How women's education is contributing to income inequality

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/

Of course it's been overall good for society that women have gotten more education and income since WWII, but there are consequences. I couldn't find the Economist article, but they had a chart showing marriage preferences for 1960s America. Men were more likely to marry women of similar education status (which correlates to income), but there was a decent level of "mixed education" households - maybe due to childhood sweethearts, family-encouraged marriages, etc.

In the 21st Century, dual-income households and "assortative mating" has gotten much more common. Now men with HS education almost exclusively marry women of similar status, and same goes for college or grad-school educated men. I guess it makes sense, as the modern American youth is likely to meet his or her mate at school or on the job (or through online dating sites that try to match demos). And of course there are intellectual, geographic, and class compatibility issues that make it less likely for a highly educated person to marry a poorly educated one. But this is resulting in either very rich or very poor households, and it's less likely that a lower-income family can "pull a Cinderella" and increase their wealth/quality of life through marriage.

Of course I'm not blaming women for any of this. Apart from love, I think most of us would recognize the benefits of marrying a more educated/wealthy mate. So professionals marry professionals, and blue collar/service workers marry the same. When controlling for other factors, assortative mating caused the Gini coefficient (inequality metric where 1 = perfect inequality and 0 = no inequality) to rise from 0.34 to 0.43 (+26%) over 1960-2005 in this Pew study's data.

I'm not sure what can be done about this, or if anything should be done. But the IMF and others said that income inequality is the root cause of many structural social problems. Wealthy couples tend to live in better neighborhoods with better schools. Their kids will have health, safety, social, and intellectual advantages vs. lower-income children. They will succeed in college and career, and likely marry a similarly successful person. But all this suggests that overall social mobility is on the decline in the US, with no signs of improvement.

Surprisingly, the GOP presidential candidates have spoken a lot about inequality/pressure on the middle class/American Dream so far. But it's likely lip-service, as they still want to gut social services and cut taxes for the "job creators". Obama and other Democrats have also talked a lot about the minimum wage, workplace sexism, and the unfair playing field. I wonder how much of an issue it will be in 2016, and if we can do anything about the "Great Divide".

Silicon Valley as a preview of America's future, for better or worse

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/FEDERAL-JUDGE-NSA-Program-Exposed-By-Snowden-5069183.php

First of all, is Snowden the runaway favorite for person of the year 2013? I can't think of anyone else who affected US society more (and likely for the better). A Federal judge ruled that the arbitrary, blanket collection of Americans' phone metadata is likely unconstitutional (unreasonable search, violation of reasonable expectations of privacy) and ineffective (no clear evidence it was critical to preventing attacks). Of course the WH and NSA disagree.

----

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/12/16/251608120/exploring-economic-inequality-from-heart-of-the-tech-boom

NPR is starting a series on Si Valley as a microcosm for the changing US economy and society. We've addressed some of these issues before regarding wealth inequality and the Bay Area housing market. Apparently some protesters recently blocked a Google bus in SF, complaining that the private buses were using MUNI stops without paying the city any fees. It's clearly part of a bigger sentiment of resentment, and part of the general debate regarding who is taking more of their fair share from society. Should those being priced out of SF "get with the program" and develop the skills needed to be able to afford living there? Or should the tech elites come down from their privileged position in society and contribute their fair share to helping the less fortunate? Or both?

As a tech employee (peon status) and longtime CA resident, I am really torn by all of this. I don't want the Bay Area to become "Facebookville" or "Elysium" where droves of poor, bitter service workers support the aloof upper class minority. But then again, we depend on disruption, competition, and innovation to win in the market, or we will suffer the same fate as Detroit. I think we can innovate and win, but also spread the benefits around so that the entire region and populace is better off. Yes, the rich should be taxed more.

Disruption is a double-edged sword. A dedicated team works like hell to address an unmet need or overcome some entrenched inefficiency, so they and their investors can be paid handsomely for it. But the industry that they just rendered obsolete is made up of people with families that depend on them. Through no fault of their own, they were disrupted out of a paycheck. A generation ago, all signs pointed to machinist or travel agent being good, stable careers with great ROI for the required education. But innovation changed the equation faster than most could adapt.

Now car services like Uber are getting rave reviews from customers, media, and generating decent financials. But what if they render thousands of low-skilled immigrant cab drivers out of a job? What if the Google self-driving car renders the Uber drivers out of a job? In some cases it is a zero-sum game, even if the metrics suggest that society overall is "better off". Does one new billionaire created compensate for 1,000 families who just got the American Dream taken from them? Everyone seems to celebrate the "winners" without considering the collateral damage. Yes, we need innovation to succeed and even survive in the world. And those who succeed should be rewarded. But what about the everyday folks who, through no fault of their own, get suddenly shifted from middle class to destitution? Do the disruptors (and the traditional companies being replaced) have a social responsibility to help those workers transition to the new reality? Does the government? If so, then I think they should fund such programs from the disruptors' stock gains.

-----

Sort of related (in that it perpetuates the massive inequalities of the Bay Area) is education. M Night Shyamalan just wrote a major book on education (hopefully he doesn't write more and his natural follow-up suck strikes!), and it makes a lot of good points.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/12/m-night-shyamalan-steps-education-wars

Basically, he suggests that our education system is actually great - if you're a a white kid. Our white kids do just as well as the Nordic white kids or other European white kids. But if you're a minority (and, typically, poor), the education system sucks and really drags down our averages. There are a number of ways to address this, but:

1) They take money $$

2) And they mean de-emphasizing putting resources into already highly performing white schools

I've come increasingly to the conclusion that American politics is all about race. I'm sure many of you have seen the research that support for redistribution increases if it is perceived by the voter as going to "someone like them" - i.e. someone of the same race. 

Most people in the Bay Area don't consider themselves racist and it's probably true - in fact, the Bay Area is one of the most diverse areas of the country. But poors in the Bay Area are still "the other" - they didn't go to good schools, they struggle to get by on bad salaries, their unemployment rate is x3 higher than well-educated whites. Basically, their experience is completely alien to most of the tech gods in the Bay Area and their presence is invisible. No surprise then that the tech gods (which have actual power) use little of their capacity to help the poors.

You can imagine the national consternation and outrage by the well-educated press and electorate if the unemployment rate was 20% and transportation and housing ate up 60-70% of the budget of native-born, well educated Americans, yet this is exactly the situation facing a plurality of Bay Area residents - the poors and the immigrants. I guess it's only a crisis for those that are rich. If you're poor and face such circumstances, given the media and elite orientation, it's a statistic and at best regrettable. And the rich wonder why resentment is on the increase...

-----

Thx, J. I agree, but why are non-whites disproportionately poor? Mostly racism. The 1% vs. 99% has also been a pervasive, ubiquitous problem for centuries, but of course the power balance has varied due to historical conditions. As you said, now more than ever gov't is serving the interests of the 1% at the expense of the 99% - and that is a big effing problem that we have to tackle if we care about democracy. But even if we returned to the economic conditions of 1960 when wealth and political power were more evenly distributed, there is the underlying racial problem that Andrew mentioned. Say we repeal Citizens United, reformed the justice system, and made a bunch of other needed changes - it will still be harder for minorities to get ahead. Addressing one problem is not a distraction from the other. Both are critical, somewhat independent, and deserve to be called out separately. There are some solutions that can mitigate both issues (namely taxation and campaign/election reforms), so we could try to prioritize those.

According to this moron, the poor and middle class are doing better than ever, because we are enjoying a "golden age of TV!" So what if I lose my job and get evicted... I can still watch the latest episode of "Duck Dynasty" at the local library's PC lab. Forget the macro indicators, our amazing selection of digital entertainment options makes life more fun!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-02/who-needs-a-raise-when-you-have-tv-.html

------
 

Oh the drama of "bus-gate": http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/12/09/google-bus-protest-most-entertaining-moment-was-staged/

Thanks, A. Good to see M. Night making a comeback of sorts, with more social value than "The Happening". Yeah it seems the path to inequality starts from grade school, and maybe even in the womb, as lower income (often minorities) generally don't have access to comparable health, nutrition, and child care as affluent whites. This could set back their development, so that even if they were lucky enough to attend America's best schools, maybe they wouldn't be fully able to take advantage of the opportunity.

It is really sad that the inequality phenomenon has such a racial component. But if a liberal dares to make that claim, you can imagine the reaction from the right (race-baiting, it's a war on white men, etc.). Roberts said that racism is over in America after all. It is especially disappointing that minorities have fallen further behind during the Obama presidency. It's not his fault and it could have been worse under a white GOP president, but Obama's heritage almost blinds America to the fact that tens of millions of minorities are not succeeding despite his meteoric, outlier success. After all, the biggest beneficiaries of US affirmative action historically have been middle class white women. The social programs that disproportionately helped the urban poor are being dismantled in the name of "budget compromise."

On a local level, I don't think the tech giants can fully celebrate their CSM and social impact, when East Palo Alto (10 miles away from FB and GOOG HQs) is still held back by the same problems it faced a decade ago. Richmond and the Tenderloin are a stone's throw away from Twitter and Salesforce. Sure the tech companies engage in their annual "day of caring" and donate millions to worthy causes, but those good works barely tip the scales vs. all the negative externalities they unintentially impose on the less privileged. I guess rather than facing the cognitive dissonance of the injustice/inequality all around them vs. their desire to make the world a better place (ostensibly for all), tech people would rather live insular lives and stick with their own kind (luxury, exclusive housing to the luxury, exclusive bus to the luxury, exclusive office to the luxury, exclusive bar, etc.). This of course is not exclusive to tech workers, and the other Bay Area professionals (doctors, lawyers, bankers) are just as susceptible, if not more. But that is the problem when achievement and career take up so much of our attention - there isn't much room left for people, especially those who are different than us.

I am not sure if it is a generational issue either. After the Baby Boomers exit the labor force, and the younger folks take the helm of the big companies, I really hope for a sea change. Douchebags aside, I think that many Bay Area yuppies would prefer a more diverse workforce and society. CA is great because it's not a stuck up East Coast cocktail party where your alma mater and family name come first. It's boring when you only work with clones of yourself who think the same way (also it's bad for business). The Valley has been successful in recruiting and naturalizing so much foreign talent, but many of them were elites from their native lands (and they tend to self-segregate in the US too). I just don't see black and Latino native residents get recruited in sufficient numbers any time soon.

Check out this slideshow from Business Insider about racial-economic segregation in SF-Si Valley: http://www.businessinsider.com/maps-show-racial-divide-in-silicon-valley-2013-9#

This issue kind of reminds me of the military crisis. When only poor people go off to war, society doesn't really notice, so our leaders may be more likely to abuse those soldiers. But in the case of WWII and Vietnam, when even some millionaire's kids and Ivy Leaguers were getting slaughtered in the field, then that changed the equation. As you said about Bay Area housing and transport costs, the privileged won't lift a finger until they feel similar pain as the poor. A more progressive income tax that funnels money to the working poor would be a start, or maybe higher property tax on richer, less diverse neighborhoods? But of course city leaders get elected by those neighborhoods, so it's a nonstarter. In France, they have a saying, "Vive l'impot!" Or a celebration of tax. It's not a dirty word like in the US. Taxes are a mark of honor, a patriotic duty to reinvest in the nation that you love. And those taxes should go to helping strengthen society from the bottom up, not further the social advantages of the elites or become giveaways to already rich special interests.

------

Part of the solutions that M. Night and other education scholars have recommended is longer school days, year round schooling, and early intervention programs like head start, universal Kindergarten, etc. Basically spending a lot of money to get poor/racial minorities with bad home environments and poor nutritional habits into a much healthier system. Of course, doing this takes a lot of money. However, school inequality is still a major issue so there are some resources that could be recaptured from rich white schools.

As you may remember from the George Packer/New Yorker article, even in the Bay Area, public schools such as Woodside and Paly have foundations that parents started to "adequately" fund their school - i.e. they have way more money than they need and marginal dollars there are not doing much good, while schools like East Paly are hurting pretty bad. And of course thanks to restrictive zoning regulations meaning no new housing ever (into which the poors/middle class might move), public schools in Woodside/Los Gatos/Atherton/Paly are only public in name only: effectively they are privatized for the rich white residents. But beyond that, it would take a massive infusion of resources into places like the LAUSD, New York Public Schools, etc. that voters haven't shown the will to spend.

I know you're fairly hopeful about the promise of the younger generation, but I'm more pessimistic. It's true that race will be less of an issue for our generation and some of the issues that the oldsters have with things like gay marriage will dissipate. However, I feel like our generation, while still well-intentioned, is even more clueless about the life and struggles of poor people than any previous generation. While J is right that the gap between the 1%ers and the rest has grown astronomically, I feel like the life experiences of the top 10% is becoming increasingly disconnected from the lives of the rest. Worldly, plugged in, well educated, financially comfortable kids on the Google buses have basically nothing at all in common with day laborers in the Mission. I don't mean that they actively seek to screw them but I think it's easy for many to not even people like that exist. The problems and life experiences of the bottom 90% have basically just don't show up on the radar of your average techie or higher.

And while the top 1% have arrogated for themselves increased power, the top 10% still can drive the political conversation in the media and online. If people don't see the problems of the rest of society or only are dimly aware of them in an abstract way, I'm not optimistic that much progress can be made.

I see where J is coming from on this - I think on matters of economic policy the 1% have the resources to really get whatever they want.

But I think one of the under-appreciated developments in American politics is that, in previous historical periods, when you had this unbalanced of an income, populists would rally the poorer classes to demand change. That's how they broke up the robber barons (see Teddy Roosevelt), and that's how the back was broken of European nobility.

What's happened this time is that many of the people that might have been expected to join this populist coalition against the rich and powerful are instead diverted by issues of "other" (i.e. race). How else do you explain the fact that West Virginia, one of the poorest states in the nation, voted overwhelmingly for Romney? Or Kentucky? They're afraid that moochers (of course, moochers from out groups; in group moochers are fine) and immigrants and gays are wrecking America.  These are precisely the people that Democrats ought to find common cause with (and previously did, against the Robber Barons and again during the Depression), yet our politics that are focused on race and religion and culture have them voting against their economic interests.

------

Thanks, A. It's ludicrous that there is any opposition to these youth programs, as the research indisputably shows that the ROI is huge. So the expenditures are actually cost saving measures in the long run. There should be no conservative opposition, but of course there is. Is it just a philosophical/political impasse (block ANY new gov't programs, even helpful ones), or is it the elites lashing out because they don't want poor, colored folks to succeed and compete on a more level playing field with their privileged kids? Sure the rich would rather have tax breaks now than more education spending, but as I said these programs save $ in the long run and make a stronger society, which will reduce the rich people's future tax burden and probably result in more capital gains for them, as these kids grow up on a better trajectory and become valuable consumers/workers.

The data suggests that Millennials are more tech savvy, more socially aware, and more into volunteerism than previous generations. As you said, they are worldly, and with the internet at their fingertips, they are on average much more cognizant of global social issues than their parents and grandparents at that age. So really there is no excuse for them to turn their back on social problems, even if they can't fully "relate" to the needy. But residential and workplace segregation is a terrible problem, because if you don't see diversity and the struggles of others each day, you are less likely to do anything about them. I believe that most young adults (and most of us on this email) would vote for policies and leaders who want to make our society fairer. The problem is no one is putting such debates up for a vote (probably because most of the political system is co-opted by the elites as J said). I think the youth are in the right place morally, but they just need a spark or a dynamic figure to lead them, like a modern day "Ask not what your country can do for you..." or "We hold these truths to be self evident..." We don't have that unfortunately. All our brightest young people are going into the private sector, where they can't "do good" because they are beholden to shareholders, and fighting for their lives against cutthroat competition. Only when they're super rich and semi-retired like Gates will they hopefully give back. Look at us; we have money and are well aware of the problems out there, but we don't have the time or courage to advocate for the causes (many self-imposed or social barriers stand in our way). We will vote the "right way" if the occasion arises, and maybe even give some money, but we aren't able to put in the hours (not to mention blood, sweat, and tears) to lead the populist charge as you said. I admire the few folks who do.

But maybe all is not lost and there are some leaders with potential. Here's a Fresh Air interview about Pope Francis, and of course the main theme of his papacy so far is social justice and critique of global wealth inequality (and the institutions that perpetuate it). Europe is a powder keg of discontent regarding gov't corruption, voiding the social contract, and widespread unemployment. I will give Obama credit too that he has raised the issues of race and inequality (maybe not by choice) more than any other president since LBJ. Maybe he hasn't moved the needle on the debate in America, but he isn't letting us sweep it under the rug. So we are seeing some top-down emphasis of the race and wealth issues, but unfortunately that hasn't manifested itself into new laws and reforms (the plutocrats can control lawmaking bodies a lot more than individual executives).

Re: the US history of populism, you are right that conditions were a lot different when labor was stronger and the working white poor were a major Dem constituency. But the party made a decision in the '60s to fight one injustice at the expense of the other. They fought against racial discrimination, which lost them the Southern white vote. And in order to make up for it, they had to go more corporate and turn their back on labor too. So the Dems are more elite than ever, even if the GOP is really struggling with key demos like single women and non-whites. But I don't think that racist whites in the US hate colored folks just because they bought into the economic propaganda of the elites. They had those prejudices already, and the elites just fueled the fire with scare tactics relating to black uprising/crime and immigrants taking jobs/services. We also have to address the non-economic drivers of modern racism (I am not quite sure what they are but I could speculate). I agree that the GOP is using religion as a wedge issue to keep its base from turning populist, which is of course ironic because Christian values are clearly misaligned with the modern GOP.

--------

As A pointed out, "But I think one of the under-appreciated developments in American politics is that, in previous historical periods, when you had this unbalanced of an income, populists would rally the poorer classes to demand change. ", I find it interesting that at that time, communication between groups was limited by lack of technology.  Now we have instant communication with anyone in the world.  You would think that it would be easy to put all of the pieces together for the oppressed to rise up.  But, these same lines of instant communication are also used to manipulate us in ways we'd never seen before, essentially keeping us divided, blaming one another for our lot in life instead of seeing the real picture.

-----------

http://www.insidepolitics.org/ps111/riseofinternet.html
http://gnovisjournal.org/2010/04/25/media-fragmentation-and-political-polarization-how-high-choice-media-environment-leads-great/

Thanks, L. Yeah media fragmentation in the US can be a big problem. Families don't tune into the same 3 info sources around the radio or TV set anymore. So of course FNC says that everything MSNBC says are lies, and vice versa (and CNN just talks about the Kardashians) - adding to distrust, misinformation, and most harmful... polarization. Plus we are blitzed with too much info now on our multiple devices (especially entertainment/time-wasting content), which distracts us from thinking, collaborating, and rising up together.

Twitter and Facebook helped the Arab Spring gain momentum, but sadly it can't really do the same for us (even though we invented those services). Well, when commercial crap like Bieber and Coke are the most liked/followed entities on social media, you know we have a problem. It seems US social media is (deliberately or not) functioning to prevent us from mass political debate and assembly, whereas it has the opposite effect in repressive/dysfunctional foreign countries (which is why their state security services try to block/monitor it)?

Bill Maher on The Great Gatsby and the modern wealth gap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DKD0O-owNM

America's bizarre fetish for romanticizing the leisure-class, mega-rich, Guilded Age types like the Buchanans depicted in Gatsby is especially peculiar today considering what we have (or haven't) learned from the Great Recession, as well as recent the populist backlash against US plutocrats.

The sad irony is the rich would be better off with less income disparity and a more flourishing middle class. Clearly when basic needs are more securely met, people feel more comfortable to consume, which benefits most of the economy and trickles up to the wealthy. Well, the rich got around that issue by expanding credit (pay day loans, adjustable rates, even tax refund loans).

The rich complain that they already pay the lion's share of the nation's taxes. While that is numerically true, maybe we can reframe the issue. When employers and other the powers that be give people quality wages and benefits, they will be healthier and less of a burden on health services. When education is more democratic and affordable, people will make better economic choices and become more productive, which will increase GDP, lower demand for public services, and reduce the "tax burden" on the rich. When we don't fight wars or adopt bad taxation and trade practices just to give special interests more profits, then that also reduces the need for taxes. So if the rich are tired of paying so much tax (even though marginal rates are much lower today than the 1960's), then reduce the wealth gap and make the market more free and democratic.

And when workers are not stressed out and distraught over neighborhood crime and horrible commutes (caused by defunding public services/infrastructure to support tax breaks), rising health care, real estate, and education costs (driven by the irrationally high willingness to pay by those who can afford it), uncertain retirement (brought on by the cutting of pensions, the Fed's low rates pushing people to equities, and market volatility due to risky speculation, manipulation, and fraud), and the omnipresent threat of layoffs/outsourcing/downsizing, then they are actually able to concentrate on their jobs and become more creative, productive, and valuable to the company and its stakeholders. When employers treat their staffs well, they are less likely to be a workplace cancer, a slacker, a defector to the competition, or new competition (launching their own venture). It's strange that the rich, who love to congratulate themselves for being so clever and superior, can't grasp this simple concept.

But here is the circular problem: political corruption allows some companies to enjoy economic advantages. They out-compete all the mom & pop shops without the Washington connections (yes I know companies succeed on their own merit too, but far too many cheated to get to the top and secure their standing). Other firms witness this "recipe for success" and follow suit, because now it's too risky to try to win the old-fashioned way. This Darwinism leads to the "survivors" of the dog-eat-dog market often being the biggest jerks. So now we have fewer and nastier employment choices, and the % of Americans working for public companies is at an all-time high. Employers know they have the leverage, so they cut benefits and make the workers more dependent on investment income (for the minority who can even afford to invest). More and more, our survival is tied to the stock price of our employer and our chosen securities. So for the few shareholders who actually vote, they want boards and execs who are the shrewdest SOBs around - to make the stock appreciate. And for passive shareholders, they are just happy when the price goes up, and they don't want to know how. So public companies are making our lives hell, yet they are also our only potential salvation from hell, so we make a Faustian bargain with them. It is paradoxically in our economic best interests to support those who harm us. 

When people are not desperate, they are less likely to steal or kill or revolt (yes, it has come to that). As Maher said, you can only squeeze people so far before they push back (especially when the squeezers are a tiny minority). It's not as bad as the starving peasants in monarchic France or Russia, but there will be a point when the masses won't take it anymore (see the Arab Spring, which started as an economic uprising). Or look at the angry youth and public workers in much of Europe now. When that stuff happens, it's no good for the rich either (unless you are like the Shah and can loot Iran before you flee to posh exile - not trying to give Lloyd Blankfein any ideas). So wouldn't they rather share a little more of the pie in order to preserve the good thing they have going? They say that love knows no bounds, but really selfishness and greed (even to the point of self-destruction) is America's most abundant resource. Well, one could argue that greed is a twisted form of love - just loving the wrong things.

Economic inequality, race, and politics

Don't mean to totally hijack this email thread, but I just read an interesting journal article that goes along with some of the discussion that you've raised re: inequality in the US and how problematic it is.

Basically, the thesis is that, all things being equal, political coalitions for redistribution form when the middle class has a lot in common with the poor. In the US this isn't the case because of race - that racial politics that turn the middle class against the (largely) minority poor. It explains a lot about why Republicans are able to capture much of the lower middle class white vote (despite many economic policies by Republicans being against their self-interest) by fanning the flames of racial resentment between that income group and truly poor (mostly) minorities.

--------

Regarding the paper (of which I understood about 2%, but thank goodness for the glossary!), it will be interesting to see what happens to the 2 major parties in 2012. I guess skew is very extreme now in America, so despite that, if the GOP regain control of DC, that may validate the racial component of his theory, or suggest that the poor-middle class gap is much larger now vs. the Great Society days (when the Dems dominated gov't)? Of course more factors besides race and economics may decide an election (the candidates), so I would still put my money on BO to prevail since the GOP field is so pathetic. Though with all the gerrymandering and economic frustration out there, it will be unlikely that the GOP will lose the House.

---------

http://cew.georgetown.edu/219725.html

Speaking of inequalities, here are some salary tables taken from recent census data. It shows that pretty much across the board, on average you're going to make less money than a comparable white male (assuming you're not a white male). Over a 30-year career, these differences can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It's kind of sad that the highest-paying fields are ones that are male-dominated (business, engineering), and the lowest-paying are female-heavy (education, psychology, social work). But even within those fields, women and minorities make less. And this is 2011.

Looking back, I should have studied petroleum engineering and sold out with BP! Of course when I was in college, oil was $15/barrel.

---------

Yeah one of the interesting things about the Great Society debate was that poor were often depicted as "noble poor" - i.e. poor white people that were down on their luck and needed a hand up. Contrast that with Ronald Reagan's attack on welfare, in which poor people on welfare were depicted as blacks that were "strapping young bucks buying t-bone steaks." These are of course generalities, but there is a strong correlation in the US between decreasing support for social welfare programs and the racialization of the poor. It's even come to the point where West Virginia, one of the biggest bastions of white poverty, is in danger of turning Republican and electing senators that promise to vote against poverty support programs that are a major lifeline to the people of the state.

There's a lot of psychological research that suggests that humans generally tend to sympathize and empathize most with people that most look like us. T and J, I'm not sure if you remember or not, but on one of the first days at C, at lunch one day we self-organized, with all of the whites sitting at one table and all of the Asians sitting at another. I think you're seeing some of the same effect in Europe in France, etc. where support for social welfare programs decreases as immigrants are seen increasingly as primary beneficiaries. Fortunately, I think this tendency of in-group identification based on skin color can at least party be overcome - young people generally seem to be very much less concerned with racial politics than their parents' generation (and the generation before that - the "greatest generation" that managed to be perhaps be one of the most actively racist of all generations in the US).

As for BO's election chances, economics and race play an important role, although according to papers I've read, there is significant variance depending on the specific candidates in the race. The fact that the best candidates the Republicans have now is Mitt Romney (who will basically have to cede the one issue that Obama really pissed people off - health care) means that, while not a walk in the park, I definitely agree that it raises his chances.

---------

Yes as you said, there are many more poor whites than poor minorities in America, but the percentage in poverty is higher in most minority communities. As the labor union-Dem Party relationship continues to weaken (or at least become less of a priority for Dem campaign financing and organizing), I think we will see less support from the center-left for labor and poverty issues - especially during the current fad of austerity and entitlements debates. This is unfortunate because the Dems may see themselves lose more and more of the poor white centrist and independent vote. But then again, even if they were able to mind control the Republicans in Congress and enact some redistributive economic policies, the right wing spinsters would declare it socialist fascism (if that even makes sense), so the direct beneficiaries of the legislation may actually rail against it as you said.

The racialization of the presidency is interesting too. Attached is a figure from Wikipedia showing how the states voting split changed from 2004 to 2008. The image caption is at the end of this email. As you said, WV is one of the biggest centers of white poverty, yet during the Great Recession they actually voted slightly more conservative instead of with Obama. States where blacks are a large % of the population had mixed results: LA went more GOP like WV, while GA and SC moved heavily to the left, but still went to McCain. I think race had a lot to do with that. Obama got more blacks to the voting booths in those states, but also awoke the white suburbs and trailer parks against him. Of course not all blacks and not all racists vote, but some of the data doesn't really make sense without race.

Speaking of the election, I heard that loser Santorum threw his hat in the ring today. He had some battle cry along the lines of, "Obama took office with so much hope and trust from the American people. But he ruined the economy, grew the size of gov't, and took away our freedom." He didn't even mention health care specifically, but if the GOP is going to run that general message (even if the facts don't corroborate), I guess we'll see how John Q. Voter responds. I just hope that the GOP field torches itself during the primaries "out-conservatizing" each other (and hopefully with many revelations of gay sexting and love children), and then Obama can just finish off the survivor. He'd only need like a $10 campaign war chest, and could tell the big funders and corporate interests to piss off. But of course I'm dreaming. Obama has let us down a lot since 2008, but we really have no choice but to give him a chance to redeem himself considering the alternatives. Even an internal challenge from Hillary would be ridiculous, since she is even more of a sellout. 

From the US census:

38% of Mississippi's population that was black in 2009. Although New York had the largest number of blacks of any state, Mississippi had the largest share of blacks in its total population. Blacks also made up more than a quarter of the population in Louisiana (33 percent), Georgia (31 percent), Maryland (31 percent), South Carolina (29 percent) and Alabama (27 percent). They comprised 55 percent of the population in the District of Columbia.

Wiki:

Swing by state. States are listed by (increasing) percentage of Democratic votes, showing how the share of the vote changed between 2004 and 2008. Only five states trended more Republican: Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and West Virginia.