― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:12 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:18 (eighteen years ago) link
That's not quite accurate. As this graph shows, blacks participated in the economic gains of the '50s. From 1950 to 1960, black median household incomes increased by almost 50%. Since 1970, they have been basically flat. So which decades saw real gains for those with dark-colored skin?
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/YouthIndicators/indfig14.gif
― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:20 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:22 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:31 (eighteen years ago) link
(But maybe that's just me.)
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:32 (eighteen years ago) link
But as I was saying before, it's not a bad decade vs. good decade issue people. Can we not see that we have lost ground in some areas?
― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:34 (eighteen years ago) link
source: http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0834933.html
― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:36 (eighteen years ago) link
xpost: Sure, which is why Bush is bucking his constituency to try and allow millions of other people into the country who it is more politically palatable to economically exploit.
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― POOP BITCH (Mandee), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:37 (eighteen years ago) link
― SHAKEY MOBOT, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:40 (eighteen years ago) link
― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:41 (eighteen years ago) link
― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― POOP BITCH (Mandee), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:43 (eighteen years ago) link
I don't think it's really fair to compare the civil rights standards directly between two decades, because they are starting from a different baseline. What would be more apt would be to compare the rate of progress during the 1950s compared to the rate of progress in another decade. In that comparison, I think the '50s come out very well indeed.
― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:44 (eighteen years ago) link
I'm with you on the filmmaking part - don't know about the journalism.
― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 19:56 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 20:04 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 20:12 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 20:13 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 20:14 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 20:16 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 20:19 (eighteen years ago) link
White MALES. Avg. pay for women at the end of the 1950's was 60% of the avg. pay for men. Today, it's about 75%
I don't think that the entry of more women into the workforce and an increase in their wages can entirely be blamed for the problem. For one thing, that chart shows "Family" income - so I think it shows the combined income from both wage-earners. If that's the case, then a two-income family is now struggling to maintain the same real standard of living that used to be possible from one income.
I suppose one could argue that jobs have not kept pace with the expansion of the work-force, but is that because the work-force has expanded too fast, or that jobs haven't expanded fast enough? And what causes the imbalance? Shouldn't more people working mean more money to spend on products which should mean more jobs? Of all the possible factors I don't think that increasing women's wages could really be isolated as the crucial factor.
Kunstler's bugbear of cheap oil seems to me a more likely culprit - the timing is right, after all. When did wages start to stagnate? Right around the same time that OPEC formed and US control of world oil industry was broken. Another possibility is globalization - in which the US exports jobs and debt, and imports cheap products and windfall profits for the capitalists and bankers that finance the outsourcing - causing widening income disparities between those who work for a living and those who simply invest.
― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 20:22 (eighteen years ago) link
his recent writing reveals his "bracing simplicity" for the reductive make-it-up-as-you-go-along cartooning it really is
― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 27 July 2006 00:38 (seventeen years ago) link
Kunstler continues with his transmogrification into the Bo Gritz of the left
How bad is the situation 'out there' really? In my view, things are veering toward such extreme desperation that the US government might fall under the sway, by extra-electoral means, of an ambitious military officer, or a group of such, sometime in the near future. I'm not promoting a coup d'etat, you understand, but I am raising it as a realistic possibility as elected officials prove utterly unwilling to cope with a mounting crisis of capital and resources. The 'corn-pone Hitler' scenario is still another possibility - Glen Beck and Sarah Palin vying for the hearts and minds of the morons who want 'to keep gubmint out of Medicare!' - but I suspect that there is a growing cadre of concerned officers around the Pentagon who will not brook that fucking nonsense for a Crystal City minute and, what's more, would be very impatient to begin correcting the many fiascos currently blowing the nation apart from within. Remember, today's US military elite is battle-hardened after eight years of war in Asia. No doubt they love their country, as Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte loved theirs. It may pain them to stand by and watch it dissolve like a castle made of sugar in a winter gale.
― Elvis Telecom, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 02:21 (fourteen years ago) link
Er, this is unmitigated bullshit.
If there is one thing the US military does not want, not for all the tea in China, it is direct responsibility for running the economy of the USA. They don't have a clue how to run our economy and they know it. As long as the weapons systems keep being funded, they will keep their guns pointed outward at the perceived enemies who lurk 'out there' past our borders. So much simpler that way.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 02:57 (fourteen years ago) link
Countdown to Momus
One of THE great allegorical cold war era sci fi b-movies.
― Geological fondue (nordicskilla), Monday, February 27, 2006 11:11 PM (3 years ago)
a giant one-eyed monster stampeding through japan. it was a little too crass for me.
― gear (gear), Monday, February 27, 2006 11:16 PM (3 years ago)
bahahahahahaha
― we are normal and we want our freedom (Abbott), Tuesday, 3 November 2009 03:29 (fourteen years ago) link