6 ms·

> the gains began to be shared more widely across society. The Black and Hispanic unemployment rates reached record lows, and the differentials between these ra

> the gains began to be shared more widely across society. The Black and Hispanic unemployment rates reached record lows, and the differentials between these rates and the white unemployment rate narrowed to their lowest levels on record. I didn't know this, and it runs against the "growing wealth inequality" narrative. Or maybe it's possible that wealth inequality is increasingly driven by factors other than race.

deelowe 6y ago
I feel that the media narrative is race is what drives inequity, but it certainly feels more like race is just a convenient scapegoat. In the end, it's all about concentration of power.
- joshuanapoli 6y ago
  I guess that any kind of bail-out (of stocks, or banks, or owners of real estate, or whatever) will inevitably help to sustain and increase concentration of power. If nature took its course, then control of whatever aspect of the world crashed would diffuse across a new set of owners as it rebuilds.
jonnycomputer 6y ago
Employment rate, not wealth inequality. And if most white people are employed, then you'd expect that most of the employment gains (i.e. increases in percent who are employed) would be in groups that were largely unemployed to before.
- joshuanapoli 6y ago
  That makes sense; it's just impossible for the unemployment rate to be so low without leveling across groups that had high unemployment.
  - WillPostForFood 6y ago
    Yes, and conversely, during recessions, the poor get it worse. If you look at black poverty rates for the last ~60 years, it has declined overall, from ~55% to ~20%. But you can see every recession or economic dip in the graph as a bump in poverty rate.
- thatfrenchguy 6y ago
  Feels like to me as well that "having a job" and "having a decent life" are highly uncorrelated in the united states these days.
stefan_ 6y ago
The hint on the wealth inequality is this: "In earlier decades when the Phillips curve was steeper, inflation tended to rise noticeably in response to a strengthening labor market" It doesn't really matter much to the market if people are employed or not. Purchasing power is not vested in the people with a W-2.
WillPostForFood 6y ago
>it runs against the "growing wealth inequality" narrative There are two things happening at the same time. The bottom is doing a little better than they were (lower poverty rate, lower unemployment, education gains, and even income improvement). At the same time, the top is doing amazing. So you get two different narratives that are both true. There is growing inequality. The bottom is doing better. You shouldn't ignore either one. If you fixate too much on inequality, you can push the bottom back down (everyone has nothing is very equal). If you ignore the inequality, society starts to crack.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Shorter: The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer.
  - galaxyLogic 6y ago
    But I assumes states and cities are getting into debt
  - beisner 6y ago
    Er, maybe "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting slightly less poor" is more accurate.
    - BurningFrog 6y ago
      https://tomdehnel.com/what-is-russell-conjugation/ https://tomdehnel.com/what-is-russell-conjugation/
      - TT3351 6y ago
        Do you think that communicating the significant, material difference between the relative increases among the two groups is not important?
        BurningFrog 6y ago
aniro 6y ago
There are a number of reasons they are not contradictory.. but the most simplistic would work like this: Day 1: John has $10 and Joe has $100 Day 5: John has $11 and Joe has $250 Day 100: John has $15 and Joe has $1000 They certainly both have more than before, but one of them is much better off (especially if there is some form of inflation in play). Also, blue collar wages have been largely stagnant or declining when measured against inflation (a very important point) since ~1980 while conversely white collar job incomes have been ballooning against the same measure. In particular, Executive compensation is utterly off the charts comparatively. When tax discount structures that vastly favor investment income over real wages is taken into account, the gains become even more stark (that is, the amount of income that can be retained v must be spent or is taxed).

deelowe 6y ago

I feel that the media narrative is race is what drives inequity, but it certainly feels more like race is just a convenient scapegoat. In the end, it's all about concentration of power.

joshuanapoli 6y ago
I guess that any kind of bail-out (of stocks, or banks, or owners of real estate, or whatever) will inevitably help to sustain and increase concentration of power. If nature took its course, then control of whatever aspect of the world crashed would diffuse across a new set of owners as it rebuilds.

jonnycomputer 6y ago

Employment rate, not wealth inequality. And if most white people are employed, then you'd expect that most of the employment gains (i.e. increases in percent who are employed) would be in groups that were largely unemployed to before.

joshuanapoli 6y ago
That makes sense; it's just impossible for the unemployment rate to be so low without leveling across groups that had high unemployment.
- WillPostForFood 6y ago
  Yes, and conversely, during recessions, the poor get it worse. If you look at black poverty rates for the last ~60 years, it has declined overall, from ~55% to ~20%. But you can see every recession or economic dip in the graph as a bump in poverty rate.
thatfrenchguy 6y ago
Feels like to me as well that "having a job" and "having a decent life" are highly uncorrelated in the united states these days.

stefan_ 6y ago

The hint on the wealth inequality is this: "In earlier decades when the Phillips curve was steeper, inflation tended to rise noticeably in response to a strengthening labor market" It doesn't really matter much to the market if people are employed or not. Purchasing power is not vested in the people with a W-2.

WillPostForFood 6y ago

>it runs against the "growing wealth inequality" narrative There are two things happening at the same time. The bottom is doing a little better than they were (lower poverty rate, lower unemployment, education gains, and even income improvement). At the same time, the top is doing amazing. So you get two different narratives that are both true. There is growing inequality. The bottom is doing better. You shouldn't ignore either one. If you fixate too much on inequality, you can push the bottom back down (everyone has nothing is very equal). If you ignore the inequality, society starts to crack.

BurningFrog 6y ago
Shorter: The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer.
- galaxyLogic 6y ago
  But I assumes states and cities are getting into debt
- beisner 6y ago
  Er, maybe "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting slightly less poor" is more accurate.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    https://tomdehnel.com/what-is-russell-conjugation/ https://tomdehnel.com/what-is-russell-conjugation/
    - TT3351 6y ago
      Do you think that communicating the significant, material difference between the relative increases among the two groups is not important?
      - BurningFrog 6y ago

aniro 6y ago

There are a number of reasons they are not contradictory.. but the most simplistic would work like this: Day 1: John has $10 and Joe has $100 Day 5: John has $11 and Joe has $250 Day 100: John has $15 and Joe has $1000 They certainly both have more than before, but one of them is much better off (especially if there is some form of inflation in play). Also, blue collar wages have been largely stagnant or declining when measured against inflation (a very important point) since ~1980 while conversely white collar job incomes have been ballooning against the same measure. In particular, Executive compensation is utterly off the charts comparatively. When tax discount structures that vastly favor investment income over real wages is taken into account, the gains become even more stark (that is, the amount of income that can be retained v must be spent or is taxed).