A recent review of "Black Income Distribution" done by the progressive-leaning Economic Policy Institute and then syndicated by Colorlines and TheRoot.com does what is frequently done in our public debates: contrast Black income distribution at one point in time with White income distribution. The thought being that White America is the key reference point for perfection. Each year that the National Urban League makes White folks the perfect "1.0" in their "State of Black America" report I am made to question their choice of reference.
The plot lines above is my own interpretation of a more logical data set - the changes in Black Economic Distribution OVER TIME.
In the above chart the green line represents the distribution from the year 2006. Evidence of "Black Progress" is best measured by evidence of the increased skew of the curve toward the right with each successive data set. This is the case. The green line (2006) has the lowest percentages in the lower intervals and then the curve is the highest at the upper income intervals.
The key point that I challenge them upon is the question which asks: "With a record number of the key human resource management, development and policy creation institutions in 'favorable hands' what organic force of propulsion can you point to that will push these numbers into more alignment with your desires?".
This necessary change in thinking is hoped to trigger more of those who render all of their development expectations in to the American Political Domain AND have their increase a result of new government policies to receive an opening by which their community development theories are placed on the spot for reconsideration.
Income Is NOT Redistributed
The other day I heard Independent Senator Bernie Sanders , a self proclaimed socialist state (from my memory) that "In the past 20 years 65% of all income that was generated went to the top 2% of income earners in America".
To those who believe in a "zero sum game" of economics Sanders' claim sits comfortably within their consciousness.
For me - this makes no sense.
To make such a claim advances the notion that a CEO who sits atop of a corporation with 300,000 jobs. He is cutting their wages and laying them off as he receives bonuses.
The truth is that the high flying CEOs who have the bulk of their compensation tied to their corporate share prices via stock options preside over high skilled/high paid workforces who have also benefited from their companies increase in capitalization.
The truth is that Senator Sanders seeks to have government policies that reaches into the pockets of this high tech CEO as well as entertainers and independently wealthy property owners and REDISTRIBUTE their income upon other Americans so that this "income inequality" can be "CORRECTED".
Again I ask - What additional COMPETENCIES and/or increase in market value of the labor skills or goods that are offered onto the market are these increases in compensation via government redistribution based upon? This question gets to the foundation of the distinction between myself and those who I so frequently debate against.
Often the same people who wish to put the American Empire in check with its capitalism also seek to tame the beast using more aggressive government regulation of all of the economic activity within - more of these resources passing through the gateway of Washington DC than ever before. They pride themselves as "civil rights" progressives yet they can't see that they are "economic oppressors" (oppressors of economic freedom)
in the same light.
The only rational way to tether their abstract theories that are rooted in populism is to force them to bear the burden of developing the ORGANIC COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT within the Black Community. The evidence of these success will be shown in the parity with the "White folks" that they so long for.
As for the "Asian" who appears to be doing their thing - he might be their "1.5" reference some day in the future.
0 comments:
Post a Comment