HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » (I'll regret this) starti...

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:25 AM

(I'll regret this) starting around 1970, black wages started to rise and white wages started to fall

This is also true for male and female wages: women started to make more, and men less.

Sanders is running on a platform predicated on wage stagnation over the past 40 years, but that is literally only true for white males (for that matter white males' wages and incomes have gone down, while everyone else's have gone up).

Once white males stopped having a stranglehold on "real" jobs, their wages went down. This is undeniable, and in fact it was one of the chief arguments by the right against opening up jobs to minorities and women.

The past 40 years have seen unprecedented increases in both wages and incomes by every single demographic group except white males. A campaign based on undoing that will probably face some opposition by all those other groups.

This isn't rocket science.

187 replies, 15757 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 187 replies Author Time Post
Reply (I'll regret this) starting around 1970, black wages started to rise and white wages started to fall (Original post)
Recursion Feb 2016 OP
ebayfool Feb 2016 #1
Jitter65 Feb 2016 #184
Wilms Feb 2016 #2
Recursion Feb 2016 #4
Wilms Feb 2016 #5
Recursion Feb 2016 #48
daleanime Feb 2016 #12
Recursion Feb 2016 #47
daleanime Feb 2016 #83
Recursion Feb 2016 #84
daleanime Feb 2016 #85
Recursion Feb 2016 #86
daleanime Feb 2016 #87
Recursion Feb 2016 #88
Bubzer Feb 2016 #140
daleanime Feb 2016 #151
katsy Feb 2016 #153
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #64
think Feb 2016 #3
Recursion Feb 2016 #6
think Feb 2016 #9
azurnoir Feb 2016 #60
Wilms Feb 2016 #7
Recursion Feb 2016 #8
Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #11
Recursion Feb 2016 #13
Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #16
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #65
Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #134
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #135
Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #141
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #142
Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #146
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #149
JustAnotherGen Feb 2016 #76
Recursion Feb 2016 #89
Liberal_Stalwart71 Feb 2016 #97
Arazi Feb 2016 #124
FSogol Feb 2016 #129
Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #136
JustAnotherGen Feb 2016 #143
Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #147
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #138
greatauntoftriplets Feb 2016 #145
rbrnmw Feb 2016 #150
great white snark Feb 2016 #160
JI7 Feb 2016 #161
Raine1967 Feb 2016 #180
LanternWaste Feb 2016 #144
EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #72
treestar Feb 2016 #94
Wilms Feb 2016 #14
noamnety Feb 2016 #101
CentralMass Feb 2016 #10
Recursion Feb 2016 #15
CentralMass Feb 2016 #41
Recursion Feb 2016 #43
CentralMass Feb 2016 #49
Recursion Feb 2016 #50
CentralMass Feb 2016 #59
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #17
Recursion Feb 2016 #18
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #21
Recursion Feb 2016 #24
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #25
Recursion Feb 2016 #26
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #28
Recursion Feb 2016 #29
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #30
think Feb 2016 #36
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #38
think Feb 2016 #39
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2016 #167
myrna minx Feb 2016 #19
Recursion Feb 2016 #20
myrna minx Feb 2016 #23
Stand and Fight Feb 2016 #22
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #27
Recursion Feb 2016 #34
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #35
Recursion Feb 2016 #37
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #40
Recursion Feb 2016 #42
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #44
Recursion Feb 2016 #46
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #51
Recursion Feb 2016 #52
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #54
think Feb 2016 #58
Recursion Feb 2016 #70
think Feb 2016 #81
treestar Feb 2016 #93
CBGLuthier Feb 2016 #100
HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #31
Recursion Feb 2016 #33
HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #53
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #32
JI7 Feb 2016 #45
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #56
DemocraticWing Feb 2016 #55
Recursion Feb 2016 #57
azurnoir Feb 2016 #63
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #66
azurnoir Feb 2016 #69
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #139
azurnoir Feb 2016 #158
azurnoir Feb 2016 #163
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #164
azurnoir Feb 2016 #166
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #168
azurnoir Feb 2016 #169
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #170
azurnoir Feb 2016 #171
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #174
azurnoir Feb 2016 #175
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #181
forjusticethunders Feb 2016 #176
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #182
Recursion Feb 2016 #67
azurnoir Feb 2016 #68
Recursion Feb 2016 #74
azurnoir Feb 2016 #78
Recursion Feb 2016 #79
azurnoir Feb 2016 #80
noiretextatique Feb 2016 #178
noiretextatique Feb 2016 #177
delrem Feb 2016 #61
azurnoir Feb 2016 #71
Recursion Feb 2016 #73
LineReply .
merrily Feb 2016 #62
TheFarS1de Feb 2016 #75
Recursion Feb 2016 #77
kristopher Feb 2016 #154
tk2kewl Feb 2016 #82
Recursion Feb 2016 #92
treestar Feb 2016 #90
Recursion Feb 2016 #91
eridani Feb 2016 #95
Recursion Feb 2016 #115
eridani Feb 2016 #183
Recursion Feb 2016 #185
eridani Feb 2016 #186
Recursion Feb 2016 #187
Armstead Feb 2016 #96
Bluenorthwest Feb 2016 #98
kristopher Feb 2016 #155
workinclasszero Feb 2016 #99
Recursion Feb 2016 #105
workinclasszero Feb 2016 #107
Armstead Feb 2016 #114
Armstead Feb 2016 #113
Recursion Feb 2016 #118
Armstead Feb 2016 #120
Recursion Feb 2016 #122
Armstead Feb 2016 #123
Recursion Feb 2016 #125
Armstead Feb 2016 #126
JackInGreen Feb 2016 #102
Recursion Feb 2016 #108
azurnoir Feb 2016 #109
Recursion Feb 2016 #112
azurnoir Feb 2016 #119
JackInGreen Feb 2016 #110
Recursion Feb 2016 #111
JackInGreen Feb 2016 #130
Recursion Feb 2016 #131
JackInGreen Feb 2016 #132
AgingAmerican Feb 2016 #103
cherokeeprogressive Feb 2016 #104
Cheese Sandwich Feb 2016 #106
Recursion Feb 2016 #121
Cheese Sandwich Feb 2016 #133
Lizzie Poppet Feb 2016 #127
Octafish Feb 2016 #116
Recursion Feb 2016 #117
Hiraeth Feb 2016 #128
Paulie Feb 2016 #137
workinclasszero Feb 2016 #148
Csainvestor Feb 2016 #152
azmom Feb 2016 #156
sadoldgirl Feb 2016 #157
cyberswede Feb 2016 #159
workinclasszero Feb 2016 #162
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2016 #165
forjusticethunders Feb 2016 #172
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2016 #173
noiretextatique Feb 2016 #179

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:29 AM

1. An interesting take. Links?

And I know I'll regret this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ebayfool (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 05:15 AM

184. Most won't get it. I really know what you are saying...and so does Bernie. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:30 AM

2. You should regret it.

 

Bernie proposes a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. That will level the pay that a lot of Americans are making.

He aims to raise taxes on the wealthy, and spend infrastructure.

There has been an incredible wealth transfer Bernie seeks to turn around.

You've made a number of really good points, but I'm not seeing the conclusion as valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:33 AM

4. Or it will drive firms to automate jobs

Keep in mind I would prefer a minimum income to a minimum wage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:36 AM

5. A minimum income has worked in places.

 

Automation...can of worms.

Have a look at this, though. Womens salaries rose for about 25 years. Flat the last fifteen.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:52 AM

48. Yeah, GWB caused insane damage to the economy.

No argument there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:45 AM

12. Which is something that absolutely none of them....

are considering right now,,,,,



Thanks, I needed that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:51 AM

47. Of course they are. Higher labor costs make it more attractive thought (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #47)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:26 AM

83. So you'd like to lower the minimum wage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #83)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:29 AM

84. I'd like to remove the minimum wage and replace it with a minimum income

So, yes, in the strictest sense, I would like to lower the minimum wage to $0.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #84)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:37 AM

85. So we two step over to...

You would like your new minimum wage to be set lower then the old minimum hour would have been? And is that for a 40 hour week? 30? Or maybe 20? How far underwater do you think workers would have to go before companies decide that record profits are large enough?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #85)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:38 AM

86. With a minimum income it doesn't matter.

Tax the proceeds of all the robots, and distribute it.

Isn't that kind of the goal of technology?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #86)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:50 AM

87. OK, let me wrap my sleep deprived brain around that....

Are you talking about replacing unemployment and maybe even SS with a guaranteed minimum Income?



Or am I being too hopeful?


And I think I'm going to try for a couple more hours of sleep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #87)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:54 AM

88. Yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about

Replace SS, SSI, SDI, TANF, and UI with a guaranteed minimum Federal income.

Short-term, I think it's impossible. Long-term, I think it's the only way forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #88)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 12:34 PM

140. I think I could get behind that. Could make it a hell of a lot harder for discrimination to happen.

Even out the playing field... yes, I think that may well be exactly what we need. The only caveat I would propose would be that the wage be higher than what the elderly receive from SS and whatnot. The notion they're forced to eek out a living on less than 1k per month while not being able to get a job or physically work is angering to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #88)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 01:34 PM

151. ........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #86)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 01:44 PM

153. Unless the ptb intend to kill off most of earths population

What you're suggesting is absolutely valid.

Automation will happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:15 AM

64. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:30 AM

3. ...

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:38 AM

6. Yep

Keep reading, you'll be surprised. Start with how none of those charts addressed my points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:41 AM

9. for that matter white males' wages and incomes have gone down, while everyone else's have gone up

 

Your words not mine...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:08 AM

60. and what is your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:39 AM

7. And you missed this one. On edit, make that, two.

 

So some of your points weren't even as good as I first thought.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:40 AM

8. I didn't "miss" it. Look at how much black income rose under Bill Clinton

Is it that confusing that running against his legacy is a hard sell?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:43 AM

11. Look at how much CEO pay escalated under Bill Clinton compared to their average workers of all races



I would wager the vast majority of those CEOs were/are white men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:46 AM

13. Who cares?

Seriously, why do you care? Look at black incomes.

If the 1990s were a failure, that's a failure we could do with a lot more of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:58 AM

16. Obviously you don't, "look at the big picture" how much black wealth was lost due to Clinton's

promoted policy of removing Glass Steagall for example?

African Americans didn't lose it instantly in the 90s we had the tech bubble and the housing bubble but minorities were disproportionately damaged by the ensuing banking fraud foreclosure crisis, this was all in deference to the less than 1%.

There were other policies which Clinton promoted that disproportionately damaged minorities as well, swelling our prisons.

We haven't had this kind of wealth inequality since 1928, this is unsustainable and the Great Depression wasn't friendly to any race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:18 AM

65. Glass Steagel had little to do with unrestricted commodities!!! Its like blaming drunk driver deaths

... on a higher speed limit!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #65)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 11:58 AM

134. The diminishing of and eventual removal of Glass Steagall legalized drinking while driving.



(snip)

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: So, Glass-Steagall was—again, after the Great Depression, we divided the banks into two groups: the commercial banks, that take your deposits, ordinary people, supposed to give money to small businesses to help grow the economy; and then you had the investment banks, taking money from rich people, investing it in more speculative activities. And we had a big fight during the Clinton administration over whether we should eliminate that division. I strongly opposed it. And when was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, it didn’t happen.

AMY GOODMAN: Under Clinton.

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Under Clinton. But then, instead—you know, Citibank wanted to bring together these various financial institutions, and—

AMY GOODMAN: Who surround Clinton.

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: And the result of that was that we repealed Glass-Steagall. And what I was worried about precisely happened. We wound up with bigger banks that became too big to fail. The culture of risk taking, that’s associated with the investment bank, spread to the whole banking system, and so all the banks became speculators, actually lending to small businesses lower than it was before the crisis. And the kinds of conflicts of interest that were rampant in the years before the Great Depression started to appear all over the place in our financial sector.

AMY GOODMAN: So Bernie Sanders has called for the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. Hillary Clinton has not.

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah, I hope that she will. But I think the fundamental issue here is, we have to tame the financial sector. And in our book, Rewriting the Rules, we describe how that can be done.

AMY GOODMAN: How, exactly?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, there are many things. Glass-Steagall is one approach that I’ve increasingly come to. We actually don’t talk about it in the book. There are some other ways that we do focus on, on things like curbing their excessive risk taking.

One of the important things that people haven’t realized is, every time they use their debit card, merchants pay a significant price for their use. It’s like a tax on every transaction. But it’s a tax that doesn’t go for public purpose; it goes to enrich the coffers of the credit card companies, the debit card companies. We were supposed to curtail the—one part of that in the debit card. It was called the Durbin Amendment to Dodd-Frank. But we delegated it to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve’s staff recommended a fee—that I thought was excessive—and then the Federal Reserve doubled the fee that they had recommended. So, it’s much better than it was before Dodd-Frank, but it’s still a tax on every transaction, a tax that winds up being paid for by everybody who buys any good in our economy. So that’s an example of how you transfer money from ordinary individuals to the financial sector. And it’s one of the reasons why the financial sector is making so much money and the rest of us are paying the price.

