Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
YoungDemCA
YoungDemCA's Journal
YoungDemCA's Journal
January 31, 2016
-- Alonzo Bodden (comedian).
The black unemployment rate has consistently been twice as high as the white unemployment rate for 50 years:
For the past 50 years, black unemployment has been well above recession levels:
Source: 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 racial divide on unemployment
Unemployment crisis? Unemployment didn't become a crisis until white people became unemployed.
-- Alonzo Bodden (comedian).
The black unemployment rate has consistently been twice as high as the white unemployment rate for 50 years:
For the past 50 years, black unemployment has been well above recession levels:
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/28/these-seven-charts-show-the-black-white-economic-gap-hasnt-budged-in-50-years/
January 30, 2016
It's all they know
And not only that, but they (white, middle class people) benefit from their privilege being invisible to them, psychologically as well as materially.
White people very rarely perceive themselves as being implicated in or responsible for racism, in practice. At best, racism is something that "racists" or "Southerners" or "uneducated" whites are responsible for - but never educated, middle class white people with "progressive" racial views. At worst, racism is projected by whites onto people of color ("Why are they always complaining? They're not enslaved or denied civil rights anymore! Maybe they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, like I did!"
. Either way, racism is externalized onto "those other people."
We have a long, long way to go, indeed.
January 24, 2016
snip:
http://qz.com/599999/at-work-as-at-home-men-reap-the-benefits-of-womens-invisible-labor/
At work as at home, men reap the benefits of women’s “invisible labor”
This is an issue that reveals the ugly truth about sexism as a norm that affects all women in adverse ways on a daily basis. One that men benefit from - even men like myself, who generally have good intentions and recognize that sexism is an urgent, systemic issue.
For these gendered patterns and norms are absolutely ingrained into us from the day we're born, by our parents, our peers, our relatives, our media, and our culture in general. And oftentimes, it's not even intentional. It's just the assumed, "default" position...which in many ways, is more pervasive and insidious than conscious misogyny.
Men today do a higher share of chores and household work than any generation of men before them. Yet working women, especially working mothers, continue to do significantly more.
On any given day, one fifth of men in the US, compared to almost half of all women do some form of housework. Each week, according to Pew, mothers spend nearly twice as long as fathers doing unpaid domestic work. But while it’s important to address inequality at home, it’s equally critical to acknowledge the way these problems extend into the workplace. Women’s emotional labor—which can involve everything from tending to others’ feelings to managing family dynamics to writing thank-you notes—is a big issue that’s rarely discussed.
In the early 1980s, University of California, Berkeley sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild coined the term “emotional labor” in her book The Managed Heart. Hochschild observed that women make up the majority of service workers—flight attendants, food service workers, customer service reps—as well as the majority of of child-care and elder-care providers. All of these positions require emotional effort, from smiling on demand to prioritizing the happiness of the customer over one’s own feelings.
On any given day, one fifth of men in the US, compared to almost half of all women do some form of housework. Each week, according to Pew, mothers spend nearly twice as long as fathers doing unpaid domestic work. But while it’s important to address inequality at home, it’s equally critical to acknowledge the way these problems extend into the workplace. Women’s emotional labor—which can involve everything from tending to others’ feelings to managing family dynamics to writing thank-you notes—is a big issue that’s rarely discussed.
In the early 1980s, University of California, Berkeley sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild coined the term “emotional labor” in her book The Managed Heart. Hochschild observed that women make up the majority of service workers—flight attendants, food service workers, customer service reps—as well as the majority of of child-care and elder-care providers. All of these positions require emotional effort, from smiling on demand to prioritizing the happiness of the customer over one’s own feelings.
snip:
A 2005 study conducted by Madeline Heilman, a New York University psychologist, found that a woman who stayed at work late and offered help to a coworker was ranked 14% less favorably than a man doing the same thing. If she declined to help, she was rated 12% lower than a male peer who did the same. Additionally, Heilman found that women’s assistance usually happens in small, unseen ways, whereas male help tended to be more visible and public. Adding injury to insult, the study found that work performed by women wasn’t only less visible, it was more consuming.
This is an inherently sexist dynamic, and—for women of color—an implicitly racist one. Professional black and Hispanic women, subjected to a sort of double jeopardy in corporate situations, report being regularly mistaken for cleaning ladies and janitors.
The time women spend on these necessary but unrecognized chores taxes their energy, undermines their workplace authority, and reduces the time they could be spending on more socially and professionally recognized and valued work.
This is an inherently sexist dynamic, and—for women of color—an implicitly racist one. Professional black and Hispanic women, subjected to a sort of double jeopardy in corporate situations, report being regularly mistaken for cleaning ladies and janitors.
The time women spend on these necessary but unrecognized chores taxes their energy, undermines their workplace authority, and reduces the time they could be spending on more socially and professionally recognized and valued work.
http://qz.com/599999/at-work-as-at-home-men-reap-the-benefits-of-womens-invisible-labor/
January 14, 2016
...in a new work-trends survey released earlier this month, by the John Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, four in ten of those surveyed said that high unemployment is caused by “illegal immigrants taking jobs away from Americans.” Intuitive as this may seem (more workers means fewer job opportunities and lower wages), actual evidence that immigration drives down wages is hard to find. On the contrary, a host of studies have found that immigration has actually boosted wages for native-born American workers as a whole, and that while immigration has had a negative impact on the wages of one group—men without a high-school education—that impact has been surprisingly small. Taken as a whole, in fact, the numbers clearly suggest that immigration reform would be a genuine boon to the U.S. economy.
snip:
Of course, immigration isn’t only (or even mostly) about highly skilled workers. But even the immigration of unskilled workers seems to have been, on balance, beneficial to the economy as a whole. The biggest reason for this is that foreign-born workers turn out not to be perfect substitutes for American workers, which means that the two groups don’t often compete in the same job markets. Or, to put it differently, immigrants tend to concentrate in industries and job categories where native-born workers aren’t. As a result, the work they do tends to be complementary to the work Americans do rather than competing with it. And that, in turn, can make American workers more productive, which means that they can get paid more, and, in some cases, create jobs that would otherwise not exist. In the case of construction, for instance, immigrants tend to work as masons and bricklayers, which creates opportunities for crane operators and foremen, who are more likely to be native-born. More prosaically, and commonly, the fact that, in the restaurant industry, immigrants are willing to work, typically for low wages, as busboys, dishwashers, and deliverymen makes many restaurants viable businesses, which in turn allows them to employ native-born Americans to work as waiters and bartenders.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/immigration-reform-and-the-american-worker
Here's another source that argues essentially the same thing:
Neither Ottaviano and Peri’s nor even Borjas’s estimates of the wage effects of immigration are consistent with Trump’s claim that immigration is destroying the middle class. But what happens when we look at the wages of native-born workers by level of education? The Ottaviano-Peri study shows, in the long run, immigration is associated with an increase in wages across all education levels. Borjas’s study reports that immigration has negative effects on the wages of native-born college graduates and especially on workers with less than a high-school education (those at the “bottom” of the labor market, mostly in low-wage jobs), even in the long run. But again he concedes a positive effect for the 60% of U.S. workers with either a high school degree or some college (but no degree).These results are probably a head-scratcher for anyone who has taken introductory economics. After all doesn’t increasing the supply of labor, through immigration, drive down its price (the going wage)?
Well, no. Immigrant workers do add to the supply of labor. But the economic effects of immigration do not stop there. Immigrants largely spend their wages within the U.S. economy. Businesses produce more—and hire more workers—to meet the increased demand. The cost savings from hiring cheaper immigrant labor also frees up businesses to expand production and hire more workers overall. Both those effects increase the demand for labor, offsetting the effects of added labor supply.
snip:
http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2015/1115miller.html
Bottom line: The conventional wisdom about undocumented immigrants is wrong.
Undocumented immigrants and their effect on the U.S. economy: debunking the conventional wisdom
"Illegal immigrants take American jobs."
"Illegal immigrants drive down wages for American workers."
"Illegal immigrants are a huge burden on the American economy."
These (and other, more nasty statements) amount to a constant refrain whenever the subject of immigration (specifically, illegal/undocumented immigration) is brought up. The Republican Party in general - and Donald Trump in particular - have taken this issue and run with it, in terms of demonizing undocumented immigrants (and often, sad to say, immigrants and ethnic minorities in general).
Yet curiously, there is very little credible evidence that "illegals" do any of those things. Quite to the contrary, the empirical evidence suggests that undocumented immigrants are a net positive to the American economy.
Here's an article in the New Yorker from a couple of years ago that argues just that:
...in a new work-trends survey released earlier this month, by the John Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, four in ten of those surveyed said that high unemployment is caused by “illegal immigrants taking jobs away from Americans.” Intuitive as this may seem (more workers means fewer job opportunities and lower wages), actual evidence that immigration drives down wages is hard to find. On the contrary, a host of studies have found that immigration has actually boosted wages for native-born American workers as a whole, and that while immigration has had a negative impact on the wages of one group—men without a high-school education—that impact has been surprisingly small. Taken as a whole, in fact, the numbers clearly suggest that immigration reform would be a genuine boon to the U.S. economy.
snip:
Of course, immigration isn’t only (or even mostly) about highly skilled workers. But even the immigration of unskilled workers seems to have been, on balance, beneficial to the economy as a whole. The biggest reason for this is that foreign-born workers turn out not to be perfect substitutes for American workers, which means that the two groups don’t often compete in the same job markets. Or, to put it differently, immigrants tend to concentrate in industries and job categories where native-born workers aren’t. As a result, the work they do tends to be complementary to the work Americans do rather than competing with it. And that, in turn, can make American workers more productive, which means that they can get paid more, and, in some cases, create jobs that would otherwise not exist. In the case of construction, for instance, immigrants tend to work as masons and bricklayers, which creates opportunities for crane operators and foremen, who are more likely to be native-born. More prosaically, and commonly, the fact that, in the restaurant industry, immigrants are willing to work, typically for low wages, as busboys, dishwashers, and deliverymen makes many restaurants viable businesses, which in turn allows them to employ native-born Americans to work as waiters and bartenders.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/immigration-reform-and-the-american-worker
Here's another source that argues essentially the same thing:
Neither Ottaviano and Peri’s nor even Borjas’s estimates of the wage effects of immigration are consistent with Trump’s claim that immigration is destroying the middle class. But what happens when we look at the wages of native-born workers by level of education? The Ottaviano-Peri study shows, in the long run, immigration is associated with an increase in wages across all education levels. Borjas’s study reports that immigration has negative effects on the wages of native-born college graduates and especially on workers with less than a high-school education (those at the “bottom” of the labor market, mostly in low-wage jobs), even in the long run. But again he concedes a positive effect for the 60% of U.S. workers with either a high school degree or some college (but no degree).These results are probably a head-scratcher for anyone who has taken introductory economics. After all doesn’t increasing the supply of labor, through immigration, drive down its price (the going wage)?
Well, no. Immigrant workers do add to the supply of labor. But the economic effects of immigration do not stop there. Immigrants largely spend their wages within the U.S. economy. Businesses produce more—and hire more workers—to meet the increased demand. The cost savings from hiring cheaper immigrant labor also frees up businesses to expand production and hire more workers overall. Both those effects increase the demand for labor, offsetting the effects of added labor supply.
snip:
Nor is there a credible case that undocumented immigrants are draining the public coffers by consuming more public services than they pay for. Immigrants migrate to jobs, not to welfare, and are disproportionately of working age. They are not major beneficiaries of the most generous U.S. welfare-state programs—Social Security and Medicare, which serve the elderly, not the young or the poor. And undocumented immigrants are already ineligible for most government benefits. (Even documented immigrants are ineligible for many federal programs, at least for some years after their arrival.)
On top of that, immigrants, both documented and undocumented, do pay taxes. They pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, and often income taxes. And they pay far more in taxes than they receive in benefits. That puts Trump’s outrage over $4.2 billion in “free tax credits ... paid to illegal immigrants” in a different light. In 2009, the federal government did in fact pay $4.2 billion in child tax credits to low-income tax filers using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), the vast majority of them undocumented immigrants. But that same year, those ITIN filers paid an estimated $12 billion into a Social Security system from which they are not eligible to collect any benefits.
On top of that, immigrants, both documented and undocumented, do pay taxes. They pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, and often income taxes. And they pay far more in taxes than they receive in benefits. That puts Trump’s outrage over $4.2 billion in “free tax credits ... paid to illegal immigrants” in a different light. In 2009, the federal government did in fact pay $4.2 billion in child tax credits to low-income tax filers using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), the vast majority of them undocumented immigrants. But that same year, those ITIN filers paid an estimated $12 billion into a Social Security system from which they are not eligible to collect any benefits.
http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2015/1115miller.html
Bottom line: The conventional wisdom about undocumented immigrants is wrong.
January 8, 2016
Women's rights are under assault...maybe having a *woman* as President is more urgent than ever?
And not just any woman, but one who has been at the forefront of women's issues for decades?
Just a thought.
Of course I stand with Planned Parenthood.
January 7, 2016
It is abundantly clear that the GOP will dismantle the ACA if they get the White House
And they'll find a way to blame Democrats for the disastrous consequences to millions of people that would result in repealing President Obama's signature domestic policy achievement.
And you know what?
All too many American voters would believe them. 
January 1, 2016
snip:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/anti-choice-movement-placing-its-hopes-2016-election#sthash.vPncgZbg.dpuf
....for many conservatives, those expectations for 2016 do not include a continued fight to defund Planned Parenthood.
“I see it, and a lot of folks see it, as shifting into 2017,” Mr. Holler said, when they hope a Republican replaces Mr. Obama.
Carol Tobias, the president of the National Right to Life Committee, wrote in an email: “We won’t be able to remove federal funds from Planned Parenthood while this president is still in office. But we do have a pathway when(!) a pro-life president is elected.”
Showing that pathway is the purpose of the House vote, tentatively scheduled for next Wednesday, on a so-called budget reconciliation bill. The measure includes provisions to ban funds for Planned Parenthood and repeal the Affordable Care Act. House Republicans’ expected approval of the bill, which the Senate passed early this month, would send it to Mr. Obama.
The president has promised a veto. But congressional Republicans say the effort will show they can pass such conservative priorities over Democrats’ opposition — and get them signed into law once a Republican president is elected. They hope Mr. Obama’s veto will elevate the issues of Planned Parenthood and abortion rights more broadly in the 2016 election debate as the parties contend for control of the White House and the Senate. Yet for several vulnerable Senate Republicans from Democratic-leaning states, the less their party says about the issues, the better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/us/politics/break-is-likely-in-planned-parenthood-funding-battle.html?_r=0
Anti-Choice Movement Placing Its Hopes In 2016 Election
Anti-choice groups, which were unable to sneak any anti-Planned Parenthood measures into a spending bill this month, are placing all their hopes in the election of an anti-choice president in 2016.
snip:
Susan B. Anthony List, the major anti-choice electoral group, has been pushing this messaging around the House vote. SBA List’s Jill Stanek wrote in a December 17 fundraising email:
"As we learned from the reconciliation fight to defund Planned Parenthood, we CAN advance pro-life legislation through the Senate… but the veto pen of a pro-abortion president remains our biggest road block.
Only when we elect a pro-life president (and retain our pro-life majorities in Congress), can we get a bill defunding Planned Parenthood signed into law.
…
The stakes couldn’t be higher.
President Obama is likely to veto the recent reconciliation bill defunding Planned Parenthood as soon as it gets to his desk.
Hillary Clinton would be no different, which is why we must work to advance pro-life candidates and ensure a pro-life candidate wins the White House."
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/anti-choice-movement-placing-its-hopes-2016-election#sthash.vPncgZbg.dpuf
....for many conservatives, those expectations for 2016 do not include a continued fight to defund Planned Parenthood.
“I see it, and a lot of folks see it, as shifting into 2017,” Mr. Holler said, when they hope a Republican replaces Mr. Obama.
Carol Tobias, the president of the National Right to Life Committee, wrote in an email: “We won’t be able to remove federal funds from Planned Parenthood while this president is still in office. But we do have a pathway when(!) a pro-life president is elected.”
Showing that pathway is the purpose of the House vote, tentatively scheduled for next Wednesday, on a so-called budget reconciliation bill. The measure includes provisions to ban funds for Planned Parenthood and repeal the Affordable Care Act. House Republicans’ expected approval of the bill, which the Senate passed early this month, would send it to Mr. Obama.
The president has promised a veto. But congressional Republicans say the effort will show they can pass such conservative priorities over Democrats’ opposition — and get them signed into law once a Republican president is elected. They hope Mr. Obama’s veto will elevate the issues of Planned Parenthood and abortion rights more broadly in the 2016 election debate as the parties contend for control of the White House and the Senate. Yet for several vulnerable Senate Republicans from Democratic-leaning states, the less their party says about the issues, the better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/us/politics/break-is-likely-in-planned-parenthood-funding-battle.html?_r=0
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: CA
Home country: USA
Member since: Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:29 PM
Number of posts: 5,714
