Clyburn busts slavery myth

[*michaelsean*]

There were never any slaves. They were employees.

Quote:I’m saying that the African American unemployment is not the lowest it has ever been unless you count slavery. We were fully employed during slavery. It all depends on how you measure this up.

Also is he aware that there were hundreds of thousands of free blacks, and they might have found themselves between jobs from time to time?

[Dill]

(02-21-2020, 06:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote: There were never any slaves. They were employees.

Also is he aware that there were hundreds of thousands of free blacks, and they might have found themselves between jobs from time to time?

LOL I think he is not.  

Or perhaps he would argue that free blacks between jobs would not really count since there was always "employment' ready for them in the slave states, if they wanted it. So if they were unemployed it was really by "choice."

[Belsnickel]

Such a stupid rebuttal. Stick to the fact that low unemployment doesn't mean anything if the wages aren't high enough, if socioeconomic mobility is impossible, and if social programs aren't being funded to help offset the needs of the underemployed.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-21-2020, 07:04 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL I think he is not.  

Or perhaps he would argue that free blacks between jobs would not really count since there was always "employment' ready for them in the slave states, if they wanted it. So if they were unemployed it was really by "choice."

I’d say the Democrats have ten different responses to black unemployment, and his isn’t one of them.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-21-2020, 08:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Such a stupid rebuttal. Stick to the fact that low unemployment doesn't mean anything if the wages aren't high enough, if socioeconomic mobility is impossible, and if social programs aren't being funded to help offset the needs of the underemployed.

2018 saw 250,000 new millionaires in the US be made, making it a total of 11.8 million households that were millionaires.  (The value of your primary residence doesn't count towards being a millionaire for those numbers. So it's not just people with an expensive house and no other money.)

That means on average in 2018, 685 households in the US became new millionaires per day.

[Belsnickel]

(02-24-2020, 09:55 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 2018 saw 250,000 new millionaires in the US be made, making it a total of 11.8 million households that were millionaires.  (The value of your primary residence doesn't count towards being a millionaire for those numbers. So it's not just people with an expensive house and no other money.)

That means on average in 2018, 685 households in the US became new millionaires per day.

I'd like to see the underlying data to those figures. How much money were their parents' making? How much were they worth? How much is the spouse and their family worth? Did this bump come from marriage? Were these long term gains or short term? Was it inherited? Lots of questions to ask about that.

I'd be willing to put money on it that less than 10% of those figures were actually examples of socioeconomic mobility.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-24-2020, 10:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'd like to see the underlying data to those figures. How much money were their parents' making? How much were they worth? How much is the spouse and their family worth? Did this bump come from marriage? Were these long term gains or short term? Was it inherited? Lots of questions to ask about that.

I'd be willing to put money on it that less than 10% of those figures were actually examples of socioeconomic mobility.

Those factors that you mention may have some impact on the legitimacy of some of those millionaires, but I believe the trend to be real.  I work in Surveying, in one of the hotter real estate markets in the Nation, the Raleigh-Durham area.  I took a year and a half hiatus from infrastructure and commercial site development to work for a firm that specialized in builders of new homes.  During my time there, I was able to view many of the closing lists that our clients provided, about half of the clients spreadsheets listed method of payment, be it traditional financing with name of institution, or cash.  I was astounded to see that on average, about 20% of these new homes were bought with cash.  We're not talking cheap, starter homes, these are fine houses and townhomes in very affluent neighborhoods with a price range of $350K-$1M+.

[CKwi88]

(02-24-2020, 10:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'd like to see the underlying data to those figures. How much money were their parents' making? How much were they worth? How much is the spouse and their family worth? Did this bump come from marriage? Were these long term gains or short term? Was it inherited? Lots of questions to ask about that.

I'd be willing to put money on it that less than 10% of those figures were actually examples of socioeconomic mobility.

Pretty sure 2018 was the year Trump's tax bill doubled the exemption to 11 million for the estate take. I'd join your wager. Many of those probably came from wealthy families, were already doing fine themselves and then got to add their parent's wealth to their own to bump themselves over the 1 mil mark. 

[Belsnickel]

(02-24-2020, 10:30 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Those factors that you mention may have some impact on the legitimacy of some of those millionaires, but I believe the trend to be real.  I work in Surveying, in one of the hotter real estate markets in the Nation, the Raleigh-Durham area.  I took a year and a half hiatus from infrastructure and commercial site development to work for a firm that specialized in builders of new homes.  During my time there, I was able to view many of the closing lists that our clients provided, about half of the clients spreadsheets listed method of payment, be it traditional financing with name of institution, or cash.  I was astounded to see that on average, about 20% of these new homes were bought with cash.  We're not talking cheap, starter homes, these are fine houses and townhomes in very affluent neighborhoods with a price range of $350K-$1M+.

None of that actually refutes what I said. Both what you are saying and what I am saying can be true at the same time.

[GMDino]

(02-24-2020, 10:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'd like to see the underlying data to those figures. How much money were their parents' making? How much were they worth? How much is the spouse and their family worth? Did this bump come from marriage? Were these long term gains or short term? Was it inherited? Lots of questions to ask about that.

I'd be willing to put money on it that less than 10% of those figures were actually examples of socioeconomic mobility.

You want a link to actual numbers and facts?!?!

Are you new around here?  Anyone can claim anything and that make YOU find somethings that disproves it. 

A search of the last line of LL's post brought up an article from 2017...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/us-added-700000-new-millionaires-in-2017.html

Seems to be based solely on the stock market.

Also...that was before anything the current admin could have done to cause the effect. 

[Belsnickel]

(02-25-2020, 09:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: You want a link to actual numbers and facts?!?!

Are you new around here?  Anyone can claim anything and that make YOU find somethings that disproves it. 

A search of the last line of LL's post brought up an article from 2017...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/us-added-700000-new-millionaires-in-2017.html

Seems to be based solely on the stock market.

Also...that was before anything the current admin could have done to cause the effect. 

If that's what it was from then yeah, I'm sticking by my statement for sure. 98% or more of those people were already wealthy to begin with.

[GMDino]

(02-25-2020, 09:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If that's what it was from then yeah, I'm sticking by my statement for sure. 98% or more of those people were already wealthy to begin with.

But now they are slightly MORE wealthy so that therefore, hereto, hence MUST mean we are ALL going to millionaires soon!

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-24-2020, 10:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'd like to see the underlying data to those figures. How much money were their parents' making? How much were they worth? How much is the spouse and their family worth? Did this bump come from marriage? Were these long term gains or short term? Was it inherited? Lots of questions to ask about that.

I'd be willing to put money on it that less than 10% of those figures were actually examples of socioeconomic mobility.

https://nypost.com/2019/03/14/the-us-has-more-millionaires-than-greece-has-people/
This is the main source I used, sorry for not including it in my post. For a moment there, I almost forgot that there were Dbag emoji trolls lurking on the board who can't wait until after 7:30am for people to get on and correct the mistake before they absolutely have to be dicks.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Even if all of your assumed numbers are correct, 10% is still over 60 people per day. Enough to make your use of the word "impossible" rather inaccurate. 

My post was never to make it seem like I was saying having money doesn't make it easier to make money, and that parents of wealthy people don't have an advantage. They do.

I just had a problem with you using the term "impossible" because it makes it sound like no matter what anyone does they are stuck, and any failure to rise above the level you were born as isn't ever their fault, but merely the system that made it "impossible", and that's just no good to perpetuate.

(02-25-2020, 09:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: Also...that was before anything the current admin could have done to cause the effect. 

You might want to do something about that bad case of Trump On The Brain you have there. 

I never once mentioned this administration having anything to do with the numbers I was saying. It has nothing to do with Trump, Obama, Bush, or any other President. It's our country.

[fredtoast]

(02-25-2020, 12:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Even if all of your assumed numbers are correct, 10% is still over 60 people per day. Enough to make your use of the word "impossible" rather inaccurate. 

Increasing wealth from $900K to $1M doesn't prove anything about socioeconomic advancement.  It is just the rich getting richer.

The fact is that the United States has one of the highest rates of intergenerational income elasticity.  That is a measure of how the parents wealth  influences the children's wealth.  Socioeconomic advancement is harder in the United Sates than almost anywhere else on the planet.  

No one should be excited because it is "not impossible".  Any bad thing can be justified if you set the bar low enough.

[GMDino]

(02-25-2020, 12:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: https://nypost.com/2019/03/14/the-us-has-more-millionaires-than-greece-has-people/
This is the main source I used, sorry for not including it in my post. For a moment there, I almost forgot that there were Dbag emoji trolls lurking on the board who can't wait until after 7:30am for people to get on and correct the mistake before they absolutely have to be dicks.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

You posted and then five minutes later edited your post and the responded to MAtt an hour later...over 12 hours before any went out and did the work for you.

It's easy to make claims without citing anything.

Many folks prefer to post things without links for some reason.  Some even copy and paste entire paragraphs and never cite where they came from which gives the impression they are there own thoughts.

But thanks for at least finding something.    <-- emoji just for you!

(02-25-2020, 12:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Even if all of your assumed numbers are correct, 10% is still over 60 people per day. Enough to make your use of the word "impossible" rather inaccurate. 

My post was never to make it seem like I was saying having money doesn't make it easier to make money, and that parents of wealthy people don't have an advantage. They do.

I just had a problem with you using the term "impossible" because it makes it sound like no matter what anyone does they are stuck, and any failure to rise above the level you were born as isn't ever their fault, but merely the system that made it "impossible", and that's just no good to perpetuate.

So it is a misleading "fact" that people are "getting richer" when it is rich people who are getting richer not middle class/lower class people moving up as Matt was saying.

(02-25-2020, 12:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You might want to do something about that bad case of Trump On The Brain you have there. 

I never once mentioned this administration having anything to do with the numbers I was saying. It has nothing to do with Trump, Obama, Bush, or any other President. It's our country.

The OP was literally talking about an awful response from a Democrat to Trump and the GOP trumpeting low African American unemployment.

YOU didn't have to mention Trump or the current administration.  That it bothers you so much allows some insight into how quick you are to defend him. Otherwise your post had virtually nothing to do with the topic.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-25-2020, 01:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Increasing wealth from $900K to $1M doesn't prove anything about socioeconomic advancement.  It is just the rich getting richer.

The fact is that the United States has one of the highest rates of intergenerational income elasticity.  That is a measure of how the parents wealth  influences the children's wealth.  Socioeconomic advancement is harder in the United Sates than almost anywhere else on the planet.  

No one should be excited because it is "not impossible".  Any bad thing can be justified if you set the bar low enough.

That can't possibly be true. 

I thought maybe you meant first world countries for a bit, but you said "the planet".


I'm pretty positive we automatically beat every country where there's no public education, and every country where women don't get education, and every country where women can't vote (hard to build a society to help you advance if you don't vote). We also automatically beat every country without any kind of real government (places like Haiti or Somalia), or where the leadership are Warlords or Dictators (don't see a ton of socioeconomic advancement in North Korea). Also probably automatically beat any country that has low literacy rates.

There's zero chance the US is harder than "almost anywhere else on the planet".

[fredtoast]

(02-25-2020, 02:00 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That can't possibly be true. 

I thought maybe you meant first world countries for a bit, but you said "the planet".


I'm pretty positive we automatically beat every country where there's no public education, and every country where women don't get education, and every country where women can't vote (hard to build a society to help you advance if you don't vote). We also automatically beat every country without any kind of real government (places like Haiti or Somalia), or where the leadership are Warlords or Dictators (don't see a ton of socioeconomic advancement in North Korea). Also probably automatically beat any country that has low literacy rates.

There's zero chance the US is harder than "almost anywhere else on the planet".

You are correct.  The United States is only near the bottom of industrialized countries.

No need to address the problem, right?  Just set the bar as low as possible.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-25-2020, 03:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are correct.  The United States is only near the bottom of industrialized countries.

No need to address the problem, right?  Just set the bar as low as possible.

There's a big difference between say ~20th (which I still question) and 195th.

You said it was harder than almost anywhere else on the planet. Now we have agreed that the US is automatically better than roughly 175 countries out of 195. 

So the US just went from the 1st percentile to at least ~90th percentile without having to even touch on any of the details of how the top 20 or so countries are ordered. Yet somehow you're still trying to make it seem like I am wrong for calling you out on saying the US is the harder than "almost anywhere else on the planet".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-24-2020, 10:30 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Those factors that you mention may have some impact on the legitimacy of some of those millionaires, but I believe the trend to be real.  I work in Surveying, in one of the hotter real estate markets in the Nation, the Raleigh-Durham area.  I took a year and a half hiatus from infrastructure and commercial site development to work for a firm that specialized in builders of new homes.  During my time there, I was able to view many of the closing lists that our clients provided, about half of the clients spreadsheets listed method of payment, be it traditional financing with name of institution, or cash.  I was astounded to see that on average, about 20% of these new homes were bought with cash.  We're not talking cheap, starter homes, these are fine houses and townhomes in very affluent neighborhoods with a price range of $350K-$1M+.

Those figures would exclude everyone in the upper middle class and down.  Leaving only the upper class.  When you consider the upper class has stagnated the wages for 80% of us for at least four decades it totally makes sense they would pay $1M+ cash for a home.

[Belsnickel]

(02-25-2020, 04:37 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: There's a big difference between say ~20th (which I still question) and 195th.

You said it was harder than almost anywhere else on the planet. Now we have agreed that the US is automatically better than roughly 175 countries out of 195. 

So the US just went from the 1st percentile to at least ~90th percentile without having to even touch on any of the details of how the top 20 or so countries are ordered. Yet somehow you're still trying to make it seem like I am wrong for calling you out on saying the US is the harder than "almost anywhere else on the planet".

Yeah, we're not at the bottom, and even the UK tends to rank worse than us in the OECD countries. Sometimes Italy, too, but we're third up.

I also freely admit to being intentionally hyperbolic. I will still say, though, that the article you're using to refute me truly doesn't as there is no indication there was any mobility occurring there. Yeah, mobility can still happen, but this isn't the land of opportunity people think it is.