One other example that President Obama has emphasized is, you know, people have savings accounts, a variety—IRAs. And the question is, when you put your money in an IRA, does the person who’s supposed to manage that have a fiduciary responsibility? That is to say, can he manage it for his own interest, turning it over and getting a lot of commission, or does he have a responsibility, a fiduciary responsibility, to manage it in your interest? Now, you would say, obviously, he should have that fiduciary responsibility. But the banks are resisting imposing that as a condition. And the result of not having that is that the banks are making billions and billions, tens of billions of dollars every year more than they otherwise would.


http://www.democracynow.org/2015/10/27/nobel_laureate_joseph_stiglitz_on_rewriting



The The Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000 which Bill Clinton and many of his top Wall Street Advisers promoted removed the speed limits.



And she's right. But here's what she didn't say: Not only did President Bill Clinton sign that bill into law, but key officials in his administration were also credited with helping to craft it.

The Sunlight Foundation, as part of their "Read the Bill" effort to demystify the legislative process explained it this way:

Leading the charge in Congress were Sens. Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-IL). In May of 2000, Rep. Ewing introduced his Commodity Futures Modernization Act. While Ewing’s bill sailed quickly through the House, it stalled in the Senate, as Sen. Gramm desired stricter deregulatory language be inserted into the bill. Gramm opposed any language that could provide the SEC or the CFTC with any hope of authority in regulating or oversight of financial derivatives and swaps. Gramm’s opposition held the bill in limbo until Congress went into recess for the 2000 election.

Throughout the better part of the year Gramm, Lugar and Ewing worked with the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets—most specifically, Treasury Secretary [Larry] Summers, CFTC Chairman [William[ Rainer and SEC Chairman [Arthur] Levitt—to strike a deal on the bill.

The final version of the bill included stronger deregulatory language, but it isn't clear whether many lawmakers knew that it was in there. (This was around the time that the country was embroiled in a contentious presidential vote recount in Florida.)

The CFMA made its way through Congress on the back of a must-pass, 11,000-page bill to fund the government that year. This is where Sanders comes in, he joined a majority of Democrats and Republicans in approving the omnibus bill, which was signed into law by Bill Clinton.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/18/hillary-clinton-attacked-bernie-sanders-for-voting-for-a-bill-her-husband-signed-into-law/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #134)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 12:21 PM

135. OK, that's pretty close... but the CFMA legalized being DRUNK while driving because it took off

... the regulations for how leveraged the trading houses (NOT JUST BIG BANKS) can be with derivatives relative to the amount of funds they had in force.

Hillary didn't vote for Glass Steagal and she wants to go further than just taking Steegal back...

Sanders CFMA vote (I could care less which one) was more part of the housing crash and the CURRENT crap that's happening in Europe than Hillary was.

His demagoguery is marketing and not the root of the problem IMHO... it was the investment houses (GS, BS et) that caused 80% of the problem after they saw they had no regulations while the "Big Banks" were standing on the sidelines collecting the cash and not sounding good alarms.

GS was not a bank holding company UNTIL it needed bailouts ... it was not WF and BOA who were at the root of the problem


Yes, drinking WHILE driving is stupid but its even MORE stupid to allow people to be drunk while driving

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #135)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 12:35 PM

141. So does Bernie, he wants to break up the monopolized banks which have become even larger and thus

an even greater threat/risk, since they helped create the crisis.

Hillary promoted the removal of Glass Steagall which changed the entire banking atmosphere and how they should regard the peoples' hard earned savings and pensions vs investors willingness to roll the dice.



The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which Bill Clinton promoted and was snuck into a must pass (don't shut the government down bill) during the Selection crisis of 2000 was the final nail in the coffin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #141)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 12:44 PM

142. The "Big Banks" weren't involved, they stood by and said little but it wasn't BOA it was GS

... and Bear Sterns etc... not Wells Fargo and CITI... they for the most part kept their noses clean.

Some of the "big banks" didn't even want the bail out money!!!

Its the invest houses that have holding company titles that are the bigger risk, they can hold money in certain accounts that are insured up to 250,000... that's the bigger risk not just BOA, WF and CITI.

Also if HRC is going to be held responsible for the bad parts of the 90s she should be given the benefits of the good parts which was able to lift middle class blacks into another area of earning economically and set a higher tax rate for the 1% to pay for schools etc.

It's not fair to say she's responsible for the bad of the 90s due to her advocating what her husbands admin and not give her the good.

The Clinton years were a net positive for America.. that's not in dispute

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #142)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 01:02 PM

146. The diminishing and removal of Glass Steagall was a multiplier of the crisis which wiped out a

generation of black economic gains.



Repeal of Glass-Steagall: Not a cause, but a multiplier

(snip)

So no, the repeal of Glass-Steagall was not a proximate cause of the crisis. But its impact was both nuanced and complex. Consider the context in which it occurred:

● The repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 was part of a broad deregulatory push, championed by the likes of Fed chief Alan Greenspan, Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, that eliminated much of the oversight on Wall Street. Freed from onerous regulation, the banks could “innovate” and grow.

● After the repeal, banks merged into more complex and more leveraged institutions.

● These banks, which were customers of nonbank firms such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, in turn contributed to these firms bulking up their subprime holdings as well. This turned out to be speculative and dangerous.

So we can say that Glass-Steagall’s repeal allowed the credit bubble to inflate much larger. It allowed banks to be more complex and difficult to manage. When it all came down, the crisis was broader, deeper and more dangerous than it would have been otherwise.


(snip)


https://www.washingtonpost.com/repeal-of-glass-steagall-not-a-cause-but-a-multiplier/2012/08/02/gJQAuvvRXX_story.html


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #146)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 01:18 PM

149. CFMA allowed for unlimited leveraging, they didn't need Steagal to do that.. CFMA had worse effect

... than Steagal alone.

Like the 3rd bullet said firm A could bulk up firm B without Steagal being involved at all...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:03 AM

76. Actually you have to go back prior to Clinton

The majority of us were red lined into poorer communities due to FHA policies implemented in the 1930's. Add in disparities in mortgage lending for 70 years - it's not Glass Steagall related.

How the banks got away with it - IS G.S. That legislation must be implemented immediately. We cannot afford to help anyone who can't pay us back. Notice I refer to a bank as a person because we have that stupidity (corporate person hood to contend with ).

Blaming the Bill Clinton for FDR's assery isn't fair. Clinton like everyone else went along with the status quo. The last person to call it out got fired by Nixon - that was George Romney - Mitt's daddy.

Blacks were disproportionately impacted because if you only had $500 in wealth and it dropped to $100 - you weren't wealthy in the first place.

