Freakonomics Critical Response #3

In Chapter 6 of Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner conclude that a child's name does not matter when considering the child's potential for economic success. According to Levitt and Dubner, people with distinctively black names, on average, have a worse economic outcome in life. However, they say that economic outcome "isn't the fault of their names" (Levitt and Dubner 173).

The core reason people with white names typically have a more successful life than people with distinctively black names starts with the parents. The type of parents who would name their son Jake, versus the type of parents who would name their son DeShawn are vastly different in regards to socioeconomic status. Parents who would name their son Jake would most likely fall in the range of middle to upper class in society whereas parents who would name their son DeShawn are more likely to be in the lower class and impoverished (Levitt and Dubner 173). Levitt and Dubner also conclude that if a boy named Jake were to be born in a poor neighborhood, the same as a DeShawn, "they would likely have similar life outcomes" (Levitt and Dubner 173). Levitt and Dubner have concluded that for the most part a name is more of an indicator for socioeconomic status, not a cause of it.

Considering my name (Joshua), I agree with the author's conclusions about naming. According to the Social Security Administration, Joshua was the fourth most popular name among male newborns in 2007. From my own experience Joshua would seem to be a good indicator of economic success. I grew up in a middle class family and was enrolled in an above average public school system and I encountered many Joshua's that went to my schools. In my senior engineering class alone I was one of three Josh's, all of whom I know went to college after high school. Since there is not a very good way to measure socioeconomic status for a person my age, going to college must be considered the ultimate predictor for economic success.