn’s article - obviously that would be GD material - but about a factual claim and what exactly it means
No what is “missing”, applied to adults who are (I suppose) not legally required to report to someone in particular, and which “missing” status apparently disqualifies them as responsible long-term relationship material?
Is it “sleeping with the fishes”?
Is it “having severed all ties with their birth family”?
Is it “not traceable by researchers who have followed the earlier life of a cohort”?
Is it “being undercounted in censuses”?
You probably need to read Flynn’s book (referenced in your cite) to know exactly what he means.
Since he refers to “government statistics”, I would guess he’s relying on the census and other surveys done by the government. The obvious meaning of “missing” is people unaccounted for by any of the other categories. I would take it as an estimate for the error in the statistics, since the categories are all-encompassing otherwise (dead, jailed, unemployed, or none of above).
He further assumes that missing people are not eligible for marriage. I’m not sure why that would be valid, but presumably he explains it.
I have now got around to getting me the book (James R. Flynn: Where have all the liberals gone? Race, class and Ideals in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-521-49431-1)
The relevant chapter is Part II, Blacks and the pursuit of happiness, chapter 2: The Lost Boys, pp. 39 ff.
Apparently the “missing” percentage is the difference between the number of black men of that age group that are alive at the time as per their birth and death certificates (is a racial classification really recorded on these in the US?), and the number who are counted in the census.
Flynn’s hypothesis is that “they are largely men in and out of prison who do not want their existence reported to the US government” (p. 49). He goes on to say that one percent of men with no fixed residence, plus one third of those who were in prison at some time but not currently so, would fit the bill. “I will put them in the category of unpromising spouses” (p. 50) - he does not elaborate but perhaps men who think they need to keep a low profile to the extent of evading the census are indeed not the best husband material.
A question: would that be a valid concern for these men i.e. do American public officials esp. presumably law enforcement get access to nonanonymised census return data?
I can recommend the book as thought-provoking reading BTW - it does not read as a work on psychological and social statistics (which what I cited above might imply) but a take on American policy and history (Part I is entitled “St. Thomas Jefferson”), and political philosophy, that’s a refreshing contrast to what I usually read in US political debates.
Also, people leading that type of life aren’t really organized enough to develop a strategy to specifically evade the census. I think the author’s point is more that they just generally avoid contact with the government, to the point that they don’t pay taxes (or work and have taxes withheld), own (or even rent) property, apply for government benefits, etc., at least not under their own names.
But yes, in the US it would be normal to record race on a birth or death certificate. Attitudes toward collecting race data differ quite a bit between the US and some European countries. In the US it is seen as something necessary to do to remedy a history of racial inequality. Some European countries see it more as private information that would be dangerous for the government to collect, in the sense of maintaining a list of vulnerable people. As a contrasting example, in the US the racial mix of schools is monitored and often rebalanced by setting district boundaries or busing. I’m not trying to open a debate on this controversial issue, just showing that aggregate racial statistics are routinely used in the US, and aggregate statistics come from surveying individuals or collecting data in administrative processes (school enrollment, birth records, etc.).
Of course, since this is self-reported, it is at least theoretically possible that someone whose parents recorded him as black would be recorded as white or mixed race or other on a death certificate, particularly if his “race” is being guessed by a coroner or other public official in the absence of family. I don’t think this could account for 8% of all African-American deaths, of course.
Does his study assume that there are no imprisoned black women or missing black women?
I know that more boy babies are born than girl babies and that more girl babies survive. His “six more men than women are dead” by the age of forty-five actually sounds a little low when considering what lack of appropriate pre-natal care can do to infant mortality rates. (But I have no cite for this.)
Bear in mind also that your average individual doesn’t necessarily know that census data is anonymous, particularly if they’re not the type to keep informed about politics or civics.
Also, people who live in subsidized (Section 8) housing are not allowed to let anyone stay with them for more than a short time. Acknowledging such a houseguest (say, a friend or relative fallen on hard times) would put the entire family’s housing at risk.
Also, parolees are not supposed to associate or live with other felons, as a condition of parole. So you can’t tell your parole officer if you’re staying with your friend who is also on parole. Acknowledging that a parolee is living in your house means that the five-way search clause* applied automatically to all parolees will extend to your house and possibly self as well. And parole officers are known to visit frequently and unexpectedly.
*Let’s see if I can remember: self, possessions (i.e., backpack etc.), home, vehicle… err, I don’t know the fifth one.