The homes people bought for 70/74 years were in neighborhoods the Federal Government designed to keep black people in one place.

The post WW II infrastructure development aided and abetted white Americans in their flight to the suburbs - and FHA policy was created to trigger their departure.

Even if you bought a home in South West Rochester NY in 1950 or South Plainfield NJ in 2003 - you were buying in neighborhoods Fed Gov designed to NOT accumulate wealth in home value. If you were trapped in Newark in 1970 - your children received a sub standard education and your grandchildren are receiving one now.

We need to have honesty in when this all started and who started it and WHY.

It cannot be corrected or improved if we worship at the altar of FDR and won't acknowledge that in order to win - black people - much like Japanese people - had to lose. The internment camps closed.

The FHA policies continued for two more decades.

Of note - my granddaddy - Morehouse educated man - paid Eisenhower's top tax rate in the 1950's. His property taxes in Alabama were grabbed for white schools. He bought the black school buses and modernized his children's school behind the backs of the White Citizens Council.

Please don't tax us to death when we (including myself) continue that tradition of putting oxygen masks on our own communities first with our disposable resources.

We trusted the New Deal and received nothing. Thank God Truman ensured the education benefits of the GI Bill could be used by black vets if a college allowed them in. That was a good thing. But what came before and after was NOT good.

Every time you throw Bill away - throw Frank away too. There were only two bright spots for black Americans getting ahead until 2009 and their names were Dwight and Lyndon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:55 AM

89. ^^ That

Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:15 AM

97. Thank you!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:11 AM

124. !!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:30 AM

129. +1 Well said. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 12:24 PM

136. What you posted has nothing to do with the positive sound effect of Glass Steagall

I don't worship at the altar of FDR, he had his flaws just as every other President in U.S. History, but Glass Seagall was sound policy which did protect the public of all races from having their saving and pensions turned over to a massive casino.

FHA changed their redlining policies in 1968 thanks to LBJ, African American wealth did increase as result and much of that was lost after Glass Steagall was diminished and eventually removed.

I'm not suggesting the Fair Housing Act of 1968 was a total panacea there are still many institutionalized forms of racism that have and are taking place when it comes to lending money to minorities and minority owned businesses.

Black wealth had increased but much of it was lost due to policies promoted by Bill Clinton, the diminishing and removal of Glass Steagall being just one of them, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, Welfare "reform," three strikes and you're out naming just a few more.



For black Americans, financial damage from subprime implosion is likely to last

(snip)

A Pew Research Center analysis last year found that the wealth of blacks plunged 53 percent during the recession, driven by falling home prices. The average net worth of a black household in 2009 was $5,677, according to the study, the lowest of any racial group. After years of record prosperity, homeownership rates among black Americans have plunged to the lowest level in 16 years. Unemployment has reached levels not seen since the 1980s.

Baltimore resident Kevin Matthews has worked hard to stabilize his finances after fighting off a wrongful foreclosure that drained his savings. He is paying his bills and studying to become a medical lab tech or researcher, but in the eyes of banks and lenders he is largely a three-digit number: 560.

That is Matthews’s credit score. It is 160 points lower than it was five years ago. That means it will cost him more to get credit cards, pay for his education or eventually move into another house — assuming he can qualify for a loan. It means Matthews faces years of struggling to hold on to the middle-class life he once thought was guaranteed.

According to FICO, a foreclosure can remain on a consumer’s credit report for seven years. It can lower a score by 85 to 160 points, a hit second only to bankruptcy.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-black-americans-financial-damage-from-subprime-implosion-is-likely-to-last/2012/07/08/gJQAwNmzWW_story.html




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #136)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 12:47 PM

143. I agree on Glass Steagall

But I stand by what I've written.

It's the truth - the WEALTH inequality was by design and racist - because it was race based.

The easiest way for white folks to pass down wealth? Home ownerships in growing communities.

Some folks were locked out.

Bottom line - some got a head start that others didn't.

And we were poorer BEFORE the housing bubble burst as a whole.

Sorry I'm not buying billy boy had more to do with it than Dim Son's 'Great Ownership Society' and go shopping culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #143)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 01:07 PM

147. I don't disagree with what you posted but Bill Clinton's promotion of both

diminishing and removing Glass Steagall combined with his and his Wall Street advisers promoting the Commodities Modernization Act of 2000 set the stage for wiping out a generation of black economic gains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 12:29 PM

138. Amen and Amen!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 12:53 PM

145. Great post, JAG.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 01:31 PM

150. Thanks JAG

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:52 PM

160. +lots

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:07 PM

161. you really need to write a book

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:27 PM

180. Thank you for this!

I have tried to explain what you have written however I had been unable to with so much eloquence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 12:48 PM

144. Isn't it necessary to look at a particular demographic's income relative to other incomes

 

Isn't it necessary to look at a particular demographic's income relative to other incomes and COLA adjustments to determine net gain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:57 AM

72. and this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:10 AM

94. that affects the average over all

and still the white men's wages went down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:47 AM

14. Let me ask.

 

Does that include the incarcerated? I know it doesn't reflect the expansion of deep poverty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:14 AM

101. Can you comment on why

 

black household income went up, but black household net worth fell?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:42 AM

10. Huh.?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/28/these-seven-charts-show-the-black-white-economic-gap-hasnt-budged-in-50-years/


The gap in household income between blacks and whites hasn't narrowed in the last 50 years:


In fact, the wealth disparity between whites and blacks grew even wider during the Great Recession

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=480

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralMass (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:47 AM

15. Sorry, can you point me to where I said it had?

I must have accidentally posted that somewhere, because I never intended to claim that.

Black. Incomes. Went. Up. Significantly.

Running against that legacy will be difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:42 AM

41. The graphs from the article that I posted the link to don't show the

trend that you are stating.

White and Black incomes trends have pretty much tracked since 1970.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralMass (Reply #41)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:46 AM

43. Yeah they do



Pretty hard to deny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #43)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:55 AM

49. You are not showing white incomes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/28/these-seven-charts-show-the-black-white-economic-gap-hasnt-budged-in-50-years/


The gap in household income between blacks and whites hasn't narrowed in the last 50 years:


Again. Look at the Black income line and compare it to the White income line. They track.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralMass (Reply #49)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:57 AM

50. Yeah, funny that: I'm talking about *BLACK* incomes

So, yeah, I'm not showing white incomes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #50)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:06 AM

59. Ya funny the title of your post says Black Incomes started to rise and White incomes fell

You can't make that point by showing just black incomes .
The chart I provided shows both. The article itself says that black incomes have not narrowed vs white incomrd over the last 50 years.

