Inequality of the American Dream

[Feedmenow]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...086_jdl20.html

Are you still feeling the pain of our recent recession?
We're on the mend, but many people still are losing their homes or struggling to find adequate work.
It's been a tough couple of years for most Americans, but for some, the pain has been felt much longer.
A new study finds that the wealth gap between white and black American families grew fourfold between 1984 and 2007.
African Americans made tremendous economic progress after World War II, but that closing of the gap with white Americans began to slow in the 1970s.
The study by the Institute on Assets and Social Policy (IASP) at Brandeis University was made public Monday.
Exploring the degree and causes of differences in wealth gives us a deeper understanding of the society than just looking at income.
One of the authors, Thomas Shapiro, said in a statement about the work: "Our study shows a broken chain of achievement. Even when African Americans do everything right — get an education and work hard at well-paying jobs — they cannot achieve the wealth of their white peers in the work force, and that translates into very different life chances."
Shapiro is the director of IASP, and the author of a 2004 book, "The Hidden Cost of Being African American: How Wealth Perpetuates Inequality."
One of the people who praised the book, William H. Gates Sr., has been trying to address policies that lock in wealth differences and make achieving the American dream difficult for so many families.
The most common culprits are public policies — such as investment and inheritance taxes that favor families that already have money — and discrimination in housing, credit and labor markets, according to the IASP analysis.
White men with prison records are more likely to be hired than black men with clean records.

Black college graduates are twice as likely to be jobless as white graduates.
Hispanic and black families are much more likely to get high-cost home mortgages than white families in the same income group.
The study (iasp.brandeis.edu) followed white and black families over the 23 years from 1984 to 2007 and found that for families with similar incomes, white wealth went up and black wealth went down.
In fact, middle-class white families surpassed the wealth of high-income black families.
The study said, "The gap is opportunity denied and assures racial economic inequality for the next generation."
That's true unless we recognize the problem and address it. Word is at last starting to spread.
When I reached Shapiro on Wednesday, he'd just finished an interview with CNN, and he said more journalists in the U.S. and abroad are contacting him about this work than about previous studies.
And members of Congress attended a recent discussion of the wealth gap, which wouldn't have happened just a few years ago, he said.
Maybe interest is high because so many more Americans have been rubbed raw by the economy. I hope interest in the human effect of economics won't fade as the majority heals.
We need to be aware of both the causes and solutions to a deep problem that diminishes the whole country.
Jerry Large's column appears Monday and Thursday. Reach him at 206-464-3346 or [email protected].

Essentially, I'm shocked at the wealth gap skyrocketing so much, but I'm not too surprised of the methods that caused that to happen. Is there any way we could stop this from happening? Affirmative action for credit or something?


What are your thoughts on this?

[BerenTebogo]

Reverse colonization.

All move to Europe and Asia and leave America to the Republicans and let them blow themselves up (sorry, I meant let them bear witness to the second coming of jesus) while the rest of us enjoy our socialism and education.

[Acturus]

Reverse colonization.

All move to Europe and Asia and leave America to the Republicans and let them blow themselves up (sorry, I meant let them bear witness to the second coming of jesus) while the rest of us enjoy our socialism and education.

But EuroDisney sucks balls.

Disney World is where it's at.

[archibaldcrane]

The study (iasp.brandeis.edu) followed white and black families over the 23 years from 1984 to 2007 and found that for families with similar incomes, white wealth went up and black wealth went down.

I almost don't believe this. Say all you want about unequal opportunities, racism, whatever - but the idea that the black median family is worse off now than 23 years ago? That seems...crazy. I don't know what could explain such a thing.

[Ksandra]

I almost don't believe this. Say all you want about unequal opportunities, racism, whatever - but the idea that the black median family is worse off now than 23 years ago? That seems...crazy. I don't know what could explain such a thing.

I was thinking the same thing, and the only thing that pops in my head that if the researchers weren't doing it on purpose, it's possible lower income african americans and hispanics are more vocal today than they would have been 23 years ago. Thus causing the study to get distorted.

[archibaldcrane]

I was thinking the same thing, and the only thing that pops in my head that if the researchers weren't doing it on purpose, it's possible lower income african americans and hispanics are more vocal today than they would have been 23 years ago. Thus causing the study to get distorted.

If this study is merely a unscientific poll, I'd be very disappointed.

[Niiro]

I almost don't believe this. Say all you want about unequal opportunities, racism, whatever - but the idea that the black median family is worse off now than 23 years ago? That seems...crazy. I don't know what could explain such a thing.

Rap music.

[archibaldcrane]

Here's a link to the actual report (it's like 4 pages): http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Racial...-Gap-Brief.pdf

[Kuya]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/....html#comments

The comments here lead me to believe the study is not very clear on the methodology used, so it should be looked at with some suspicion, but:

It may be a mischaracterization of Charles Murray, but at least Murray Rothbard takes that argument:

“Two reasons we have already mentioned; to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project. But there is a third reason as well: as a powerful defense of the results of the free market. If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and “discriminatory” and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.”

Is this a real quote from this Rothbard guy?

[Cadsuane]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/....html#comments

The comments here lead to believe the study is not very clear on the methodology used, so it should be looked at with some suspicion, but:

Is this a real quote from this Rothbard guy?

Yeah, apparently. Google an excerpt from it and you'll get alot of bell-curve type shit. Who the fuck is that guy anyway?

[Kuya]

Don't know whether he's more free marketeer than racist or more racist than free marketeer.

[Darus Grey]

Even if the study isn't concrete the conclusion from the data is (likely) accurate.

Wealth perpetuates itself, those near the bottom/mid-bottom though get stuck in what is essentially a financial feedback loop, where their effort goes to increase the wealth of those above them and not themselves in equal proportion, meaning they continue to lose ground.

This is what happens to unregulated markets.

This applies especially to blacks because they on average have no base of wealth. People truly...truly...truly...underestimate the impact that their families have on them(It was all my own hard work!!11!), families build upon themselves over generations, your grandparents wealth or lack of had a huge impact on your life.

One of the reasons this applies especially to blacks is because after slavery ended they got nothing, they were "free" and left to fend for themselves. So what you have is white families who have dozens of generations whose accumulated wealth propelling them further and further, where black families have significantly less of a base.

Other countries who ended slavery didn't have this issue, take Cuba as an example, when they ended slavery they redistributed land and made sure the former slaves had a wealth base and ownership stake in the country, and the wealth gap in Cuba is non-existent between the ethnicities because of it.

As I mentioned earlier, the problem is that black's accumulating wealth is so low that they're stuck in the feedback loop, just working to make whitey richer.

[Kuya]

Holy shit, i didn't realize what a right wing scumbag this roth guy was:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012768.html

The Rothbard-Rockwell Report is a refreshingly sharp commentary on the forces of lunacy that are destroying our country. The April 1994 issue has an excellent cover story by Murray Rothbard entitled The Vital Importance of Separation. Professor Rothbard notes the ethnic and tribal tensions that are evident everywhere from the Middle East to what used to be Yugoslavia, and observes:

Beyond a small quantity, national heterogeneity simply does not work; the "nation" disintegrates into more than one nation, and the need for separation becomes acute.

He explains that the obvious solution to South Africa's agonies is Grand Apartheid, or the establishment of separate, sovereign nations based on race and ethnicity. He also points out that the desire for separation is perfectly legitimate. "Why," asks Prof. Rothbard, "is it "racist' to want to be left alone?"
Most remarkable of all, Prof. Rothbard follows his logic home to the United States:

We are now probably a lot more than two nations, and we had better start giving serious thought to national separation. To those who think that the main problem is restricting the number and types of immigration, the best answer is that such a policy is decades too late. We are already far more than one nation within the borders of the U.S.A., let alone worry about the immigrants. To greet the very raising of such questions with the mindless cry of "racism' or "chauvinism' misses the entire point.
We might not be able any longer to bring back the Old Republic across the entire land area of the 50 states. But we may be able to bring it back in a substantial part of that land area.

"We must dare to think the unthinkable …," concludes Prof. Rothbard, a man who practices what he preaches.

What motivates the feminists in the end? The same motivation that is the heart of all egalitarianist movements. Hatred for the superior person. Since women care most about their looks, their main hatred is directed towards those who are most beautiful.

Jealousy of pretty and attractive girls does, in fact, lie close to the heart of this ugly movement. One point that should be noted, for example, in the alleged economic discrimination against women: the fantastic upward mobility, as well as high incomes, available to the strikingly pretty girl. The Women’s Libs may claim that models are exploited, but if we consider the enormous pay that the models enjoy—as well as their access to the glamorous life—and compare it with their opportunity cost foregone in other occupations such as waitress or typist—the charge of exploitation is laughable indeed…Furthermore, the potential for upward mobility for pretty, lower-class girls is enormous, infinitely more so than for lower-class men: we might cite Bobo Rockefeller and Gregg Sherwood Dodge (a former pin-up model who married the multimillionaire scion of the Dodge family) as merely conspicuous examples. But these cases, far from counting as an argument against them, arouse the female liberationists to still greater fury, since one of their real complaints is against those more attractive girls who by virtue of their attractive-ness have been more successful in the inevitable competition for men—a competition that must exist whatever the form of government or society…

Woman as “sex objects”? Of course they are sex objects and, praise the Lord, they always will be. (Just as men, of course, are sex objects to women.) As for the wolf whistles, it is impossible for any meaningful relationship to be established on the street or by looking at ads, and so in these roles women properly remain solely as sex objects. When deeper relationships are established between men and women, they each become more than sex objects to each other; they each hopefully become love objects as well. It would seem banal even to bother mentioning this, but in today’s increasingly degenerate intellectual climate no simple truths can any
longer be taken for granted. (170-171)

[Lee]

This inequality garbage will never end. Not even when a black guy with an African name gets elected POTUS. Notice how they only include 'Hispanic' once in that whole paragraph rife with bullshit.

[Cadsuane]

Holy shit, i didn't realize what a right wing scumbag this roth guy was:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012768.html

lol

[Rhinox]

This inequality garbage will never end. Not even when a black guy with an African name gets elected POTUS. Notice how they only include 'Hispanic' once in that whole paragraph rife with bullshit.

says the white guy.

Must feel good man.

[Lee]

says the white guy.

Must feel good man.

Oh yes it does, especially when most whites here would disagree with me. What does being white have anything to do with it? I'm sure you could find your fair share of Asians/Indians/Hispanics who would consider this piece to be a load of shit too. Some blacks might be able to read through it, however I know that the majority of them won't.

[Rhinox]

Oh yes it does, especially when most whites here would disagree with me. What does being white have anything to do with it? I'm sure you could find your fair share of Asians/Indians/Hispanics who would consider this piece to be a load of shit too. Some blacks might be able to read through it, however I know that the majority of them won't.

says the white guy.

[Lee]

I know you disagree with me, Pedro. Why are you trying to act like you're trollin'?

[Rhinox]

I know you disagree with me, Pedro. Why are you trying to act like you're trollin'?

lol

says the white guy.