US News: black/white pay gap rising due to discrimination

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kyphysics
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gap News
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the rising black/white pay gap in the United States, with a focus on the potential causes, including discrimination and economic factors. Participants explore various perspectives on the implications of this issue, referencing studies, historical context, and potential solutions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference a report suggesting that racial wage gaps are growing primarily due to discrimination and other unmeasured characteristics, advocating for direct action to address these issues.
  • Others challenge the claim of discrimination as the primary cause, arguing that the evidence provided is insufficient and that the methodology may be flawed.
  • Concerns are raised about the motivations behind the research, with some participants suggesting that the authors may have ulterior motives that influence their conclusions.
  • One participant discusses the impact of tax changes over the years, arguing that they disproportionately affect African Americans and contribute to income inequality.
  • Another participant highlights that the wage gap persists even among college graduates, suggesting that educational attainment alone does not mitigate the disparity.
  • Proposals for addressing the issue include convening a summit to explore the earnings disadvantage faced by black college graduates and conducting statistical studies to investigate the value of degrees pursued by different racial groups.
  • Some participants note that while more African Americans are attending college, they may be choosing majors that lead to lower-paying jobs, which could perpetuate the wage gap.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the primary causes of the rising wage gap or the effectiveness of proposed solutions. Disagreement exists regarding the interpretation of data and the motivations behind the research findings.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the reliance on unmeasured variables, the complexity of income measurement, and the potential influence of external factors such as tax policy and educational choices on the wage gap.

  • #31
russ_watters said:
From the report:
Projected solvency could be restored
immediately with a permanent 16.4 percent benefit reduction for all
current and future beneficiaries, ...
:cry::H
Even as a retiree, who won't be collecting SSI for another 5 years, I'm fine with that.
hmmmm...
I guess I've just been lucky.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
OmCheeto said:
Even as a retiree, who won't be collecting SSI for another 5 years, I'm fine with that.
hmmmm...
I guess I've just been lucky.
Yeah:
SSA said:
Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 53% of married couples and 74% of unmarried persons receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security. Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 22% of married couples and about 47% of unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income.
For a lot of people, a 16% (or 21%) benefit reduction would be a huge problem. And it doesn't even fix the underlying problem of a retirement savings/pension program that doesn't provide growth -- it just makes it worse. In the Great Recession, the GDP dropped by 5%. That's about equal to what a 40% payroll tax increase would be...except, you know, permanent.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: OCR
  • #33
So why not, for example, raise or remove the earnings cap?
 
  • #34
olivermsun said:
So why not, for example, raise or remove the earnings cap?
As Hillary says, social security isn't just a program, it is a promise (to provide retirement income based on how much you pay into it; like a pension or 401k). I don't think it would be right to eliminate that promise for something like a quarter of Americans and don't think that would go over well.
 
  • #35
russ_watters said:
As Hillary says, social security isn't just a program, it is a promise (to provide retirement income based on how much you pay into it; like a pension or 401k). I don't think it would be right to eliminate that promise for something like a quarter of Americans and don't think that would go over well.
Are you saying that it wouldn't be right for people over the cap to pay more without getting more benefits?
 
  • #36
mheslep said:
Asked and answered some decades ago, starting at 7:40 here:



Thomas Sowell is one of my heroes. I wish he would run for President.
 
  • #37
russ_watters said:
This is largely a myth due to the fact that the wealthy pay virtually all of the income taxes anyway (top 20% pay 87% of the income taxes) and the poor and lower-middle earners pay nothing or less than nothing (45% of households in 2015). As a result, tax cuts will always necessarily "favor" the wealthy, since you can't cut income taxes for people who don't pay income taxes. Essentially, the growth in income inequality has enabled the rich to pay an increasing share of the income taxes despite decreasing top tax rates (note: due to rising incomes, that doesn't necessarily even mean the rates they pay have decreased, since more income means more paid in the higher tax brackets). The share paid by the top 20% has increased to that 87% from 57% in 1969 and 69% in 2005.

This "inequality" isn't talked about much by the media, but presents a serious political/social danger in my opinion.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29861648/...ll/t/how-tax-burden-has-changed/#.V-O4DPkrK00

Dang it Russ, there you go casting aspersions on the narrative by using facts. You heretic.
 
  • #38
russ_watters said:
Yes, and what he said about it was wildly misleading. Very disappointing for such a highly respected businessman.

Not respected by me. Personally, I don't like his politics, and one other little item. Every year he is required to disclose the holdings of BH's portfolio. We know what companies he's invested in, and to what degree. So it really slays me to watch BH stock appreciate at the rate it does, knowing the growth of the companies he's invested in. The math doesn't add up. Something is not quite right in Buffetland.
 
  • #39
olivermsun said:
Are you saying that it wouldn't be right for people over the cap to pay more without getting more benefits?
Yes.
 
  • #40
russ_watters said:
Yes.
Given the premise of social security, it seems reasonable to ask whether people who would be severely impacted by a 17% cut in benefits need those benefits more than people earning more than $118k need their exemption.
 
  • #41
olivermsun said:
Given the premise of social security, it seems reasonable to ask whether people who would be severely impacted by a 17% cut in benefits need those benefits more than people earning more than $118k need their exemption.
I'm not against asking any question; I think everything should be discussed. The answer to your question is yes. The problem is, the answer to that question is *always* yes and I don't think that is a road a capitalist democracy should be on.

My favorite question on the subject though is: do you want to make a bad program better or just keep making it worse?
 
Last edited: