The Great Debate
Algernon Austin, Thora Institute and DemosJohn McWhorter, Manhattan Institute
Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
Moderator: Felicia Lee, New York Times
The Future of Black America: The Burden of History or the Audacity of Hope?
Does the twenty-first century require a new black politics? For many, the success of Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, Oprah and Richard Parsons signals the emergence of a post-race America where anyone with the right values and skills can succeed. For others, the persistence of segregated schools and the increasing numbers of blacks in America's prisons indicate that we are still living in the shadow of Jim Crow. What are the major obstacles to a prosperous future for black America? What are the best policies for moving forward - an effort to change values, an anti-discrimination offensive, or something else? Is it useful to continue to think about politics through the lens of race?
June 13, 2007, 6:30 PM
Donnell Library, Manhattan, NYC
20 West 53rd between 5th and 6th
Register here or call (212) 633-1405 x533
Sponsored by Demos and the Donald and Paula Smith Family Foundation
[Getting It Wrong: How Black Public Intellectuals
Are Failing Black America by Algernon Austin
Barnes & Noble.com Amazon.com]
[Find out The Truth about "Acting White".]
________________________________________________________________________
Pop quiz: In which country can a person most easily change her class standing through her efforts?
- United States
- France
- Canada
- Denmark.
According to current research discussed in a new report by the Pew Charitable Trusts, an individual has the best chance of achieving relative upward mobility in Denmark. Of the countries listed above, the United States had the least relative mobility. Of the nine countries examined in the report, only the United Kingdom is a less economically mobile society. Canada is more than twice as economically mobile as the U.S. “Economic Mobility: Is the American Dream Alive and Well?” the title of the Pew Charitable Trusts report, finds the American Dream sick and in the hospital.
It is not clear whether the U.S. ever offered as much economic mobility as it claimed to, but, today, one’s parents’ economic status plays a large role in one’s possibilities for economic success. The Pew report states:
Most studies find that, in America, about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income are passed on to the next generation. This means that one of the biggest predictors of an America child’s future economic success—the identity and characteristics of his or her parents—is predetermined and outside that child’s control. To be sure, the apple can fall far from the tree and often does in individual cases, but relative to other factors, the tree dominates the picture.It is possible to advance relative to others in American society, but if one wishes to be rich generally it is better to have rich parents or be born in Denmark.
Most Americans probably failed to recognize the limited relative mobility in the U.S. because, we have had a good deal of absolute mobility. Relative mobility refers to how much shuffling there is of people’s position in income rankings. Absolute mobility refers to increases of income even if the ranking stays the same.
For most of the past century, Americans’ individual incomes have generally increased overtime. This historic trend appears to have come to an end. We can see this in men’s income. Between 1964 and 1994, adjusted for inflation, the median income of men in their thirties rose 5 percent from $31,097 to $32,801. When comparing men in their thirties from 1974 to 2004, the picture is starkly different. Men’s incomes declined 12 percent from $40,210 to $35,010.
Although absolute mobility does not occur broadly for men anymore, it is still occurring for American families. Because women increasingly work, their added incomes have caused household incomes to rise even as men’s individual incomes declined.
Part of the reason for men’s declining incomes is that the American economy generally has grown much more slowly post-1960s compared to pre-1960s. Another important factor is that the benefits of increasing American productivity are not being distributed widely. Productivity and income used to grow together prior to the 1970s. Since the 1970s the productivity growth has been increasingly disconnected from income growth. The benefits of economic growth have been increasingly concentrated among the rich.
Between 1979 and 2004, the income of the poorest one-fifth of Americans grew 9 percent. Over the same period, the income of the richest fifth grew 69 percent and the richest 1 percent by 176 percent. An article in the New York Times states the recent economic trends make it appear as if “every household in [the] bottom 80 percent is writing a check for $7,000 every year and sending it to the top 1 percent.” (David Leonhardt, “Larry Summers’s Evolution,” New York Times, June 10, 2007.)
Americans seemed to have been satisfied with the American economic policy because although there was little relative mobility, there was a significant degree of absolute mobility. With declining absolute mobility and increasing income inequality, there may be opportunity for creating new and innovative economic policies. Now might be a good time for the so-called black leaders to start articulating an economic vision that will help poor Americans. The so-called black leaders need to remember that Martin Luther King Jr. died beginning the Poor People’s Campaign. Will they continue where King left off?
Share this article with a friend. Use the email icon below.
--Algernon Austin, Ph.D.
Copyright © 2005-2007 by Thora Institute, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Reprint this article in your newspaper or magazine. Contact the Thora Institute to purchase reprint rights.
