The NYT published a chart (gift link) recently showing how much non-college-degree white men’s average income had fallen relative to everyone else’s. It was, well, graphic. In 1980, this group was the only one (on the chart; white men with college degrees are not shown) with incomes above the average. Now, they are below everyone else shown – Asian, Black, women, Hispanic.
This isn’t exactly news. And it is very clear that this group, along with young men, for much the same reasons, is the bullseye group for fascism.
My question is, how to change the economic fortunes of these groups, in the US. It doesn’t appear that there’s any real vision for how this could happen, in the political sphere. I’m talking about national programs and policies.
It seems to me that any efforts would be hampered mainly from two directions. One, the conservative desire to never approve any national policies for the public good, and two, the liberal abhorrence of the violent rhetoric and actions of both the above groups which has made them unwilling to help them.
To me though, it seems that the choice is between figuring out how to give back some of the security and respect that once was the fair reward for hard work for those men who were not college material, and facing increasing civil unrest and further destruction of the structures of democracy.
I’m not sure what the issue is, for starters. Because the NYT’s chart is poorly labeled and not well explained. If, for example the Black, Hispanic, and Asian lines include all people who have been so-categorized, and not merely those without college degrees, I’m not sure I see a problem in need of solving.
I mean, should white men without a college degree be making more on average than Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics on average, even when considering those with a degree?
Now, as far as the broader problems of income inequality, living wages, and generational poverty, there are plenty of solutions. But none of them would be likely to get the support of conservatives.
The problem is that the United States is part of a global economy, and the menial work that white non college educated men generally engage in (and that allowed them to sustain a middle class lifestyle in the days of yore) is work that America, with its high cost of living, has a comparative disadvantage in compared to other countries where the cost of living is lower.
The jobs that kept that part of the population employed and earning well just don’t exist in the US anymore.
There are some ways to bring them back, but none of them are good:
Lower wages and benefits so that American workers are competitive with workers in southeast Asia, South America, etc. - but then people couldn’t actually live off of those wages in the US, and it certainly wouldn’t solve the issue of these falling behind.
Raise the cost of importing goods to artificially make American workers competitive - IE, Tariffs. The problem here is that this would make everything significantly more expensive, to the point where our economy would collapse.
The fact is, the economic specialization of different nations based on their comparative advantages and disadvantages is a huge boon for our economy, and if we abandon specialization in the cause of returning unskilled labor to our shores, we will do enormous economic harm to our country.
The alternative, I think, is to give people the resources they need to acquire the training that lets them do skilled, specialized labor rather than menial tasks. That might mean funding for college, or trade school, or incentives for companies to provide training.
My premise is that fascism is rising in this country in large part because of the failure to provide enough opportunity to work at living-wage jobs that allow workers who are not college material, security, dignity and self-respect. The people who are emotionally hardest hit by this failure are those who once had that kind of job, which has disappeared out from under them.
While a case cannot be made for non-college white males making more than other disadvantaged classes of workers, they should certainly not be making less, either.
I would argue that in a better society than the one we have, everyone would be paid a living wage for a full time job, including health care and reasonable housing. To me, that is the ultimate “should”.
The global economy is failing a whole class of people in the US. I think we are seeing the fruits.
Being by nature unrealistic, I have thought of things like:
A major initiative to focus upon growing US jobs in construction/repair of public works like bridges, and new forms of transport.
A major initiative to focus on fixing the housing market, including prevention of foreign investment in real estate (a huge factor in the housing crisis), and rewards for building smaller more affordable housing and upgrading old housing stocks.
A major initiative to focus on creating opportunities for small to medium size farmers which protect them from global agribusiness forces, and providing subsidies for small farmers (global agri-corporations in control of millions of acres of US farmland receive almost all agricultural subsidies now).
Real funding of environmental initiatives like habitat restoration.
All of these would provide good jobs for skilled labor.
You’re not wrong, but there is no non-fascist solution to complaints from low-skilled white workers that they should earn more than black workers.
Even if you improve conditions for low-skilled workers, the white ones will still earn the same as low-skilled black workers, and less than skilled black workers. At least, that would be the ideal.
in reality, fascism is popular even though white workers do earn more than otherwise comparable black workers.
Lots of people – including many who do go to college. In 1960, less than 8% of people finished college – only about 40% finished high school. Most of these people ended up gainfully employed in agriculture, construction, or factory work, and I would guess that not that many deeply longed to sit in an office and push paper around instead. As long as the pay was decent of course. The main reason people get college degrees now is that they feel economically forced to do so if ever they can manage it. But is that such a good thing?
I would wager that the number of people on this board who do not have a college degree is infinitesimally small. So it’s hard to have a real discussion, without the subjects of it weighing in.
This is exactly correct, and why this problem is impossible to “solve” without propping up a racist and sexist system.
I mean, the third bullet point that pops up is: “In the reordering of the U.S. economy since 1980, white men without a degree have been surpassed in income by college-educated women.” Is this really something that needs to be “fixed”?
In 1980 you could be reasonably sure of being “ahead” simply by being white and male. You didn’t need to go to college, and you didn’t need to be any “better” than the average worker. Simply by being white and male you would be “above average”.
Now, in order to be more successful than average, you to actually have above-average effort or ability. This is, obviously, a more fair and just society. It just doesn’t feel that way to the (very large) group that was favored before.
I have much more sympathy with the charts later in the article that show how manufacturing (and similar) jobs have lost economic clout due to globalization. There is, perhaps, a debate worth having in that area.
The racism is of course a main reason liberals are averse to helping white uneducated males. But it would behoove them to do so anyway. A lot of the intensity of modern racism stems from a feeling that everyone has been helped except them. Which is not untrue, even though it’s also true that for the privileged, equality feels like degradation.
I’m building my argument on the belief that what everyone wants is a respectable job that pays a living wage, including the ability to afford health care and a reasonable place to live. A huge number of people in this country do not have this. Of all persuasions. And the people who used to have it are the ones turning to fascism.
So far, the responses have all been, these people do not deserve help. They already have everything they need if only they’d just realize that. But that response solves nothing at all. Should we all just wait for the inevitable fascist takeover instead?
Is there evidence that they (non-college white males) are making less than other disadvantaged classes of workers, except perhaps non-whites and females with a college degree?
Because if non-college whites are making less on average than college-educated members of any other class, then I’d say that’s both to be expected and even a sign of progress (unless negative value is placed on college education).
To the extent that non-college people of any race, ethnicity, or gender might not be making a living wage, there are solutions available to the left (or liberals, if you prefer) that don’t require re-privileging white men specifically, but which could instead seek to improve conditions for all lower income households. Which means that this:
…is not actually a problem. Because the solutions need not target white men specifically for special treatment. (ETA: but they also obviously don’t need to exclude them.)
No, to be clear, my response is that the NYT data you cite is so poorly constructed that it doesn’t actually show the problem you seem to think it shows.
Just so we’re clear, do you understand that neither the NYT chart nor the text of the article itself provide any evidence that non-college white men are making less than non-college white females, non-college blacks, non-college asians, or non-college hispanics?
And in 2000 BC only a handful of scribes were literate. So what?
The US labor pool is heavily specialized towards more technical jobs where we have a comparative advantage over other countries. This is a major factor in Americans achieving the standard of living that they have achieved. Yes, it’s a good thing.
Having a college degree makes you unqualified to discuss this topic?
If the additional production exists, we can implement policies to distribute it more equitably. If our total potential is much lower because we aren’t engaged in international trade, there’s a smaller pie to split, not matter how equitable we try to be.
But some people only feel that they have dignity and respect if there are other people who don’t have these things. This is not a problem that can be fixed with money.
And there are people with quite a bit of money, some of them also in positions of reasonable respect, who are supporting MAGA. Their problem isn’t that they can’t afford dinner. It’s that they want to be On Top. Which requires somebody else to be underneath.
I agree with that. For that matter, I’d extend it to people who for quite a batch of legitimate reasons don’t have a full time job. We really ought to do it, for a number of good reasons. But I doubt it would get rid of fascism.
It’s true that manufacturing in America is a shadow of what it once was. But there are many other jobs available that do not require a college degree and are well paying and afford a respectable lifestyle. I mean, skilled labor jobs such as mechanic, electrician, plumber, hvac technician, and various medical specialty technologists often require training programs and certification, but certainly not 4 year college degrees. They can be extremely well paying. In addition, various menial labor jobs such as roofer, concrete worker, etc., while usually not as lucrative, can also pay livable wages. And while I don’t have any hard statistics as to how many of these jobs are available vs supply, anecdotally how often do people remark, e.g. how hard it is to find someone competent to fix their fridge?
A better question might then be, why don’t more non-college degree men (white or otherwise) go into these professions rather than low paying and transitory retail jobs, bartending, and the like?
Wages are not set merely by supply and demand or skill. (And let me note parenthetically that “skill” is difficult to measure accurately or objectively. Quick historical example: it takes roughly the same skill to be a seamstress as it does to be a carpenter. Carpenters were usually paid much more than seamstresses. Why? Sexism is a large part of the mower. Much “skill” is socially constructed.)
Wages are also set by the ability of workers to unionize. That ability has been smashed in the US over the last 50 years. Even Alan Greenspan was shocked, shocked, to realize that US workers were too scared to demand and fight for higher wages as the economy boomed.
Ulfreida, as usual, is correct in her analysis: the problem is capitalism, and defending its twisted logic is unhelpful. The issue is how do we strengthen unions and left wing groups to make meaningful change. Because the default mode of capitalism, as noted in another thread, is the enshittification of everything.
The only question is, as the labour song put it, “which side are you on?”