It's a puzzle: one dispossessed group after another — blacks, women, Hispanics and gays — has been gradually accepted in the United States, granted equal rights and brought into the mainstream.
At the same time, in economic terms, the United States has gone from being a comparatively egalitarian society to one of the most unequal democracies in the world.
I have read this article several times now and I am coming away with a very uneasy feeling. The gist is contained in the quote above (I think).
This is a classic example of the fallacy post hoc, ergo proper hoc. Or, "after this, therefore because of this."
Simply because "diversity" occurred before or simultaneous to the decline in our economy does not, as the author facilely suggests, mean that diversity is the cause. But no doubt his article will be used by those who are convinced that immigrants are the whole reason we have difficulties in our economy. It is simply not true.
The reason we have growing economic difficulty is because our government class (who like to think of themselves as the ruling class) believe themselves to be, as the leader of the Pilgrims put it, "wiser than God." And therefore, they believe they can impose equality by attempting to "manage" (or do away with) the market economy. It is social/economic engineering and it has NEVER worked.
The Pilgrims originally attempted to set up an idealistic, utopian community. It failed. “The experience that we had in this common course and condition. The experience that we had in this common course and condition tried sundry years…that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing — as if they were wiser than God.’
So let's not fall for this little trap. Whatever the drain on our economy brought about by immigrants and illegal immigrants taking advantage of our entitlement system, the real problem is the entitlement system itself (the magnet, as the self-deportation folks would correctly argue) and the continuous 'tinkering' with the market by people who would fit better in the old Soviet state as they try to centrally manage our economic life. When man thinks he is smarter than God, the result is always a Fall—from the first one to the one we are in the midst of today.
I can't read the labels of the two axes in the graph, so I have no idea what it's purporting to communicate.
But why is a growing income inequality believed to be a bad thing. It is not caused by the poor getting poorer. In fact the opposite is true. But it is caused by the ceiling on wealth being raised.
Suppose you go apply for a job, starting at say $30K. One employer tells you that job has the potential of going up to $50K if you perform very well.
Another employer has the same job with no ceiling, in fact several employees in that position are making millions. The income disparity is greater at the second employer, and that's the one most people would take.
So it seems to me income inequality is a positive thing.
