Featured Post

WHITE SLAVES IN AFRICA - STOPPED!

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND THE TRIPOLI PIRATES: THE FORGOTTEN WAR THAT CHANGED AMERICAN HISTORY (New York: Sentinel, 2015) by BRIAN KILMEADE ...

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

CAN AND SHOULD GOVT. PROMOTE ECONOMIC EQUALITY?

     The NYTimes opinion piece, written by a scholar, with the opinions of four academics, raises important questions.  However, because of political correctness, I think that the academics dare not consider certain sensible answers.  I have copied a few paragraphs from the NY Times article, then included my comment, followed by others.  I think this is an important issue, and hope it stirs your thoughts.----Hugh Murray


The New York Times

Thomas B. Edsall September 10, 2013, 11:22 pm 13 Comments
Can the Government Actually Do Anything About Inequality?

……
The four political scientists offer five “possible reasons why the U.S. political system has, during the last few decades, failed to counterbalance rising inequality”:
  • An intellectual and ideological shift within both political parties toward “acceptance of a form of free market capitalism which, among other characteristics, offers less support for government provision of transfers, lower marginal tax rates for those with high incomes, and deregulation of a number of industries. Financial deregulation, in particular, has been a source of income inequality.”
  •  “Immigration and low turnout of the poor have combined to make the distribution of voters more weighted to high incomes than is the distribution of households. Turnout, of course, can also be influenced by legal and administrative measures that make it relatively costly for the poor to vote.
  •  “Rising real income and wealth has made a larger fraction of the population less attracted to turning to government for social insurance.”
  •  “The rich have been able to use their resources to influence electoral, legislative, and regulatory processes through campaign contributions, lobbying, and revolving door employment of politicians and bureaucrats.”
  •  “The political process is distorted by institutions like gerrymandering that reduce the accountability of elected officials to the majority. Other political institutions, including a bicameral legislature with a filibuster, combine with political polarization to create policy gridlock, which in turn inhibits efforts to update social safety nets and regulatory frameworks in response to changing conditions.”
….
Inequality appears to liberals and many others to be palpably wrong. But conservative and liberals often find themselves in agreement that inequality in and of itself may not be the issue — it’s the way it is deepening and spreading and the small size of the group to whom the benefits are accruing that worries people most. Inequality exists in democracies and non-democracies alike; it clearly stems from multiple causes. But “the question for public policy,” as Greg Mankiw puts it, is “what, if anything, to do about it.”
Comments:
Hugh Murray
  • Milwaukee
Can the government do anything about inequality? Yes. But first, who are we speaking of? Shoud the US try to make the salaries of those in Kenya equal to those in Detroit? Or NYC? Though all are endowed with certain inalienable rights, equal pay is not one of them. We should worry first about American citizens. Flooding the US with millions of invaders for decades has greatly reduced the wages of the poor. Deport the millions of invaders (illegal immigrants), and with supply and demand, wages of the poor would rise. This is the immigration reform most Americans would favor. But big money, especially from liberal foundations, makes discussion of the invaders a taboo subject. Also, the invaders affect not only the wages of poor Blacks. Because millions of the invaders are Hispanic or even Black, they may receive affirmative action preferences in applying for univ., for winning a scholarship, getting a job, or being awarded a promotion. The millions of invaders make inequality greater in the US and widen the gap between rich and poor.
Of course, many are poor because they reside in crime-ridden neighborhoods, where one may have to pay more for groceries (because of theft), or for dry cleaning (to place your clothing through the bullet-proof window), or because you are robbed. To increase equality, execute murderers in the neighborhood; severely punish the thieves, etc. Liberals have it all wrong; poverty does not cause crime - crime causes poverty.

    • Einstein
    • America
    • Verified
You are blaming the inequality on 'illegal' immigrants?
How ridiculous and absurd.
How many great paying jobs are 'illegal' immigrants are taking away when it is not even legal for them to work? Many 'illegal' immigrants are at risk of starving to death at this very minute!
Did 'illegal' immigrants cause the bank bailouts?
Did 'illegal' immigrants cause our jobs to be outsourced overseas?
Let's talk about the real inequality.
Are 'illegal'immigrants being paid million dollar bonuses?
How many multi-billionaire 'illegal ' immigrants are there?
Your assertions are absurd.

    • Len Charlap
    • Princeton, MJ
Hugh - Your comment contains no data or refernces, perhaps because what you say has been shown to be false over and over again. Put "effect of immigration on the economy" into google and scan some of the results. For example:

"The last few years have witnessed a burst in economic research showing the strongly positive net impacts of immigration in general and comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) in particular. Broad agreement has emerged as to not only the net economic and fiscal benefits of immigration and CIR, but the acceleration of those benefits over time."

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/adding-it-accurately-gauging...

    • D Flinchum
    • Blacksburg, VA
It depends upon what you call great paying.

Two jobs that used to be decent paying jobs for folks without a college education were meatpacking and construction. You'd not get rich but they afforded a middle-class life.

Thanks to the influx of cheap foreign labor - legal & illegal, these jobs have largely been destroyed. Meatpacking pays about half what it did in the 80's; and during the housing boom, construction wages actually fell, both because of the law of supply and demand, which wasn't passed by Congress but simply is, like the law of gravity. Also both of these jobs were largely union before it became possible to replace union workers with cheap foreign labor.

Anybody who doesn't 'get' the effect that greatly increasing the labor pool has on wages must have never had to actually hunt for a job under competitive conditions.

    • Hugh Murray
    • Milwaukee
Einstein worries about outsourcing our jobs overseas. However, with millions of illegals, we "outsource" American jobs internally. Every illegal who has a job deprives an American citizen of that job. And every illegal who has no job, is a drain on the welfare or criminal justice system which American citizens must support.
Millions more competing for jobs has utterly depressed wages. That is why America labor, for about a century, opposed illegal immigration and favored restricted legal immigration. But the labor movement abandoned the American citizens and caved over a decade ago. Is it even an American labor movement today?

No comments:

Post a Comment