naked capitalism

Paul Tioxon says:

The unions, especially trade unions for construction in urban strongholds, have not helped African Americans and Hispanics as well as Irish Catholic, Italian Catholic and other European immigrants who built the unions to begin with. The strategic decision by DuBois, in founding the NAACP, while a necessary organization, was not a sufficient one to garner economic gains commensurate with political ones. Unions are facing a double barrel attack by Black and also, right wing political leaders for not opening up the ranks to greater minority participation. The route of Booker T Washington, which promoted practical, vocation trade skills as a path to empowerment, was and is denigrated by DuBois and his school of thought. Today, the unions alone stand in stark contrast as survival organizations, preserving economic buying power, and some privileges, such as medical benefits and college tuition payment for children. Many working class whites receive the benefits of unionization in the form of middle class standards of living, while Blacks are falling behind, especially those without professional credentials from universities. Also despite over 110 traditionally historic Black colleges, with over 900,000 matriculated Black college males, the middle class is less and less of a prospect, as the job opportunities do not seem match their white counterparts of equal educational attainment. Compared with approx 210 Catholic colleges in the USA, a proportion commensurate with the % of Catholics in the country. The institutional infrastructure for success seems to be in place, but not the logical progress to success.
While unions are not a white privilege, but a working class survival organization, the right wing would like to characterize them as organized crime laden goons and a racist institution that should be opened up to minorities, like a suburban swim club. There are other variables as well as over all discrimination, and poor educational resources before college for the 80% of the population that does not go onto college. The countervailing benefits of unions for this group have largely been lost. But, the general population as a whole is not faring better. The Black population serves more as the canary in the coal mine than as the anomaly that points out only racial discrimination. The work of Robert Perrucci and Earl Wysong, “The New Class Society”, argues that a new economic stratification is clearly emerging, wiping out the hallmark of the great middle class component of American Civilization. Blacks and Hispanics, with absolutely minute participation in the elite credentials of Harvard, Yale and Princeton, along with others not sharing similar membership and jobs in their corporate outposts, Goldman, GE, McKinsey, (sorry Yves, present company excepted)The Pew Trusts, The Ford Foundation, etc will find themselves relegated to permanent menial servitude, and even neo involuntary servitude, as THE NEW PEONAGE, replaces the New Deal. Much of the rest of society will be joining them soon after their home foreclosure and underemployment happens with depressed wages leading to nowhere.

David says:

I don’t think it’s right to look at racial indicators. Blacks may or may not have lower ability than Whites. What happens, happens. Certainly it’s unreasonable to try any longer to “fix” this “problem” that resists every effort at fixing. Treat each individual fairly — and that’s everyone’s responsibility as a human being. The government with their rules and enforcement cannot do more than they are doing, and they have gone way to far to say we have to treat some more fairly than others to “fix” a “problem”.

In other words, I don’t care about the statistic reported in this story.

Skippy says:

One man said better than all the rest of his ilk, see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls

Skippy…or is the horse’s mouth to random…eh.

Eric says:

If median wealth is much higher in one group than in another, even if the the groups have the same income profiles, I would expect that the wealthier group has access to credit on better terms than the poorer group. The old saying is that the bank has plenty of money for people that don’t need it.

Pat Shuff says:

“The characteristic feature of the loser is to bemoan mankind’s flaws, biases, & irrationality –without exploiting them for fun and profit.”

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Twitter

mario says:

The graph looks disturbing, the high paid wites are probably the top corporate executives, like for example, Goldman Sachs – many of whom are young, good-looking white males. LMAO.

Jermaine says:

The term “African American” is incorrect and appalling.
Anyone who has ever taken the oath to become a naturalized citizen knows that you are to NO LONGER calls yourself by anything other than American. No hyphen either.

Costard says:

Yves, really…

Could the trend PERHAPS be due to the fact that the study follows “the same cohort of families” – and therefore PERHAPS be due to the saving and investing habits of the families being studied? For instance, could it be relevant that African-Americans are less likely to invest in the stock market?

Ergo, one may assume, MORE likely to invest in other assets, for instance their home, which is not included? Or consumables, like cars, which lose value?

In any event, I wonder how you can attribute a trend that follows race, and not income, to “policies that favor capital over labor”, which “will, not surprisingly, widen the wealth gap.”

And I wonder, genuinely, how you can describe welfare culture and the war on drugs – the major factors at play in many black neighborhoods – as “policies that favor capital.” Unless you define capital as “promiscuous young bachelors and bachelorettes”, in which case, policies that discourage marriage and two-parent families are, indeed, “policies that favor capital.”

I hear your axe grinding, but frankly I see little sense or reason.