Archive for the 'S. 2611' Category

Martin Luther King’s Dream: Wages frozen at 1973 Levels

May 12, 2007

Martin Luther King gave an important speech in the 1960’s where he said that he had a dream. In his dream, the median wages of all groups would forever be restricted to the median wages of all men in 1973, i.e. no group all men, blacks, women, etc. would have median wages higher than men did in 1973.

MLK’s dream would be achieved by the 1965 Immigration Act which was passed after he declared his bold vision that men’s median wages in 1973 would be a ceiling for all time for the median wages of all groups.

Despite this limit on wages, productivity has gone up substantially, and all the extra money goes into stock prices. Wealthy Senators are voting for more guest workers and legalizations to fulfill the dream of stock prices that go up forever, while median wages are stuck at or below men’s median wages in 1973

See p60-231.pdf, (You can find it easily at another time, just search p60-231 or p60-231.pdf and it finds this document, its at census.gov a US government entity), and look at graph on page 18. Its true, men’s median wages are lower than in 1973 and women’s are lower than men’s now. Other data show that black median wages are lower than whites are today, so they are lower than all men’s wages in 1973. Data links at link below:

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/a-nation-of-lou-dobbs-democrats/

Black median wages data:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p53b.html

black white median wage graphs

Most of the gap between black and white median wages that was closed, was closed before the 1965 Immigration Act. This happened while all wages compressed together. This is called the Great Compression of wages. It happened during immigration restriction from the 1920 to the 1965 Immigration Act. When all wages compressed together, blacks participated in that and their wages compressed towards that of whites.

The top 1 percent only got 10 percent of national income instead of the 20 percent they got before 1920’s immigration restriction or the 20 percent they get now. Senators are wealthy. They stopped this compression cold by restarting immigration in 1965. They traded off the chance of blacks to compress their wages to whites for higher stock prices in their stock portfolio. Teddy Kennedy is the 8th wealthiest Senator today. He got his wealth by stopping the rise of black wages to equality with white wages.

McCain Kennedy is the Stop Martin Luther King’s Dream Act. It stops King’s dream of equality of black median wages to white median wages. McCain is the 7th wealthiest Senator and Kennedy the 8th. They are stopping blacks from reaching equality with whites in median wages by keeping immigration going. This is what has held blacks from making progress in wages for over 30 years.

Search black median wages “Great Compression”

See NBER paper:

Claudia Goldin, Robert A. Margo

NBER Working Paper No. 3817*
Issued in August 1991
NBER Program(s): LS “Great Compression” site:Vdare.com

December 22, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Increasing Inequality: NY Times’ Krugman Misses The Immigration Dimension

April 06, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
The Smoking Bottom Line: Immigration Boosting Profits, Cutting Wages

January 29, 2007
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Yes, Tyler, Income Inequality Is Real. And Immigration Is A Cause.

Even WaPo is discovering this

Devaluing Labor
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19 Washington Post
black wages site:Vdare.com

Meyerson says that the Great Compression caused the civil rights movement in 1964. This is half-right. In wage space, the civil rights movement happened before 1964. It was caused by immigration restriction and it already happened when black wages compressed to white wages. The 1965 Immigration Act had brought that to an end by the early 1970’s.

Moreover, by freezing all men’s median wages at the 1973 level, black’s median wages stopped going up as well, since what they were pegged to, all men’s median wages, had stopped going up in 1973. So in wage terms, the civil rights movement started with the 1920’s immigration restriction and ended with the 1965 Immigration Act. Civil rights in wages terms died around the same time as MLK was assassinated. But the assassin’s bullet for black wage progress was Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act.

But Ted Kennedy is the 8th wealthiest Senator in the Senate today. Stock prices went up. This is because productivity kept going up but wages stagnated at 1973 levels. So the money went into profits so that pushed up stock prices. Kennedy has a huge stock portfolio. “8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611” See table below.

Explaining Black-White Wage Convergence, 1940-1950: The Role of the Great
Compression

Robert A. Margo
Department of Economics
Vanderbilt University

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004″ By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.


Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.


Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

More data here

Hutchison Pence amnesty and expanded guest worker info here.

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills: http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet

==See Reference to this article at Vdare:

12 May 2007
Imported nonsense at the National Journal
[Patrick Cleburne] @ 10:45 pm

Re: President George Bush Renewing Efforts on Immigration

April 9, 2007

“President Renewing Efforts on Immigration Plan for Overhaul Faces Battle in Divided Congress”

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 9, 2007; Page A01

See comments by Patrick Cleburne at

Problem for Amnesty: Troops unwilling.

Follow up WaPo Article

Bush Pushes Immigration Plan, Guest Worker Program

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 9, 2007; 3:36 PM
Comments at Follow Up article
==Comments original WaPo article posted at WaPo below

What follows is a mess. Its notes while posting comments at WaPo on the Bush immigration speech. In some cases, the links that were used to source quotes are included. But these are not formatted as live links at this point.
==

Men’s median wages peaked in 1973. See p60-231.pdf a publication of the census at census.gov. Search on p60-231.pdf is enough. Income inequality is U shaped in the 20th century. Search on “u shaped” income inequality Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez. Saez is a Berkeley prof. He has data to download from his website. They have an NBER paper. They find that the top 1 percent got 20 percent of national income before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, they got 10 percent after and then after the 1965 Immigration Act, legal immigration, it has gone back up to 20 percent. Search NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004
By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro to see a graph of the percentage share of national income of the top 1 percent. The Bush family is in the top 1 percent. So are Kennedy and McCain. So is Sheikh Pelosi.

==

quote Mr. Luntz is 80 percent right. The richest 20 percent of American households—and only the richest 20 percent—have enjoyed higher real incomes during the Bush expansion. Everyone else has lost ground; the lowest 20 percent has actually lost a full 1.8 percent. (For details, click here: Table 1.) end quote September 26, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality
at Vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==Edwin S. Rubenstein quotation:

Until recently, economists rarely mentioned the I-word when explaining the income distribution. The consensus among most academics was that the primary cause of increased inequality was “skill-biased technical change” (SBTC)—i.e., increased economic rewards to educated, technically savvy workers.

In a word, SBTC compensation was based on merit. How quaint!

Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon broke from the group naiveté in a paper published last year:

“If SBTC had been a major source of the rise in inequality, then we should have observed an increase in relative wages of those most directly skilled in the development and use of computers. Yet in the 1989-97 period….total real compensation of CEOs increased by 100 percent, while those in occupations related to math and computer science increased only 4.8 percent and engineers decreased by 1.4 percent.” [Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, (PDF) Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon, Northwestern University]

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==quotation Edwin S. Rubenstein:

quote In debunking SBTC the authors make a broader historical point regarding immigration:

“To be convincing, a theory must fit the facts, and the basic facts to be explained about income equality are not one but two, that is, not only why inequality rose after the mid-1970s but why it declined from 1929 to the mid-1970s. Three events fit neatly into this U-shaped pattern, all of which influence the effective labor supply curve and the bargaining power of labor: (1) the rise and fall of unionization, (2) the decline and recovery of immigration, and (3) the decline and recovery in the importance of international trade and the share of imports…”

“Partly as a result of restrictive legislation in the 1920s, and also the Great Depression and World War II, the share of immigration per year in the total population declined from 1.3 percent in 1914 to 0.02 percent in 1933, remained very low until a gradual recovery began in the late 1960s, reaching 0.48 percent (legal and illegal) in 2002. Competition for unskilled labor not only arrives in the form of immigration but also in the form of imports, and the decline of the import share from the 1920s to the 1950s and its subsequent recovery is a basic fact of the national accounts.” end quote. September 26, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality Vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==quotation Edwin S. Rubenstein:

quote But the foreign-born share of the labor force—15 percent in 2005—is also unprecedented. Since 2001 illegals have accounted for most of immigrant labor force growth.

Cheap immigrant labor induces only a nugatory increase in total native income. Its biggest impact, according to Harvard economist George Borjas, is to redistribute income from native workers to employers.

Recent data seem to confirm this. The construction industry is booming, home builders are racking up record profits, yet average construction wages have fallen between 15 percent and 35 percent across the country—the result of cheap immigrant labor.

Similarly, the service industries—restaurants, hotels, motels, cleaning companies, etc. – are major employers of immigrant labor. These industries are booming, creating wealth for executives and shareholders. But average real wages of service industry workers have declined since 2001. end quote April 06, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
The Smoking Bottom Line: Immigration Boosting Profits, Cutting Wages Vdare.com

==

http://www.vdare.com/walker/dui.htm

quote Traditionally, drinking to excess is valued in Mexican and Latin culture, where it is seen an expression of machismo. Moreover, MADD reports that Hispanics believe it takes 6-8 drinks to affect driving, while Americans think it takes 2-4 drinks.

In 2001, according to MADD, 44.1 percent of California’s drunk driving arrests in 2001 were of Hispanics, although Hispanics made up only 31.3 percent of the state’s population.

The general incidence of drunk driving has worsened in California—parallel with the skyrocketing Latino population. Accidents involving drunk drivers increased overall nearly 5 percent in the state in 2000, with an uptick in Los Angeles County of 7.6 percent in that year. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Hispanics ages 1-44. end quote Brenda Walker Vdare.com

==

quote THE MIDDLE CLASS IS NOT BEING WIPED OUT, THIS ASSERTION IS NONSENSE, the unemployment rate is 5 percent and wages are rising. We are not going to deport 12 million people, without creating a police state that people woud never support.

By RealChoices | Apr 9, 2007 6:56:50 AM | end quote. Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973. See p60-231.pdf graph page 18 at census.gov. Just search on p60-231 in google.

==

L.A. Blackout
Acting on orders from the Mexican Mafia, Latino gang members in Southern California are terrorizing and killing blacks.
by Brentin Mock Southern Poverty Love Center.

quote “The way I hear these knuckleheads tell it, they don’t want their neighborhoods infested with blacks, as if it’s an infestation,” says respected Los Angeles gang expert Tony Rafael, who interviewed several Latino street gang leaders for an upcoming book on the Mexican Mafia, the dominant Latino gang in Southern California. “It’s pure racial animosity that manifests itself in a policy of a major criminal organization.”

“There’s absolutely no motive absent the color of their skin,” adds former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Michael Camacho. Before he became a judge, in 2003, Camacho successfully prosecuted a Latino gang member for the random shootings of three black men in Pomona, Calif. end quote

==
June 05, 2006
Time To Rethink Immigration (II): Freeing America From The Immigration Gulag

By Peter Brimelow
quote Moratorium on legal immigration. Not no gross immigration but no net immigration—which would permit an inflow of 200,000 a year or so, enough to take care of hardship cases, needed skills etc. Abandon the principle of “family reunification,” which in practice has meant uncontrollable chain migration. Immigrants should be admitted on own merits.

bullet Abolish “refugee” category. In practice, this is simply an expedited, subsidized immigration program for politically-favored groups. Anyway, humanitarian aid is best given in situ—for example, the “Somali Bantu” could have been resettled in Mozambique, not Maine. America is not the world’s Kleenex. end quote June 05, 2006
Time To Rethink Immigration (II): Freeing America From The Immigration Gulag

By Peter Brimelow Vdare.com

==

Immigration, legal, amnesty, refugee, means the end of social security, medicare, medicaid, functional schools, ERs, and health insurance at work. Men’s median wages were higher in 1973, see p60-231.pdf at census.gov, graph page 18. The reason they cut health benefits is the same reason, to cut our wages. Government can’t afford what we don’t make. We can’t have national health insurance for the 3rd world. We are losing our health coverage by legal immigration. We must have zero immigration to save our way of life.

==

Bush is disloyal to the American people.

..

Bush: America is an idea not people. The American
people can be discarded in the dustbin of history.

==

Bush what matters is the idea of freedom, not the people
who want to be free, they can be discarded as refuse.

Iraq was for freedom as an idea, Abu Ghraib was for the actual people. Bushism is Stalinism. Believe in Bush and you will be free in Stalin.

==

Bush’s Iraq promise was for freedom as an idea. Bush’s Abu Ghraib was for the actual people.

==

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722

Brentin Mock continued
quote A comprehensive study of hate crimes in Los Angeles County released by the University of Hawaii in 2000 concluded that while the vast majority of hate crimes nationwide are not committed by members of organized groups, Los Angeles County is a different story. Researchers found that in areas with high concentrations, or “clusters,” of hate crimes, the perpetrators were typically members of Latino street gangs who were purposely targeting blacks.

Furthermore, the study found, “There is strong evidence of race-bias hate crimes among gangs in which the major motive is not the defense of territorial boundaries against other gangs, but hatred toward a group defined by racial identification, regardless of any gang-related territorial threat.”
Six years later, the racist terror campaign continues. end quote

SPLC L.A. Blackout
Acting on orders from the Mexican Mafia, Latino gang members in Southern California are terrorizing and killing blacks.
by Brentin Mock

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722

==

Don’t protect politicians who commit crimes. They are disloyal to us on immigration. Let Bush go to jail for torture. Let Kennedy go to jail for Chappaquiddick. These politicians have a long list of suspect transactions. If you have even a little information send it to groups that forward information on crime or Judicial Watch or blog it anonymously. You don’t have to be a hero and go into the FBI. Turn your information over to organizations that go after politicians. You don’t have to tell your boss. There are tipster organizations you can contact.

