HOW MANY MORE ILLEGALS BEFORE THE GLOBALIST DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS DESTROYED MIDDLE AMERICA ALL TOGETHER???
Study finds 90 percent of Americans would make 67 percent more without last four decades of increasing income inequality
Joe Biden Promises Welcome for Venezuelan, Cuban Migrants
Democratic candidate Joe Biden is offering a green light to migrants who want to flee from Cuba and Venezuela.
“The Venezuelan people need our support to recover their democracy and rebuild their country,” Biden told a political event in Florida on October 7. “That’s why I would immediately grant Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to Venezuelans” in the United States, he said.
The TPS status allows foreigners to live and work in the United States, and to get welfare and access to K-12 schools. Since 2017, President Donald Trump has blocked TPS for Venezuelans, amid campaigns by Florida business groups and D.C.-based progressives. Trump has also worked to shrink TPS populations created by prior presidents.
Biden continued:
There are almost 10,000 Cubans languishing in tent camps along the Mexican border because of the administration’s anti-immigration agenda. That’s the administration actively separating Cuban families by not processing visas [and] through restrictions on family visits and remittances. I think we have to reverse that.
If implemented, Biden’s welcome policy “will set off a new exodus from those countries as people try to take advantage of the opportunity to stay in the United States,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Biden’s plan would hurt Americans, she said. “What scholars found specifically when they looked at the [1980] impact of Cubans in South Florida is that the wages of American workers who were competing for unskilled or less skilled jobs went down significantly … The usual suspects will benefit — the employers who will have a labor surplus and will get away with paying low wages, [and] the slumlords who can fill up their substandard affordable housing.”
The impact of low wages and surplus labor on Floridians was sketched in a June 2020 article in the Washington Post:
KISSIMMEE, FLA. — The pandemic had forced them from their home. Then they had run out of money for a motel. That left the car, which is where Sergine Lucien, Dave Marecheau and their two children were one recent night, parked in a lot that was tucked behind a row of empty storefronts.
…
Even when the economy was booming, Dave and Sergine had lived in a state of near homelessness, shuttling between seedy motels that had become a shelter of last resort for thousands in the Orlando area. Last year, after six years of the motel life, they had saved enough to finally make it out. They bought an RV and rented a spot in a quiet and clean mobile home community. Sergine promised the kids they would never go back.
Now all that was gone. In theory, they qualified for a $3,400 federal stimulus check, but they had no bank account or address to collect it. In theory, Dave was entitled to unemployment, but as of May only about 43 percent of the state’s 1.1 million claims had been paid.
“I would immediately grant temporary protected status to Venezuelans as President." 🇻
— @JoeBiden🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/4vGTctYTLX
— Fernand R. Amandi (@AmandiOnAir) October 7, 2020
“We have to be extremely prudent in offering any kind of temporary humanitarian protection,” Vaughan told Breitbart News.
Politicians ignore the emotional incentive for migrants to get into the United States, Vaughan said. “For the privileged, it might be a dollars-and-cents calculation. But for others, it’s more than that — it’s an opportunity to live freely with the opportunity to have a decent quality of life [and] to put their children on a trajectory towards prosperity.”
TPS migrants are rewarded for being in the United States, she said. “They are allowed to immediately access welfare programs, as happened with the Cubans [in 1980 and 1994] and Haitians [in 2010] — unlike other asylum seekers or green card admission – at an enormous cost.”
Even apparently small changes in border rules can precipitate floods of migrants, she said. The Central American migration began as “a trickle at first [in 2010], and quickly turned into a flood because the smuggler started to take advantage and fed this idea of coming here with kids, or sending your kids.”
The Central American migration was largely stopped in 2020 — but only because President Donald Trump and his deputies fought numerous high-profile battles with the agencies, various pro-migration groups, the establishment media, and many judges to impose a set of migration curbs.
Trump’s 2020 plan offers broadly popular restrictions on immigration and visa workers.
But Biden’s 2020 plan promises to let companies import more visa workers, to let mayors import temporary workers, to accelerate the inflow of chain-migration migrants, to suspend immigration enforcement against illegal aliens, and to dramatically increase the inflow of poor refugees.
“The number of [foreign] people who could potentially benefit [from Biden’s welcome] is limited only by the tolerance of our government,” Vaughan said. But Biden had his progressive supporters “live insulated from the effects of it, whether it is their schools, their job markets, or their neighborhoods … they live in a bubble.”
Biden’s allies “disregard the effects of their actions on regular Americans, which means it’s selfish elitism.” Like the characters in the 1925 novel, The Great Gatsby, she said, “they use working people for their own sexual and emotional gratification and cast them aside, caring nothing for the effects on people’s lives.”
Opposition to refugees is bigotry, sneers WashPo columnist.
