« Department of Press Releases | Main | Impeachment Matters--Even More »
July 20, 2007
What William Julius WIlson Thinks About Urban Poverty
From the first issue of The American Prospect:
During the past two decades, as I have argued previously in The Truly Disadvantaged (1987), urban minorities have been highly vulnerable to structural changes in the economy, such as the shift from goods-producing to service-producing industries, the increasing polarization of the labor market into low-wage and highwage sectors, innovations in technology, and the relocation of manufacturing industries out of the central city These shifts have led to sharp increases in joblessness and the related problems of highly concentrated poverty, welfare dependency, and family breakup, despite the passage of antidiscrimination legislation and the creation of affirmative action programs. In 1974, for example, 47 percent of all employed black males ages 20 to 24 held blue-collar, semiskilled operative and skilled-craft positions, which typically earned wages adequate to support a family. By 1986 that figure plummeted to 25 percent.
In other words, the economy changed, but the inner city didn't change with it. The jobs fled, either out of the urban centers or out of the country, and very little arose to take their place. What did emerge -- the service-sector economy -- paid less, and offered worse benefits and job security. This -- along with drugs, and various urban pathologies, and much more -- rendered men less marriageable, and increased the relative attractiveness of risky, unlawful methods of making money, which in turn left a lot of men in jail, making them again less marriageable. It's nasty stuff. Wilson argues for determinedly race-neutral effort to address these inequalities, at times in ways that border on the disingenuous, but in general strives to address the fundamental economic forces buffeting low skill groups rather than focusing merely on pockets of the affected.
July 20, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
WJW makes a similar argument in his chapter for Ending Poverty in America with some updates to include data from the 1990s.
Posted by: Clark | Jul 20, 2007 2:34:57 PM
The reality of economics is that "In the long run, things work out" but at the same time "In the long run, we're all dead."
The effect of various parts of recent globalisation has been to introduce a large amount of cheap, low-skilled labour to the system, without applying concurrent demand. As a result, people who were in that bracket got a lot poorer.
The system can work itself out, through increasing demand as the new workers get richer, but it will take at least a generation, maybe more.
Unfortunately, few academic economists will write about this, although most of them will admit it in conversation.
Politically and societally this is pretty much just very bad news. We have a whole section of society we have no productive use for under our current economic system and virtually nobody even thinking about what we might need to change to address that.
Posted by: Meh | Jul 20, 2007 2:56:14 PM
Since prospect.org blocks my available range of IP addresses I can't read the link. However, even without reading it I'm sure that he forgot to mention one of the key issues involved in making the situation worse. C'mon, Ezra, don't be shy. You can mention it! We're mostly all adults here.
Posted by: TLB | Jul 20, 2007 4:03:58 PM
It's amazing how these things only render men less marriagable. Why, it's almost as if women judge men by the value of their pocket books, and many feminists on here have assured me that women never do anything that wretched or evil.
Posted by: Soullite | Jul 20, 2007 4:28:08 PM
I read Wilson's When Work Disappears and Venkatesh's American Project simultaneously. Wilson's narrative ends about 1980 when the minimum wage still paid $7.75/hr in today's dollars. Venkatesh's book went on into the 80s and 90s as the minimum wage dropped to its 1939 level (adjusted).
The projects were a place of hope as Wilson's story started out, before -- reasonably paying -- work disappeared. The projects ended in gang infested hell as the minimum wage virtually disappeared to a level American born workers wont show up for.
My contention is that if American labor looked after its interests in the powerful way that European labor does -- especially with Americans' greater tendency to be workaholics -- that the jobs left behind would have paid more than enough to keep hell from taking over urban minority life. IOW, the Crips and the Bloods could not whip a decent paying Ronald McDonald.
One Chicago U. economist found out that drug dealing only pays about $10/hr for all but the very top leaders (even the economist's gang leader lived with his mother). Who would choose that over the European minimum wage (also the 1968 American minimum wage) of $9.50/hr -- supplemented in Europe with paid vacations, holidays, maternity leave, etc., etc., plus paid medical - AND NO JAIL?
Enough money is here -- somewhere -- just as enough is there in Europe somewhere; where people work one-third less (many fewer hours X many fewer family members working).
The US Census family income survey says top-fifth families AVERAGE $176,000 a year. But the survey has a box marked "over one million dollars" to check -- which means the survey "top-codes" all income over one-million out of its report. Adjusting for that gives me more like $250,000 AVERAGE income for the top-fifth.
I hardly need point out that one out of five families in the US are not earning anywhere near this level (unless they live in lower Manhattan, where wealth is a plateau not a pinnacle).
Much to the point: $250,000 a year is the average of the better paying medical specialties. $150,000 is the average income of today's primary care providers (down 10% from 1995 to 2003 -- while average income in the US grew 12%).
Average income climbs 10-15% every decade (not even counting the free advances of technology) -- while 95-99% of American incomes stand still or go down -- and are going to keep standing still or going down until Americans realize they have to organize labor here the modern every-where-else-in-the-world way: some kind of legally mandated, sector-wide, labor agreements.
The Newt Gingrich, Chicken Littles of the world call every progressive European innovation "socialism". Interestingly, right-wing Europeans have no objections to strong unionization -- but only carp about over-regulation (cannot fire anyone) and over-welfare (automatically on the dole if out of work) as they should.
Just keep saying to yourself, over and over: "The Crips and the Bloods could not whip a decent paying Ronald McDonald", "The Crips and the Bloods could not whip a decent paying Ronald McDonald", and you will know all you need to know about how to untangle the multi-factor web of deep-seated urban pathologies. :-)
Posted by: Denis Drew | Jul 20, 2007 4:42:26 PM
Tangentially, I do find it assuming that Mark Schmitt's post seems to have destroyed TAPPED's comment system...
Posted by: Petey | Jul 20, 2007 4:42:52 PM
Dennis Drew,
Average income climbs 10-15% every decade (not even counting the free advances of technology) -- while 95-99% of American incomes stand still or go down --
95-99% of American incomes are not standing still or going down. Both average and median real incomes increase, and incomes increase in every quintile. You're just spouting nonsense.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 20, 2007 4:55:08 PM
In 1974, for example, 47 percent of all employed black males ages 20 to 24 held blue-collar, semiskilled operative and skilled-craft positions, which typically earned wages adequate to support a family. By 1986 that figure plummeted to 25 percent.
If Wilson is claiming that the average or median real income for employed black males aged 20-24 declined between 1974 and 1986, he needs to support that claim with income data. He cannot infer it from assumptions based on the proportion of such males employed in certain kinds of work. Of course, even if the average or median income did decline, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. It might be a consequence of the higher rate of college enrollment for young black men. College students are less likely to be employed at all than non-students of working age, and of those who are employed, more are likely to be doing part-time jobs, with correspondingly lower wages.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 20, 2007 5:03:53 PM
The Crips and the Bloods could not whip a decent paying Ronald McDonald.
This has some appeal.
Jason, same point here as in the other thread: if you exclude government transfers, it appears real income has declined or remained nearly stagnant for several years.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 20, 2007 5:13:27 PM
if you exclude government transfers, it appears real income has declined or remained nearly stagnant for several years.
"It appears" from what? Show me your evidence, sanpete. Or are you just making things up, yet again.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 20, 2007 5:18:26 PM
Jason, this data has been widely publicized, and has been part of the impetus for the libertarian attacks on the CPI, among other things that underly the data. As I indicated here, the same comment applies to the other thread, where there is a link to some data (or at least a chart based on some). Much more is easily available by searching the names of the authors cited there, but I'm not going to look it up. You're completly free to ignore what everyone else has seen widely reported if you prefer.
You continue to confuse not giving evidence with making things up. This is a very elementary distinction, but I'll explain it if you really don't understand it.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 20, 2007 5:36:19 PM
Jason, this data has been widely publicized
Then cite this alleged data, sanpete. Or are you just making things up, yet again. Your unsubstantiated factual claims are worthless.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 20, 2007 5:39:58 PM
It appears I do need to explain the difference between not giving evidence and making things up. Suppose I know that the weather here is sunny and warm, and say so, but give no evidence. Then I may properly be accused of not giving evidence, but not of making things up. You need to keep that straight. All you know is that I haven't given evidence. Look up Piketty and Saez as I suggested and you'll find plenty of data.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 20, 2007 5:51:23 PM
sanpete,
It appears I do need to explain the difference between not giving evidence and making things up.
No, you don't need to explain that. You need to produce evidence for your assertions. You also need to stop making things up and pretending they are facts. Where is your evidence for your assertion that "if you exclude government transfers, it appears real income has declined or remained nearly stagnant for several years," sanpete? Produce your evidence. Stop making things up.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 20, 2007 5:55:31 PM
Holy Shit, Sanpete actually acknowledges that we have a class problem in this country. I swear to god, I'm going to have a heart attack. Credit where credit is due.
Posted by: soullite | Jul 20, 2007 6:51:19 PM
This -- along with drugs, and various urban pathologies, and much more -- rendered men less marriageable, and increased the relative attractiveness of risky, unlawful methods of making money, which in turn left a lot of men in jail, making them again less marriageable.
I know this seems like a nitpicky point, but it's important. It's not drugs themselves that created these problems, it was their illegality that did. People in white communities were doing just as many (and probably more) drugs during this time, but didn't have the negative consequences, because drug law enforcement has always been much more aggressively pursued in black neighborhoods.
