Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's consistent across the country that Democrat policies cause much greater income inequality and Republican policies reduce income inequality. Look across the country and it's consistent by state and city.
DC Boston nyc and San Francisco are the four liberal legacy cities, have highest income inequalities. Even Republicans that run politics in city are just as liberal as Democrats. Republicans too are not any better either. Both parties are on the same side of the coin. A Wiseman told me that a businessman is a politician, and a politician is a businessman. But yes lately in liberal cities such as DC and nyc, income inequality has grown sharply.
It focused mainly on Africans, with some mention of SECOND generation Caribbean blacks. Any way this is of no significance when we understand that the TOTAL number of people included is in the low 4 figures, so not indicative of anything.
Those who identify as Afro Latinos are worse off than black Americans. Please note the phrase "those who identify".
The main factor differentiating American blacks from black immigrants are;
1. the large AA under class. Impoverished people are less likely to migrate, so obviously will be less representative of the black immigrant population. In fact African immigrants are very heavily either college educated, or people migrating to the USA with those goals. Clearly a very selective population.
2. As NYWriter's attitude indicates, humility isn't a factor for native born people. While a poorly educated Caribbean female will go and take care of white babies (as she don't want no welfare $$$), a native born black will consider that humiliating and prefer gov't money.
Years later the Caribbean female has moved on, becoming an LPN. NYWriter will sniff that she still remains low paid, but the fact that she is earning an income means that her household will have higher earnings than an equivalent native black.
It is really at the lower levels where the differences between native and immigrant blacks manifest. At the higher levels the US born blacks (either native, or children of immigrants) do better than the immigrants. They know the system better, are better networked into good occupations, and appear less "foreign". I submit that African immigrants play a high penalty for being "African", which is why they invest so much into their kids' success.
In addition, as NYWriter points out, generations of discrimination, combined with welfare programs, has really crushed the resolve of many native born blacks. This is the infamous 25-30% black under class which folks use to stigmatize the entire black population.
I would also say low paid is better than no pay. And while poorly educated African Americans wouldn't work as domestics for white children these days, many do work in nursing homes taking care of elderly people of all races.
I would also say that today it's not that easy for a poorly educated native Black or Caribbean person to just go out and get welfare and decidethat they aren't working. You forget the Clinton administration put severe limits on welfare. One cannot get cash assistance unless one is in job training or actively looking for a job. After awhile they cut the welfare recipient off. Some welfare recipients do stuff like clean the subways or the parks. Let's just say the West Indian nanny is being paid a lot better and her job is nowhere near this nasty. The people who are on welfare long term are on SSI and they must have medical problems to get on there. You had a high rate of disease (mental and physical) in housing project and Section 8 populations, and it's not like these people traditionally went to doctors for check ups. Disability due to stroke and other issues due to diabetes (even losing body parts or losing bodily functions) is sadly disproportionately common in this population.
Public health authorities have acted by expanding medicaid, and then making those on medicaid get medicaid HMOs where they have to chose a primary care doctor (this medicaid population would just wait until they got very sick and use their medicaid cards at the hospital in the past).
Come to think of it, Section 8 in NYC hasn't accepted new applications since 2009, and in order to get NYCHA or some other sort of publically subsidized housing could take YEARS.
I think what you said of poorly educated US native Blacks could have only happened before the 90s welfare reform.
DC Boston nyc and San Francisco are the four liberal legacy cities, have highest income inequalities. Even Republicans that run politics in city are just as liberal as Democrats. Republicans too are not any better either. Both parties are on the same side of the coin. A Wiseman told me that a businessman is a politician, and a politician is a businessman. But yes lately in liberal cities such as DC and nyc, income inequality has grown sharply.
NYC has many corporate headquarters. Many blue collar jobs have fled NYC, leaving either high end corporate jobs, public section union jobs as a big part of the middle class, and many low end service sector jobs (and low end office work).
It's not better in the midwest and south. The cost of living is much cheaper, but that alone doesn't make it a paradise. People look at one factor and think a place is superior because they are looking at numbers with no context. I live in MI. The COL is much cheaper here but people make less money overall too.
How much more do you think you would be making in NYC?
Lower income people in NYC don't drive. So there's an added expense right there. Southern states tend to have sales tax on food and medicine. So buying food when you have a tight budget may bite you.
Car ownership rates in the south are far higher. They may drive heaps, but they drive. For a family of four, the cost of a car and the occasional bus ride is far lower than four monthly subway passes. Time-wise, driving there is far more convenient than taking the subway - with 10-15 minute trips being typical. As to taxes on food and drugs, they are fairly rare: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/sales.pdf
Car ownership rates in the south are far higher. They may drive heaps, but they drive. For a family of four, the cost of a car and the occasional bus ride is far lower than four monthly subway passes. Time-wise, driving there is far more convenient than taking the subway - with 10-15 minute trips being typical. As to taxes on food and drugs, they are fairly rare: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/sales.pdf
You have sales tax on food and medicine in Alabama. Ditto NC and TN. Each state is different, but in many Southern states the sales taxes on food, medicine, and clothes is there. You don't have these sales taxes in NYC.
And you don't have public transportation in most of the South.
You have sales tax on food and medicine in Alabama. Ditto NC and TN. Each state is different, but in many Southern states the sales taxes on food, medicine, and clothes is there. You don't have these sales taxes in NYC.
And you don't have public transportation in most of the South.
Most of the South taxes many other things to avoid doing so for the one thing they historically most value; land/property. This makes sense as most of the South has long been based on agriculture for which you need large portions of land to make work.
If you don't tax land at high enough rates or at all money must come from elsewhere..
It's consistent across the country that Democrat policies cause much greater income inequality and Republican policies reduce income inequality. Look across the country and it's consistent by state and city.
Really. Do tell.
You really are quite an analytical observer, surveying the landscape and coming up with these things without being bogged down with any sort of methodologies. A true visionary.
Are you running for office ? If not, why not give it some thought.
DC Boston nyc and San Francisco are the four liberal legacy cities, have highest income inequalities. Even Republicans that run politics in city are just as liberal as Democrats. Republicans too are not any better either. Both parties are on the same side of the coin. A Wiseman told me that a businessman is a politician, and a politician is a businessman. But yes lately in liberal cities such as DC and nyc, income inequality has grown sharply.
Given the fundamentally unchecked run of "business," greed and profiteering, which is a nonpartisan fact of things.
They just use different tactics and position themselves as different "brands." They aren't, essentially.
How much more do you think you would be making in NYC?
Depending on the field, someone coming from a Rust Belt city like Detroit or Cleveland could earn double their current income or more in NYC. My wife did it. True, she's a native, and she has a network that a newcomer would not. Also, she's in software. The NYC software job market is one of the best in the country. In fact, Silicon Alley grew faster than the Valley this past year.
But she has disadvantages as well. First, she is female. Women in software are often paid less and treated horribly. Secondly, she is Latina, and Latina women are very underrepresented in software. They suffer an even larger pay gap than white women as well as more OTJ discrimination too. She has not yet worked a job in her adult life where she did not have some clown who thought he was hot sh-t putting her in her place, sabotaging her, etc. The last city we lived in had the most gender-segregated workforce in the U.S. Few women in their 30s and up worked professional salary jobs, those who did were in jobs stereotyped as female: nurse, pediatrician, secretary, childcare worker. It also had about 5 Latino residents in the whole place. (I am undercounting for exaggerated effect but only just.) Which meant that to many, especially the over-50 crowd, Latino was "those damn illegals they always tell me about on Faux News." Needless to say, life there was...uncomfortable.
(Also, Atlanta's public transit is NOT good. It's definitely rotten compared to New York's. I actually lived there for many years. The biggest issue is: it's broke. The state WILL NOT FUND IT, has not for many years, and you know why? Because the white people in the surrounding suburbs DO NOT WANT black people to set foot in their nice little enclaves, and blacks comprise 80% of ridership. There are many jobs outside the city proper that people dependent on MARTA can't accept because the system doesn't run there. Here's a quick [Wiki] summary: MARTA and Race. )
Last edited by Mr.BadGuy; 11-11-2015 at 10:14 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