If @crampell stepped outside the country club, she'd see cheap labor hurts Americans' income, society, productivity & competitiveness.
But snobs praise diversity to reject solidarity w/ citizens.https://t.co/WdcYgwNU0R— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) October 7, 2
Jobless Claims Fall Inch Down to 840,000, Worse Than Expected
The number of first-time filers for unemployment benefits fell last week by 9,000 to 840,000.
Claims have come in between 800,000 and 900,000 for the six consecutive weeks, a sign that progress in the labor market has stalled somewhat amid closed schools, delayed reopenings, and the reimposition of restrictions in some parts of the economy. The latest figure shows that claims continue to be stuck at this high level.
Economists had expected between 825,000, so Thursday’s number counts as worse than expected.
The previous week had been initially reported as 837,000. It was revised up by 12,000 to 849,000. If not for the upward revision, jobless claims would have increased this month.
Claims hit a record 6.87 million for the week of March 27. Until a month ago, each subsequent week had seen claims decline. But in late July, the labor market appeared to stall and claims hovered around one million throughout August, a level so high it was never recorded before the pandemic struck.
Now it appears they have once again stalled, although the latest data does show a bit more progress than expected. Jobless claims have hovered just between 900,000 and 800,000 since the last week in August.
The 4-week moving average, which may be a more reliable measure of the health of the jobs market because it smoothes out week-to-week volatility, was 857,000, which is 13,250 the previous week’s revised average. The previous week’s average was revised up by 3,000 from 870,250.
Continuing claims, which get reported with a week’s lag, came in at 10,976,000, a decrease of 1,003,000 from the previous week’s revised level.
The decline in continuing claims may be a silver lining in the report. It indicates that those who have lost their jobs are finding new work. It’s likely that the decline in the level of federal enhancement to unemployment benefits, from $600 per week to $300, has encouraged some workers to seek jobs.
The highest insured unemployment rates are in Hawaii, California, and Nevada.
Jobless claims are a proxy for layoffs and have been closely watched as a signal for how the pandemic is influencing the economy. Prior to the pandemic, weekly jobless claims had been running around 200,000.
Study finds 90 percent of Americans would make 67 percent more without last four decades of increasing income inequality
25 September 2020
·
·
·
·
·
A new study from the RAND Corporation, “Trends in Income From 1975 to 2018,” written by Carter Price and Kathryn Edwards, provides new documentation of the profound restructuring of class relations in America over the last 40 years.
The study, which looks at changes in pre-tax family income from 1947 to 2018, divided into quintiles of the American population, concludes that the bottom 90 percent of the population would, on average, make 67 percent more in income—every year (!)—had shifts in income inequality not occurred the last four decades.
In other words, any family that made less than $184,292 (the 90th percentile income bracket) in 2018 would be, on average, making 67 percent more. This amounts to a total sum of $2.5 trillion of collective lost income for the bottom 90 percent, just in 2018.
Furthermore, the study concludes, that had more equitable growth continued after 1975 (a date they use as a shifting point), the bottom 90 percent of American households would have earned a total of $47 trillion more in income.
Given that there were about 115 million households in the bottom 90 percent of the US in 2018 population (out of a total of 127.59 million in 2018), that would mean that each of these households would, on average, be $408,696 richer today with this lost income.
To reach these conclusions, the authors break down historical real, pre-tax, income into different quintiles of the population (bottom fifth, second fifth, third fifth, fourth fifth, highest fifth). Looking at the period between 1947 and 2018, they divide the years based on business cycles (booms and busts of the economy).
Growth in Annualized Real Family Pre-tax, Pre-Transfer Income by Quantile from RAND, “Trends in Income From 1975 to 2018,” by C. Price and K. Edwards.
Their data quantitatively expresses the restructuring of class relations that began at the end of the post-WWII boom. Facing intensified economic crisis, automation, and global competition, the US ruling class undertook an aggressive campaign of deindustrialization, slashing wages and clawing back benefits won in the previous period by explosive struggles of the working class, while simultaneously funneling money to financial markets, expanding the wealth and income of both the upper and upper-middle class.
As the data shows, while the bottom 40 percent of American households made significant percentile increases to their income, relative to the top 5 percent, for the 20 years between 1947 and 1968, in the 40 years from 1980 to the present, this trend was reversed. In 1980-2000, the bottom 40 percent of the population experienced a net income gain significantly below that of the top 5 percent. It must be noted that because these are percentile increases, the absolute differences between the gains of the rich versus the poor is far larger.
Furthermore, not included in this data is wealth. In the last 40 years, and especially the last 10 to 20 years, the stock market has become the principal means through which the top 10 percent of the population has piled up historic levels of wealth.