The two income lines track each other
Meaning pretty much that the income of both groups rose and fell proportionally over time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:58 AM

17. That is simply not true. Nearly everybody in the lower and middle classes is poorer today.

Statistics don't bear our your theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:59 AM

18. Almost nobody is poorer today

Both real wages and real income are up at every quintile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:02 AM

21. In buying power? Hardly. Perhpas you could point us to where you are getting your false stats. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:08 AM

24. Yes, "In buying power" is what "real" means (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:11 AM

25. So no to the stats then? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #25)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:12 AM

26. Posted upthread, by people who claim to disagree with me (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:13 AM

28. None of those prove your point at all. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #28)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:14 AM

29. Sure they do.

That's as dispositive as your claim (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #29)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:15 AM

30. Just saying something is true doesn't make it true. The stats speak the truth.

You don't seem to be reading them correctly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:28 AM

36. The key term is 'over the last 40 years'. As long as it's framed over 40 years he is correct

 

The past 10 years don't fit the pattern he is suggesting but the 40 year thing is his sticking point.

He wants to do this as it points out how well African American incomes increased under Clinton in the 90s while ignoring the effects of policies enacted under Clinton that didn't occur until many years after he left office. Outsourcing and financial deregulation have destroyed any gains in income and wealth since that time.

So technically he is correct. As for the reality of it in the shorter term his evaluation doesn't hold water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #36)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:31 AM

38. I addressed that part of it below. The fact is that he is trying to give false impressions of the

current economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #38)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:32 AM

39. Agree

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:20 PM

167. You might want to go correct these guys

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:59 AM

19. Why do this? Everyone's wages have stagnated. Nice can of gasoline you have there...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to myrna minx (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:02 AM

20. It is absolutely not true that "everyone's" wages and incomes have stagnated in the past 40 years

White males' wages and incomes have; no other groups' have (caveat: Native Americans' possibly have, now that I think of it).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:04 AM

23. Nah - it's clear what you're trying to do - I'm not going to play along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:04 AM

22. Post links or else this is nothing more than speculation on your part. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:12 AM

27. Oh, I get it now, you are in India.

Wages and buying power have increased there. And yes, you can thank Hillary for that. Here not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:26 AM

34. Yeah, I'm stationed here

I love how people bring up "you live in India" as some kind of death blow. I live in India, on orders from the US government. I'm proud of my wife's government service, and fuck you for trying to malign it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #34)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:27 AM

35. How did I attempt to malign it? It was a simple observation made and one that might explain your

incorrect assumptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #35)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:30 AM

37. What fucking "assumptions" do you think I have picked up over the past 2 years?

Seriously, stand up for your smear. What "assumptions" do you imagine I have picked up? Do you know the daily harassment and danger I deal with as an American here? Let alone my wife? Please, please, go on: tell me what "assumptions" you think this posting led me to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #37)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:40 AM

40. Simply what you stated, that minority and women's wages are increasing and white mens are decreasing

You can't simply take a point in 1970 and compare it to today. Their buying power went up for a while thanks to civil rights legislation and movements, and policies like affirmative action but has decreased along with everyone else's in the last decades.

And there is no reason to get so hostile.

No, I have no idea what harassment and danger you face in India (although I can imagine some of it). Why don't you do a post on that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #40)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:45 AM

42. Those aren't assumptions, those are facts, and I knew them before I went here

Do you know what "assumption" means?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #42)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:48 AM

44. Do you know what insinuation means? Because your post is guilty of insinuating falsehoods.

And since you obviously weren't assuming them I can only guess it was intentional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #44)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:50 AM

46. So, let's circle back:

I've posted that black incomes rose from 1971 onward, and provided data for that.

Black incomes have risen, and white incomes haven't, at least among men. Do you disagree?

What are you arguing about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #46)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:58 AM

51. You didn't provide data. Why not just go back to the 1920's, then?

You would really have a point then. Of course, it is all completely irrelevant to anything happening currently. Sanders is talking household income. In the 1970's only one person had to work to sustain an entire family. Today it takes 2 incomes to raise a family for any race of people and we are still making less and less every year.

I fail to see how your point has any relevancy to today's problems at all. Your post is all about flame-baiting and divisiveness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #51)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:59 AM

52. Because we're talking about the 1970s onward.

You can move goalposts all you want.

The period since 1971 or so has been a period of economic stagnation for white men, I agree. And not for any other group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #52)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:02 AM

54. Well then, your OP is simply silly and irrelevant to anything in GDP. How does this reflect on the

primaries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #52)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:05 AM

58. The past ten years are not reflective of your overall assessment

 

Wouldn't this be more relevant than the larger time frame you are basing your assessment on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #58)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:54 AM

70. Why?

1970 was when all the wage velocities changed. Have they significantly changed since then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #70)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:26 AM

81. Wages & income equality have fallen for minorities in the past ten years. Do you dispute that?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #40)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:09 AM

93. This is the result of your going ad hominem rather that sticking to the issue

you decided to attack the poster rather than the post.

Logical fallacy. Recursion living in India has zero to do with the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #34)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:04 AM

100. I love the modern DU. Catch a jury of the "right" people and you can say fuck you to anyone

at the slightest provocation. I alerted and got informed that you had passed the smell test for DU. In other words you got more people who support her than him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:20 AM

31. Not buying it.

 

Women have improved from about 65% men's wages to about 75%, but it's still far short. Same goes for minorities wages. Overall, wages crept up a bit better than the official inflation rate, but lagged far behind rising housing, education, and healthcare increases. After the 2008 crash, wages overall have dropped. When you dig deeper, the poverty and near poverty brackets really took it on the chin, hurt additionally by the GOP's and Clinton's attacks on the social safety net.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #31)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:25 AM

33. Interesting how none of those things contradict my point

Women still make less than men, agreed. Their wage and income increases over the past 40 years are unprecedented, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #33)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:02 AM

53. Only a 25% gain in real wages, and still far behind men.

 

And it wasn't unprecedented gain, as woman's wages soared during WW2...they were the workforce.

I don't get your whole point. though woman have made up a tiny bit of wage gap, they still are far behind...and both men and woman's wages have lost purchasing power. If we take your 40 years ago baseline, back then one median wage-earner could support a family of 4, put a roof over their heads, feed them, and pay for healthcare. Now it takes both parents working, and longer hours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:21 AM

32. Of course the 70's were better for minorities thanks to the 60's civil rights movements and

people like Bernie. Try moving your time period up a bit and see what happened to all of our wealth about the time Clinton opened NAFTA up and our manufacturing jobs started going overseas. Then he added the H1B visas and India started taking our jobs. These policies have affected everyone but living in India, you may not see it.

Don't forget to add in the Iraq War that Hillary supported that devastated both lives and our economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:48 AM

45. one of the reasons for Clintons popularity among minorities

and why it was so tough for Obama to win that vote . when he was running against hillary he mostly criticized her on foreign policy and very little on economic issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #45)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:04 AM

56. Because Hillary had anything to do with it? Please! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:03 AM

55. White people's incomes have not fallen. Black people have not closed the wage gap, it has increased.

[link:http://imgur.com/S6ssXwK|]

Not only has the wage gap increased, but black wealth has flatlined as well.

I'm not gonna deny that the best economic time period in the last 45 years was the 1990s. The question is why that was the case, and why things have changed since. The 1990s do not exist in a vacuum where nothing happened before or after the decade. More importantly, has the overall trend of the last 45 years been favorable to black people, or anybody for that matter?

Neoliberal capitalism will kill us all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocraticWing (Reply #55)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:04 AM

57. White *males'* incomes have fallen

White females' incomes have risen, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #57)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:12 AM

63. who's running a campaign based on raising the income of WhiteMales® only?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #63)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:21 AM

66. The person who associates his campaign with someone who calls Obama "n-word-izzed"? tia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #66)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:54 AM

69. this guy?

CORNEL WEST: You can't talk about wealth and inequality, you can't talk about education, you can't talk about massive unemployment and under employment and you can't talk about drones being dropped on people in other parts of the world without talking about white supremacy and its ways in which it operates. It doesn't have to be overt. The president is right about that.

But too many black people are niggerized. I would say the first black president has become the first niggerized black president.

CNN ANCHOR: What do you mean by that?

WEST: A niggerized black person is a black person who is afraid and scared and intimidated when it comes to putting a spotlight on white supremacy and fighting against white supremacy. So when many of us said we have to fight against racism, what were we told? 'No, he can't deal with racism because he has other issues, political calculations. He's the president of all America, not just black America.' We know he's president of all America but white supremacy is American as cherry pie.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/22/cornel_west_on_obama_the_first_black_president_has_become_the_first_niggerized_black_president.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #69)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 12:33 PM

139. Yes, but I don't know about spelling out the word... I don't know if its against TOS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #139)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:22 PM

158. well I intended no offense but I did want to put the entire comment in which he used the word

on record, if and when I do it again I'll make sure to edit the word so as not t cause offense

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #139)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:13 PM

163. were you offended West's words that Obama had not done enough for the Black community?

was it the word itself
was it the message as a whole?
or was it my cut and paste?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #163)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:16 PM

164. Yes, its more unfair bashing of Obama to gen favor among the establishment and that's how Sanders

... used him in IA and NH as a stumper for his campaign.

Were is brotha Wess now?!

Yeah... not a good move Sanders

Also, Wess critique even in a vacuum isn't correct... Obama before he was president spoke specifically of black issues and some affects on black America.

West petulance comes from feeling of being slighted on some stupid tickets, it makes it look personal between Sanders and Obama for Sanders to have West associated with his campaign despite their recent meeting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #164)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:19 PM

166. saying that Obama hasn't done enough for the Black community will gain favor with the establishment?

how's that work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #166)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:21 PM

168. Cause among the marginalized it sounds like West is full of crap, he's not saying that in front

... of marginalized people because they know it sounds stupid on its face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #168)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:24 PM

169. so you feel that Obama has done enough for the Black community and already had at the time of Wests

comment-I specified at the time because Obama only very recently agreed to meet with groups such as BLM, long after Dr Wests comment to CNN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #169)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:26 PM

170. Yes, I sure do.. being president and being an upstanding moral person that has done more to break

... down negative stereo types has done a lot in and of itself.

West unfair bashing is petulant

There are a lot of other groups who PBO meet with outside of BLM... before West comments ...

West has a narrow view of what's to be done for who, I'm glad Obama doesn't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #170)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:33 PM

171. West was about institutionalized racism and despite all the words I've seen here about that

you feel Obama by his mere presence and meeting with a few groups has done a good job at combating that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #171)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:53 PM

174. Strawman, ... your question was has Obama done enough I said sure... I don't see how

... you're going to conflate that with combating institutionalized racism

to address the institutionalized racism he has done a lot in regards to jail systems and prison reform in and of itself along with starting to minimize the effects of the war on drugs.

To proffer that Obama has done nothing in that area isn't reality

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #174)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:04 PM

175. my question concerned Wests comments which pertained to institutionalized racism

btw most of what you enumerated happened after Dr Wests commentary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #175)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:21 PM

181. West called Obama "n-word-izzed" because he said Obama was afraid to talk about White Supremcy


WEST: A niggerized black person is a black person who is afraid and scared and intimidated when it comes to putting a spotlight on white supremacy and fighting against white supremacy. So when many of us said we have to fight against racism, what were we told? 'No, he can't deal with racism because he has other issues, political calculations. He's the president of all America, not just black America.' We know he's president of all America but white supremacy is American as cherry pie.


This is absurd on its face...

Obama doesn't have to talk about White Supremacy or racism or white privalage in the same way West did... but there's no doubt Obama addresseed or touched on racism or institutional racism BEFORE he was president

West words are petulant and stupid

2...

No it didn't!! West said this June of last year!!!

Whatever

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #174)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:07 PM

176. "N*****ized is absolutely the wrong word to use

 

But a huge theme of Obama's candidacy and presidency is that he was never going to be a crusader for racial justice because of how readily such gestures and actions would be used against him (this also speaks to why a lot of Blacks aren't enthusiastic for Bernie; there's a strong understanding that being "radical" is too risky, and "selling out" a tiny bit for survival is something that we've been doing for centuries.). The substance of West's attack is that Obama was essentially "selling out" to not scare away White moderates, and when he does talk about race he does it in conciliatory, universal tones, tones designed to elicit empathy, as opposed to the revolutionary message West and others are looking for.

Even if black voters may be quietly frustrated that Obama isn't doing more or wasn't doing more, when it comes to middle aged and older black voters (dunno if the same holds true for Black Millenials) they also know that's how the game is played, and they sure don't want him to be JFKed, RFKed, or MLKed if he makes too many waves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #176)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:22 PM

182. YouGov black millenials are strong HRC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #63)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:34 AM

67. I'll give you a hint: your avatar photo (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #67)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:51 AM

68. aha so Bernie only wants to raise the incomes of WhiteMales® I see

how's that work explain show proof

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #68)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:02 AM

74. Can I get some punctuation?

The past four decades have seen income increases for non white males.

Sanders' campaign is pretty clearly a repudiation of those decades, and he cites falling/stagnant wages, which is only true for white males.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #74)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:04 AM

78. I'm asking proof that Bernie wants to raise incomes for WhiteMales® only

the rest is just repeating yourself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #78)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:08 AM

79. The fact that everyone else's incomes are already rising (nt).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #79)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:11 AM

80. so no links, just theory - got it

hmmm looks someones taken the night off-now I get it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #68)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:23 PM

178. Yep...that's the only conclusion one can reach

Regardin this idiotic OP. You will find the usual Hillary supporters here agreeing with this absurd assertion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #63)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:19 PM

177. Bingo...this is all about that berniebros bs

this is clearly a class war, the battle between Bernie and Hillary, that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:09 AM

61. Yah, I knew he was a secret progressive white supremacist.

I read about it on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #61)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:56 AM

71. aha or

maybe someones taking the night off

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #61)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:01 AM

73. It's an interesting claim, though I wouldn't go that far

What makes you call him a white supremacist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:11 AM

62. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:02 AM

75. Ignoring reality ....

your graphs can be twisted however you want . The simple truth is that the reason wages have gone down is because all the profit has been going up the chain into a "water tight trickle down tub" for the past 40 years . And as for the other groups rising in wage well they didn't really have the option of going back from a pittance .

As for Sanders it is an across the board wage rise so not sure what your issue is . At all .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheFarS1de (Reply #75)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:03 AM

77. Why would it be across the board?

That's an interesting assertion, but I don't see why you think it would be an equally shared income increase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #77)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 01:45 PM

154. Because that's the follow on from $15 minimum wage.

Your slant on your very selective stats and your effort to resist all efforts at contextualizing you presentation is creepy and (literally) has left me with a sneer of disgust on my face. I can't see 'the why' of you data manipulation as anything other than a ham handed effort to stir racial and gender based animosity.
Yuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:06 AM

82. it about wealth inequality

 

And everyone in the bottom 90% is on the losing side of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #82)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:06 AM

92. The past three decades have seen the largest decreases in global inequality in human history

And plenty of Americans are against that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:03 AM

90. Not even a bad thing as that means more equality

ironic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #90)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:05 AM

91. Right? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:10 AM

95. You apparently ton't get correcting for inflation

Real wages peaked in 1973 in inflation adjusted terms. Family incomes have been dropping since 2000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #95)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:55 AM

115. Nope; they rose from 94 to 00, and still haven't hit the pre-94 lows (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #115)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 04:12 AM

183. Ans what happend to rents and food? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #183)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 05:21 AM

185. By definition they stayed the same since this is real (inflation-adjusted) income

Nominally incomes went way up; slightly faster than prices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #185)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 05:23 AM

186. My expenses have gone up way faster than my income for 20 years n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #186)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 05:23 AM

187. Then you're unlike the majority of Americans in that respect (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:11 AM

96. You should regret posting this swill

 

You are not going to find Sanders and his supporters saying "Lower wages for women and minorities so there is parity for white males."

White male privilege is absolutely NOT the motivation that -- You are smarter than that crap.

Yesdy life has changed since 1970. It has become "better" for women and minorities in terms of employment than it was. But there is still disparity.

It is an overall downward trend for everyone except the uppers.

Bernie is trying to raise it for everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:48 AM

98. A Decade of Flat Wages: The Key Barrier to Shared Prosperity and a Rising Middle Class

 

In this paper we document the economy’s continuing failure to provide real wage gains for most workers. his paper’s key findings include:
According to every major data source, the vast majority of U.S. workers—including white-collar and blue-collar workers and those with and without a college degree—have endured more than a decade of wage stagnation. Wage growth has significantly underperformed productivity growth regardless of occupation, gender, race/ethnicity, or education level.
http://www.epi.org/publication/a-decade-of-flat-wages-the-key-barrier-to-shared-prosperity-and-a-rising-middle-class/

President Obama in Galesburg, Illinois:
"In the period after World War II, a growing middle class was the engine of our prosperity. Whether you owned a company, swept its floors, or worked anywhere in between, this country offered you a basic bargain—a sense that your hard work would be rewarded with fair wages and benefits, the chance to buy a home, to save for retirement, and, above all, to hand down a better life for your kids.
But over time, that engine began to stall. That bargain began to fray. . . . The link between higher productivity and people’s wages and salaries was severed—the income of the top 1 percent nearly quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, while the typical family’s barely budged."

That link provides much data and many charts and people who care about the people might want to read up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #98)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 01:47 PM

155. Thank, that's a good read. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:58 AM

99. Is this why Bernie is strongest in 98% white states?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #99)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:35 AM

105. Pretty much

I mean obviously it gets complex, but it you want a one sentence answer, there it is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #105)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:45 AM

107. Sounds logical to me

 

Its funny when people look back to the 50's 60's 70's as a golden age.

For white people it was.

It was hell for PoC though. Go to youtube or PBS and see how "great" those good old days were for PoC.

That why a purely economic appeal, doesn't resonate with everybody.

IMHO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #107)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:55 AM

114. yes let's knock down EVERYONE rather than bring EVERYONE up

 

real fucking logical

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #99)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:53 AM

113. No, you forgot something.... 98 percent white MALE states...

 

what a bunch of swill

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #113)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:58 AM

118. I don't know of a 98% white male state in the US

Is there one I've missed? I think the highest white male percentage is about 46% of so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #118)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:03 AM

120. I am referring to how nonsensical the 98 percent white and male discontent are conflated

 

Those "98 percent white" states have a sizable number of women. Your idiotic premise that the electoral results mean that only white males only support Sanders to regain their privilege. There is a logical paradox in trying to support both contentions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #120)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:04 AM

122. You may be in the wrong thread? I certainly don't think "only white males" support Sanders

Is there a different thread you were wanting to reply to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #122)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:10 AM

123. No this....

 

This is also true for male and female wages: women started to make more, and men less....Sanders is running on a platform predicated on wage stagnation over the past 40 years, but that is literally only true for white males (for that matter white males' wages and incomes have gone down, while everyone else's have gone up). Once white males stopped having a stranglehold on "real" jobs...etc.


Perhaps you acknowledge that there may be a few misguided females and minorities who also support Sander's racist and sexist agenda to restore the supremacy of white males. If so I apologize for oversimplifying your misrepresentation of the motive for the movement for workers rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #123)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:13 AM

125. There certainly are women and minorities who support Sanders

And, keep in mind, I'm going to vote for Sanders in the primaries next week barring a meteor strike or O'Malley's getting back in the race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #125)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:18 AM

126. Okay...but I do think you're misreading motives

 

The Angry White Males (a longstanding concept) tend to support the Tea Party and other reactionary wingnut movements and candidates, not Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:15 AM

102. So to whittle that down

'Bernie says things are bad, but they're only getting bad for white people. Black people and Women have been getting it better, but their incomes still suck. Any plans Bernie has to fix things will only effect white people, and black people and women will suffer for it.' Am I missing something? Are you serious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackInGreen (Reply #102)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:46 AM

108. That's a simplistic but pretty straightforward summary, yes (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #108)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:50 AM

109. so tell us do you have to post this kind of stuff 7 more times to be fully vested?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #109)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:52 AM

112. Ummm sure

If imagining that makes you feel better, go for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #112)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:01 AM

119. well the thread seems pretty imagination based so I figured what the heck

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #108)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:50 AM

110. Thanks

Do you really think that THAT is the case? That Bernie and his supporters want to drag down women and minorities (witting or unwitting) to restore white privilege in wages?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackInGreen (Reply #110)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:51 AM

111. I do think so, though I think most don't realize that is the actual outcome they are cheering for

But, yeah: that will be the outcome of Sanders's policies. Which, again, is why he's the lesser of two evils, because a Clinton candidacy IMO means a Republican Presidency, which will be worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #111)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:35 AM

130. What would you do as an alternative

To ensure prosperity that didn't result in such draconian alchemiac results?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackInGreen (Reply #130)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:37 AM

131. A guaranteed minimum income

Stop tying prosperity to having a job. There aren't enough of them to go around, and that's only going to get worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #131)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:42 AM

132. Fair enough

So...I'm mirroring to be sure we're communicating clearly. Your statement is that tge rigged system as it is will only result in soneone being prosperous at the cost of others, so toss that rubric and move to a general min income to resolve it?
If that's the case I can't say I disagree entirely. Though I'd hope can find a way through the minefield TPTB have set up without trying to sell that (min income) to the general public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:18 AM

103. Steaming load

 

Of bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:29 AM

104. Seems to me that white males are overrepresented in the "1%". Their wages/salaries have skyrocketed.

 

Is the CEO class suddenly not chock full of white males?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:37 AM

106. Mom working, dad working, kids working, still not making as much as one person did 30 years ago

 

America needs a raise. Workers need power on the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #106)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:03 AM

121. women and minorities were off the official economy back then.

(And I think you mean 50 years ago, not 30 years ago.)

Yes: if you want to kick 40% or so of the labor force off the official economy again, we can go back to that.

Wages were higher when we limited competition for jobs. Not surprising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #121)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 11:19 AM

133. That's why I'm a socialist. Capitalism forces workers to compete for survival.

 

A job should be a right, at a livable wage, for everyone. Health care should be a right not a privelege. Education should be open to everyone.

You're saying women entering the workforce led to lower wages because it increased the supply of labor. Ok I can buy that argument but the question is what to do about it.

We don't want to go back. We gotta go forward and give everbody some basic guarantees in life so we're not competing for survival.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #106)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:19 AM

127. Exactly.

 

Ordinary working people used to be able to save up and buy things like modest vacation cabins. Now those on the lower end of what can only be sarcastically called "middle class" anymore have no hope of owning their primary residence.

It's been pitchforks and torches time for years...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:56 AM

116. Rocket science: The typical white household is almost 13 times richer than the typical black family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #116)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:57 AM

117. Yep. And yet it's still *white* families that feel the most insecure (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:19 AM

128. bullshit. I am a woman. I still make less than a man. Give me my whole damn dollar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 12:25 PM

137. Maybe we should be lowering the retirement age

It's a way to implement a minimum income and free up jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paulie (Reply #137)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 01:08 PM

148. I'd go for that

 

As it is I'm hanging on till 62 when I can finally get some social security.

Not to retire mind you but just to supplement our income a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 01:42 PM

152. this is the worst tread i have ever read.

everyone in the 90% is poorer today than they were 20 years ago.

the 1% is richer than they have ever been. As the minimum wage rises those at the bottom get an increase in wages, but wages in the middle are declining closer to the minimum wage.

If a worker makes 25k or 30k that difference is meaningless to the ceo that earns 15 million per year.

this OP thinks it great that all American wages decline, this way we can compete with workers in Vietnam and india, but the ceos can make even more billions.

What tripe this is.
The top 1% own as much wealth as the bottom half. The bottom 25% have zero networth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:00 PM

156. Not true at all. Latinos and African Americans

We're hardest hit by the recession. Stop with your lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:05 PM

157. How do these wages compare to economic bubbles?

Clinton was very lucky with the tech bubble, which
was none of his doing, for instance.

And how do these wages compare with decreasing
tarrifs? Reagan reduced them considerably.

And the comparison to outsourcing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:25 PM

159. Except nobody is really making what they should be.

All wages should be higher, and the top 1% still make/own too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:12 PM

162. Good post!

 

Do you still regret it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:16 PM

165. Nope, you are wrong

 

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf



And you have been told this by a few

By the way, we had a civil discussion, but when you brought Bangladesh factory jobs, why not Germany? Are your aspirations that low?

And I told you yesterday why you were wrong. The economic plan is not racialized... even if you are trying to racialize it.

And since you will not bother doing this... here is the actual fucking PLAN... plenty of graphs there by the way.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:33 PM

172. You're actually using right-wing talking points, ironically.

 

the wages of people who weren't white males could easily have kept pace with the wages of white males without causing wage stagnation - it would have just required that capitalist firms accept that their profits were going to decline in the long run (not disappear, decline), and that executive compensation remain at rational levels. It would also have likely required maintaining a high top tax rate in order to fund government and create jobs.

Your premise is pretty much the fundamental premise of white racial resentment and how it's been used by the right for 40 years (actualy 400 years considering the economic basis of slavery which came *prior to* race) - it's dem gosh darned blacks and Hispanics and women and gays taking food off our table, not our rich CEO backers sucking wealth out of society with their tax cuts, deregulations, and bonus packages! You pretty much accept that economic prosperity for whites, blacks and everyone else is impossible, because restructuring our economy to serve the working class (which includes POC) is impossible in the face of 1% and 0.01% retrenchment.

Also one thing you miss is that mass incarceration in the 80s and 90s essentially took millions of POC particularly black males, out of the averages. If you add incarcerated POC to the numbers and give them an effective wage of 0, then suddenly the narrative falls apart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #172)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:42 PM

173. I wish I could recommend this post

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #172)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:26 PM

179. I wonder if his stats include the compensation

Of white, male CEOs? That would completely disprove his point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread