Damn those Southerners. From the time the United States of America was formed, the South has been hostile to minorities. It is always the states in the North that are models of tolerance and equality. After all, look at Jesse Jackson who rails against racism in the Southern city of Chicago. Uh… sorry. That can’t be right. Well, then we have Al Sharpton who constantly points to racism in one of the South’s biggest metropolises, New York. No wait. That can’t be right either. Chicago and New York aren’t southern states.
Okay, it is those Southern redneck guys that are racists. You know, the ones that live in small to mid sized communities. They must be the ones that are keeping minorities down. Right?
Many people that travel across the country and have lived in multiple places will tell you that racism is much worse in the northern areas of the country than in the south. That is not to say that race relations are perfect south of the Mason Dixon line. What is being said is the idea of northern states being less racist than their southern brothers is am outright lie. It is the elitism of intellectuals from the North who like to look down their noses at those in the South and proclaim superiority in racial matters without a basis in fact.
Their continued sense of superiority is proof of that adage “if you tell a lie enough, people will believe it as truth.”
African Americans and Latinos are more likely to have jobs, live in better-off neighborhoods and attend better-performing schools in small to medium-size metropolitan areas in the South and West, according to a report out today from the Urban Institute.
The Washington think tank found the “opportunity gap” that separates blacks and Latinos from whites is greatest in the Midwest and Northeast. The study was based on five factors: residential segregation, neighborhood affluence, public school quality, share of employment and share of home ownership.
So the next time a person from the north or midwest looks down their noses (are you listening President Obama?) and says the South is horrible when it comes to race relations, tell them they are not only wrong, but the real racism in the world sits in their back yard and they have done nothing – NOTHING – to change it.
The second meme that laid to waste is the idea of “the rich” and “the poor.”
Such terms are bantered around without understanding the fact that “the poor” are not destined to be poor any more than the rich are destined to be rich.
The “rich” in America are not a monolithic, unchanging class. A study by Thomas A. Garrett, economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, found that less than half of people in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still there in 2005. Such mobility is hardly surprising: A business school student, for instance, may have little money and high debts, but nine years later he or she could be earning a big Wall Street salary and bonus.
Mobility is not limited to the top-earning households. A study by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found that nearly half of the families in the lowest fifth of income earners in 2001 had moved up within six years. Over the same period, more than a third of those in the highest fifth of income-earners had moved down. Certainly, there are people such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates who are ensconced in the top tier, but far more common are people who are rich for short periods.
What accounts for the mobility in and out of the classes?
Hard work and education.
And who are the rich? Affluent people, compared with poor ones, tend to have greater education and spouses who work full time. The past three decades have seen significant increases in real earnings for people with advanced degrees. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that between 1979 and 2010, hourly wages for men and women with at least a college degree rose by 33 percent and 20 percent, respectively, while they fell for all people with less than a high school diploma — by 9 percent for women and 31 percent for men.
Also, households with two earners have seen their incomes rise. This trend is driven in part by women’s increasing workforce participation, which doubled from 1950 to 2005 and which began to place women in well-paid jobs by the early 1980s.
These results illustrate the effectiveness of running the country when comparing those who lean left and those who lean right. With those on the left, it is always “take from those who have more.” That is the mantra. We see it now in the Democrats and the President where the “rich” must pay “their fair share,” despite no legal or moral authority for someone else to determine what is “fair.” If anything, treating all people the same with the same tax rates is fair. Penalizing a person for their success is not fair and is a barrier to obtaining success.
Republicans and the Right, on the other hand, look at people and see opportunity. How that opportunity manifests itself is steered by the choices a person makes within their life. A person who leaves high school early is going to have a tougher time in life with making a living than someone who stays and graduates. A single parent is going to have a tougher time when compared to a two parent, stable household.
Making the poor more economically mobile has nothing to do with taxing the rich and everything to do with finding and implementing ways to encourage parental marriage, teach the poor marketable skills and induce them to join the legitimate workforce. It is easy to suppose that raising taxes on the rich would provide more money to help the poor. But the problem facing the poor is not too little money, but too few skills and opportunities to advance themselves.
In re-capping, the South is not as racist as people think, and it is hard work and education – not taxing others – that helps people get out of poverty.
Now go forth and watch the leftist brains explode.