Significantly, the data from 2001 to 2018 shows a sharp slowdown in income gains for all sections of American society as per capita GDP growth slowed and US capitalism experienced a historic decline. However, while the income of the top 5 percent of the population may have only grown by about 2 percent between 2008 and 2018, the wealth of the top percentiles of the population exploded. For example, according to data from the Federal Reserve of St. Louis, the wealth of the top 1 percent of the population increased from almost $20 trillion in the first quarter of 2008, just before the worst of the financial crisis, to almost $33 trillion at the beginning of 2018.
By using the data, the authors come up with a set of counterfactual incomes based on what would be the different income brackets in 2018 without a shift in income distribution. The top 1 percent, instead of making on average $1,384,000 would make $630,000. The 25th percentile, instead of making $33,000 would make $61,000.
Data source: RAND; Graphics by Marry Traverse for Civic Ventures; as published in TIME Magazine
The authors of the study also make several other important observations by breaking down their data on the basis of location, education, and race.
Over 40 percent of mothers with children ages 12 and under are now food insecure in the US
Kevin Reed
7 May 2020
·
·
·
·
·
A blog post on the website of The Hamilton Project has revealed that hunger in the US has expanded to historically unprecedented proportions since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially among households with young children.
Reporting on evidence from two surveys, The Hamilton Project shows that by the end of April 2020, more than 20 percent of all US households and over 40 percent of mothers with children under the age of 13 were experiencing food insecurity. These figures are between two and five times greater than they were in 2018, when food insecurity data was last collected.
Households and children in the surveys are considered food insecure if a respondent “indicates the following statements were often or sometime true”:
- The food we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have enough money to get more.
- The children in my household were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough food.
Lauren Bauer, a fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution who specializes in social and safety net policies, wrote in her blog post on Wednesday, “Rates of food insecurity observed in April 2020 are also meaningfully higher than at any point for which there is comparable data” from 2001 to 2018.
A woman clutches a child while waiting with hundreds of people line up for food donations, given to those impacted by the COVID-19 virus outbreak, in Chelsea, Mass., Tuesday, April 28, 2020. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
Further placing the present ability of families to put food on the table in historical context, Bauer writes, “Looking over time, particularly to the relatively small increase in child food insecurity during the Great Recession, it is clear that young children are experiencing food insecurity to an extent unprecedented in modern times.”
Bauer explains that the surveys conducted their own national sampling of mothers in late April by asking the same questions used by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in previous food insecurity studies.
Significantly, Bauer also explains that the USDA aggregates a battery of questions on access to food from the Current Population Survey in 2018. If the nearly two-to-one ratio between the percent of mothers with children under the age of 12 who had food insecure children in their household and the percent of families with children who were not eating enough because they couldn’t afford enough food were maintained today, the “17.4 percent [of] children not eating enough would translate into more than a third of children experiencing food insecurity.”
The Hamilton Project (THP) is a Democratic Party economic policy think-tank associated with the Brookings Institution. Launched in 2006, the THP featured then-Senator Barack Obama as a speaker at its founding event, who called the organization “the sort of breath of fresh air that I think this town needs.”
The publication of the US hunger data is part of an initiative by THP to push for increases in government spending on national food programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps.
However, the Democratic Party proposal to increase food stamp benefits by 15 percent is being considered as a temporary measure “for the duration of the economic crisis,” according to the New York Times. In any case, the increase is still insufficient to provide the poor what they need to adequately feed their families, with the average monthly benefit of $239 going up by $36 to $274 under the Democrats’ proposal.
Meanwhile, with tens of millions who have lost their jobs during the pandemic unable to collect unemployment benefits due to delays and backlogs in government systems that are ill-equipped to handle the increase in applications, the same kind of bureaucratic mismanagement is certainly to be expected in the present wave of SNAP assistance applications.
Along with every social program over the past four decades, federal food stamp assistance has been attacked by Democratic and Republican administrations alike as “welfare” that is undeserved by those receiving it. Before the pandemic, President Trump boasted that he forced 7 million people off of food stamps since taking office and the Congressional Republicans were working on a plan to further reduce eligibility and expand work requirements to qualify for the benefit.
The return of mass hunger in America is an inevitable product of the response of the US government and ruling establishment to the pandemic, which has been a mixture of utter indifference to the suffering caused by the health crisis and outright cruelty toward the working class, poor and elderly who have been attacked by COVID-19 infection and death as well as the deprivation associated with the economic crisis.
Clearly, the staggering magnitude of the impact of the pandemic on families has been revealed by the findings of The Hamilton Project food insecurity study. As dire circumstances confronting millions of people persist and deepen, the crisis is pointing directly to social convulsions that have not been seen in the US since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
No comments:
Post a Comment