The Haves and the Have Mores

[c1ue]

Re: The Haves and the Have Mores

You're not contradicting what I am saying by admitting that there are massive income disparities between ethnic groups. Since the INS doesn't control what class of society Chinese or Mexican immigrants come from, you will get greater inequality with greater diversity.

I fear your point still escapes me.

If Chinese immigrants are far better educated, furthermore have much farther to go (as opposed to hopping a fence), there are definitely factors at work beyond skin color.

As for the INS - they definitely DO control what class of society immigrants come from.

The better your education and income category, the lower the legal barriers to entry.

From a numerical basis - how many Mexican H1B visa holders are there vs. Chinese or Indian?

And again, you failed to inform whether China is considered homogeneous or non-homogeneous. China has an extremely high gap between levels of society - and the majority of China is extremely homogeneous. There are no Mexican immigrants there either.

I should, for the record, clarify that I don't have a diversity fetish or an equality fetish - I have no problem with high diversity as long as this does not degenerate into what Los Angles has become (the Singaporean variety is preferable); I also have no problem with inequality as long as there is a fairly high threshold in terms of income and quality of life.

You may not have a fetish, but your unqualified statements certainly make it seem otherwise.

As for LA vs. Singapore - there are huge differences in how both cities are run.

If you advocate a more or less permanent underclass - that would be Singapore - Singapore's equivalent to the Mexicans being the Indians and Malays.

To go along with this legally mandated underclass, you also have a legally mandated overclass - the ethnic Chinese. While there is no law per se stating this, nonetheless the ridiculous over-representation of ethnic Chinese in the Singaporean government (even vs. legal Singapore citizens), plus the reality that Singapore was founded by an ethnic Chinese, plus the clear hereditary nature of its leadership, all would indicate something besides an open society.

Thus it might be more illuminating if the assertion that diversity equals inequality be more coherently backed by evidence as well as clear definition of terms.

[Rajiv]

The Devaluation and Fight for Survival of the American Middle Class

Some more on the topic - The Devaluation and Fight for Survival of the American Middle Class – How Three Decades has Shifted the Concentration of Financial Wealth to the top 1 Percent.

The American middle class ideal is lionized around the world. It is the core of what has made this country great. The land of opportunity and endless wealth so long as people worked hard enough. It was an implicit contract workers made with this country. Well that vision is now quickly coming under attack by the corporate structure with banks being the main culprits leading the American middle class to the edge of financial ruin. The average American is looking at their current economy and wondering what ever happened to the security that was once provided to the “greatest generation” era. The Wall Street crowd after devouring their bailouts is telling Americans that this is simply how the market corrects. Yet at the same time, they are offering record bonuses to their elite. The same banking crowd that led this country to the financial edge is now rewarding itself with massive bonuses (taxpayer funded) while jobs are being lost and no industry is emerging to provide work to the middle class. As tough as it may be for many to swallow we are in a class warfare struggle. That is why you are seeing populist rage growing in both of our entrenchment political parties.

If you are wondering why those on Wall Street have a hop to their step, it is because the stock market wealth is concentrated in the hands of very few:



The top 1 percent control 42 percent of financial wealth in the United States. Now think about that fact. Let us assume you have saved diligently for a few years into your 401k. Before the crisis hit, you had amassed $100,000 (much higher than the median amount for Americans but we’ll just use this to highlight our point). At the low, that $100,000 was probably down to $50,000 even being diversified. With the major run up, the amount might now be back to $75,000 to $80,000. Has the life of the average American really changed? This money is actually retirement funds and this amount is not going to make a big difference in the way people live on a day to day basis. Yet those in the top 1 percent with the current shift have seen billions go their way and this does make a big difference since many draw off capital gains on a yearly basis.

The 401k structure is problematic in many ways. It is a method to lure in money from people to give them a taste of the Wall Street money machine. Most of these funds are designed for retirement. And with massive baby boomers retiring in the next few years, billions of dollars in funds will be sold into the market (which ironically will add pressure on prices because of demographic shifts). This will push prices down right when people will start drawing from their nest egg. The notion that you can garner 7 percent each year into infinity is a fallacy that has been exposed in this market crash.

We have been getting richer as a nation overall. This is true. But why is it so hard for average Americans to now get by with two incomes when one income seemed adequate 40 years ago? The income gains have largely gone to the top 1 percent from 1979 to 2005:


Source: Wikipedia

The above gains are inflation adjusted over three decades. While income did increase across categories this distribution was not even. It was largely shifted to the top of the pile. Now it would be one thing if the top was being run by companies that actually provided jobs for a large part of America. But it isn’t. You have CEOs of Manhattan banks that are trading derivatives on toxic mortgages and betting up oil futures all so they can skim the system for money. How has that added value to our country? It hasn’t. All it has done is transformed part of our economy into one subsidized taxpayer casino at the expense of the working middle class.

If you want to visualize this class division, it would roughly break down like this:



But even here, the top 1 percent isn’t even reflected. Even working families with say a nurse and an engineer can bring in $100,000 to $150,000 a year. But with things like the AMT even this tranche is feeling the burden. The big transfer of wealth is going to the top 1 percent:

“(Wikipedia) As of 2005 there are approximately 146,000 (0.1%) households with incomes exceeding $1,500,000, while the top 0.01% or 11,000 households had incomes exceeding $5,500,000. The 400 highest tax payers in the nation had gross annual household incomes exceeding $87,000,000. Household incomes for this group have risen more dramatically than for any other. As a result the gap between those who make less than one and half million dollars annually (99.9% of households) and those who make more (0.1%) has been steadily increasing, prompting The New York Times to proclaim that the “Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind.” Indeed the income disparities within the top 1.5% are quite drastic. While households in the top 1.5% of households had incomes exceeding $250,000, 443% above the national median, their incomes were still 2200% lower than those of the top .01% of households. One can therefore conclude that almost any household, even those with incomes of $250,000 annually are poor when compared to the top .1%, who in turn are poor compared to the top 0.000267%, the top 400 taxpaying households.”

So we see where the money is really going. Even if we break down a family in California earning $100,000 you can see what was once considered rich is no longer the case:
.
.
.
.
.

[hayekvindicated]

Re: The Haves and the Have Mores

I fear your point still escapes me.

If Chinese immigrants are far better educated, furthermore have much farther to go (as opposed to hopping a fence), there are definitely factors at work beyond skin color.

As for the INS - they definitely DO control what class of society immigrants come from.

The better your education and income category, the lower the legal barriers to entry.

From a numerical basis - how many Mexican H1B visa holders are there vs. Chinese or Indian?

And again, you failed to inform whether China is considered homogeneous or non-homogeneous. China has an extremely high gap between levels of society - and the majority of China is extremely homogeneous. There are no Mexican immigrants there either.



You may not have a fetish, but your unqualified statements certainly make it seem otherwise.

As for LA vs. Singapore - there are huge differences in how both cities are run.

If you advocate a more or less permanent underclass - that would be Singapore - Singapore's equivalent to the Mexicans being the Indians and Malays.

To go along with this legally mandated underclass, you also have a legally mandated overclass - the ethnic Chinese. While there is no law per se stating this, nonetheless the ridiculous over-representation of ethnic Chinese in the Singaporean government (even vs. legal Singapore citizens), plus the reality that Singapore was founded by an ethnic Chinese, plus the clear hereditary nature of its leadership, all would indicate something besides an open society.

Thus it might be more illuminating if the assertion that diversity equals inequality be more coherently backed by evidence as well as clear definition of terms.

I never said anything about skin colour - this obsession with race is an American fixation that I've never really understood. If you note what I said above, I said "culture". I totally disagree with your comment that all the Chinese that came to America were all middle class or for that matter the ones that came to South East Asia were middle class (Sowell's books says otherwise). There were traders among them but middle class they were not by a long shot. They were mainly peasants.

If I were to understand what you are saying, then assuming that you have the exact same level of education, economic outcomes for all ethnic groups will be the same. Even in the US, this isn't true. For example, Jews with the exact same levels of education as white protestants and catholics have far higher incomes and levels of wealth. In the UK, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Afro-Caribbeans came to work in factories as cheap immigrant labour. Today, income levels or levels of wealth for Indians is far far higher than those for Pakistanis, Bangaldeshis, Africans or Afro Caribbeans.

To say that Singapore has "mandated" some kind of permanent underclass is bunk - its a city state that is run by a family. Although, even if they've done that, I somehow think its preferable to Los Angeles.

On the data points, I can post a ton of stuff here but its not a subject of any great interest to me (if this piques your interest, this site has some interesting information - endorsement not implied). I put my comments here because they amount to heresy in this day and age (although anyone willing to observe would no doubt see that there is some truth to them). Also, I thought I'd make a point that diversity fetish leads to some strange absurdities.

We can go back to discussing monetary policy. Discussing sociology isn't the purpose of this site and I don't want to impose it here.

[c1ue]

Re: The Haves and the Have Mores

If I were to understand what you are saying, then assuming that you have the exact same level of education, economic outcomes for all ethnic groups will be the same.

No, what I said is that an immigrant with an education is going to get more money overall than an immigrant without. Some of this is due to skill set, some of this is due to desire and ability to get more, some of this is simply having experienced more in the past.

Ethnic groups once they are settled for several generations in the US obviously have other factors. In this regard social inertia in families is one: multi-generational lawyer families and multi-generational policeman families are both examples.

In the UK, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Afro-Caribbeans came to work in factories as cheap immigrant labour. Today, income levels or levels of wealth for Indians is far far higher than those for Pakistanis, Bangaldeshis, Africans or Afro Caribbeans.

This may very well be true, but this doesn't itself preclude that there are other differences which caused the situation. I can't speak for India, but I can speak that Africans and Afro-Caribbeans simply do not have the education levels even available, much less common, in many parts of Asia.

For that matter India itself has entire social strata of hundreds of millions where education never comes into the picture.

There is a huge difference between an educated person working immigrant labor and a peasant who just jumped a fence to be able to send money back home, for example.

To say that Singapore has "mandated" some kind of permanent underclass is bunk - its a city state that is run by a family. Although, even if they've done that, I somehow think its preferable to Los Angeles.

Unfortunately you are quite wrong. Malaysians who come into Singapore to work are extremely strongly barred from either settling and/or becoming Singaporean citizens. Given that Singapore is surrounded by Malaysia, there is no real need for extending inclusiveness. But the effect is a permanent underclass in Singapore - though it is certainly true the level of said underclass in Singapore is higher than many classes in Malaysia.

Is it preferable? Certainly if you are inside the circle...

(if this piques your interest, this site has some interesting information - endorsement not implied)

This site appears to be by an Asian-American, about Asian Americans. I didn't look in great detail but also didn't see much that examines whether Asian Americans are really the same as all other immigrants. In fact, several links speak to the opposite: higher levels of education, fewer kids, less sex (no doubt related), etc etc.

As an Asian American who has widespread acquaintance with that community, my own personal experience has been that many of those Asian immigrants who are not educated are just as economically backward as the Hispanic immigrants.

Yes, the Asian ghettoes in LA and SF are much less dangerous than East LA - but then again East LA doesn't have the same diversity of educational/professional backgrounds in the Asian enclaves.

Lord of the Flies, baby.

[hayekvindicated]

Re: The Haves and the Have Mores

No, what I said is that an immigrant with an education is going to get more money overall than an immigrant without. Some of this is due to skill set, some of this is due to desire and ability to get more, some of this is simply having experienced more in the past.

Ethnic groups once they are settled for several generations in the US obviously have other factors. In this regard social inertia in families is one: multi-generational lawyer families and multi-generational policeman families are both examples.



This may very well be true, but this doesn't itself preclude that there are other differences which caused the situation. I can't speak for India, but I can speak that Africans and Afro-Caribbeans simply do not have the education levels even available, much less common, in many parts of Asia.

For that matter India itself has entire social strata of hundreds of millions where education never comes into the picture.

There is a huge difference between an educated person working immigrant labor and a peasant who just jumped a fence to be able to send money back home, for example.



Unfortunately you are quite wrong. Malaysians who come into Singapore to work are extremely strongly barred from either settling and/or becoming Singaporean citizens. Given that Singapore is surrounded by Malaysia, there is no real need for extending inclusiveness. But the effect is a permanent underclass in Singapore - though it is certainly true the level of said underclass in Singapore is higher than many classes in Malaysia.

Is it preferable? Certainly if you are inside the circle...



This site appears to be by an Asian-American, about Asian Americans. I didn't look in great detail but also didn't see much that examines whether Asian Americans are really the same as all other immigrants. In fact, several links speak to the opposite: higher levels of education, fewer kids, less sex (no doubt related), etc etc.

As an Asian American who has widespread acquaintance with that community, my own personal experience has been that many of those Asian immigrants who are not educated are just as economically backward as the Hispanic immigrants.

Yes, the Asian ghettoes in LA and SF are much less dangerous than East LA - but then again East LA doesn't have the same diversity of educational/professional backgrounds in the Asian enclaves.

Lord of the Flies, baby.

I'll stick to replying to your comment about Singapore. Singapore has the absolute right and is also absolutely right to limit the number of Malays if they fear that an additional influx of Malays would create problems for them. In Malaysia, Malays vastly underperform the ethnic Chinese and so the government forces some pretty drastic ethnic quotas upon business - they're not the worst by any means, the worst kinds of affirmative action are caste quotas in India (but thats a subject for another discussion). If the cost of keeping Singapore relatively free market (and this isn't my opinion - that's what the Heritage Foundation says about Singapore) is limiting immigration, then the Singaporeans are absolutely right to do so.

I have many Indian friends in Singapore and they have all done exceedingly well for themselves. There is discrimination by Chinese against Malays and Indians and vice versa but it hasn't stopped Indians or Malays from succeeding if they try.

On our general disagreement: let us agree to disagree.

[c1ue]

Re: The Haves and the Have Mores

I'll stick to replying to your comment about Singapore. Singapore has the absolute right and is also absolutely right to limit the number of Malays if they fear that an additional influx of Malays would create problems for them. In Malaysia, Malays vastly underperform the ethnic Chinese and so the government forces some pretty drastic ethnic quotas upon business - they're not the worst by any means, the worst kinds of affirmative action are caste quotas in India (but thats a subject for another discussion). If the cost of keeping Singapore relatively free market (and this isn't my opinion - that's what the Heritage Foundation says about Singapore) is limiting immigration, then the Singaporeans are absolutely right to do so.

I've never said Singapore doesn't have the right to do what it does.

But Singapore clearly is exploiting its position.

My point was simple: Singapore exploits the cheap labor of the poorer surrounding Malaysia. Those young enough to work go to Singapore; as they fall ill or age, they go back to Malaysia.

All the benefits, none of the obligations.

To say that this is a fine model of world behavior is very similar to saying that the bankers must be saved because they are the base of the economy...not!

As for Singapore being free market: Surely between the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation, the needs of labor are well recognized.

And the free market nature of the economy: surely a nation with sovereign wealth funds 3 times larger than the nation's economy must be free market.

After all, that sovereign wealth is ... governmental. And Singapore's government is free market. Therefore the sovereign wealth must be free market.

Just like all those other similarly free market nations: Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, China, Russia, and so forth.

[raja]

Re: The Haves and the Have Mores

The Haves and the Have Mores are mighty distant from the Have Nots.

Isn't the whole economic crisis we now face a question of wealth disparity?

The structure of government is now set up so that the rich get richer, and the rest of us become Debt Slaves. The Banksters and Walls Street want to get more and more wealth by gambling with our money. Isn't this what it all boils down to? Class "warfare"? Fighting over who gets more of the pie? All the rest is just details . . . .

I can tell you, I wouldn't be reading all this economy stuff if I wasn't trying to protect my retirement savings from going into the black hole of inflation.

The two big questions in my mind are: 1) How can we to stop the Financial Elite from perpetrating the Greatest Theft in History, and 2) Do the American People have what it takes to fight this fight?

Ohhh . . . and one more . . . will SRS ever recover, or should I sell now and take my losses?

[Down Under]

Re: The Haves and the Have Mores

I can tell you, I wouldn't be reading all this economy stuff if I wasn't trying to protect my retirement savings from going into the black hole of inflation.

You're not the only one. As far as I can tell, the longer the US screws itself, as it is currently doing, the worse it will be for the US and the ROW.

It is simply criminal what's going on. Anyone else, in any other industry in private enterprise, who screws up big time, gets the sack. What is happening on Wall Street is an absolute joke.