Posted by: thehim | Jul 20, 2007 7:01:47 PM
Soullite, you have some very strange ideas about me.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 20, 2007 7:03:23 PM
"Soullite, you have some very strange ideas about me."
He's not the only one. I had the exact same reaction upon reading this thread.
Posted by: Petey | Jul 20, 2007 7:24:29 PM
Well, Petey, people have a tendency to attribute all manner of things they find unpleasant to those they disagree with. Much easier to dismiss other views that way. Soullite, for example, since I favor amnesty for illegal immigrants, concluded that I'm a Republican hater of working Americans. No need to understand or rationally respond to ideas from such a source as that.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 20, 2007 7:49:30 PM
Ronald McDonald
Here in Los Angeles, the only McDonald's where I recall seeing more than a very occasional black worker was on Crenshaw, and I haven't been there for several years.
What?
That's a what?
There's no elephant here! Move a few feet to the left, I can't see you because of that thing that isn't an elephant.
Posted by: TLB | Jul 20, 2007 10:47:07 PM
It's impossible to adress this without facing the reality of the black/white IQ gap (perhaps "and much more" was a euphemism for IQ?). Mass immigration of low skill workers obviously is a factor as well. Unfortunately the former has been deemed unmentionable, and the latter is favored by progressives.
Posted by: Beefaroni | Jul 21, 2007 12:13:11 AM
It's impossible to adress this without facing the reality of the black/white IQ gap...
It's impossible to address structural changes in the US economy without first facing the "reality" of the black/white IQ gap? That's a curious argument, but I'll bite -- did the decline of decent-paying manufacturing jobs trigger the stupification of the darker peoples, or did the stupification emerge first and thus trigger the loss of said jobs?
Posted by: Jonathan DiMarco | Jul 21, 2007 2:30:59 AM
"What did emerge -- the service-sector economy -- paid less, and offered worse benefits and job security."
Really? All those lawyers, accountants, investment bankers, software help line people, teachers, social workers, nurses, firemen, police officers, acupuncurists...all those people in the service sector economy... get paid less and are offered worse benefits and job security?
Than what?
Posted by: Tim Worstall | Jul 21, 2007 7:17:15 AM
If you actually read Wilson's article this all becomes pretty silly. Wilson claims (on what evidence?, I would like to ask) that whites have not turned against blacks, but against the perception, created by liberals, that programs designed to help the poor are built around black people because they are the poor.
This is just BS in evening dress. White people have always been against blacks and 98% of what this country has done in our history has been to improve the relative position of white people compared with blacks.
By his second paragraph Wilson is claiming Democrats should be fighting "drug abuse", when it is as plain as the nose on your face that drug laws with discriminatory sentencing provisions are prosecuted in a discriminatory fashion after arrests are made in a racially biased pattern of enforcement.
At every step of the road the table is strongly tilted against non-whites, and the majority of the arrests are made for marijuana- a drug that every responsible commission and study over the past century has said should be legalized. The War on (some) Drugs is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Wilson actually has a good idea. Programs that help all of the poor help black people two ways, first, directly, and secondly, indirectly by reducing the stresses of poverty that make white people more bellicosely racist.
Unfortunately, Wilson seems to be drifting haplessly in a sea of statistics, hardly able even to grasp the life preserver of the simple and obvious point he is trying to make. He would have done better to acknowledge at the outset that a considerable amount of white prejudice still exists in America, and then gone on to discuss ways of dealing with problems we all share.
Posted by: serial catowner | Jul 21, 2007 9:16:57 AM
Wilson claims (on what evidence?, I would like to ask) that whites have not turned against blacks, but against the perception, created by liberals, that programs designed to help the poor are built around black people because they are the poor.
What he said was that many whites turned not against blacks but against programs perceived to benefit only racial minorities. This seems true to me, and your claim (on what evidence?, I would like to ask) that 98% of what this country has done was intended to increase the position of whites over blacks is hardly a convincing refutation.
By his second paragraph Wilson is claiming Democrats should be fighting "drug abuse", when it is as plain as the nose on your face that drug laws with discriminatory sentencing provisions are prosecuted in a discriminatory fashion after arrests are made in a racially biased pattern of enforcement.
He obviously wasn't arguing for discriminatory enforcement. That the laws have been selectively enforced doesn't imply they can't or shouldn't be enforced in a race-neutral way. (You realize the piece was written in 1990, right?)
He would have done better to acknowledge at the outset that a considerable amount of white prejudice still exists in America
He never suggested otherwise. His suggestions are intended to work around that.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 21, 2007 6:18:25 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
