Tag Archive for: Inequality

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion = Discrimination, Inequality, Exclusion

/in , , , , , , , , /by

No matter what you say about DIE, the bottom line is, it’s Affirmative Action with new names. America is being run by Affirmative Action Gradates.  The sad part is the actions of our legislators and their continued spending spree will make hitting the iceberg inevitable. With the poll numbers favoring Trump and MAGA, past experience indicates; depression,  war, riots, Marshall Law and no election is on the horizon. I hope I am wrong but I can see these power hungry entities giving up power any time soon. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They will lie, cheat and steal so you must be armed with the truth.

This week Tyson Foods, which includes Chicken, Hillshire, Sarah Lee and many more announced a layoff of 1200 Americans only to hire 5200 illegals. How did that happen? I thought we were safe after all we had E-Verify.  Well OBiden allowed illegals to enter under the parole system.  While they await their trial, they could work.  In the meantime they got lots of free stuff paid for by the American taxpayer so the corporation could pay a reduced salary.  But why does the corporation want to put Americans out of work if their money was paying for free stuff? Not to worry, the government would just print more money.

Since we are paying for all the illegal’s  “free Stuff” the illegals can go on a spending spree and the economic indicators charting purchases will make the company look profitable and economy look strong. Then they can become a Tent Partner. What is Tent.org? Tent is an NGO that formed a public/private partnership with the U.S. State Department.

The purpose of Tent is to mobilize major businesses to connect refugees to work.

“Companies have a critical role to play in helping refugees – who have been forced to flee their home countries – integrate into their new communities. We focus on mobilizing leading businesses to connect refugees to work through hiring , training , and mentorship – because we know that securing a job is a critical milestone for a refugee building a new life.”  Americans are paying for this. What about our jobs and our lives?

In reality we are printing money to give to illegals so they can spend the money buying stuff making the corporations lots of profit and the stock market goes up.   In addition the corporations get so many subsidies that they are getting really cheap labor.  Imagine $15,098 per American per year goes to the government to support the illegals OBiden has brought to America to replace you. Can you use an extra $15,000? Are you happy yet?

That takes care of the illegals, your replacement who gets hired, trained and mentored at our expense. . What happens to the corporation? How are they benefiting? Tax Subsidies

In addition to paying Tent to replace us, Corporations now qualify for WOTC

The WOTC, Work Opportunity Tax Credit, extended until 2025 is being used by corporations to hire people in certain categories.  Once hired using DIE principal, the corporation gets a $10000 per person per year tax subsidy. Tyson is a perfect example. Tyson just fired 1200 Americans and will 5200 illegals. Hillshire, Jimmy Dean, Sarah Lee are part of the Tyson Family. Tyson needs a Boycott.

How many other companies will follow suit?  Take a look at the Tent Membership list. Layoffs are coming. Remember 2006-8?

Put that together with the Workforce Housing Tax Credit and major corporations will be building low income housing in 15 Minute Cities for their workers while getting another tax subsidy on the back of the taxpayer. Everyone will be equitable You will live in a high-rise from 350-700 sq. ft. Stores down below and the factory on the next block. Everything you need will be in walking distance. Your government will provide what ever you need and if you have enough social credits you can make purchases.

In addition OBiden is printing $35 Billion to convert commercial building to rental units to house the illegals that are invading our country.  The taxpayer is fleeced again and the U.S. House gives OBiden more money.

O’Biden’s policies are causing the U.S. treasury to print $1 Trillion every 90 days.

There no such thing as Cheap Labor.

Ask your candidates questions VET them carefully and hold them accountable.

WHEN THEY LIE TO US AND DON’T DO AS THEY SAY,  REPLACE THEM ALL!  Will they STOP THE SPENDING?

It seems as though the Blacks, Hispanics and LGBTQ+++, are no longer the favored chosen ones. Americans are being replaced by illegals for tax subsidies and votes.

You will not hear this on MSM.  The unemployment numbers, job numbers and economic indicators are all lies. More illegals have gotten jobs under the OBiden regime than Americans. Those “great” job numbers you hear are jobs for illegals.  Free speech is having its lights turned off. Although the Globalists yell constantly they are for free speech, they are only for the free speech that speech agrees with their vision… Yes sir, I believe it is a great idea to replace Americans and bring in foreign labor so the corporations can get rich and investors can make more money. I just love seeing veterans and Americans homeless living on the street. I think we should print more money so the debt and inflation can go higher. Then the Globalists will be happy and I will own nothing.

Nationalists will dream of their future, their life and set a plan to achieve that dream. Globalists will have a visions of life and demand you fit into their vision without deviation. If you disagree they will squash you.

All Globalists want is Money, Control and Power. They can only get Power if we give it to them. Don’t give them yours. Challenge them with the truth. Doing Nothing is Affirmation.

The Regime will not go quietly, Prepare.  Share with your 5.

©2024. Karen Schoen. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Watch This Banned Film That Reveals How We’re Being Controlled by a ‘Shadow Government’

RELATED VIDEOS:

Deep State PLOT to REMOVE TRUMP Happening NOW

Andre’s Epic Response to Question About Border Crisis Impacting Black Americans

IN FOCUS: United Nations Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals with Alex Newman – OAN

2016 Is the Year of Inequality – And Prosperity by Chelsea German

/in , , , , /by

This past weekend, the Economist uploaded a short video to its Facebook page called, “The year of the 1 percent.” The video shows a graph superimposed over the Earth seen from space, while a voice narrates, “2016 is set to be a more unequal world than ever before. For the first time, the richest 1 percent of the population will enjoy a greater share of global wealth than the other 99 percent.”

The Economist’s graph reminded me of another graph, which also shows two lines that eventually cross but tells a very different story. Despite population growth, there are fewer people living in extreme poverty today than ever before:

How can both graphs be accurate? Poverty can decline even as inequality rises, as long as the total amount of wealth in the world is growing.

To ignore this is to fall prey to the “fixed pie fallacy.” Throughout most of human history, global wealth hardly changed. But thanks to trade and industrialization, wealth has skyrocketed, especially since the 1900s, and continues to climb.

At the same time, technological advances have also increased human wellbeing in ways not captured by looking at GDP alone.

Because the pie is growing, focusing solely on inequality, like the Economist’s video does, makes little sense. Most of us would rather have a relatively small slice of a gigantic pie than the biggest slice of a microscopic pie.

In other words, most of us would rather be wealthier in absolute terms, regardless of our relative position. This is why many of us, if given the choice, would choose to be an ordinary person today, instead of a member of the upper crust a century ago or a 17th century king.

Cross-posted from HumanProgress.org.

Chelsea GermanChelsea German

Chelsea German works at the Cato Institute as a Researcher and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org.

Americans’ Incomes Are Unequal, But Mobile by Chelsea German

/in , , , , /by

Americans often move between different income brackets over the course of their lives. As covered in an earlier blog post, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives, and over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners for at least one year.

Fortunately, a great deal of what explains this income mobility are choices that are largely within an individual’s control. While people tend to earn more in their “prime earning years” than in their youth or old age, other key factors that explain income differences are education level, marital status, and number of earners per household. As Mark Perry recently wrote:

The good news is that the key demographic factors that explain differences in household income are not fixed over our lifetimes and are largely under our control (e.g. staying in school and graduating, getting and staying married, etc.), which means that individuals and households are not destined to remain in a single income quintile forever.

According to the economist Thomas Sowell, whom Perry cites, “Most working Americans, who were initially in the bottom 20% of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20%. More of them end up in the top 20% than remain in the bottom 20%.”

While people move between income groups over their lifetime, many worry that income inequality between different income groups is increasing. The growing income inequality is real, but its causes are more complex than the demagogues make them out to be.

Consider, for example, the effect of “power couples,” or people with high levels of education marrying one another and forming dual-earner households. In a free society, people can marry whoever they want, even if it does contribute to widening income disparities.

Or consider the effects of regressive government regulations on exacerbating income inequality. These include barriers to entry that protect incumbent businesses and stifle competition. To name one extreme example, Louisiana recently required a government-issued license to become a florist.

Lifting more of these regressive regulations would aid income mobility and help to reduce income inequality, while also furthering economic growth.

This post first appeared at HumanProgress.org.

Chelsea GermanChelsea German

Chelsea German works at the Cato Institute as a Researcher and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org.

What Are Your Odds of Making It to the 1%? by Chelsea German

/in , , , , /by

Your odds of “making it to the top” might be better than you think, although it’s tough to stay on top once you get there.

According to research from Cornell University, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives. Over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners (i.e., people making at minimum $332,000) for at least one year.

How is this possible? Simple: the rate of turnover in these groups is extremely high.

Just how high? Some 94 percent of Americans who reach “top 1 percent” income status will enjoy it for only a single year. Approximately 99 percent will lose their “top 1 percent” status within a decade.

Now consider the top 400 U.S. income-earners — a far more exclusive club than the top 1 percent. Between 1992 and 2013, 72 percent of the top 400 retained that title for no more than a year. Over 97 percent retained it for no more than a decade.

HumanProgress.org advisory board member Mark Perry put it well in his recent blog post on this subject:

Whenever we hear commentary about the top or bottom income quintiles, or the top or bottom X% of Americans by income (or the Top 400 taxpayers), a common assumption is that those are static, closed, private clubs with very little dynamic turnover. …

But economic reality is very different — people move up and down the income quintiles and percentile groups throughout their careers and lives.

What if we look at economic mobility in terms of accumulated wealth, instead of just annual income (as the latter tends to fluctuate more)?

The Forbes 400 lists the wealthiest Americans by total estimated net worth, regardless of their income during any given year. Over 71 percent of Forbes 400 listees — and their heirs — lost their top 400 status between 1982 and 2014.

So, the next time you find yourself discussing the very richest Americans, whether by wealth or income, keep in mind the extraordinarily high rate of turnover among them.

And even if you never become one of the 11.1 percent of Americans who fleetingly find themselves in the “top 1 percent” of US income-earners, you’re still quite possibly part of the global top 1 percent.

Cross-posted from HumanProgress.org.

Chelsea German

Chelsea German

Chelsea German works at the Cato Institute as a Researcher and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org.

What Can the Rich Afford that Average Americans Can’t? by Donald J. Boudreaux

/in , , , , , /by

Raffi Melkonian asks — as relayed by my colleague Tyler Cowen — “When can median income consumers afford the very best?”

Tyler offers a list of some of the items in the modern, market-oriented world that are as high-quality as such items get and yet are easily affordable to ordinary people. This list includes iPhones, books, and rutabagas. Indeed, this list includes nearly all foods for use in preparing home snacks and meals. I doubt very much that Bill Gates and Larry Ellison munch at home on foods — such as carrots, blueberries, peanuts, and scrambled eggs — that an ordinary American cannot easily afford to enjoy at home.

This list includes also non-prescription pain relievers, most other first-aid medicines and devices such as Band-Aids, and personal-hygiene products such as toothpaste, dental floss, and toilet paper. (I once saw a billionaire take two Bayer aspirin — the identical pain reliever that I use.) This list includes also gasoline and diesel. Probably also contact lenses.

A slightly different list can be drawn up in response to this question: When can median-income consumers afford products that, while not as high-quality as those versions that are bought by the super-rich, are nevertheless virtually indistinguishable — because they are quite close in quality — to the naked eye from those versions bought by the super-rich?

On this list would be most clothing. For example, an ordinary American man can today afford a suit that, while it’s neither tailor-made nor of a fabric as fine as are suits that I suspect are worn by most billionaires, is nevertheless close enough in fit and fabric quality to be indistinguishable by the naked eye from expensive suits worn by billionaires. (I suspect that the same is true for women’s clothing, but I’m less expert on that topic.)

Ditto for shoes, underwear, haircuts, corrective eye-wear, collars for dogs and cats, pet food, household bath towels and “linens,” tableware and cutlery, automobile tires, hand tools, most household furniture, and wristwatches.

(You’d have to get physically very close to someone wearing a Patek Philippe — and you’d have to know what a Patek Philippe is — in order to determine that that person’s wristwatch is one that you, an ordinary American, can’t afford. And you could stare at that Patek Philippe for months without detecting any superiority that it might have over your quartz-powered Timex at keeping time.)

Coffee. Tea. Beer. Wine. (There is available today a large selection of very good wines at affordable prices. These wines almost never rise to the quality of Chateau Petrus, d’yquem, or the best Montrachets, but the differences are often quite small and barely distinguishable save by true connoisseurs.)

Indeed, the more one ponders this question relayed by Tyler, the more one suspects that the shorter list would be one drawn up in response to this question: When can high-income consumers afford what median-income consumers cannot?

Such a list, of course, would be far from empty. It would include private air travel, beachfront homes, regular vacations in Tahiti and Davos, private suites at sports arenas, luxury automobiles, rooms at the Ritz, original Picassos and Warhols. (It would, by the way, include also invitations to White House dinners and private lunches with rent-creating senators, governors, and mayors.)

But I’ll bet that this latter list would be shorter than one made up in response to the question relayed by Tyler combined with one drawn up in response to the question that I pose above in the third paragraph (call this list “the combined list”).

And whether shorter or not, what other germane characteristics might distinguish the items on this last list from the combined list?

A version of this post first appeared at Cafe Hayek.

Donald J. BoudreauxDonald J. Boudreaux

Donald Boudreaux is asenior fellow with the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a Mercatus Center Board Member, a professor of economics and former economics-department chair at George Mason University and, a former FEE president.