Awhile back, Doug Henwood posted the following: >Median incomes of black
households have risen from 58.2% of white ones in 1992 to 63.2% in 1996,
the highest on record. The black poverty rate is also the lowest on
record the real income of every quintile of the black income
distribution had r
I've just been looking at the 1996 U.S. income figures. Median incomes of
black households have risen from 58.2% of white ones in 1992 to 63.2% in
1996, the highest on record. The black poverty rate is also the lowest on
record. Obviously the gap is still very wide, but has anyone else noticed
thi
Gil Skillman wrote:
>What do you think?
Obviously an unemployment rate below 5% should help black workers a lot,
but why are the bottom quintile of white households losing income (-4.3%
between 1989 and 1996) while the bottom quintile of blacks (who are much
poorer than whites in the bottom quin
Doug, I didn't say there wasn't discrimination. I said that I found it
dubious that "race" explains the accentuation of income inequality itself.
If there are a lot more poorly paying jobs, discrimination both directly
and indirectly via conscious underdevelopment of so called productivity
enhanci
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>At the same time, this data shows that inequality in terms of the top and
>bottom quintile groups is greater than between blacks (<20% of the
>population) and whites. The gravest inequalities are not always racial, WEB
>DuBois notwithstanding. As Vicente Navarro has point
There was a similar report on the equalisation of income for those
arbitrary categories of ethno-racial groups in the New York Times, Sept 30
1997. I seem not to have saved it.
It wouldn't be the claim that black gains explain white losses, that better
paid whites are being downsized for cheaper
Greetings,
On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
[Snip...}
> At any rate, Doug, I think that data on income inequality are pretty
> irrelevant to the empirical confirmation of Marxian theory. It would be
> more important to determine the rate of exploitation through a rejection
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>I said that I found it
>dubious that "race" explains the accentuation of income inequality itself.
Who said it did? I brought this up in the first place because I noticed a
significant narrowing of racial income gaps over the last 5 years in the
U.S., and wondered if anyo
After raising a number of useful points in an exchange with Doug, Rakesh
closes--
> It would be
>more important to determine the rate of exploitation through a rejection of
>wage share as its proxy or to determine whether real wage gains are only
>coming at the expense of greater misery with the
Wow, that's cool, here's another maybe I just noticed:
What if metropolitan residents are disproportionately Afro-American and
whites are under represented as residents in the metropolitan area...
BLS DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1997
The average annual pay of workers in metropolitan areas
On Sun, November 2, 1997 at 12:44:35 (-0800) anzalone/starbird writes:
>If so then the 1986-1997 "War on (Black American men mascarading itself as
>a War on) Drugs" might account for a dilution/removal of the most
>employment vulnerable from you statistically pool.
>
>If prisoners don't count, the
Has there been a decrease in Black teenage unemployment? ellen
>In a message dated 97-11-01 20:09:26 EST, (Doug, er, whoever) writes:
>
>>Obviously an unemployment rate below 5% should help black workers a lot,
>>but why are the bottom quintile of white households losing income (-4.3%
>>between 1
In a message dated 97-11-01 20:09:26 EST, (Doug, er, whoever) writes:
>Obviously an unemployment rate below 5% should help black workers a lot,
>but why are the bottom quintile of white households losing income (-4.3%
>between 1989 and 1996) while the bottom quintile of blacks (who are much
>poor
Hi Doug!
I'm not sure who makes it into the count of Black households, and so I ask
this as much out of ignorance as I hope, to be of some help on directing
the inquiry on income and race in a positive direction (as I can be no help
in providing a packaged answer, besides idunno.)
Is it true tha
Doug responds:
>
>Obviously an unemployment rate below 5% should help black workers a lot,
>but why are the bottom quintile of white households losing income (-4.3%
>between 1989 and 1996) while the bottom quintile of blacks (who are much
>poorer than whites in the bottom quintile) is up 5.2%. Tha
Doug, in response to your post--
>I've just been looking at the 1996 U.S. income figures. Median incomes of
>black households have risen from 58.2% of white ones in 1992 to 63.2% in
>1996, the highest on record. The black poverty rate is also the lowest on
>record. Obviously the gap is still very
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>So that the reason why the US provides less protection against inequality
>is a racist and sexist disregard for the lower half of the working class as
>the potential tax burden alienates not only capital but also that part of
>the working class which has won protection dir
Oh, I forgot to concludewhen I said my first reaction was to say so
much the worse for Marxian theory. I don't think that kind of value
fundamentalism deserves to monopolize the term Marxian theory.
Doug
Ellen (anzalone/starbird) wrote:
> Is it true that inmates incarcerated in prison are NOT counted as
> households in your data?
To be counted as being employed or unemployed in the US data, one must
first be counted as being part of the labor force. But, the labor force is
defined in such a way
[PEN-L] Re: income & race
Date: Sunday, November 02, 1997 4:52PM
Ellen (anzalone/starbird) wrote:
> Is it true that inmates incarcerated in prison are NOT counted as
> households in your data?
To be counted as being employed or unemployed in the US data, one must
first be counted as bei
n
up on Doug's BLS statistics in the first place?
Its a puzzle to me. ellen
>
>Jeff Fellows
>
> --
>From: Gerald Levy
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L] Re: income & race
>Date: Sunday, November 02, 1997 4:52PM
>
>Ellen (anzalone/starbird) wrote:
>
le of the A-A
>>community is gaining in comparison to all workers, just like high
>income
>>earners overall, the lower four quintiles are also gaining (at least in
>>appearances) because of increasing hiring trends toward occupational
>>categories that are proportionally more rep
because of increasing hiring trends toward occupational
>categories that are proportionally more represented by African
>Americans. However, the gains in the lower quintiles are likely to be
>over-shadowed by greater costs associated with work-related
>expenditures.
>
>Regards,
>
&
23 matches
Mail list logo
