Skip to comments.Government Against Blacks
Posted on 06/01/2011 5:02:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
The other day, I went to Times Square to ask people what government should do to help poor people. Most everyone agreed on the answer: "more social programs and a higher minimum wage."
It's intuitive to think that way. I used to think that, too. When President Johnson declared a "war on poverty," he said "compassionate government" was the road to prosperity for poor people. That made sense to me. At Princeton, I was taught that government's central planners had the solution to poverty.
But then I watched them work. Government spent trillions of dollars on poverty programs, and the poverty level stayed stuck at about 12 percent of the population. It's stayed there for about 40 years.
Now I understand that that government poverty programs encourage people to stay dependent. There's money in it. They policymakers would have known this 25 years ago had they read "The State Against Blacks." The author, an economist, said poverty programs destroy the natural mechanisms that have always enabled poor people to lift themselves out of poverty.
That author is Walter Williams of George Mason University. Williams, who is black, says "there's a huge segment of the black population for whom upward mobility is elusive, and it's because of the welfare state -- because of government."
Williams elaborates in a new book, "Race and Economics." A chief culprit, he insists, is the minimum wage.
"Let's not look at the intentions behind minimum wage," he said. "We have to ask, what are the effects? Put yourself in the place of an employer who must pay $7.25 no matter whom you hire. Will that employer hire a person who can only add $3 or $4 of value per hour?"
He will not. And so fewer young people get hired and "get their feet on the bottom rung of the economic ladder." This hurts all young people, but black teens most, he says, because "many of them get a fraudulent education in the public school system. So a law that discriminates against low-skill people has a doubly negative effect on black teenagers. The unemployment rate among black teens today is unprecedented in U.S. history. In the '40s, black teenage unemployment was less than white teenage unemployment."
And yet a Pew survey says 83 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage.
"People have the misguided notion that the minimum wage is an antipoverty tool."
Economists understand the truth. A survey of the American Economic Association found that 90 percent of economists say the minimum wage increases unemployment.
Williams says the minimum wage law has also been a tool of racism. In his book "South Africa's War Against Capitalism," he studied that country's labor markets during apartheid:
"White racist unions in South Africa that would never have a black as a member were the major supporters of minimum wage laws. Their stated purpose was to protect white workers from having to compete with low-skill, low-wage black workers. In the United States we found some of the same reasoning for support of a super minimum-wage law," the Davis-Bacon Act, which forces taxpayers to pay union-like wages for government-funded construction projects.
Williams says other programs designed to help the poor -- like welfare payments -- have wrecked the lives of millions of black people. He likens the welfare state to a "drug pusher" that keeps people dependent and in poverty.
"The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery (and Jim Crow and racism) could not have done ... break up the black family. Today, just slightly over 30 percent of black kids live in two-parent families. Historically, from the 1870s on ... 75-90 percent of black kids lived in two-parent families."
Why does the welfare state create illegitimacy?
"(Without welfare,) people would decide, 'I'm going to go out and get a job, I'm going to live more responsibly.'" And that would include getting married before having children, something the welfare system discourages.
I believe the creators of the welfare state had good intentions, but good intentions aren't good enough. Even if deficit spending were not bankrupting America -- which it is -- America should end these programs.
Bums and leeches on society are.....well....bums and leeches on society! Always have been...always will be.
Democratic politicians make such a huge deal about the minimum wage not because of the poor or trying to help somebody. Minimum wage clauses are built (probably) in every union contract. When the minimum wage goes up, the union wage scale goes up too. Havent you noticed that every time theres a minimum wage boost that theres also a jump in real inflation? Wages go up, more money is chasing the same amount of goods, and goods become relatively scarcer; the price goes up.
The real purpose for increasing the minimum wage is to allow union negotiators more leverage by pointing out that their members are far more qualified than mere minimum wage people.
Having been on both sides of the table I see your point, but being on the company's side of the table when that "more qualified" quote comes up, I simply state that I can hire three people for the price of one union member and have them just as qualified within 6 months, and then it is at my discretion to increase the wages or not. But I run a plant in a right to work state which is a little easier to deal with.
Milton Friedman called the minimum wage a “monument to the power of superficial thinking.”
In other words, minimum wage increases are just a way of increasing the output of the
DEMOCRAT PARTY’S MONEY LAUNDERING SYSTEM.
“I believe the creators of the welfare state had good intentions”
No they didn’t.
Congressman Jack Brooks let my old man in on the little secret, LBJ’s Great Society was never intended to get anyone out of poverty.
Southern blacks were moving off their small farms and moving to the cities, mainly in the north.
This movement left a shortage of farm labor for the larger farms.
They thought it was a way to keep cheap farm labor. They could collect a govt check and work for farmers off the books.
There is a VERY powerful reason that leftists and sheeperals PREFER to think superficially.
They stop examining an issue at the very point where the REAL goal is fulfilled. That real goal is to justify the lie that “I’m a good person” and to assuage the visceral knowledge that they are NOT “a good person” when measured against The Standard (none of us are).
Therefore, when they think about any issue, once their sense of self-assurance is fulfilled, there is no need, or DESIRE to think any further. In fact, pointing out the downsides of their position on an issue makes them uncomfortable and angry, because you’re “attacking” their sense of self-worth.
The _supporters_ of the welfare system _wanted to believe_ they had good intentions.
That was after VP Johnson led the coup that killed President Kennedy. Johnson got religion after Kennedy was brutally murdered. The end apparently justified the means.
When I first came on there was a post about John Stossel and I was pretty negative about him. Another Freeper told me to listen to him & give him a chance.
I did & I was amazed at how I never liked him. I agree w/ everything I have heard him say! He also has a great sense of humor! Where I teach I see the single women having children and not marrying because they would lose all their gov’t goodies. It’s such common sense to cut off the gravy train and I bet births would go down; it just seems logical.
Next year one of my special needs kids will be a girl whose mother has 10!!!!!!!!!!! other children. She does not show up to meetings for her daughter & I can only assume that the others are probably very deprived......................only in America.............
Anyway, I think John Stossel rocks and I love that he’s not afraid to say what he thinks. I’m a big fan now.
My comment about the “real purpose” has as much to do with filling congressional coffers as it has to do with union negotiators.
Indeed it does, but the sheeperals only see it from the angle of "you're going to cut off those who already need it".
They also don't believe that such incentives or disincentives have any effect on behavior. They believe that young girls will continue to have sex and babies regardless of the availability of social programs.
And then they buy stuff at Wal-Mart, which purchases from countries that use slave labor.
83 percent of Americans want OTHER PEOPLE to pay.
People want to believe they are transferring the wealth from the rich to the poor, when in fact the “WEALTH” is being transferred from the poor to the rich.
Trickle up economics.
Giving people free goods and services isn't transferring wealth to the people on bottom receiving the goods and services, the wealth is transversed to the people on top that are providing the goods and services.
Give somebody a free ice cream cone they can't do squat with it, it's not wealth.
The guy that sold the ice cream cone is the one that got the wealth.
As Judge Judy said, “Dumb is forever.”
To me it seems very similar to Obama’s record:
Trying (failing) to close Gitmo
Hopefully that means Obama will suffer a similar fate
LBJ changed that.
LBJ was the last dem my old man voted for for president.
I've never voted for one of the nasty things.
My point is they don’t care who pays as long as ity isn’t them.
Millions of the disabled ARE NOT DISABLED...
I know many of them.. disabled permits for parking IS A SCAM(mostly)...
Puh-leeze—Government’s central planners couldn’t run a lemonade stand for profit.
God bless Walter Williams. He’s such a breath of fresh air in the stale race-baiting world we live in.
Another example is in the University system. Blacks get into top colleges with grades and SAT scores well below whites and asians. As a result, however, they can't cut it against the rest of the student body when there, and many drop out. If there were no preferences, they would go to colleges where the other students were comparable in ability to themselves, and do fine.
People are just damn ignorant of how the world works. That’s okay, reality will kick their collective a&&&& at some point.
LOL - I don’t remember if that was Him or Her but LBJ took a lot of heat over that picture.
You are correct about supply and demand but you are mistaken about the government’s role in some of those things. The dairymen pouring the milk on the ground was a public relations gimmick to get an increase in government subsidies. The politicians willingly complied. After that the government would then buy the excess milk, reduce it to cheese and butter fat, or dry it, and spend billions of dollars a year storying it in warehouses. They do the same with wheat, corn, and other agricultural products.
When we send tons of food to starving people or to disaster areas in other lands you don’t think they magically grow it overnight, do you, or that they buy it on the open market? What would that do to the market? They simply take it out of warehouses where they have been storing it, or more correctly, paying someone else to store it. Eventually, much of it is destroyed.
Since some have talked about LBJ, he was involved in another famous murder, that of a Dept. of Agriculture inspector who was out looking for grain silos supposedly owned by LBJ’s friend and fellow Texan, Billie Sol Estes. The problem was the silos did not exist. Estes was getting millions of dollars a year from the government to store grain but he wasn’t storing any.
If that was discovered it would lead directly back to LBJ so he had the inspector killed while he was out in the brush looking for the non-existent silos. When his body was discovered it was found that the inspector had been shot six times in the back with a bolt action rifle. The rifle was still on the scene. The coroner, a part of the Democrat political circle, ruled the death a suicide. See, there was a precedent for Slick Willie’s tactics.
Even now there is price fixing for milk. I have asked store managers at supermarkets in several states why, considering what it takes to produce each, the price of milk is higher than that of gasoline, usually. They generally say something along the lines of the state won’t let them sell below a certain price. That is supposedly to help the little grocers and keep the big boys from undercutting them. Sounds compassionate, doesn’t it?
Like all other government welfare programs the compassionate thing to do is let the market work. In this case the poor people are protected with government food stamps and we know about the many abuses there, and the milk producers’ profits are protected. So, we the taxpayer, get to pay more in increased taxes and as consumers in the increase in the price of milk.
Lovely little scheme. Just not for us.
When the so-called ‘libertarian’ Stossel has the balls to stand up for the life and liberty of the unborn, I’ll listen. Until then, he’s a confused idiot.
“LBJ changed that.”
I got into a discussion about LBJ with an old guy some years back, and from his language you would think Johnson’s first two initials were MF. :)
Thank you for the correction regarding the dairymen. I was remembering TV reports from my childhood and failed to do my homework before posting.
I remember that there was a scandal involving Billy Sol Estes, but would have been hard pressed to explain it. Regarding the “suicide”, there was also the story of the NM coroner who declared a death to be suicide under similar bolt-action multi-round circumstances.
The whole issue of farm subsidies has always bothered me. It has appeared to be a thinly disguised welfare system, but I am willing to listen to anyone that can provide a cogent argument to the contrary. [”They need the money” is not a valid argument. I need money, too.] It is interesting that Eisenhower’s Sec’y of Agriculture argued against them.
“you would think Johnsons first two initials were MF. :)”
FR is amazing, I learn something new every day!
We probably agree that no matter the subject, farming, “green” energy, gas milage, oil and gas, etc., should be left to the market to sort out. The market is self-correcting, the government is not.