Archive for the 'Income Inequality' Category

Pro Immigration Science: Heating water from bottom doesn’t change temperature

September 15, 2010

Pro Immigration Science Breakthrought. Pro Immigration Scientists puncture the old myth that heating water from the bottom raises its temperature.

If you heat water at the bottom it does not increase its temperature. This was proven using pro immigration science.

Pro-immigration scientists at the Democrat GOP anti White Institute conducted this experiment jointly.

Water was heated from the bottom until it boiled. The temperature was measured at top and bottom which were the same, the boiling point of water. This proves that heating the water from the bottom did not increase its temperature. This is because the water should have been hotter at the bottom if heating was causing it to rise in temperature.

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/100914_nd.htm

“September 14, 2010
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Amazing!—Slate’s Noah Acknowledges That Immigration Causes Income Inequality. But Not Enough.”

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973. This is despite a substantial rise in productivity. Women’s median wages are what men’s were in 1963. Immigration has facilitated a massive transfer to the elite.

==Jewgarchs have taken a substantial part of that gain for the top 1 percent.

With 1/3, you take off say 8 percent from 25 to get 17 percent which is half the distance from 10 percent the approximate low in the 1960’s.

However, the reason 1/2 might be more accurate than 1/3 is that Goldman Sachs vice presidents are not in the Forbes 400 but are in the top 1 percent. Financial services is a big part of those whose income is over 1 million a year, not just their assets. That is largely financial services in New York or the New York area.

Another argument is that Jews outnumber Whites at Harvard as undergrads. The affirmative action Harvard graduates will not be the ones making a million a year. But the Jewish ones will tend to be. They have a huge advantage to be hired at hedge funds and the like. They can be making a million a year before they are 30. That sort of opportunity is much more available to Jews than to Whites in Ohio.

Excellent points. Not only are Jews over-represented among the super rich but they also push the policies like 1.1 million green cards a year and student visas for Asians in engineering that cause income inequality as well as know-how transfer to China that moves good factory jobs with benefits offshore.

See discussion in comments:

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/further-thinking-on-social-class/

Income inequality rose from 1965 to 2010. The top 1 percent went from about 10 percent to 25 percent. If we assume Jews in the top 1 percent have half of it, that is 12.5 percent. Subtract that out from the 25 percent and you are down to 12.5 percent about what it was in 1965.

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2007.pdf

Germany and Japan do not have such income inequality. They are among the highest quality and volume manufacturers and exporters. However, Israel has income inequality similar to the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

I looked at the following source on numbers before posting. However, I didn’t want to weigh my post down with too many links or numbers discussion.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/10/more-on-forbes-400-by-ethnicity.html

“At least 139 of the Forbes 400 are Jewish”

The top 1 percent of a population of 300 million would be 3 million people. Investment bankers at Goldman Sachs are not in the Forbes 400. The demographics of Manhattan are heavily weighed Jewish as well as in financial services there.

Assuming half is a way to do the calculation without committing to a specific view as to what the percentage is of the top 1 percent.

Also see this discussion and lengthy quotation

http://www.rense.com/general78/jewishpower.htm

There are also non-citizens with holdings in the US and citizens with offshore or even onshore income that is not reported. Jews are likely to be well represented in both groups.

Jewarchs in the press and academia and government stand up for the Jewgarchs making money by immigration to transfer money from the White middle class to the oligarch class, which is at least 1/3 Jewish by the Forbes numbers.

The Rise of Income Inequality and the Rise of the Jews.

September 9, 2010

Income inequality is U shaped in 20th century. It fell during immigration restriction and rose after it. See graph below:

http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/

Timothy Noah


Over the next two weeks, I’ll try to answer that question by looking at all potential explanations—race, gender, the computer revolution, immigration, trade, government policies, the decline of labor, compensation policies on Wall Street and in executive suites, and education.

And he will claim none of them cause it?

==Steve Sailer at Vdare

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/091025_podhoretz.htm

After all, back in 1987, Jews made up 92 of the Forbes 400 richest people in America, according to Nathaniel Weyl’s 1989 book, The Geography of American Achievement. This month, however, after 22 years in which power at the federal level has been fairly evenly split between the two parties, Jacob Berkman, who covers Jewish philanthropists for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, estimated that in the newly released 2009 Forbes 400:

“At least 139 of the Forbes 400 are Jewish”

That’s an increase of about one-half over 22 years.

Hence, Jews, who comprise about 1/50th of the population, are 1/3rd or more of the Forbes 400. On a per capita basis, Jewish-Americans are roughly 25 times more likely than other Americans to be billionaires.

==

If we look at the percentage of non-Jewish Whites at Harvard it falls from
1965 to the present. Its now under 25 percent roughly. A similar figure applies to Stanford. We could regress income inequality against the percentage of non-Whites including Jews at Harvard or Stanford. Or we could use one over the percentage of non-Jewish Whites. Both of these went up during this period. This may be a regression not seen in economic journals. Wonder who edits them?

http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/undergraduate.html

Ethnic Diversity
African American 10.5%
Asian American 19.8%
International 7.2%
Mexican American 7.9%
Native American 3.2%
Native Hawaiian 0.8%
Other Hispanic 6.7%
White 31.5%
Other 3.1%
Declined to State 9.5%

Subtract out 20 percent Jewish from White 31.5 and you get non Jewish white 11.5. However, the numbers come out, its 10 to 25 percent non-Jewish white. That is the Camp of the Saints being done to FSA’s by Jews.

http://www.onenation.org/1198/111698b.html

Some Minorities Are More Minor than Others

Ron K. Unz
Wall Street Journal
Monday, November 16, 1998.

“For example, Asians comprise between 2% and 3% of the U.S. population, but nearly 20% of Harvard undergraduates. Then too, between a quarter and a third of Harvard students identify themselves as Jewish, while Jews also represent just 2% to 3% of the overall population.”

“In fact, it seems likely that non-Jewish white Americans represent no more than a quarter of Harvard undergraduates, even though this group constitutes nearly 75% of the population at large, resulting in a degree of underrepresentation far more severe than that of blacks, Hispanics or any other minority groups.”

http://www.ocs.fas.harvard.edu/employers/factsheet.htm

Whites non Hispanic are 48 percent of Harvard undergraduates. Subtract the 30 percent Jewish and you have 18 percent non-Jewish whites.

http://reformjudaismmag.org/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=1278&destination=ShowItem

30 percent of Harvard undergrads are Jewish leaving 18 percent as NJ whites.

Elite Jews have succeeded in ethnically cleansing non-Jewish whites who founded Harvard from Harvard. Elite Jews use their position to enforce immigration that genocides whites. These are combined with Department of Labor rules that give priority to hiring non-whites in every job linked to government contracts.

Internet Applicant Recordkeeping rule

http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/regs/compliance/faqs/iappfaqs.htm

What is the purpose of the Internet Applicant final rule?

The Internet Applicant final rule, issued by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), addresses recordkeeping by Federal contractors and subcontractors about the Internet hiring process and the solicitation of race, gender, and ethnicity of “Internet Applicants.” The rule is the product of a lengthy deliberative process, including public input, to develop a definition of “Internet Applicant” applicable in the Internet age (added to 41 CFR 60-1.3). The recordkeeping requirements of the rule (amending 41 CFR 60-1.12) will provide meaningful data that OFCCP will use to enhance its enforcement of the nondiscrimination laws.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/Presentation/Applicant%20Rule%20Presentation_files/frame.htm

http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/regs/compliance/aa.htm

Operation of the Executive Order Program. The EEO Clause
Each contracting agency in the Executive Branch of government must include the equal opportunity clause in each of its nonexempt government contracts. The equal opportunity clause requires that the contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and Hispanic individuals are considered minorities for purposes of the Executive Order.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/steve-sailer/jewish-influence/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/08/129728016/income-more-unequal-in-u-s-than-in-parts-of-latin-america?ft=1&f=1001

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/income-inequality-graph/

Fertility is an inverse U

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://data.princeton.edu/eco572/uspctfr.png&imgrefurl=http://data.princeton.edu/eco572/heuser.html&usg=__gT-EVtEKKf6f9NBg__PDi6Oj6ko=&h=374&w=553&sz=15&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=j0nVBUVkdjZoHM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=183&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfertility%2Bus%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Ds%26biw%3D800%26bih%3D393%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=369&vpy=87&dur=403&hovh=124&hovw=183&tx=96&ty=88&ei=XdSITOSlEYWClAem5JS0Dg&oei=XdSITOSlEYWClAem5JS0Dg&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=6&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

http://www.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=fertility+us&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=800&bih=393

See Patrick Cleburne on Vdare

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/02/14/2239/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/08/20/robert-novak-old-atlantic-lighthouse-votes-no/

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/latino-revolution/

http://en.wordpress.com/tag/immigration-substitution-effect/

Thus the rise of the Jews is linked to factors lowering the income of Whites. Jewish oligarchs push those factors, non-White immigration, Asians replacing Whites in tech jobs, know-how transfer to non-Whites, etc.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/slicer-coalition/

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/paul-krugman/

Krugman wrings his hands over rising income inequality, but Princeton and MIT do all they can to increase it by race replacement of Whites in their institutions. Genocide of Whites by immigration has led to income inequality that favors wealth Jewish Oligarchs, Jewgarchs. This is Jewgarchy, rule by Jewish Oligarchs. That is what ruined Russia in the 1990’s after the fall of the Soviet Union. That was funded by Jewarchs Larry Summers (US Treasury) and Stanley Fischer (MIT).

Putin offered Stanley Fischer a job in Russia as a joke:

Stanley Fischer chaired Ben Bailout Bernanke’s Ph.D. thesis at MIT. Jewarch Bernanke bailed out Jewgarchs at Goldman Sachs. Jewarchy, rule by Jews, and Jewgarchy, Rule by Jewish Oligarchs, have been bad for Whites.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2010/06/04/new-study-on-jewish-genes/

By Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times

Jews of European descent living on opposite sides of the globe are more closely related to one another than they are to their fellow countrymen, according to the largest study ever conducted of what it means genetically to be Jewish. Ashkenazis, the primary group descended from European Jews, are all as closely related as fourth or fifth cousins would be, the study found.

http://www.vdare.com/hoste/100709_immigration_policy.htm

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/SlezkineRev.pdf


This reminds me of Jews as an elite in the Soviet Union, where a nascent Jewish elite motivated by moral fervor and hatred unleashed by their exclusion under the Czar morphed easily into a corrupt, nepotistic elite that was hostile to the traditional people and culture of Russia. A report to the Soviet Central Committee reminds me of Kagan’s route to success: “They gather around themselves people of the same nationality, impose the habit of praising one another (while making others erroneously believe that they are indispensable), and force their protégés through to high posts” (see here, p. 78). Another report, from 1942, noted that elite cultural institutions “turned out to be filled by non-Russian people (mainly by Jews)” (see here , p. 51, ff). For example, of the ten top executives of the Bolshoi Theater—the most prestigious Soviet cultural institution—there were eight Jews and one Russian. Similar disproportions were reported in prestigious musical conservatories, the Soviet Academy of Science Institute of Literature, and among art and music reviewers in elite publications. Ethnic nepotism, not IQ, is the only way to explain these disproportions.

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/SAIDchap2.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/28/magazine/inside-the-meritocracy-machine.html?pagewanted=7

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/01/the-meritocracy-and-jewish-kinship-networks.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12brooks.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1284037262-MNc9RRjWf2HhJl17PnyCYw

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/opinion/19douthat.html

The Roots of White Anxiety
By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: July 18, 2010

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/07/ross-douthat-on-roots-of-white-anxiety.html

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2010/07/anti-white-racism-of-hostile-elite.html

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/06/jewish-intellectuals-endorse-kevin.html

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=2923

http://www.americanbuddhist.net/roots-white-anxiety

“Kevin MacDonald: Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities explained”

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=2923

One might simply suppose that this is due to higher Jewish IQ. However, on the basis of Richard Lynn’s estimates of Ashkenazi Jewish IQ and correcting for the greater numbers of European Whites, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews should be around 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or 4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145). Instead, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews is around 1 to 1 or less. (See here.)

So there must be some other reason besides IQ that Jews are such a large percentage of the population classified as White at elite universities.

Espenshade and Radford show that there is discrimination against poor Whites and against non-urban Whites—exactly the population groups that are least likely to be Jewish.

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=2923

“A comment on Paul Gottfried’s review of Cultural Insurrections”

Kevin MacDonald

April 18, 2009

==

The extent to which we live under Jewarchy (rule by Jews like Bernanke, Summers, Stanley Fischer, Norbert Schlei, etc. ) and Jewgarchy (Mayor Bloomberg, Schumer, Arlen Specter, ) and who manifest their dislike of us ( “comedians” attacking Sarah Palin over and over), we have to be free to talk about it and analyze it. This means in writing and build on the work of others, Steve Sailer, Kevin MacDonald, Vdare, Alternative Right, Occidental Dissent, Occidental Quarterly, etc.

For Whites in America, to an ever rising extent, Jews are our oppressors. Because of this we have the right to talk about it. Because of this we have the right to decide if we want separation from those who oppress us. This is the same as in Russia. Jewgarchs like Bloomberg openly side with Muslims against us. This is the same as Spain.

We have the right to separate from a separate nation, The Jewish People, who do not identify with us and who advocate policies reducing us to poverty and ultimately dispossession and extinction. Jews are related to each other more than any European population they live in.

Their close genetic kinship shows that Jews are not White and are a separate people, one that shows its antipathy and disdain with Whites. They show that in their constant attacks on Sarah Palin. They show that in their attacks on Vigil Goode. They funded his being defeated.

They show their antipathy to Whites as a separate people they disdain in their attacks on Whites in the debate on what has become their Ground Zero Mosque. To the Jewarchy, the Ground Zero Mosque is a symbol comparable to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty of their dispossession of Founding Stock Americans and their rise to mastery in America. In fact, the Ground Zero Mosque now joins Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty as the Jewish Trinity of Symbols of the Dispossession of Founding Stock Americans in particular and Whites in general.

The Bailout was the action of an insider network. The bailout proved that financial services is not a competitive market but an insider network. The insider network spans Wall Street, academia, the Council of Economic Advisers, the Federal Reserve, US Treasury and the Antitrust Division of the DOJ. Econ profs circulate between these as well as IMF and World Bank and other stations such as major media.

This insider network is an antitrust violation. What we saw in the bailout was a massive antitrust violation. This is an insiders network not a competitive market. The Jewish ethno-network of Jewish mandarins and oligarchs, The Elite Jewish Nation, is the glue that binds this network together across academia, Wall Street and government.

The elite Jewish ethno-network staffs these nodes and their people circulate from node to node in their careers. Wall Street builds the nice buildings for econ departments and B-schools that house the econ profs who run the Antitrust Division, Federal Reserve, US Treasury, Council of Economic Advisers, and other spots as well. The Law and Economics movement cements in the law schools and the courts with this network.

Top 10 percent get half income immigration is working

August 16, 2009

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/15/concentration-of-wealth-in-hands-of-rich/

Legal immigration is working not just illegal.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/15/concentration-of-wealth-in-hands-of-rich/

Krugman also talks about this.  Princeton esp in grad schools puts non-Americans first.

Krugman has graph.  Note that income inequality falls after immigration restriction in 1924, reaches a bottom in the 1960’s and rises with the restoration of immigration by the 1965 Immigration Act and the 1986 Reagen amnesty and 1990 Bush increases.  That has fed the rise of the last 40+ years.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/even-more-gilded/

Princeton Enron’s Krugman has been well paid for ignoring the role of immigration.  Steve Sailer, Ed Rubenstein and Peter Brimelow are better economists than Nobelist Krugman.  Honesty is the foundation of being a great scientist.  Krugman missed out.

Slicer coalition is working.  Its doing this to push down whites.

Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act smited Graham family’s stability

February 19, 2007

Two posts at Vdare by Patrick Cleburne and Randall Burns lead into this article’s discussion of how Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act harmed the family of Senator Lindsey Graham while he and his sister were growing up. Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act created income inequality and economic insecurity to further undermine Senator Lindsey Graham and his sister’s start in life when both their parents died.

If you look at p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940’s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since. Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Most Senators timed the income inequality graph perfectly, coming of age as young adults when income inequality was low from the 1940’s to 1960’s and then building or increasing fortunes as income inequality increased from 1968 to the present.

In an earlier article, Graham was compared to several other senators who sponsored or cosponsored the S. 2611 amnesty bill who unlike Graham benefited from low income inequality when they started out as young adults and high income inequality in their peak earning years. Several Senators who conspored S. 2611 built or deepened fortunes from the misfortunes of others on the income inequality graph.

From an earlier Old Atlantic article:

The lives of Arlen Specter and the 6 cosponsors of S. 2611 are reviewed at the end of the article in terms of how they fit on the income inequality graph. Arlen Specter, John McCain and Ted Kennedy were born in the 1930’s and became young adults in the 1950’s while income inequality was falling. They could build careers and have families while still young. Two Senators, Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez were born in 1946. They became 21 in 1967. They had families and full careers as they timed the income inequality graph perfectly, low income inequality when they were young and rising while they got on top. Both became rich on this curve.

Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback were born in the mid 1950’s. Graham had to start out as the curve was getting worse. He had to choose a career or family and chose career. He has never had children. Brownback solved this problem by marrying an heiress and has 5 children and a career. Brownback is running for president.

Patrick Cleburne comments on the prior Old Atlantic article at Vdare.com:
The Senate: In an Income Time Warp?”

Patrick Cleburne

A large number of Americans appear to have realized that income inequality has increased and that massive immigration is substantially responsible. And they are increasingly willing to say so.

A frequently-expressed view of Peter Brimelow’s is that the current generation of political “leaders” was formed intellectually before immigration was discernable as a social problem. Quite possibly they will literally have to die off before public policy will change – people rarely have new ideas.

Personally, though, I still think the more persuasive explanation is that these Senators are selfish, corrupt, and unAmerican.

Mr. Cleburne has some kind words for a previous Old Atlantic column and this blogger, which I thank him for. I am only too well aware of the editing work needed for this blog and I thank my readers for putting up with it.

What To Do With The Senate?” Randall Burns at Vdare.com

Randall Burns deepens our understanding of the comparison of the lives of the Senators by providing information on the life of Lindsey Graham. Burns points out that Graham helped to take care of a sister when both of their parents died.

His sister was taken in by relatives and Graham arranged to do his law school education near to where she was living and also with the military’s assent adopted her so she could take advantage of military health care.

As Burns points out, this was not selfish on the part of Graham. But in the context of the discussion here and in Mr. Cleburne’s column, Graham was distinguished from the selfish Senators as illustrating the impact of economic insecurity as he reached young adulthood. The other Senators’ lives illustrated selfishness and attributing to themselves the advantage of the timing of their birth on the income inequality graph.

The loss of both parents can only be a shock to the sense of economic security of any person. Since Graham had a minor sister at the time, that can only deepen that sense of economic insecurity. In the comparison of the lives above, Graham illustrated how economic insecurity was higher in the late 1970’s and 1980’s as income inequality was going up from its low in 1968 as the effects of Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act cut in.

By pointing this episode out, Burns deepens our understanding of this. Graham was subject to two shocks, one was the loss of his parents while he had a minor sister and the other was the rising tide of income inequality from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. This meant it would be harder for her to have a job during school or for her relatives to support her who had taken her in.

In fact, Graham tells us she got 600 dollars per month from Social Security and that she needed that money. This shows how social security had taken the place for the Graham family of a job market with job shortages and high wages, which is the historic basis of income security for all but the rich.

Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act had taken from the Graham family the economic opportunity it needed both before and after the loss of Graham’s parents. The Kennedy 1965 Immigration Act had left the Graham family unprepared except by social security and the kindess of relatives for one of life’s blows, the loss of the two parents. We can infer that Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act kept Graham’s parents from having sufficient life insurance, and that they couldn’t afford sufficient life insurance because Kennedy took away the wages of both of Graham’s parents with his 1965 Immigration Act.

Kennedy McCain rode income inequality wave

February 13, 2007

Most Senators today were born or became young adults in the 1940’s or 1950’s while income inequality was going down. If you look at Change in Income Inequality for Families: 1947-1998 Fig 1 or p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940’s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since.

Census Income home page:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html

Census Income Inequality Home Page:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incomestats.html#incomeineq

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income05.html 

Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-231.pdf page 18 or see p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Specter who sponsored S. 2611 was part of the group that could get married early, have kids, and still have a career. Now he is against the young people of today being able to do this.

The census gov charts show why young adults don’t get married and have kids, they are struggling against the H-1B immigration, amnesty, family reunification that Specter supports.

But Specter and most of the cosponsors rode the chart of income inequality from the time it was going down to the bottom of income inequality when they were starting out to the top where he is now on the top. He takes credit for the chart being his genius. That’s why they had it good and young people today don’t in their minds.

The lives of Specter and the 6 cosponsors are reviewed at the end of the article in terms of how they fit on the income inequality graph. Specter, McCain and Kennedy were born in the 1930’s and became young adults in the 1950’s while income inequality was falling. They could build careers and have families while still young. Two Senators, Hagel and Martinez were born in 1946. They became 21 in 1967. They had families and full careers as they timed the income inequality graph perfectly, low income inequality when they were young and rising while they got on top. Both became rich on this curve.

Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback were born in the mid 1950’s. Graham had to start out as the curve was getting worse. He had to choose a career or family and chose career. He has never had children. Brownback solved this problem by marrying an heiress and has 5 children and a career. Brownback is running for president.

The Senators who voted for S. 2611 with amnesty and more legal immigration rode the same inequality curve. When they started out, inequality was at a bottom and they could get good paying summer jobs, go to college, and have kids right after college. They think their life is normal or their hard work. Many were in the Senate in the 1970’s when income inequality started to go up, and most were in by 1980. So they have been on top while income inequality went up, but in their minds, they worked their way up, because when they were starting out they were doing so at the time of low income equality, the bottom of the income inequality bowl graph.

So they feel morally superior and entitled to vote for immigration, because their success is their hard work. Lobbyists give them money in and out of office and they don’t realize at a gut level its for causing this bowl shape of the income inequality graph by immigration. They know it intellectually, but don’t accept it emotionally because they remember when they started out, there was low inequality and they could work themselves up and have families at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._2611

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/157/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:@@@P

S.2611
Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] (introduced 4/7/2006) Cosponsors (6)
Related Bills: H.R.4437, S.2454, S.2612
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2006 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate with amendments by Yea-Nay Vote. 62 – 36. Record Vote Number: 157.


COSPONSORS(6), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] – 4/7/2006
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] – 4/7/2006
Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] – 4/7/2006
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] – 4/7/2006
Sen Martinez, Mel [FL] – 4/7/2006
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 4/7/2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter 1930http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brownback 1956http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham 1955

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel Born 1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M_Kennedy 1932

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Martinez Born 1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain Born 1936

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter Born 1930

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-191.pdf

You may want to open the above pdf in another window and look at the income inequality graph. It is a bowl shape that goes down from the late 1940’s to bottom out from 1965 to 1968 and then heads back up. It splits into two indices and these reach the 1940’s level of income inequlity sometime between 1980 and 1985. Income inequality then rose to its current levels the most extreme. The bottom of the bowl is the 1965 Immigration Act. Despite the effect of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, income inequality was at its low from 1965 to 1968 for all time that they have statistics.All the bill sponsors and cosponsors benefited from the time period at the bottom of this bowl.

Specter is the bill sponsor. He was born February 12, 1930 and 21 years later, in 1951, income inequality was headed down. That was when he was starting out as a young adult. Income inequality was falling rapidly in the early 1950’s. He could go to law school, get married, and have a family while he was a young adult and attribute all of that to his smarts and hard work.

Edward M. Kennedy was born February 22, 1932 and he was 21 in 1953. Although rich, he could feel that he was part of a generation where income inequality was falling rapidly. He became a young adult and even became a Senator in 1962 while income inequality was falling faster than at any time in history. He was the one who stopped that and reversed it by the 1965 Immigration Act.John McCain was born August 29, 1936 and was 21 in 1957. This was while income inequality was falling rapidly. He started out as a young adult during that time of rising boats for all. He was able to get married during this time. He was in a prison camp from 1967–1973 while income inequality bottomed out. When he returned he would divorce his wife, marry a millionairess and launch his political career. He was helping Charles Keating in the early 1980’s during the S and L scandal and was a member of the Keating 5.”

Melquíades Rafael “Mel” Martínez (born October 23, 1946) is a Cuban-born American politician,”. He started out as a lawyer in 1973 and built his practice for 25 years. He was 21 in 1967. The all time bottom in income inequality was 1968. He too could go to law school like Specter, get married, have a young family and build a legal career all as a young adult.”

Charles TimothyChuckHagel (born October 4, 1946) is the senior United States Senator from Nebraska. A member of the Republican Party, he was first elected in 1996 and was reelected in 2002.” Hagel enjoyed the same opportunity that Mel Martinez had, to become 21 in 1967 one year before income inequality bottomed out in 1968. Hagel thus could build his life while income inequality was low and enjoy rising income inequality later when he was an investment banker and businessma in the 1980’s. He could build a fortune in the 1980’s as income inequality was going up from over 20 years of the action of the 1965 Immigration Act. Hagel wants to keep his business network of rich guys in the same sweet spot of when they were born together and doing well so they can hire each other’s kids and avoid the fate that young people who are not children of business moguls like Hagel have to face.

“Lindsey Olin Graham (born July 9, 1955) ” “Graham graduated from the University of South Carolina at Columbia with a B.A. in Psychology in 1977 and from its school of law with a J.D. in 1981, and eventually entered private practice as a lawyer. He is a brother of the Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity. Graham has never married.” Graham unlike the others, could not build a career and have a family as a young adult. Graham is already illustrating the impact of the 1965 Immigration Act, its why he had to choose building a career or a family as a young adult. Graham chose to build a career, so he never had a family as a result.

“Samuel Dale “Sam” Brownback (born September 12, 1956) is the senior United States senator from the U.S. state of Kansas. On January 20, 2007 he announced his intentions to seek the Republican Party‘s nomination for President in the 2008 Presidential election.[1][2]“Brownback is married to the former Mary Stauffer, heiress[citation needed] to a Topeka, Kansas newspaper fortune. The couple are the parents of five children (three daughters and two sons; two of the children are adopted).”

So Brownback avoided Graham’s choice have a career or a family but not both, by marrying an heiress. So he could have both. But not those he governs. Brownback’s S. 2611 puts most Americans in the same boat as Lindsey Graham, if you want to build a career during this time of economic uncertainty, you have to defer marriage and children, maybe forever. For those making this choice, even becoming a US Senator may not be enough to reverse income inequality preventing them getting married and having kids when biology tells them to, as young adults.

==Reference Material

Table IE-6.  Measures of Household Income Inequality: 1967 to 2001*

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Variance        Mean

                        of the logarithmic                Atkinson

                        log of   deviation         -----------------------

 Year            Gini   income   of income   Theil  e=0.25  e=0.50  e=0.75

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2001           0.466    1.007       0.515   0.413   0.098   0.189   0.282

 2000 30/       0.462    0.983       0.490   0.404   0.096   0.185   0.275
1970           0.394    0.805       0.370   0.271   0.068   0.138   0.214

 1969           0.391    0.774       0.357   0.268   0.067   0.135   0.209

 1968           0.388    0.779       0.356   0.273   0.067   0.135   0.208

 1967 12/       0.399    0.813       0.380   0.287   0.071   0.143   0.220

=–

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ie1.html

==

 Table IE-1.  Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion:

      1967 to 2001      (Households as of March of the following year.  Income in current

      and 2001 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars 28/)

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

      Measures of Income Dispersion    2001   2000 30/ 2000 29/   1999
Household Income Ratios of

         Selected Percentiles         95th/20th                        8.38     8.10     8.11     8.26

         95th/50th                        3.57     3.46     3.46     3.48

         80th/50th                        1.98     1.95     1.95     1.94

         80th/20th                        4.65     4.56     4.56     4.62

         20th/50th                        0.43     0.43     0.43     0.42
Gini coefficient of

         income inequality               0.466    0.462    0.460    0.457
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Measures of Income Dispersion    1970     1969     1968   1967 12/

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

       Household Income at

         Selected Percentiles       In Current Dollars:

         20th percentile upper limit   3,687    3,574    3,323    3,000

         50th (median)                 8,734    8,389    7,743    7,143

         80th percentile upper limit  14,661   13,900   12,688   11,841

         95th percentile lower limit  23,178   21,800   19,850   19,000

In 2001 Dollars:

         20th percentile upper limit  14,556   14,789   14,350   13,474

         50th (median)                34,481   34,714   33,436   32,081

         80th percentile upper limit  57,881   57,519   54,790   53,181

         95th percentile lower limit  91,505   90,209   85,717   85,334

Household Income Ratios of

         Selected Percentiles

95th/20th                        6.29     6.10     5.97     6.33

         95th/50th                        2.65     2.60     2.56     2.66

         80th/50th                        1.68     1.66     1.64     1.66

         80th/20th                        3.98     3.89     3.82     3.95

         20th/50th                        0.42     0.43     0.43     0.42

Mean Household Income

         of Quintiles

In Current Dollars

         Lowest quintile               2,029    1,957    1,832    1,626

         Second quintile               5,395    5,216    4,842    4,433

         Third quintile                8,688    8,335    7,679    7,078

         Fourth quintile              12,247   11,674   10,713    9,903

         Highest quintile             21,684   20,520   18,762   17,946

In 2001 Dollars:

         Lowest quintile               8,010    8,098    7,911    7,303

         Second quintile              21,299   21,584   20,909   19,910

         Third quintile               34,300   34,491   33,160   31,789

         Fourth quintile              48,350   48,307   46,261   44,477

         Highest quintile             85,607   84,913   81,019   80,601

Shares of Household Income

         of Quintiles

Lowest quintile                   4.1      4.1      4.2      4.0

         Second quintile                  10.8     10.9     11.1     10.8

         Third quintile                   17.4     17.5     17.5     17.3

         Fourth quintile                  24.5     24.5     24.4     24.2

         Highest quintile                 43.3     43.0     42.8     43.8

Gini coefficient of

         income inequality               0.394    0.391    0.388    0.399

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60tb1.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60191.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ineqtoc.html

“income inequality” site:census.gov

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2611
January 29, 2007
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein

“Yes, Tyler, Income Inequality Is Real. And Immigration Is A Cause.” More on Rubenstein‘s ESR Research, which does statistical research.

Time to Rethink Immigration?
by Peter Brimelow
from National Review, June 22, 1992

Mr. Brimelow is Editor at VDARE.com.

Above is the famous Brimelow piece at National Review, when William F. Buckley was still for us on immigration restriction. William Kristol is now editor of National Review. Kristol, born in 1952, rode the income inequality wave and has pulled up the ladder on the generations that came after him.

The above was rewritten from a comment at Front Page Magazine on

The GOP’s Moment of Truth
By William Kristol
The Weekly Standard | February 13, 2007

William Kristol was born in 1952. He rode the same income inequality wave.

==Comment that was rewritten into above:

Kristol was born in 1952 while income inequality was going down. If you look at p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940’s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since.

Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Kristol was part of the group that could get married early, have kids, and still have a career. Now he is against the young people of today being able to do this.

The census gov charts show why young adults don’t get married and have kids, they are struggling against the H-1B immigration, amnesty, family reunification that Kristol supports.

But Kristol rode the chart of income inequality from the bottom of income inequality when he was starting out to the top where he is now on the top. So he is against us. He takes credit for the chart being his genius. That’s why he had it good and young people today don’t in his mind.

You can simply type in the names of the pdf files into google and those will give the link to the pdf files at the census site, you don’t have to hunt through it.

The Senators for S. 2611 with amnesty and more legal immigration rode the same inequality curve. When they started out, inequality was at a bottom and they could get good paying summer jobs, go to college, and have kids right after college. They think their life is normal or their hard work. Many were in the Senate in the 1970’s when income inequality started to go up, and most were in by 1980. So they have been on top while income inequality went up, but in their minds, they worked their way up, because when they were starting out they were doing so at the time of low income equality, the bottom of the income inequality bowl graph.

So they feel morally superior and entitled to vote for immigration, because their success is their hard work. Lobbyists give them money in and out of office and they don’t realize at a gut level its for causing this bowl shape of the income inequality graph by immigration. They know it intellectually, but don’t accept it emotionally because they remember when they started out, there was low inequality and they could work themselves up and have families at the same time.

==Comments at Vdare on this post

The Senate: In an Income Time Warp?”

Patrick Cleburne

A large number of Americans appear to have realized that income inequality has increased and that massive immigration is substantially responsible. And they are increasingly willing to say so.

A frequently-expressed view of Peter Brimelow’s is that the current generation of political “leaders” was formed intellectually before immigration was discernable as a social problem. Quite possibly they will literally have to die off before public policy will change – people rarely have new ideas.

Personally, though, I still think the more persuasive explanation is that these Senators are selfish, corrupt, and unAmerican.

Mr. Cleburne has some kind words for this column and this blogger, which I thank him for. I am only too well aware of the editing work needed for this blog and I thank my readers for putting up with it.
— Also

What To Do With The Senate?” Randall Burns at Vdare.com

These are discussed further in this article.

Census p60-191: Inequality fell before ’65 Immigration Act, Rose After

February 9, 2007

See p60-191.pdf for a report including graph that income inequality has gone up since 1968. It is going up for reasons “still not entirely understood.”

“Although the Census Bureau has been measuring incomes for a half-century and a a large number of factors have been identified as contributing to changes in inequality, the root causes are still not entirely understood.”

The root cause is the 1965 Immigration Act, i.e. legal immigration is the root cause of the income inequality the census measures. The graph shows inequality went down during the period before the 1965 Immigration Act, the immigration restriction period. Inequality bottomed out around 1965 to 1968 and then went back up.

No immigration the graphs shows inequality going down, after legal immigration, income inequality goes up on the graph. The graph shows that just around 1965 and for a couple years, income inequality bottomed out. This is despite the passage in 1964 of the Civil Rights Act.
See Census gov p60-229.pdf page 14 of pdf for graph of men’s median wages which are lower than in 1973. After 1973, men’s wages flatlined. This supports identifying the 1965 Immigration Act and legal immigration as the cause.

Senators who voted for S. 2611, amnesty and the path to more income inequality.

Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Ye
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Nay Warner (R-VA), Yea
%d bloggers like this: