What is the current state of incarceration in the United States?

[russ_watters]

copied/pasted a second time, from the abstract of a study of the US penal system as a labour market regulator:

Vanesch already took a quick swing at the key flaw, but here's som deeper data:

Since we're unable to read the article, it is tough to say anything about it, positive or negative. But the conclusion appears to depend on a rapidly increasing prison population. The US workforce is about 137 million, or a little less than half of the population. In order to keep unemployment down 1% , we'd need to be adding 1.4 million new prisoners in a relatively short timeframe. The highest peak and lowest low in cycle ending in 1982 were 9.7 and 6.0% respectively. In the next cycle, the top was 7.4 and the bottom 5.3. In the next cycle, the bottom was 4.0 (we'll be reaching the top in the next few months, probably).

9.7-7.4=2.3, 6.0-4.0=2.0
So have we added at least 2.7 million new prisoners since 1982?
[hint: current prison population is 2.3 million]

Workforce: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.compaes.txt[/URL]
Historical unemployment: [PLAIN]http://www.opkansas.org/_Bus/Demographics_and_Marketing_Info/unemployment.cfm

I will not argue whether the incarceration rate has affected the unemployment rate at all, since you haven't provided any backup for it. But your inference that the the incarceration rate is in large part or wholly responsible for our low unemployment rate is rediculous.

Also, if the abstract of the article is really representative of the content, they also failed to consider other secondary effects of increased incarceration - such as taxes. Since they don't contribute to the economy, prisoners don't contribute to the creation of jobs while simultaneously increasing the tax burden on the rest of us.

Lets just say for the sake of argument the rising prison population keeps our unemployment rate down by half a percent. So what? At the same time it also negatively effects our GDP, yet our GDP growth continues to outstrip most of the industrialized world.

 

[fourier jr]

It was published in Vol 104 #4 (Jan 1999) of the American Journal of Sociology if anyone cares. Here are some details from the intro:

Institutional analysis of labor markets typically focuses on the effects of social policy and industrial relations. For this research, the United States provides a model of market deregulation. U.S. unions are weak, and the welfare state affects only those at the fringes of the job market.

This contrasts with Europe, where employment relations are highly regulated. Unions set wages for entire economies, and welfare states significantly influence the supply and demand for labor. These institutional differences acquired special importance over the last two decades as European unemployment rose in comparison to U.S. unemployment. Recent trends are striking. While unemployment in the European Union averaged 9.5% between 1990 and 1993, the U.S. average was only 6.5% (OECD 1996). Currently, unemployment hovers around 10% in Germany, Italy, and France, while U.S. unemployment averaged less than 6% between 1994 and 1996.

These trends suggest unregulated labor markets yield strong employment performance. Of all the labor markets of the advanced economies, the United States best approximates the competitive model of neoclassical theory. In this model, job seeking is intensified by meager state support for the unemployed, and low unionization allows wages to adjust to market conditions. In Europe, institutions introduce inefficiency: large welfare states and strong unions stifle labor demand and reduce work incentives (Olson 1982; Lindbeck 1985; Giersch 1993; OECD 1994a).

We challenge this analysis by arguing that labor markets are embedded in a wide array of social arrangements that extend beyond the welfare state or industrial relations. In the United States, criminal justice policy provides a significant state intervention with profound effects on employment trends. The magnitude of state intervention is reflected in budget and incarceration figures. In the early 1990s, $91 billion were spent on courts, police, and prisons, dwarfing the $41 billion spent on all unemployment benefits and employment related services (Statistical Abstract of the United States 1995, table 585). By 1996, 1.63 million people were being detained in American prisons and jails—a threefold increase from 1980 (Gilliard and Beck 1997, p. 1). These figures suggest that incarceration generated a sizeable, nonmarket reallocation of labor, overshadowing state intervention through social policy.

This article studies the penal system as a labor market institution and provides evidence for its dynamic effects. Our central argument is that U.S. incarceration lowers conventional measures of unemployment in the short run by concealing joblessness among able-bodied, working-age men, but it raises unemployment in the long run by damaging the job prospects of ex-convicts after release. Incarceration, unlike social welfare policy, deepens inequality because its effects are increasingly detrimental for young black and unskilled men, whose incarceration rates are highest and whose market power is weak. This argument suggests that incarceration has lowered the U.S. unemployment rate, but it also implies that sustained low unemployment in the future will depend on continuing expansion of the penal system.

 

[russ_watters]

Nothing in that quote provides any support for your (or its) point, but it does hint at their [flawed] logic with this part:

In the United States, criminal justice policy provides a significant state intervention with profound effects on employment trends. The magnitude of state intervention is reflected in budget and incarceration figures. In the early 1990s, $91 billion were spent on courts, police, and prisons, dwarfing the $41 billion spent on all unemployment benefits and employment related services (Statistical Abstract of the United States 1995, table 585).

So what? The US also spends some $400 billion on the military - does that also constitute intervention in the labor market? [hint: that's a trick question]

And again, they note the average unemployment in the US is a full 4% lower than our more socialist European counterparts, a number far larger than the total number of people incarcerated in the US. So even if they are right that the effect exists, the largest it could possibly be doesn't come anywhere close to explaining why our unemployment rates are so much better than Europe's. In fact, the most reasonable explanation continues to be our economic growth. High economic growth does not correllate positively with high unemployment, it correllates with low unemployment (as logic would tell you). So it should be no surprise that we have consistently lower unemployment to go along with our consistently higher economic growth compared with our Eurpean counterparts.

 

[fourier jr]

So it should be no surprise that we have consistently lower unemployment to go along with our consistently higher economic growth compared with our Eurpean counterparts.

... & consistent removal of employable people from the US labour market with a regulator called the penal system.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The article that Fourier jr. posted makes a very specific prediction.

This argument suggests that incarceration has lowered the U.S. unemployment rate, but it also implies that sustained low unemployment in the future will depend on continuing expansion of the penal system.

Apparently the article was written far enough in the past that we can easily look at what was then the future, but is now the past. We can't say that the prediction didn't come true since the penal system expanded. Even so, I don't see any correlation here. What am I missing?

Here is the percentage of the US population in prison for the given years.

2000 .478%
2001 .470%
2002 .476%
2003 .482%
2004 .486%
2005 .491%
2006 .501%

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/incrttab.htm"

Here are the unemployment stats for the same years.

2000 4.0%
2001 4.7%
2002 5.8%
2003 6.0%
2004 5.5%
2005 5.1%
2006 4.6%

http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/default.aspx?DatasetCode=LFS_SEXAGE_I_R"

 

[vanesch]

In fact, the most reasonable explanation continues to be our economic growth.

This, plus the lesser regulation of the labor market, plus the higher motivation of actives to take up a job, even if it doesn't really suit you, because of lower state aids.
As such, although there is relatively high unemployment in Europe, there are entire sectors that don't find enough labor (hotels/restaurants, building,...).

 

[edward]

For the most part the incarcerated population will not show up in official unemployment statistics. A high percentage of those in prison were among the "discouraged Americans" and not counted.

When they are released they will slip back into the same discouraged worker category. "5 years in the state prison" just does not look good on a job application.

PAUL SOLMAN: Now, if some 65-70 percent of prisoners were unemployed as of their arrest, and there are 1.5 million more of them in jail and thus out of the workforce since 1982, well, we'll spare you the arithmetic and simply say add another 0.5 percent when comparing today's unemployment rate to the post-depression record.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec03/unemployment_07-29.html

DIANE WILLIAMS, Safer Foundation: Approximately a third of the people who were incarcerated were in fact working at the time of incarceration. Two-thirds, therefore, were not employed before going into an institution, and obviously are not likely to be employed coming out.

We can nit pick the stats until hell freezes over, but the fact is we have a significant and very expensive criminal/social problem.

The mandatory sentencing laws have not lowered the crime rate as was expected.
As Evo mentioned: "The people got what they wanted with the laws". But the laws are not working. We don't have less crime we just have a bigger prison population.

There is a lot more to this issue than just how it relates to the unemployment rate.
We are looking more and more like a totally dysfunctional society.

 

[vanesch]

The mandatory sentencing laws have not lowered the crime rate as was expected.
As Evo mentioned: "The people got what they wanted with the laws". But the laws are not working. We don't have less crime we just have a bigger prison population.

This is under an assumption of linearity. That is: does a small increase in prison population cause a small decrease in crime rates ? Visibly, no.

But I'm pretty sure that a non-linearity will set in which will correct this. When around 95-99% of population will be in prison, I'm almost SURE it will have a lowering effect on crime rates :rofl:

 

[drankin]

If the crime rate goes up, the prison population goes. Go figure, it simply says we have a police force that is catching criminals. That's a good thing, keep the bad guys in jail so the good guys can continue to contribute to the economy. I really don't see an issue concerning unemployment numbers vs prisoner numbers as Russ pionted out. If you are capable of commiting a crime then you are capable of commiting yourself to a job. It ain't perfect but the system works.

We do need to invest into more prisons.

For those who say, "Why should someone go to jail just because they smoke pot?", I say, "Because it's against the law".

 

[IMP]

For those who say, "Why should someone go to jail just because they smoke pot?", I say, "Because it's against the law".

But 'against the law' is not the same as a crime. Violating a piece of paper is not the same as violating a person or property.

 

[drankin]

But 'against the law' is not the same as a crime. Violating a piece of paper is not the same as violating a person or property.

Since when is breaking the law NOT a crime? Various crimes have various consequences but they are still crimes regardless if someone is directly affected or not.

 

[baywax]

Well not quite. I knew our prison population was booming but when I looked at the actual numbers I was quite shocked. As a society we seem to be losing our grip. Poor education, high crime, surely the most powerful nation in the world can do better than this.





http://www.azstarnet.com/news/227488

About half of the prisons in Arizona are now privately owned and operated. I guess we could say: "It provides jobs" or "here is one industry where we can compete with China."

Private or public prisons only serve to make better criminals. Are there some private psychologists and therapists etc... willing to rake in scads of taxpayers cash to help give these "criminals" a bit of counselling and self-esteem?

The private concerns that own private prisons could very well be connected to the tragic situation of 1 in every 100 Americans being in prison. Similarly, you might find a correlation between private health care and the ratio of "sick" people to healthy ones which is around 1 to 3 Americans.

Far be it for a private concern to let things be as they are. They will always lobby for or support longer sentences, wars on drugs, the use of untested drugs and so on.

 

[edward]

Few prisoners coming out of a Corrections Corporation Of America facilities are ever going to make it back into "normal society".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=corrections++corporation+of+america+riots&btnG=Search

This company reminds me of Hospital Corporation of America. if profits are down, they lay off some employees.

 

[baywax]

Few prisoners coming out of a Corrections Corporation Of America facilities are ever going to make it back into "normal society".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=corrections++corporation+of+america+riots&btnG=Search

This company reminds me of Hospital Corporation of America. if profits are down, they lay off some employees.

I think its alarming. Its as alarming as what's going on in Canada with psychologically disabled people. They've been thrown out on the streets because the facilities they used to be housed and "cared for" in, cost too much to run.

Everytime I hear about "cut-backs" I say... what happened to good old fashioned ideas that make money? I suppose those ideas are reserved for profit making endevors rather than government institutions and programs. I mean, rather than cut back or tax everything and everyone... aren't there enough brains in govt to come up with money making schemes? Eg. selling stuff or generating income through 6 billion dollar a plate dinners. I guess no one trusts govt workers with anything but tax payer's money.

 

[vanesch]

I mean, rather than cut back or tax everything and everyone... aren't there enough brains in govt to come up with money making schemes?

I would say that in a capitalist environment, from the moment an activity is somewhat profitable, it should a priori be left to the private sector, unless there are other reasons to put it in public hands. So indeed, most government activities will not be "making money". Because if it were, chances are it should be left to the private sector.

 

[baywax]

I would say that in a capitalist environment, from the moment an activity is somewhat profitable, it should a priori be left to the private sector, unless there are other reasons to put it in public hands. So indeed, most government activities will not be "making money". Because if it were, chances are it should be left to the private sector.

What is the reasoning behind that? In Canada we have scads of Govt lotteries. Many of the Casinos are Govt run. Govt Bonds in another example such as Tbills. I don't see a problem with my government investing my money in various stocks and bonds to double the surplus at the end of the year. I realize there may be perceptions of conflict of interest but, if that's a concern, why are there lobbyists and special interest groups allowed access to govt officals? I really would like to see more affirmative action from Govt. I'm mean, we pay them to make our societal infrastructure a great place to live, how they use the money to achieve that requires a huge amount of scrutiny and disclosure, this should ensure that any entrepreneurial activities are kept within the bounds of the public interest and laws.

50% of the civic police force's work load is answering challenges with the psychologically disabled. The govt has shifted their responsibility to care for them over to every city's budget. Were we able to treat criminal, anti-social and related conditions as "psychological/social disabilities" (which they are to a large degree) and apply the kinds of treatments that sustain a modification of the behaviour associated with these conditions, things might be better all around. So, in addition to funding sports programs, the govt initiated Casninos could also kick in for the proper treatment options available for the people left behind with anti-social and other psychological behavioural traits.

 

[Art]

50% of the civic police force's work load is answering challenges with the psychologically disabled. The govt has shifted their responsibility to care for them over to every city's budget. Were we able to treat criminal, anti-social and related conditions as "psychological/social disabilities" (which they are to a large degree) and apply the kinds of treatments that sustain a modification of the behaviour associated with these conditions, things might be better all around. So, in addition to funding sports programs, the govt initiated Casninos could also kick in for the proper treatment options available for the people left behind with anti-social and other psychological behavioural traits.

Thatcher did the same in the UK years back under her Orwellian named 'Care in the Community' program. Presumably her cost/benefit analysis showed it would be cheaper to handle the extra crime which would ensue than to treat the people for their mental conditions

 

[vanesch]

What is the reasoning behind that?

Well, if there's no specific reason (and betting games may be a reason! Maybe if left to the private sector, this becomes quickly too mafia-like, I don't know) to keep an activity in gov. hands, and if it is profitable, then why should it be kept out of private hands ?

But I fully agree (against "capitalist dogma") that there can be many reasons to keep a certain activity in Gov. hands. Usually, large-scale/long term investment infrastructures are better handled on a state basis than privately (think trains!). Also everything which has to do with social well-being and so on, it is probably delicate to leave it to the private sector. But the simple production of innocent mass goods and services is usually handled better by the private sector. I don't see why the government should bake cookies, even if it is profitable, for instance. So what activities must be in the hands of the gov. and what should be delegated to the private sector are more a matter of efficiency, fairness, social wellbeing, national importance, than a matter of "making money".
The state is not a business. It is what we collectively decide to do together, and what we collectively decide to pay for (taxes). If we think that we can make money in one or other way, there's no need for a collective consensus. It is sufficient to mount a business.

 

[baywax]

Thatcher did the same in the UK years back under her Orwellian named 'Care in the Community' program. Presumably her cost/benefit analysis showed it would be cheaper to handle the extra crime which would ensue than to treat the people for their mental conditions

Well, what do you expect from a battle axe? Actually, it may be a trend in Canada, but I only know it for certain provincially. For instance, the Feds send the Province money for health care. The Province shuts down the mental facilities and the patients become street people causing crime, de-valued property etc... so, the province is playing with the Fed cash in this case... and not really thinking about the consequences.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

think trains!

Is that your example of a profitable business?

 

[baywax]

Well, if there's no specific reason (and betting games may be a reason! Maybe if left to the private sector, this becomes quickly too mafia-like, I don't know) to keep an activity in gov. hands, and if it is profitable, then why should it be kept out of private hands ?

But I fully agree (against "capitalist dogma") that there can be many reasons to keep a certain activity in Gov. hands. Usually, large-scale/long term investment infrastructures are better handled on a state basis than privately (think trains!). Also everything which has to do with social well-being and so on, it is probably delicate to leave it to the private sector. But the simple production of innocent mass goods and services is usually handled better by the private sector. I don't see why the government should bake cookies, even if it is profitable, for instance. So what activities must be in the hands of the gov. and what should be delegated to the private sector are more a matter of efficiency, fairness, social wellbeing, national importance, than a matter of "making money".
The state is not a business. It is what we collectively decide to do together, and what we collectively decide to pay for (taxes). If we think that we can make money in one or other way, there's no need for a collective consensus. It is sufficient to mount a business.

Yes, its funny because you see CEOs entering politics all the time. Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin was CEO of a huge shipping line. He dropped his title as CEO but the perception is that ... one, he knows how to run a successful business and mini-economy. The negative perception is that he's benefiting from his position in Govt as the owner of one of the worlds largest shipping companies.

I agree that we formed the institution of "government" to serve the overall well being of our nation's citizens. Any activity our government initiates must be in the interest of the citizen. The complications of running a business would tend to stray from the business of running a country. When booze was regulated in several provinces the government made money and regulated the sale, the quality and the allowable strength of the booze. I think it worked pretty well. Of course the competition act has seen to it that there are independent liquor stores but they are still bound by the same import and quality regulations.

 

[vanesch]

Is that your example of a profitable business?

Trains are an example of what is better handled collectively than privately. At least, it seems so. I guess it is because there are many aspects to trains which make this the case. A good train transport system needs big, long term investments, and the choice of the investments needs to serve other purposes than purely commercial (they help the development of a region etc...). Not something a business will optimize.

In France, trains are profitable, and although the system could be improved, the TGV is quite a success. In Germany too, trains run well. I had the impression that in the UK, where it has been privatized, things don't run so well.

Now, they tried it privately too: Eurotunnel was a private business, and although it is slowly turning positive now after I don't know how many years, it has been a total disaster as a business.

 

[baywax]

Trains are an example of what is better handled collectively than privately. At least, it seems so. I guess it is because there are many aspects to trains which make this the case. A good train transport system needs big, long term investments, and the choice of the investments needs to serve other purposes than purely commercial (they help the development of a region etc...). Not something a business will optimize.

In France, trains are profitable, and although the system could be improved, the TGV is quite a success. In Germany too, trains run well. I had the impression that in the UK, where it has been privatized, things don't run so well.

Now, they tried it privately too: Eurotunnel was a private business, and although it is slowly turning positive now after I don't know how many years, it has been a total disaster as a business.

Does this apparent efficiency with govt run trains etc... translate to health care and prison/reform institutions?

 

[mheslep]

Trains are an example of what is better handled collectively than privately.

In the US trains are total counter example to that. Amtrak (govt run) comes up every few years w/ the threat of bankruptcy and runs far less efficiently than the private freight carriers. Of course .gov bails it out and the trains keep running.

At least, it seems so. I guess it is because there are many aspects to trains which make this the case. A good train transport system needs big, long term investments, and the choice of the investments needs to serve other purposes than purely commercial (they help the development of a region etc...). Not something a business will optimize.

Eh? There are of course thousands of large scale, world wide businesses that are profitable including transportation, shipping.

In Germany too, trains run well.

I wouldn't equate running 'well' with running efficiently. It may be that Germany vastly over pays for what it gets.

Edit: The UK rail system appears to be only a pseudo private system, I think more accurately its still a govt. controlled system without the funding.

Is French rail really profitable (not just flashy-fast)? I read the new fast line Paris to Strasbourg cost 5B Euro, so I am skeptical the French are in the black.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1615599.ece

 

[baywax]

In the US trains are total counter example to that. Amtrak (govt run) comes up every few years w/ the threat of bankruptcy and runs far less efficiently than the private freight carriers. Of course .gov bails it out and the trains keep running.

Eh? There are of course thousands of large scale, world wide businesses that are profitable including transportation, shipping.

I wouldn't equate running 'well' with running efficiently. It may be that Germany vastly over pays for what it gets.

Edit: The UK rail system appears to be only a pseudo private system, I think more accurately its still a govt. controlled system without the funding.

Is French rail really profitable (not just flashy-fast)? I read the new fast line Paris to Strasbourg cost 5B Euro, so I am skeptical the French are in the black.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1615599.ece

In Canuck land we have what are called Government Corporations. This is what governs the Gaming industry, and the Canadian National Railway is one of them. Its odd because the railway was a joint mission, back in the 1800s, between govt and private concerns. The Govt was involved because, by some magical right, it owned the entire real estate that is Canada. So they were in the position to be influence pedaling the building of the railways.

There are also Provincial Govt. Corporations running transportation projects such as building large bridges.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

The Govt was involved because, by some magical right, it owned the entire real estate that is Canada.

I think that's the default status of real estate in most countries if not all of them. Here in the U.S. when new territories were claimed it was the government's responsibility to kick off all of the Injuns and parcel it out for sale to settlers.

But that's all in the past now so we're allowed to scoff at hundred-year-old Native claims to U.S. land while fervently and vigorously supporting Israel's 2000-year-old claim to land in the Middle East.

⚛​

 

[baywax]

I think that's the default status of real estate in most countries if not all of them. Here in the U.S. when new territories were claimed it was the government's responsibility to kick off all of the Injuns and parcel it out for sale to settlers.

But that's all in the past now so we're allowed to scoff at hundred-year-old Native claims to U.S. land while fervently and vigorously supporting Israel's 2000-year-old claim to land in the Middle East.

⚛​

I never looked at it that way. However sarcastic your statement is, its a good example of the hypocrisy in politics.

Another example is the fact that before the Europeans claimed the Americas there were always wars for territory between the First Nations. In Canada's North West the Haida Nation would raid the Salish Nation (a long distance war) for the Salish women. The Haida would kill all the men they could find and abscond with the women. So, when I see land claims and claims of abuse... I ask why they're not settling past differences (thousands of years) between their own nations. And I don't see a difference (no prejudice) between all atrocities... these are all examples of man's inhumanity to man.

The only solution is the application of consistent and accurate education for everyone. And that's one proclaimation in both the American and Canadian constitutions that will be worth the paper its written on for centuries to come.

 

[russ_watters]

But that's all in the past now so we're allowed to scoff at hundred-year-old Native claims to U.S. land while fervently and vigorously supporting Israel's 2000-year-old claim to land in the Middle East.

⚛​

You're making a false dichotomy: We don't care about Israel's 2000 year old claim to the land, we care about Israel's current claim to the land.

 

[russ_watters]

Another example is the fact that before the Europeans claimed the Americas there were always wars for territory between the First Nations. In Canada's North West the Haida Nation would raid the Salish Nation (a long distance war) for the Salish women. The Haida would kill all the men they could find and abscond with the women. So, when I see land claims and claims of abuse... I ask why they're not settling past differences (thousands of years) between their own nations. And I don't see a difference (no prejudice) between all atrocities... these are all examples of man's inhumanity to man.

I agree. And the solution, as I see it, is the one the world community has already decided-on: starting around the turn of the 20th century, it became no longer acceptable to start wars for conquest. Ever since, the major nations have banded together to stop such wars (not every time and not all for altuism, but still...).

The Middle East and Africa were still problematic for a while, since where they weren't colonized, they were still largely dominated by tribalism.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

You're making a false dichotomy: We don't care about Israel's 2000 year old claim to the land, we care about Israel's current claim to the land.

Uh, okay... so if we pair the initial Jewish resettlement of Palestine of the late 1800's / 1910's and 1920's - the time during which the Middle East was a bunch of European colonies - with Native American land claims of the same age, does that begin to look a little bit like a double standard? Are you seriously trying to say that there isn't any hypocrisy in the way the U.S. government has treated Native American ownership of land?

All I was pointing out is that the default position is that the government owns any land that is not privately owned within a country's territories.

⚛​

 

[baywax]

I agree. And the solution, as I see it, is the one the world community has already decided-on: starting around the turn of the 20th century, it became no longer acceptable to start wars for conquest. Ever since, the major nations have banded together to stop such wars (not every time and not all for altuism, but still...).

The Middle East and Africa were still problematic for a while, since where they weren't colonized, they were still largely dominated by tribalism.

Yes, its not so much territorial wars anymore... its resource wars. I am discouraged by Canadian involvement in Afghanistan. Under the guise of a humanitarian effort, we are simply guarding the development of an oil pipeline from Kazakhstan to a Pakistan port. Canadians are well known for their ability to build pipelines in adverse conditions, though, road side bombs and opium crazed gunfighters were never part of the mix. There are always, however, a lot of tense negotiations with the Inuit and other First Nations. Though no First Nation people are stupid enough to blow themselves up for a principal. (Unless they're drugged and brainwashed into doing so)

 

[mgb_phys]

On a similair note they aren't the 'first nation people' they are the penultimate nation people. If you asusme that all N. and S. America were originally polulated by migration from asia over the land bridge then the 'first' nation people are now in Punta Arenas having been pushed out by later waves of migrants.
The 'first nation' people of Canada were simply the last and/or most effective group at pushing out those that had already arrived - at least until Europeans showed up.

 

[baywax]

On a similair note they aren't the 'first nation people' they are the penultimate nation people. If you asusme that all N. and S. America were originally polulated by migration from asia over the land bridge then the 'first' nation people are now in Punta Arenas having been pushed out by later waves of migrants.
The 'first nation' people of Canada were simply the last and/or most effective group at pushing out those that had already arrived - at least until Europeans showed up.

Yes, you're correct. And the funny thing about it is the Punta Arenas are descended from Europeans (Clovis period) who floated over on ice sheets 17,000 years ago. But, since today we are so wonderfully in tune with our altruistic genes, the only thing that matters is cooperation between all nations and all those environs these nations can be found to be inhabiting.

 

[mgb_phys]

I upset some friends in BC by suggesting that a program to help unemployed 'first nation' kids by teaching them their native language so they would be in tune with their roots might do better teaching them Java so they could get a job.

Nobody ever suggests the solution to youth unemployment in Newcastle or Michigan is to teach white kids anglo-saxon so they can read Beowulf.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

On a similair note they aren't the 'first nation people' they are the penultimate nation people. If you asusme that all N. and S. America were originally polulated by migration from asia over the land bridge then the 'first' nation people are now in Punta Arenas having been pushed out by later waves of migrants.
The 'first nation' people of Canada were simply the last and/or most effective group at pushing out those that had already arrived - at least until Europeans showed up.

Yeah, good point mgb_phys. Lots of people also don't know that the Sioux, for example, did not live in the Great Plains until well after Europeans started colonizing North America. They previously lived in the Great Lakes area and moved Westward due to pressure from expanding European colonies and due to the fact they could really kick butt with the guns and horses they'd gotten from Europeans.

It basically just depends on who has political power when the music stops. Look at China in Tibet, for example.

⚛​