==

quote The question is asked, who will pick the fruits and vegetables, who will do the construction jobs, who will do the jobs in the service industry? Which in turn begs the question, who owns the farms, who is having the house built, who owns the hotel and the restraunt? And the answer is the rich, the upper 10 who exploit these illegals,who are just trying to have a better way of life. If these people were made to pay better wages then maybe a lot more people could have a better way of life

By johnleebowes | Apr 9, 2007 10:41:40 AM | end quote. Put employers of illegals in prison and they can pick the fruit on a chain gang. What about politicians who vote the way they get contributions. They will want to have a jury decide if they did right, won’t they? To clear their name?

==

Jack Abramoff can probably fill the farms with chain gang pols from his contribution rolodex. And he isn’t the only one. The K street gang documented by the Post can fill our farms with their labor.

==

quote Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, were sentenced to 12 years and 11 years, respectively, in October by U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone end quote WND. Members of Congress and Senators and lobbyists will want juries to determine if the contributions they gave for earmarks were bribery, won’t they? They will want to clear their name before their constituents? If border guards go to jail for dangerous work, shouldn’t Senators who take money from special interests face the people on a jury?

“u shaped” income inequality Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez
http://www.vdare.com/walker/dui.htm

May 04, 2004
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Drunk Driving

By Brenda Walker

==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=181

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-harbor4mar04,0,5714315.story?coll=la-home-headlines

How a community imploded
L.A. long ignored Harbor Gateway. Now a Latino gang calls the shots.
By Sam Quinones, Times Staff Writer
March 4, 2007

==

Thomas Piketty

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/mccain-fighting-to-recapture-maverick-spirit-of-2000-bid/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030300841.html

==

April 08, 2007

NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON’T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.

04/07/07 – A Jewish Immigration Dissident Advises David Orland Not To Hold His Breath
Today’s Letter: A Reader Experiences Censorship

Re: LAPD: “We Don’t Get Into” Immigration Status Of Christmas Story Director’s Killer By Nicholas Stix

From: An “Irate Reader”

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_040807.htm
==

“u shaped” site:vdare.com

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/

http://www.nber.org/papers/W8467

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060406_nd.htm

http://www.vdare.com/pb/060605_gulag.htm

http://www.vdare.com/bulletins/031907_bulletin.htm

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/03/04/mexican-gangs-ethnic-cleansing-of-black-amercans-in-los-angeles/

Duane Chapman bounty hunter mexico

http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/dog-bounty-hunter-star-duane-chapman-arrested-for-capture-1009823.php

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

==

m.jagger | Apr 9, 2007 11:38:04 AM is right. Also, as others pointed out, illegals here and those who would come here can make their own countries better rather than keeping us from having children by taking away job security for young adults. Think of all the children not born to Americans since Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act because men’s median wages stopped going up in 1973. quote ==

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

“The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II. end quote

The 1965 Immigration Act caused this. Men’s median wages are down from 1973. Search p60-229.pdf and go to page 14 on census.gov. 51 percent of women live alone. This is because men don’t make enough.Female fertility is then below replacement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=201

==

quote *Mens median wages peaked in 1973. See p60-231.pdf a publication of the census at census.gov. Search on p60-231.pdf is enough.* What OldAtlantic never mentions is wages of women have rising considerably and more than made up for the drop in the wages of men. These trends have very little to illegal immigration. end quote quote Until recently, economists rarely mentioned the I-word when explaining the income distribution. The consensus among most academics was that the primary cause of increased inequality was “skill-biased technical change” (SBTC)—i.e., increased economic rewards to educated, technically savvy workers.

In a word, SBTC compensation was based on merit. How quaint!

Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon broke from the group naiveté in a paper published last year:

“If SBTC had been a major source of the rise in inequality, then we should have observed an increase in relative wages of those most directly skilled in the development and use of computers. Yet in the 1989-97 period….total real compensation of CEOs increased by 100 percent, while those in occupations related to math and computer science increased only 4.8 percent and engineers decreased by 1.4 percent.” [Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, (PDF) Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon, Northwestern University] end quote September 26, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality

==

Second post has a different quotation from Vdare on U shaped timing show that share of top 1 percent, the Bush Pelosi McCain Kennedy group, went from 20 percent before 1920’s restriction to 10 percent during restriction back to 20 percent with legal immigration. This shows its legal and illegal immigration that is the cause of men’s median wages being below 1973. Sorry if 2nd post above looks like the same post over again, but the reply is different. Also thanks to Pacthed | Apr 9, 2007 12:14:00 PM | for his research and insights in replying to this, that the rise in women’s wages is simply creating men and women living apart with no kids or a single parent with kids. In fact, the Post has reported on that several times. 51 percent of women live without a spouse. Married with kids is the privilege of the affluent according to Post reporting. quote “Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

“The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II. end quote

The 1965 Immigration Act caused this. Men’s median wages are down from 1973. Search p60-229.pdf and go to page 14 on census.gov. 51 percent of women live alone. This is because men don’t make enough.Female fertility is then below replacement.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/03/04/mexican-gangs-ethnic-cleansing-of-black-amercans-in-los-angeles/

Hispanic ethnic cleansing blacks site:Vdare.com

ethnic cleansing blacks site:Vdare.com

u shaped site:vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070318_diversity.htm

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/01/25/

http://wordpress.com/tag/income-inequality-graph/

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/mccain-fighting-to-recapture-maverick-spirit-of-2000-bid/

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==

quote Economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon have compared wage and salary growth within the richest ten percent of American earners with that of the median wage earner. [Ian Dew-Becker, Robert J. Gordon, Where Did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2:2005. PDF]

Here are their results, adjusted for inflation, for the years 1966 to 2001:
bullet Median wage and salary: +11 percent
bullet 90th percentile: +58 percent
bullet 99th percentile: +121 percent
bullet 99.9th percentile: +236 percent end quote
January 29, 2007
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Yes, Tyler, Income Inequality Is Real. And Immigration Is A Cause. Vdare.com

==

quote July 28, 2003
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Hispanic Family Values?
Illegitimacy rates: unmarried Hispanic women aged 15-44 are about one-third again as likely to have a child as unmarried black women in that age bracket – 93.4 per 1,000 vs. 71.5 – and more than three times as an unmarried white women (27.9 per 1,000). [Source: Centers For Disease Control, pdf file]

bullet Abortion: Hispanic women are two and a half times more likely to have abortions than white women (33 per 1,000 annually vs. 13) and nearly-two thirds as likely as black women (49). [Source: Guttmacher Institute]

bullet Teenage pregnancy: Hispanics are high (about 94 per 1,000 vs. 32 for whites) and relatively worsening – they’ve now surpassed blacks (83 per 1,000). [Source: Centers For Disease Control, pdf file]

bullet Dependency: Nearly one-third (30.6%) of Hispanics receive means-tested benefits, compared to less than a tenth (9.2%) of non-Hispanic whites and just over a third (35.0%) of blacks. [Source: U.S. Census, pdf file]

bullet Criminality: just over one in every hundred adult male Hispanics (1.2%) was imprisoned in 2001 – almost a third of the non-Hispanic black rate (3.5%) and well over twice the non-Hispanic white rate (0.5%). [Source: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2001, pdf file]

bullet Risky behavior: The Hispanic death rate from HIV disease is 2.5-times that of whites (7 per 100,000 vs. 2.8), and about one-third of the black rate (24). [National Center For Health Statistics, pdf file]

end quote
==

quote Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall
Deadbeat Dads Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande

“Family Values Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande.”

That’s a slogan George W. Bush uses to justify illegal immigration.
Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall
Deadbeat Dads Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande

“Family Values Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande.”
The problem of emigrants abandoning their families is so bad that some of these poor Mexican women have actually written to VDARE.COM for help! One of them told us (my translation) that

“…my husband is an illegal alien, and has been for approximately a year and a half. I haven’t seen him for 3 years and I would like him sent back to Mexico, where he was born… I am a desperate woman with 4 children and I can’t provide for them, we live in poverty…Help me…”

This desperate lady wants the U.S. to deport her husband, and she actually included the guy’s address in California.

That’s a slogan George W. Bush uses to justify illegal immigration.
One of the towns in Susuapan is Tremecino:

“In Tremecino 25% of the mothers are left alone with their children, expecting a husband who may return this year, in 2 years or more, if at all.”

By the way, in Tremecino, the average age of marriage or cohabitation is 14!

One of the inhabitants of Tremecino is Rosa:

“…She had 4 children when her husband emigrated to Tucson. She was expecting him to send her money but it never arrived, because the man became an alcoholic and found another woman.”

==

quote It’s not widely understood, but the 1986 federal amnesty for illegal immigrants set off a baby boom among unskilled Hispanics in California that began in 1988 and lasted into the late 1990s, with consequences for gang activity that have just recently become palpable.

Demographers Laura E. Hill and Hans P. Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California wrote in 2002:

“Between 1987 and 1991, total fertility rates for foreign-born Hispanics [in California] increased from 3.2 to 4.4 [expected babies per woman over her lifetime]. … Why did total fertility rates increase so dramatically for Hispanic immigrants? First, the composition of the Hispanic immigrant population in California changed as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. In California alone, 1.6 million unauthorized immigrants applied for amnesty (legal immigrant status) under this act. The vast majority were young men, and many were agricultural workers who settled permanently in the United States. Previous research indicates that many of those granted amnesty were joined later by spouses and relatives in the United States… As a result, many young adult Hispanic women came to California during the late 1980s. (“Understanding the Future of Californians’ Fertility: The Role of Immigrants”).

This ex-illegal immigrant baby boom created an indigestible population pig-in-a-python that overwhelmed California’s public schools in the 1990s, with many having to shift to disruptive year round schedules. The LA Unified School District alone has budgeted $19 billion for construction to accommodate the immigration-driven growth in student numbers. end quote March 18, 2007
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Gang Warfare

By Steve Sailer Vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070318_diversity.htm

==

Search construction industry wages site:vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060406_nd.htm

quote The last few years should have been good ones for labor. Since February 2004 more than 4 million jobs have been created. Output per worker increased by 3.5 percent in 2004 and 2.7 percent last year. Yet the balance of power continued shifting from labor to capital. Not only did profits spike as a share of GDP, but real median income actually declined in 2003 and 2004 (the latest available year.) end quote quote Recent data seem to confirm this. The construction industry is booming, home builders are racking up record profits, yet average construction wages have fallen between 15 percent and 35 percent across the country—the result of cheap immigrant labor. end quote April 06, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
The Smoking Bottom Line: Immigration Boosting Profits, Cutting Wages Vdare.com

==

quote Americans also know that there are resulting consequences for such massive uncontrolled illegal immigration. One result will be a population explosion! Do the math– it’s breathtaking! If all 20 to 23 million illegal aliens here today are given guest worker amnesty along with “family reunification,” it will add roughly 60 million people to the current legal population of 293 million.(12) In 2050, just forty-four years from now, demographers say there will be half a billion people residing in America!(13) Just imagine what kind of impact that will have on our natural resources and quality of life! end quote Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.
March 16, 2006 Anarchy Reigns ~ Enforce the Laws ~ Stop The Invasion

==

quote Today, California’s amnesty baby boom generation is between ages 10 and 19, entering their prime gang violence years. … California is now exporting its illegal immigration problem—gang wars, overcrowded schools, declining standards of living, and the like—to the other 49 states. end quote March 18, 2007
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Gang Warfare

By Steve Sailer

==

quote L.A. Blackout
Acting on orders from the Mexican Mafia, Latino gang members in Southern California are terrorizing and killing blacks.

According to gang experts and law enforcement agents, a longstanding race war between the Mexican Mafia and the Black Guerilla family, a rival African-American prison gang, has generated such intense racial hatred among Mexican Mafia leaders, or shot callers, that they have issued a “green light” on all blacks. A sort of gang-life fatwah, this amounts to a standing authorization for Latino gang members to prove their mettle by terrorizing or even murdering any blacks sighted in a neighborhood claimed by a gang loyal to the Mexican Mafia.

“This attitude is pretty pervasive throughout all the [Latino] gangs,” says Tim Brown, a Los Angeles County probation supervisor. “As long as [street] gangs are heavily influenced by the prison gangs, particularly the Mexican Mafia, racism is just part and parcel of why they come into being and why they continue to exist.” But with the Mexican Mafia’s shadow looming over Los Angeles, it may be a long time before the rapidly growing number of streets claimed by Latino gangs are safe for blacks, if ever.
“It’s not just Highland Park. It’s almost anywhere in L.A. that you could find yourself in a difficult position [as a black person],” says Lewis, the LAPD probation officer. “All blacks are on green light no matter where.”
by Brentin Mock end quote SPLC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=281

==

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp?type=W&cycle=2005&filter=S

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100

Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014

Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

S 2611 Roll Call Senators understand: immigration goes up, wages go down. Wages go down Senators’ stocks go up. Men’s median wages are lower than
in 1973, Senators’ stocks go up. Top 1 percent get 20 percent of national income today and 10 percent in 1965, Senators’ stocks go up. Bush family and Pelosi family are also in the top 1 percent.

==

quote Poll: Most Americans Don’t Want Continuing
Large U.S. Population Growth

As Nation Hits 300 Million Milestone, Voters Prefer
Reduced Immigration Over Adding Another 100 Million

Commentary by Roy Beck * endquote NumbersUSA Posted on another thread by
blowe1 | Apr 9, 2007 2:43:58 PM

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/04/sweet_blog_special_bush_return.html

8th amnesty?

==

quote What OldAtlantic never mentions is wages of women have rising considerably and more than made up for the drop in the wages of men. These trends have very little to illegal immigration. by RealChoices from Pacthed | Apr 9, 2007 4:39:28 PM above. In addition to Pacthed’s arguments above and earlier in response to this point by RealChoices it should be pointed out that women’s wages are still below men’s. But men’s are below what they were in 1973. So women’s wages now are still less than men’s wages in 1973. That is the argument of Bush, McCain and Kennedy for immigration, that its kept wages for women below what men’s wages were in 1973. How many women have thought that was society’s goal? I haven’t heard many women saying they wanted women’s wages to stay below men’s wages in 1973 for their entire working life from 1973 to now. Search p60-231.pdf in google and go to page 18 for the graph. It has men’s and women’s wages. Is the future for women that Kennedy promises them is that their wages will stay below the wages of men in 1973?

==

quote What OldAtlantic never mentions is wages of women have rising considerably and more than made up for the drop in the wages of men. These trends have very little to illegal immigration. by RealChoices from Pacthed | Apr 9, 2007 4:39:28 PM above. In addition to Pacthed’s arguments above and earlier in response to this point by RealChoices it should be pointed out that women’s wages are still below men’s. But men’s are below what they were in 1973. So women’s wages now are still less than men’s wages in 1973. That is the argument of Bush, McCain and Kennedy for immigration, that its kept wages for women below what men’s wages were in 1973. How many women have thought that was society’s goal? I haven’t heard many women saying they wanted women’s wages to stay below men’s wages in 1973 for their entire working life from 1973 to now. Search p60-231.pdf in google and go to page 18 for the graph. It has men’s and women’s wages. Is the future for women that Kennedy promises them is that their wages will stay below the wages of men in 1973? The ratio of women’s wages to men’s went from 60 percent in 1959 to about 77 percent in 2005. This is what women were hoping for? That 77 percent is 77 percent of men’s wages in 2005, but men’s wages in 2005 were lower than men’s wages in 1973. So women are getting less than 77 percent of what men’s wages were in 1973. Is that what women have been working for? Is that the future they want? A women who started working in 1965, the year of Kennedy’s immigration act and who worked to this year would have worked 42 years, all of them at less than 77 percent of what men made in 1973. Was that the goal? Do they thank Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act and its legal immigration for that lifetime of underpay?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=321

=

Another way to think of this. Suppose men made 100 in 1973 and women made 60 percent, or 60. Women go to 77 percent or 77, an improvement of 17. But if men’s wages had gone to 150 say and women’s percent stayed at 60, they would make 90 instead of 77. Moreover, if they had gone to 90 percent they would make 135 instead of 77, almost twice as much. Immigration did 2 things to women. It kept men’s wages down, and thus since women get a percentage less than 100 of men’s that means it kept theirs down. Second, the percentage of women’s pay to men’s pay was kept down by immigration. So women lost out twice from immigration, a lower percentage of men’s pay than they would have got, and their base in effect, men’s pay, didn’t move up. Even at 100 percent, women would only make what men did in 1973, since men only make that much.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=341

==

Women are often treated harshly by employers. Look at Mary Jo Kopechne who was left by Kennedy to die in an air pocket while he went back to his hotel and had a drink while she suffocated. See ytedk.com. Women are treated too harshly by employers for them to have a ceiling of men’s pay which doesn’t move since 1973. Women work too hard and are treated too harshly for their percentage of men’s pay to be kept at 77 percent by immigration instead of being close to 100 percent where it would have been after 40 years of women’s lib without the legal and illegal immigration influx. Women got the short end from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration act 2 ways, men’s pay was frozen at the 1973 level and women’s percentage didn’t go to 100 percent, which it would have done without a market influx of low cost labor. Because health insurance benefits are cut back, women lose out a third time from immigration which has not just cut pay but also benefits including health insurance. Even if you get health insurance its not as good as it used to be.

==
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=341

Women also lose in that 51 percent live without a spouse and on pay that is 77 percent of what a man made in 1973. That’s a pretty hard life. If they are a single mom on 77 percent of what a man made in 1973 that is harsher still.

Immigration is leaving many women unmarried, perhaps childless, or perhaps single moms. With men earning what they did in 1973, they aren’t able to pay much child support, and many just skip out because they earn so little.

Mary Jo Kopechne was a secretary when she was left to die in an air pocket by Kennedy at Chappaquiddick. The scenario experienced by women , pay at under 77 percent of men’s and men’s pay frozen at the 1973 level, and a 51 percent chance to live without a spouse would have been her life had Kennedy let her live, albeit under his 1965 Immigration Act. This is what Kennedy calls upside.

==Mary Jo Kopechne Scenario

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

Mary Jo Kopechne (July 26, 1940July 18, 1969) was an American teacher, secretary and administrator, notable for her death in a car accident on Chappaquiddick Island in a car driven by Senator Ted Kennedy.”

Ytedk archive site

also

July 20, 2004, 9:44 a.m.
Remembering Mary Jo
35 years later: Ted Kennedy’s under-investigated scandal.
Myrna Blyth National Review Online
If she had worked to 2007, she would have retired at age 67. That would have been as a teacher, secretary and administrator. She would have made typically less than 77 percent of what a man made her entire career. Because men’s wages topped out in 1973, she would have made no more than 77 percent of what a man made in 1973. That is what would have happened to her under Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, if she hadn’t suffered under Kennedy’s 1969 Chappaquiddick Act.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040900105&start=41

Immigration kept men’s median wages to the 1973 level, and women’s wages to under 77 percent of men. That was legal immigration from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. With zero immigration, women’s wages would have reached parity with men long ago. In addition, men’s median wages would be higher than in 1973.

Search p60-231.pdf and go to census.gov to see a graph on page 18 that shows men’s median wages are less than in 1973 and that women’s ratio to men’s wages went from 60 percent in 1960 to 77 percent in 2005. They were kept from going higher by immigration which has targeted women’s jobs, e.g. cleaning and nursing.

==

amonster | Apr 9, 2007 8:26:05 PM great find.

quote

Labor Day is almost upon us, and like some of my fellow graybeards, I can, if I concentrate, actually remember what it was that this holiday once celebrated. Something about America being the land of broadly shared prosperity. Something about America being the first nation in human history that had a middle-class majority, where parents had every reason to think their children would fare even better than they had.
The young may be understandably incredulous, but the Great Compression, as economists call it, was the single most important social fact in our country in the decades after World War II. From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent. More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security.

That America is as dead as the dodo. Ours is the age of the Great Upward Redistribution.
end quote.

from Devaluing Labor By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082901042.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Since 1973, men’s median wages are unchanged, see p60-231.pdf page 18 graph. Women’s wages were 60 percent of men’s in 1960 and are 77 percent in 2005.So women’s wages are less than 77 percent of what men’s wages were in 1973. This shows that before immigration, from 1947 to 1973, productivity and median wages went up 1 for 1. Since then, its all been to the shareholders, many of them rich senators like McCain and Kennedy.

==
Further comment on Meyerson quote that amonster | Apr 9, 2007 8:26:05 PM found above. quote

More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security. end quote

Those words are so true. America was once so much more of a family than it is today. Today it is a Bush Hobbesian land. America was so much better 25 years ago. It was so much safer to walk at night. There was so much less fear.

Children could play on their own and roam and get into trouble. They were safe. Probably, no one on earth will ever know a land that great and good for centuries and possibly millenia to come.

You can see what America was in the movies from decades ago. That was once real and it was America. It was so safe and so more unified.

read more | digg story

McCain Fighting to Recapture Maverick Spirit of 2000 Bid

March 15, 2007

“In the seven years since John McCain and his ‘Straight Talk Express’ nearly derailed George W. Bush’s White House ambitions, the blunt-spoken senator from Arizona has become the very picture of the highly managed presidential candidate he once scorned.”

from McCain Fighting to Recapture Maverick Spirit of 2000 Bid By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 15, 2007; Page A01

7th wealthiest Senator is John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402301.html
8th is Teddy Kennedy. 8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004.
Income inequality in the 20th century is U shaped curve. The top 1 percent got 20 percent before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, got 10 percent up to the 1965 Immigration Act and are back to 20 percent of each year’s income today. McCain and Kennedy are in that group. McCain married money and Kennedy inherited it.

=

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act.  The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller.  McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp?type=W&cycle=2005&filter=S

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100

Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014

Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

S 2611 Roll Call

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Income-inequality.html

McCain is for amnesty, a path to welfare, affirmative action and non-deportable crime. Illegals move to the head of the line for jobs and school above everyone else. McCain Kennedy also increases legal immigration. Men’s median wages peaked in 1973, see p60-231.pdf census.gov page 18 for the graph. Income inequality is a U shaped curve in the 20th century. The top 1 percent got 20 percent of each year’s income before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, got 10 percent after, and get 20 percent today after the 1965 Immigration Act. McCain married money. Kennedy inherited it. They are in the top 1 percent who get 20 percent of each year’s income.

==

quote McCain is the seventh-richest senator by net worth, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, nonprofit group that tracks money spent in political campaigns.

The latest personal finances report, filed last May, shows assets worth a minimum of $27.5million for the McCains, with the company accounting for about half of that. end quote McCain, his wealth tied to wife’s family beer business

Dawn Gilbertson
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 23, 2007 12:29 PM

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/special3/articles/0123biz-hensley.html

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

==

The top 1 percent of households got 15 to 25 percent of all income before immigration was restricted in the 1920’s. That then fell to about 10 percent from the 50’s to 70’s and then climbed back up to the 20 percent range now. Immigration restriction lowered the share that Kennedy got and raised the share the Mary Jo Kopechnes got. Kennedy reversed that in 1965 just like he took Mary Jo Kopchene’s life in 1969.

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004″ By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm

=

=

quote 51 percent of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse – New York Times
In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, … preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with nonmarried partners. end quote. By SAM ROBERTS. Because men’s earnings are low, 51 percent of women live without a spouse. This is caused by Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act.

==

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

“The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II.

The 1965 Immigration Act caused this. Men’s median wages are down from 1973. Search p60-229.pdf and go to page 14 on census.gov. 51 percent of women live alone. This is because men don’t make enough.Female fertility is then below replacement.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204/fig1.html
This shows income inequality fell from the 1940’s to 1968 and then rose since. This is because of the 1965 Immigration Act.

Legal immigration takes away job security from men and so young adults don’t get married and have kids and stay married. Legal immigration must end completely and no amnesty.

==

Figure 1 – Change in Income Inequality for Families: 1947-1998 Census.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204/fig1.html

The Census page on income inequality is:

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

http://www.census.gov/acsd/www/sub_i.htm

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

See page 18 of above for graph of men’s median wages which shows it peaked in 1973 adjusted for inflation. It rose before then, while immigration was restricted and then the 1965 Immigration Act brought that to an end.

==Comments WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007031402301&start=21

| digg story

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.

“With 2 Weeks to Go, Allen, Webb Ad Blitz Hits a Higher Gear”

October 25, 2006

“Close Contest Fuels Intense Media Drive”

By Michael D. Shear and Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 25, 2006; Page B05

Comments WaPo

George Allen wraps himself in the Confederate Flag to signal to his base that he is for them, but in the details he is against them. Allen has cosponsored Skil Bill to vastly increase H1B visas of tech workers. We now know this is because he has 15,000 Commonwealth Biotechnologies Inc options that have a strike price of 7.50 but the stock price is 2.

For these to pay off he needs the stock price to go to 17.50 and he makes 150,000 dollars. He was on CBI’s board and knows they need H1B workers to make this happen.

So he pushes H1B to stick it to Virginia workers. He uses the macaca comment to pretend he is for his base so he can get his options payoff in secret. He voted for the Hutchison Amendment to S. 2611 to have unlimited guest workers, and then pretended to be for his base by voting against legalization when he knew it would pass anyhow.

Young adults need a 25 year window of job stability to get married early, have kids and stay married. Allen is taking that from them for the sake of his options.

This article is opinion, hypotheses, and speculation. All other disclaimers apply.

“Women’s Vote Could Tip Close Contest”

October 23, 2006

VIRGINIA SENATE RACE
Women’s Vote Could Tip Close Contest
Webb and Allen Temper Records, Soften Images

By Lisa Rein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 23, 2006; Page A01

Comments.
onlineid has hit one issue about Allen, the secret to Allen’s heart is stock options. Allen took stock options from high tech companies between being governor and Senator. Allen sat on their boards and learned they needed H1B employees to make his options pay off. So when he became Senator he did that. He has pushed H1B employees through Skil Bill.

The result is that young adults in Virginia don’t have a 25 year window of job security to look forward to. That means they have a harder time getting married, staying married and having kids. Allen has traded the chances of young women to have stable families and children while they are young for his stock options. Allen’s Skil Bill has unlimited H1B’s for those educated at US graduate schools.

Universities already have uncapped H1B’s and they have responded by eliminating Americans as grad students and professors in engineering, math and science to a large degree. The new profs don’t want to teach Americans math and science in college and the result is that high school teachers aren’t taught it and our kids aren’t taught it. Allen says that means we need more H1B’s.

Allen is the enemy of family formation, of keeping families together, of having children in 2 parent families, of educating children in math and science.

Why does he do it? To make his options pay off. He still has 15,000 options in CBI that won’t payoff unless he gets its stock price up from 2 dollars where it is now to more like 17.50. At that level he makes 150,000 dollars. He also is looking forward to more options later when he leaves government and is paid off by every Virginia high tech firm that uses H1B.

Those firms prefer young adults to be childless and afraid and to devote the love or at least the fear to them instead of a spouse or children. Childless fearful workers make Allen’s stock options go up and he votes for that every time. He is a cosponsor of Skil Bill to make that the law.

In George Allen’s Virginia, young adults are childless, single, afraid and devote all their energy, thoughts and creativity to their employer. In George Allen’s Virginia, everyone is just one night away from a deerhead in their mailbox to remind them of their place. In George Allen’s Virginia, everyone is just one paycheck away from a pink slip in their mailbox and an H1B worker to take their place. In George Allen’s Virginia, Senator’s make millions from stock options either before or after office and vote for Skil Bill and H1B to keep their options going up in price. In George Allen’s Virginia, young adults don’t have children or form families, they are afraid and at work making his stock options go up.

This article is opinion, hypothesis and speculation. All other disclaimers apply.

“In Shift, Allen Launches Harsher Critique of Iraq”

October 22, 2006

“Incumbent Says U.S. ‘Must Adjust’ Tactics”

By Tim Craig and Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 22, 2006; Page C06

“Virginia Sen. George Allen (R) has been changing his tone on the war in Iraq in recent days as he tries to fend off a challenge from Democrat James Webb, who opposed the invasion even before it started.”

Why does Allen flip flop on Iraq but not on H1B and Skil Bill? Because Allen has 1 million dollars in options in Commonwealth Biotechnologies, and CB has to have H1B visa workers to squeeze out its profits. Allen’s options become worthless if the company can’t squeeze its workers.

Allen didn’t report his options and at the same time pushed Skil Bill and H1B legislation to profit himself, potentially for a payoff of many millions if his options go deep into the money. He won’t do anything to stop that. He wants to be rich, and for us to be poor and that is the choice he has made on H1B and Skil Bill.

Allen will flip flop on Iraq, on our security, on anything except his options and the H1B thralls he counts on to make him rich. Allen thinks he can say the word macaca, wrap himself in the Confederate Flag, and vote for Skil Bill and H1B to impoverish us and enrich himself and we are too dumb to notice.

Allen has contempt for his base. He thinks they can’t see beyond the Confederate Flag to what he really does in the fine print. He voted for the Hutchison Amendment to S .2611 to have unlimited guest worker along with his unlimited H1B Skil Bill, for those educated at US graduate schools, to enrich himself by his own, at the time, undisclosed options.

These are out of the money options, i.e. the stock price is less than the strike. What that means is that if they go deep in the money, they pay off with huge leverage of 10 to 50 to 1. So Allen could get 150 thousand dollars if this Commonwealth Biotechnologies pan out to be worth 17.50 from a current stock price of 2 to 3 dollars.

Their business plan, which he knows from being on their board between being Governor and Senator, is completely dependent on getting H1B workers and squeezing them. Allen knows from the business plan he has to keep the supply of H1B’s coming.

So he doesn’t care if the H1B’s commit a 9-11 terrorist incident on the side, or steal our secrets, or spy for China. Thats incidental to their main job of squeezing our wages and taking away our bargaining power. He needs that to get money owed him in his mind. He will chisel us to keep his chance at the money he feels he lost if the options go deep into the money. So he will do what he can to keep the H1B gates wide open without limit.

==Info on Allen options

Allen has 15,000 options with a strike of 7.50 and the stock price is now under 3 dollars. Allen’s options were extended to 2009 because he became a Senator and the company expected him to help their business plan, i.e. get them more H1B workers.

Options on 15,000 shares when the share price was 10 dollars have to be less than the value of the shares, which would have been 150,000 dollars. Allen has an upside conceivably on these options of 150,000 dollars or more if the stock price goes to 17.50 or more from the 2 to 3 dollars currently.

Allen may also feel that he lost money on these options and has to make it up anyway he can, e.g. by pushing uncapped H1B though his Skil Bill that he pushed in May 2006. If he wants to be president in 2008, he doesn’t have a way to earn money in the private sector until 2012 or 2016, and so he may want money from the options.

Allen became a more serious contender for the Republican nomination for President in 2005 and early 2006, and this is when he became a cosponsor of the Skil Bill. So he may have seen this as a way to push the value of his options.

Since Allen says companies like CBI can’t succeed if they depend on dumb and lazy Americans, we can infer that he desperately wanted a mass of H1B’s from his spring 2006 Skil Bill to save the value of his options and get him the value of these options lost when the stock price went from a high of 9 or 10 dollars to the current 2 to 3 dollars.

Allen blames the stupid and lazy Americans for losing this money and making the options “worthless” and so he will punish them and also profit himself by bringing in millions of H1B’s over the next few years with his Skil Bill. This will get him back the money that the American programmers and scientists “stole” from him by being stupid and lazy.

This is the rhetoric that Allen constantly pumps out and is consistent with his use of words like macaca and his incidents in his early youth. He regards other people as just objects, and if they “lose” him money, its because they are stupid, lazy, and shiftless. So he needs to get other people to replace them.

A person with these resentments is unsafe as a Senator or President. Allen likely blamed Sidarth for his options not being worth as much as well. This is another reason he likely called him macaca. Why aren’t my options back to what they were he was saying. He holds Sidarth responsible, because in Allen’s mind, Indians like Sidarth are smart and hard working, unlike Americans who are dumb and lazy and spend their time talking back to their natural superiors, i.e. Senators.

Reference on Allen options here and at his webpage.

An earlier version of this article and the post at WaPo contained errors because of a misunderstanding of press reports of Allen’s option holdings. The clarification reduces substantially Allen’s potential profits from his options.

==Correction Comment posted at WaPo

Allen stands to gain a smaller sum than conjectured earlier from his current option holdings.  Allen only has options on 15,000 shares of CBI today.  The 1.1 million references other options he held as well in the past.  So Allen’s potential gain from his current option holdings is more like 150,000 dollars if the share price went from 2 dollars
to say 17.50 since the strike price is 7.50.  Allen was given these options in the past and may get more in the future from high tech companies that are benefiting from his Skil Bill and H1B.  So the principle of Allen’s past and future option gains coming from his Skil Bill and H1B as a return favor is valid.  More discussion on this at Old Atlantic Lighthouse wordpress.com.

==

This post represents opinion, hypotheses and speculation. All other disclaimers apply.

“Democrats Strengthen Chances For Senate”

October 22, 2006

“Democrats Strengthen Chances For Senate
Va., Mo. and Tenn. May Tip the Balance”

By Charles Babington and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 22, 2006; Page A01

Comments

7 Republican seats are in trouble. 6 of the 7 Republicans in trouble either voted for S. 2611, a path to legalization and welfare for illegal aliens, or voted for the Hutchison Amendment S. Amdt. 4101 for open unlimited guest workers, SAFE. Voting for S. 2611 were Chafee and DeWine. Voting for Hutchison open guest worker were Allen, Burns, and Santorum.

Frist, whose seat is open voted for both. Allen is also a cosponsor of the Skil Bill S. 2691 to vastly increase H1B visas with no cap on those educated in the US in graduate school.

Of the 7 Republican seats in trouble, only 1 seat that of Talent is where Tallent voted against S. 2611 and the Hutchison SAFE open guest worker Amendment 4101. Since the Senate is Republican and voted for S. 2611, however, that has likely hurt Talent as well. Bush being for it also rubs off on Talent.

Republican Senators need to ask, are they loyal to Republican voters? On S. 2611 they were disdainful, and some like McCain don’t hide that they consider Americans bigots when they think this country belongs to them. That is the Senate’s message going into this election, Americans are bigots who don’t own this country and have no right to keep it for themselves and their children forever.

Americans who think this land is theirs and their children’s forever are bigots is the Senate’s message. That’s why they are in trouble to lose the Senate. That is Bush’s message. That is Frist’s message.

That’s the message the Republicans go into the 2006 election on. Allen sends that message with his Skil Bill and H1B rhetoric. The Senate has a deep contempt for Americans intelligence, their hard work, and their feeling that this is their land and their children’s land forever.

Morever, under Bush and the Senate’s policies, it won’t be their land even for another 100 or 200 years. 100 cars a day are burned in France. England and Europe are turning into zones that are on the verge of civil war. The London Times has admitted they have an enemy within. The Republicans don’t care about Americans job, physical or speech security. In fact, they act to suppress all 3.

The response to 9-11 was to praise what attacked us and to speak with contempt of Americans who wanted to stop immigration. Bush said another attack was a certainty, and kept the immigration coming to make it one. WTC 93 and WTC 01 and Pentagon 01 were all done by immigrants. Bush is bringing 15,000 Saudi males here.

15 Saudi males killed 3000 Americans on 9-11. That’s an attitude of contempt for Americans and a desire to get rid of them. Don’t the Senators think the people notice it? They think because they have harmed the people so much, the people are sheeple whom they can tell any lie and get away with. That’s their 2006 platform.

George Allen thinks he can use symbols like the Confederate Flag to tell his base he is for them, while at the same time he undermines their job, physical and speech security with his Skil Bill and H1B. He showed that he thinks he can use some symbols to fool his base into thinking that he is for them, and in the fine print like the Hutchison Amendment he allows an unlimited number of guest workers. He knows that S. 2611 will pass and votes with the amendments to make it worse and then pretends to be against it at final passage when he knows it will pass anyhow.

Bush and McCain don’t even use that much misdirection to hide their complete contempt for Americans as bigots to be gotten rid of. Young adults need a 25 year window of job security to form and keep stable marriages and have large families. Bush and McCain think that makes them bigots and imply it to their face and say it openly behind their backs.

That’s the Senate’s message, young adults in America who want large families and stable marriages are bigots and the Senate will make them childless thralls too afraid to speak up. That’s the Senate’s vision for America. Allen called UVA engineering student Sidarth a name that really symbolizes his contemp for his base as much as Sidarth. It was his base that Allen had contempt for. Allen was saying, I can call this guy a name, and my base is too stupid to realize I am betraying them on the fine print like Hutchison amendment or the Skil Bill. Americans are thralls is what Allen was saying and will eat up this rhetoric while I take away their chance to have stable jobs, marriages and families.

—Allen’s Commonwealth Biotechnologies Options
quote party in control right now only looks at thier own bank account and just dont care about ours. end quote thebaizes | Oct 22, 2006 12:53:17 PM. Completely right.

George Allen has options on 15,000 shares in out of the money options in Commonwealth Biotechnologies. They have a strike of 7.50 and the stock is about 2 to 3 dollars. If they go deep in the money, e.g. 27.50, they are worth up to several hundred thousand dollars. Allen was on the board and knows that the business plan depends on H1B workers at low wages.

Allen knows he doesn’t get this money unless he keeps H1B workers going to Commonwealth Biotechnologies. Allen concealed this in his disclosure statements in 2005 and 2006. In the spring of 2006 is when Allen cosponsored the Skil Bill S. 2691 to vastly increase H1B and thus profit this company whose business plan he has read when he was on the board and knows it needs these H1B workers to make his options pay off through leverage.

This is why Allen called Sidarth Macaca in front of his base supporters in SW Virginia. Allen knew he had to send a message to his base he was with them to keep himself in office so he could come through with the H1B workers that Commonwealth Biotechnologies needs to make Allen’s options pay off.

(Note that there was a misunderstanding of Allen’s option holdings in an earlier verion of this article and posted at WaPo based on a misunderstanding of reports of Allen’s options.)

Allen’s disclosure statements are here.
OldAtlantic | Oct 22, 2006 1:39:31 PM
–Correction posted at WaPo Comments
Allen stands to gain a smaller sum than conjectured earlier from his current option holdings.  Allen only has options on 15,000 shares of CBI today.  The 1.1 million references other options he held as well in the past.  So Allen’s potential gain from his current option holdings is more like 150,000 dollars if the share price went from 2 dollars
to say 17.50 since the strike price is 7.50.  Allen was given these options in the past and may get more in the future from high tech companies that are benefiting from his Skil Bill and H1B.  So the principle of Allen’s past and future option gains coming from his Skil Bill and H1B as a return favor is valid.  More discussion on this at Old Atlantic Lighthouse wordpress.com.

Voted for final passage of S. 2611, legalization and amnesty

Chafee, Lincoln D. RI

DeWine, Mike, Ohio

Frist, Tennessee

Voted for Hutchison Amendment for SAFE

Allen, George VA

Burns, Conrad MT

Frist open seat Tennessee
Santorum, Rick PA

Hutchison Amendment

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress – 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Hutchison Amdt. No. 4101 )
Vote Number: 148 Vote Date: May 24, 2006, 06:09 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4101 to S. 2611 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 )
Statement of Purpose: To enhance border security by creating a pilot SAFE Visa Program to grant visas to authorized nationals of a NAFTA or CAFTA-DR country who receive employment offers in job areas in the United States that have been certified by the Secretary of Labor as having a shortage of workers.
Vote Counts: YEAs 31
  NAYs 67
  Not Voting 2

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs —31
NAYs —67
Not Voting – 2
Yeas
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Burns (R-MT)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Frist (R-TN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McConnell (R-KY)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA

S 2611 Home Page

ABI Grades

Allen B

Burns B

Chafee F

DeWine D

Frist D

Santorum A-

Talent A

Burns, Chafee, DeWine and Santorum are doing the worst. Thus all the D and F grades of the 7 are doing badly. Note that some of the candidates may have been doing badly and then decided to try to improve their anti-immigration voting record to appeal to the Republican base.

Skil Bill info

Law firm Simmons & Ungar website

Hammond Law Group

Zazona

Senate cosponors

George Allen (R-VA), Wayne Allard (R-CO), Robert Bennett (R-UT), Michael Enzi (R-WY), and Trent Lott (R-MS). from American Chronicle.
House cosponsors of Skil Bill are

The co-sponsors of the SKIL Bill are Representatives John Campbell (R-CA), K. Michael Conaway (R-TX), John T. Doolittle (R-CA), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), Michael McCaul (R-TX), Mike Pence (R-IN), John M. Shimkus (R-IL), and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS). from EIA.
This article is opinion, hypotheses, or speculation. All other disclaimers apply.

%d bloggers like this: