The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
This May be the Stupidest Op-Ed in the History of the New York Times
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

As everybody knows, from 1946 into the 1970s was a golden age for broad-based middle class and working class prosperity in the U.S.. Since then … not so much. But it’s been a golden age for the rich.

Why? There are many good explanations for the post war prosperity, such as cheap energy and demand from abroad by rebuilding economies. But what about the class breadth of the good times? The most obvious explanations for the broadness of the postwar prosperity have been:

  • Union power
  • Limited supply of labor due to immigration restrictions
  • Limited supply of labor due to so many women being out of the work taking care of the Baby Boom generation
  • Favorable political attitudes (e.g., a lack of environmentalist concern) toward smokestack industries that paid working men well
  • Attitudes that favored the working man and disfavored capitalist attempts to boost the labor supply to reduce wages (e.g., there’s a funny scene in Mad Men in 1960 in which the clock at the ad agency strikes 5:15 so all the white collar workers pack up and go home)

And so forth …

Then, the social revolution of the 1960s permeated our institutions throughout the 1970s, and the golden age of the American working man was clearly over. Much of this was due to macro-changes such as the energy crisis and policies that encouraged financialization and deindustrialization (globalist, environmentalism, and so forth. But quite a bit was due to changes that increased the labor supply, such as the feminist revolution, broadly supported by corporations, and increased immigration.

But, then again, judging from this op-ed by an economics reporter, not everybody knows that. On the New York Times opinion page, a New York Times reporter sums up his new book, in which he appears to be wholly ignorant of how supply and demand works.

The Real Reason the American Economy Boomed After World War II

How expanding opportunity for women, immigrants and nonwhite workers helped everyone — and why we need to do so again.

By Jim Tankersley
Mr. Tankersley covers economic policy in the Washington bureau of The Times.

Aug. 6, 2020

The United States long reserved its most lucrative occupations for an elite class of white men. Those men held power by selling everyone else a myth: The biggest threat to workers like you are workers who do not look like you. Again and again, they told working-class white men that they were losing out on good jobs to women, nonwhite men and immigrants.

As we all know, billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg, and Bill Gates are constantly demanding less immigration so their companies would have to pay higher wages. They also have banned employing women.

It was, and remains, a politically potent lie. It is undercut by the real story of how America engineered its Golden Era of shared prosperity — the great middle-class expansion in the decades after World War II.

Americans deserve to know the truth about that Golden Era, which was not the whitewashed, “Leave It to Beaver” tale that so many people have been led to believe. They deserve to know who built the middle class and can actually rebuild it, for all workers, no matter their race or gender or hometown.

We need to hear it now, as our nation is immersed in a pandemic recession and a summer of protests demanding equality, and as American workers struggle to shake off decades of sluggish wage growth. We need to hear it because it is a beacon of hope in a bleak time for our economy, but more important, because the lies that elite white men peddle about workers in conflict have made the economy worse for everyone, for far too long.

The Wall Street Journal is constantly running editorials entitled “Working Men of America, Unite!”

The hopeful truth is that when Americans band together to force open the gates of opportunity for women, for Black men, for the groups that have long been oppressed in our economy, everyone gets ahead.

I have spent my career as an economics reporter consumed by the questions of how America might revive the Golden Era of the middle class that boomed after World War II. …

The old jobs are not coming back. What I have learned over time is that our best hope to create a new wave of good ones is to invest in the groups of Americans who were responsible for the success of our economy at the time it worked best for working people.

The economy thrived after World War II in large part because America made it easier for people who had been previously shut out of economic opportunity — women, minority groups, immigrants — to enter the work force and climb the economic ladder, to make better use of their talents and potential. In 1960, cutting-edge research from economists at the University of Chicago and Stanford University has documented, more than half of Black men in America worked as janitors, freight handlers or something similar. Only 2 percent of women and Black men worked in what economists call “high-skill” jobs that pay high wages, like engineering or law. Ninety-four percent of doctors in the United States were white men.

That disparity was by design. It protected white male elites.

Who exactly is a “white male elite” in this portrait of 1960? The CEO of General Motors or a GM assembly line worker?

Basically, in Tankersley’s very Present Day worldview, they were both white males, so they were both elite and both evil.

Everyone else was barred entry to top professions by overt discrimination, inequality of schooling, social convention and, often, the law itself. They were devalued as humans and as workers. …

Women and nonwhite men gradually chipped away at those barriers, in fits and starts. They seized opportunities, like a war effort creating a need for workers to replace the men being sent abroad to fight. They protested and bled and died for civil rights. And when they won victories, it wasn’t just for them, or even for people like them. They generated economic gains that helped everyone.

The Chicago and Stanford economists calculated that the simple, radical act of reducing discrimination against those groups was responsible for more than 40 percent of the country’s per-worker economic growth after 1960. It’s the reason the country could sustain rapid growth with low unemployment, yielding rising wages for everyone, including white men without college degrees.

America’s ruling elites did not learn from that success. The aggressive expansion of opportunity that had driven economic gains was choked off by a backlash to social progress in the 1970s and ’80s.

Who can forget when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority decision upholding the Reagan Administration’s controversial Barefoot, Pregnant, and in the Kitchen Act of 1982 that fired all the women workers in the country?

The white men who ran the country declared victory over discrimination far too early, consigning the economy to slower growth. Sustained shared prosperity was replaced by widening inequality, lost jobs and decades of disappointing income growth for workers of all races. …

Take Silicon Valley. In 2018, venture capitalists in the United States distributed $131 billion to start-up businesses, hoping to seed the next Google or Tesla. That money went to nearly 9,000 companies. Just over 2 percent of them were founded entirely by women. Another 12 percent had at least one female founder. The rest, 86 percent, were founded entirely by men.

And that’s why Silicon Valley is such a desolate wasteland of empty office building and tumbleweeds blowing through the abandoned Tesla dealerships.

The statistics show tragedy. They also show opportunity. If America can once again tear down barriers to advancement, it can tap a geyser of entrepreneurship, productivity and talent, which could by itself produce the strong growth and low unemployment that historically drive up wages for the working class, including working-class white men.

If you want to know where the new good jobs will come from — those that will help millions of Americans climb back into the middle class — this is where you should look, to the great untapped talent of America’s women, of its Black men, of the highly skilled immigrants that study after study show to be catalysts of innovation and job creation.

That is not the appeal that populist politicians make to working-class white men, who have been rocked by globalization and automation and the greed of the governing class. But it should be.

All Americans have a stake in the protests for equality they see every night on the news. Working-class white men, like the guys I went to high school with, have a bond with the Black men, the immigrants and the women of all races who have taken to the streets.

The real story of America today is this: If you want to restore the greatness of an economy that doesn’t work for you or your children the way that it used to, those women and men are your best shot at salvation. Their progress will lift you up.

Jim Tankersley covers economic policy in the Washington bureau of The Times. He is the author of “The Riches of This Land: The Untold, True Story of America’s Middle Class,” from which this essay is adapted.

This is the kind of dumbing-down we see in our public discourse as elite opinions come to be based on childish thinking about who are the Good Guys and who are the Bad Guys.

 
Hide 158 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “Who can forget when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority decision upholding the Reagan Administration’s controversial Barefoot, Pregnant, and in the Kitchen Act of 1982 that fired all the women workers in the country?”

    This might be the funniest thing you have ever written, and that’s saying something. Nicely done.

    • Replies: @JimB
    @Mike Tre

    The Barefoot, Pregnant, and in the Kitchen Act of 1982 would have been written by a Democrat Congress.

  2. See also the choreographed trashing of

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(film)

    Because sometimes, you know, it’s sore to hear a different interpretation of “the narrative “.

    • Agree: Kent Nationalist
  3. The old Soviet Union was a “Workers Paradise” that just so happened to starve millions of farmers. The top 1% probably shrunk as well. Wonder who held all the top spots in this “workers paradise?” Wonder if those Antifa dweebs know anything about the old Soviet Union and how things played out for the working class? I guess the Antifa dorks think that as “woke revolutionaries” they will be honored and possibly be granted top spots in this new nation by their masters. ROTFLMMFWAO.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Trinity


    The top 1% probably shrunk as well. Wonder who held all the top spots in this “workers paradise?”
     
    Think of it as a grand mixture of musical chairs, the Survivor tv show, and American Gladiator all inside a very swanky apartment complex.


    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071XN75S1/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
  4. The level of magical thinking in this article… As if white men were just so cruel and hateful that they deliberately limited their own productivity and profit just so a strong black woman couldn’t show them up.

    I mean just print the damn thing in pidgin already.

    • Replies: @Franz Liszt von raiding
    @Aeronerauk

    Yes why is this obvious racism and sexism tolerated? Leftists played and are playing the race card everywhere possible. They decried racism at every turn in the 20th century. Yet they can’t realize their own odious, despicable hypocrisy? Good lord think how closed they’d be to MLK’s dream if they would just STOP being RACISTS TOWARDS EVERYONE. PERIOD.

    , @Kronos
    @Aeronerauk

    I’m curious if the saner NYT writers need to get really high or drunk to write this stuff. I’d really need to get wasted to write woke Capital narratives for the NYTs.


    https://youtu.be/cQCFdcEXknc

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    , @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder
    @Aeronerauk


    The United States long reserved its most lucrative occupations for an elite class of white men. Those men held power by selling everyone else a myth: The biggest threat to workers like you are workers who do not look like you. Again and again, they told working-class white men that they were losing out on good jobs to women, nonwhite men and immigrants.
     
    Since this supposedly happened "again and again" during that "Golden Era of the middle class that boomed after World War II" it shouldn't be too hard to include some examples. Even just a couple.
    , @Bard of Bumperstickers
    @Aeronerauk

    The author's warped view that, "The United States long reserved its most lucrative occupations for an elite class of white men." shows total ignorance about "How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes" as Peter Schiff titled his 2010 illustrated children's Econ 101 book. Those so-called elite white men created their own positions and provided millions of living wage and even upwardly mobile wage jobs by their efforts. Some magical job-creating entity called "America" "reserved" nothing for them - those men created America. There were not positions created by the adoption of a constitution, waiting to be filled. Entrepreneurs seeing opportunity built it (sorry, Obummer).

    The author also must believe that an entire class of workers are systematically paid less for the same work - women. More economic ignorance. Generally, women DO earn less overall than men - but not if performing the same type, quality, and amount/duration of work as men. If any employer in any field had a choice between two candidates for the same position, both of whom would perform identically, but one at substantially less compensation, the lower-paid one would invariably be hired over the other. Only some tenured academic slug, a bureaucratic placeholder, a cultural Marxist-indoctrinated, dumbed-down college "student", or a Ministry of Truth presstitute like our NYT propagandist above, could believe otherwise.

  5. I expected the crazy ideas, but it seems like their vocab is becoming less refined.

    • Replies: @slumber_j
    @songbird

    Yeah, plus the deranged syntax of the dek, which Joe Biden apparently wrote in his ample spare time while not playing Ms. Pac-Man in that Delaware basement:


    How expanding opportunity for women, immigrants and nonwhite workers helped everyone — and why we need to do so again.
     
  6. quite a bit was due to changes that increased the labor supply, such as the feminist revolution, broadly supported by corporations

    Feminism wasn’t that popular in Big Corps until the 90s. Before then, there was a sense that if a girl could find a prosperous husband, that was the best way forward.

    Female careerism, girl power, sisters doing for themselves, and power couples were seen as a bit strange. Remember the criticism that Hillary Clinton and Murphy Brown got back in the early 90s?

    Things are obviously very different today.

    One problem with female careerism is that it makes it more difficult for men and women to be satisfied in relationships. When a female earns the same amount as her spouse (more especially if she earns more), she goes from a subordinate to an equal partner. Sometimes she even starts to “wear the pants.” That’s an inversion of the historical arrangement that existed between the genders.

    It’s like being with a woman who’s taller and stronger than you. Or has had more sexual experience than you. Or is smarter than you. Or is better at working with her hands. Or is older than you.

    You feel weird and so does she.

    It’s like if you see a couple of men walking down the street and holding hands. Imagine if they have a child with them. It’s like the natural order has somehow been inverted.

    With that said, it’s hard to pay the bills with only one breadwinner. So if your wife doesn’t work, you can’t always pay the mortgage, car payments, insurance, electricity, water, and food. Try living in a coastal metro on one paycheck.

    With a working wife, you can sometimes get extra stuff. A second vacation home. Trips overseas. Dining at cool restaurants. Braces for the kids.

    Most women work not because they enjoy it, but because money doesn’t grow on trees. If you want lots of nice stuff and fun experiences, you need money.

    If you look at religious fundamentalists who still have high fertility and stay-at-home wives, their lives are often very simple and austere. Kids share bedrooms. Kids wear hand-me-downs. The kids take away all the time from the parents, so there’s little (if any) “me time.” They have sex only occasionally. There’s an old station wagon and a minivan. They eat out once a week, at McDonald’s. They go on vacation to Ocean Shores, Oregon. They spend long periods of time at Church.

    Life is all about trade offs.

    In some ways, you’re better off than your ancestors. In other ways, worse off.

    • Thanks: Redneck farmer, TomSchmidt
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @JohnnyWalker123


    When a female earns the same amount as her spouse (more especially if she earns more), she goes from a subordinate to an equal partner.
     
    A wife is an equal partner regardless of whether she earns less than, more than, or the same as, her husband. Mr. Rosie and I have switched places throughout our marriage, and he has treated me the same no matter what, thank Heaven.

    Anyway, I thought the title of this post was hyperbole, but no, the New York Slimes has really outdone itself this time.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @JohnnyWalker123

    , @Change that Matters
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Lines that didn't age well (at 1:56): "I doubt my status as a single mother has contributed all that much to the breakdown of Western civilization."

    , @Anon
    @JohnnyWalker123

    We should win the battle for language, by talking not about “decent wages” but about the need for a “family wage”. A salary that allows for one breadwinner and one stay-at-home partner, ideally the mom. Better food, better manners, better health, better everything within that little space of liberty and contentment called ‘home’.

  7. In 1960, cutting-edge research from economists at the University of Chicago and Stanford University has documented, more than half of Black men in America worked as janitors, freight handlers or something similar.

    What was that “something similar”? If Tankersley had any real acquaintance with African Americans of a certain age from the “rust belt” he would have heard tales of plenty of blacks working on an auto assembly line or in a steel mill or some other very fairly compensated blue collar job back in the 60s or 70s. And even janitors and warehouse workers were usually decently paid back them, due to unionization, no outsourcing and lack of ferocious competition from immigrants.

    What’s the use arguing with this type. Facts, reason don’t matter. Mass immigration, the permanent altering of the racial composition of the west is a religious tenet for them.

    • Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco
    @Daniel H

    My father was a Teamster warehouseman from 1962 until 1983. From 1975 - 1983 he never earned less than $30,000 per year with excellent benefits, which would be equal to about $90,000 per year today.

    His hourly pay was about $12 per hour in the late 1970s , but he worked overtime often , getting paid $18 per hour when he worked over 40 hours. So he averaged about $15 per hour, equal to $45 per hour today. The contract they had in the 70s was tied to inflation , so they got automatic raises during the seventies.

    my mother was a high school teacher earning about $14,000 per year in 1979. Every summer We were able to rent a house at the jersey shore for an entire month each summer. It was a great life for my old man, working loading trucks and boxcars kept him in good shape, he had no stress and no need to get fancy cloths are spend money on dry etc...

    Replies: @danand

    , @James O'Meara
    @Daniel H

    He needed "cutting edge research" for that? I thought it was the assumption behind everything is academia, media or politics. Next he'll demand "cutting edge research" to "prove" the police are systematically murdering innocent black bodies.

    , @Kerryokwan
    @Daniel H

    Cleveland had a substantial and growing Black middle class by the 1960s. Almost all of it based on manufacturing jobs. In addition, as White middle class left for the suburbs, it left behind relatively inexpensive but well maintained housing.

    So while there was lots of urban decay around the city, there were plenty of stable middle class Black neighborhoods. Things didn't go badly off the rails until the 70s

  8. @Trinity
    The old Soviet Union was a "Workers Paradise" that just so happened to starve millions of farmers. The top 1% probably shrunk as well. Wonder who held all the top spots in this "workers paradise?" Wonder if those Antifa dweebs know anything about the old Soviet Union and how things played out for the working class? I guess the Antifa dorks think that as "woke revolutionaries" they will be honored and possibly be granted top spots in this new nation by their masters. ROTFLMMFWAO.

    Replies: @Kronos

    The top 1% probably shrunk as well. Wonder who held all the top spots in this “workers paradise?”

    Think of it as a grand mixture of musical chairs, the Survivor tv show, and American Gladiator all inside a very swanky apartment complex.

    • Agree: Muggles
  9. The main factor for middle class prosperity from Truman to Carter was a one off factor that cannot be recreated: the world needed to be rebuilt after WWII and the US possessed half the globe’s industrial capacity.

    Where I think the US can do more is to work on trade policies more beneficial to the country. The classic economic argument that free trade creates growth is true, but what that argument misses is the distribution of the growth. US free trade with China has lifted tens of millions out of poverty in China, but in the US the benefits have mainly gone to management and capital. With limited exceptions, labor has been harmed.

    A more mercantilist pro-US trade policy would reduce economic growth, but could steer more benefit to the US. When Trump has pushed for new trade deals, other countries have generally agreed. I think that’s because they know they have been taking advantage of US generosity, and don’t want to kill the golden goose.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @NJ Transit Commuter


    The main factor for middle class prosperity from Truman to Carter was a one off factor that cannot be recreated: the world needed to be rebuilt after WWII and the US possessed half the globe’s industrial capacity.
     
    And that was the main factor for its end. Keeping the old pre-war assembly lines and steel mills -- while Germany and Japan retooled and redesigned their industrial base.

    A memory of the 70s is how crude American cars and manufacturing in general was compared to German and Japanese. And by the time we noticed, it was over.
  10. Try Googling “do women in work force drive down wages?” This tripe from the Harvard Business Review rises to the top of the search.

    https://hbr.org/2018/01/when-more-women-join-the-workforce-wages-rise-including-for-men

    Further down there is this,

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html

    Of course, you are supposed to believe the cause of lower pay is female dominance, not labor market oversupply. However, law of supply and demand predicts that if a large number of women begin competing with men in a particular male-dominated field, labor oversupply results in lower wages. Even as men leak out of such professions to get higher wages, the applicant pool is still larger than before, and the wages are lower for both men and women in the newly women “dominated” field.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @JimB

    That's right, but it's not just a matter of supply and demand. When women take over a formerly male field, that means the important work has been done, the physical and theoretical structure is in place, the innovation and risk-taking is largely over and now just housekeeping remains. So of course the rewards will be lower.

  11. @JohnnyWalker123

    quite a bit was due to changes that increased the labor supply, such as the feminist revolution, broadly supported by corporations
     
    Feminism wasn't that popular in Big Corps until the 90s. Before then, there was a sense that if a girl could find a prosperous husband, that was the best way forward.

    Female careerism, girl power, sisters doing for themselves, and power couples were seen as a bit strange. Remember the criticism that Hillary Clinton and Murphy Brown got back in the early 90s?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnhhZ0LVNPU

    Things are obviously very different today.

    One problem with female careerism is that it makes it more difficult for men and women to be satisfied in relationships. When a female earns the same amount as her spouse (more especially if she earns more), she goes from a subordinate to an equal partner. Sometimes she even starts to "wear the pants." That's an inversion of the historical arrangement that existed between the genders.

    It's like being with a woman who's taller and stronger than you. Or has had more sexual experience than you. Or is smarter than you. Or is better at working with her hands. Or is older than you.

    You feel weird and so does she.

    It's like if you see a couple of men walking down the street and holding hands. Imagine if they have a child with them. It's like the natural order has somehow been inverted.

    With that said, it's hard to pay the bills with only one breadwinner. So if your wife doesn't work, you can't always pay the mortgage, car payments, insurance, electricity, water, and food. Try living in a coastal metro on one paycheck.

    With a working wife, you can sometimes get extra stuff. A second vacation home. Trips overseas. Dining at cool restaurants. Braces for the kids.

    Most women work not because they enjoy it, but because money doesn't grow on trees. If you want lots of nice stuff and fun experiences, you need money.

    If you look at religious fundamentalists who still have high fertility and stay-at-home wives, their lives are often very simple and austere. Kids share bedrooms. Kids wear hand-me-downs. The kids take away all the time from the parents, so there's little (if any) "me time." They have sex only occasionally. There's an old station wagon and a minivan. They eat out once a week, at McDonald's. They go on vacation to Ocean Shores, Oregon. They spend long periods of time at Church.

    Life is all about trade offs.

    In some ways, you're better off than your ancestors. In other ways, worse off.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Change that Matters, @Anon

    When a female earns the same amount as her spouse (more especially if she earns more), she goes from a subordinate to an equal partner.

    A wife is an equal partner regardless of whether she earns less than, more than, or the same as, her husband. Mr. Rosie and I have switched places throughout our marriage, and he has treated me the same no matter what, thank Heaven.

    Anyway, I thought the title of this post was hyperbole, but no, the New York Slimes has really outdone itself this time.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Rosie


    A wife is an equal partner regardless of whether she earns less than, more than, or the same as, her husband.
     
    You are talking about "equal" in some sort of moral, spiritual, or metaphysical sense. That is not what JohnnyWalker123 is talking about here. Obviously, in other dimensions, men and women, husbands and wives, are not equal.

    For example, take height. The vast majority of husbands are taller than their wives. Husbands and wives are generally not "equal" in that dimension. If some husbands physically shrank during marriage and became shorter than their wives, do you think that would have an effect on those marriages? It's well established that women prefer tall men and husbands at least taller than themselves.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    , @JohnnyWalker123
    @Rosie

    Well, there are 2 types of equality.

    Equality of value.

    Equality of function.

    The first type of equality (value) is about how much both spouses bring to the relationship. Traditionally, most cultures (including Western) theoretically recognized both husbands and wives as having equal value. Husbands as providers and decision makers, wives as mothers and nurturers. The view was that husbands should treat their wives well because they were fulfilling an equally important function in the family, but that husbands should be in charge.

    The second type of equality (function) is about what role each spouse fills. In recent times, with the rise of working women, we've seen women assume male responsibilities. We've also seen men assume female responsibilities, like providing childcare and cooking.

    Equality of function is obviously much more practical and easy for both spouses in the modern age, but it's very different from how human beings lived for thousands of years. There are lots advantages to the arrangement, but some disadvantages too.

    You're correct that wives are generally recognized as having equal value to men, regardless of wage. However, equality of function doesn't really happen until the wife starts earning a similar salary as her husband (or out earning). At that point, she "wears the pants."

    Replies: @Rosie

  12. The boom was from 1946 to 1972. The big civil rights act passed in 1964. How can anyone think the boom was caused by a law that passed after the midpoint of the expansion?

    • Agree: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    @Mercer

    I don't even think the boom lasted that long. The stock market after a 21-year rally started cratering in 1967 and wouldn't recover until 1983. Inflation began soaring in the late 60s. I still remember my parents grousing about the cost of beef.

    Yeah, this guy's all wet.

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Mercer


    The boom was from 1946 to 1972. The big civil rights act passed in 1964. How can anyone think the boom was caused by a law that passed after the midpoint of the expansion?
     
    Same for the 1965 Immigration Act. The highest blue collar wage growth was pre-civil rights era, pre-feminism, and pre-mass immigration. Hmmm . . . maybe there is a correlation here after all.
    , @Ben tillman
    @Mercer

    You’re right. Tankersley is lying.

    , @JackOH
    @Mercer

    Mercer, I had a prof who about 1980 noted that real American wages had been stagnant since 1973.

    He was a quiet young prof, an MIT economics guy working as an adjunct, and I'll take a wild guess his statement was based on his own research or on that of people whom he knew. So he wasn't plucking dryasdust lecture material from professional journals.

    My classmates and I were young, and we'd grown up in a prosperous America that every year seemed to get even more prosperous. The import of what that diffident prof was saying simply didn't sink in.
    The economic "normal" my classmates and I had enjoyed as youngsters was gone.

    Christopher Koch (?) had his Year of Living Dangerously. Maybe 1973 could be dubbed The Year We Got Fucked.

    Replies: @anon, @Art Deco

  13. The real story of America today is this: If you want to restore the greatness of an economy that doesn’t work for you or your children the way that it used to, those women and men are your best shot at salvation. Their progress will lift you up.

    “The Riches of This Land: The Untold, True Story of America’s Middle Class.” What a dirt bag this guy is.

    This chump is a good example of the kind of person that I’ve been trying to understand my entire life (unsuccessfully, as it turns out). He’s obviously intelligent in some ways, yet such a dolt in others. He can write decently but the ideas that he wants to convey are demeaned by his silly prose. Hell, I know that I’m a crappy writer. Tanksy doesn’t know his weaknesses. And he doesn’t know his own country.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Kibernetika

    He has a talent for writing things, but there are only certain things you're allowed to say. (This is true in any society, to be honest.) I think it was Keynes who said it's hard to make a man understand things when his livelihood depends on him not understanding them. So he plies his craft in service of the powers that be. It's not that different from working in advertising, really. If you've ever tried to convince anyone of anything for self-interested purposes, ranging from getting out of a ticket to getting a woman to sleep with you...it's like that.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Kibernetika

  14. Only stupid if you assume that any NYT reader already knows that this guy is just flat out lying. These are modern NYT readers we’re talking about, they don’t know any better.
    ———-
    “I’ve Never Seen Anything Like It In My Life.”
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/09/shark-tank-investor-herjavec-were-about-to-see-biggest-exodus-from-cities-in-50-years.html
    ESCAPE THE BLUE METROPOLI

    • Replies: @James O'Meara
    @J.Ross

    “I recently moved out of Los Angeles into a suburban area, and I can tell you on a very personal level, my area is on fire,” he added. "

    Poor choice of words?

    , @Kolya Krassotkin
    @J.Ross

    The NYTLATChiTribWaPo is written to appeal to aspirational midwits, who read their copies, as they sip their morning's tall skinny soy lattes with just a soupçon of fair-trade nutmeg, and nod knowingly.

    , @JerseyJeffersonian
    @J.Ross

    I'll really believe it when I see major cultural institutions such as museums of art, museums/institutes of science, etc. realize in their bones that they are now in completely unfriendly territory, and not only will their patrons no longer feel safe to partake of their offerings, but also that that the very nature of their collections, offensive reminders of Whiteness that they almost universally are, endanger the continued safety of their holdings. All of these things together should lead them to seriously contemplate relocating out of these corrupt, leftist cesspits. The past history of hard leftism - Spain during their Civil War, communist Russia, China during the Cultural Revolution - unmistakably reveals the nihilistic, destructive impulse inherent in these leftist movements; the responsible parties need to take heed of this recurrent pattern.

    But sadly, in consideration of the fact that their "leaders" are all too often condign leftist cowards and cuckolds, and members in good standing of the Church of DIE themselves, they will likely disregard these warning signs, hold their vanishing patrons in contempt, and double down on their locations. They may wind up suffering the same fate as Grant's tomb, surrounded by decay, defaced, if not physically destroyed because of their "leaders'" false pride and failure of stewardship. These "leaders" will in this way be like those men who wind up killing their whole families to "spare" them the shame of their failures; i.e., in this case, the unpardonable sin of Whiteness.

    On a personal note, my wife and I this last year began attending musical performances in Philadelphia, always at night. Now, I am not sure that even these superlative performances are worth the risk of exposure to the emboldened vibrancy, particularly in this time of de-policing, and the policy of Philly's Soros-adjacent DA of cut 'em loose treatment of criminals. It is the beginning of civilizational collapse.

  15. Is there any point at which he attempts to offer a summarized mechanism of action or is he seriously just saying “the guy taking a job you could have taken is making you rich, trrrrust me”?

    • Agree: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
    @J.Ross

    No, he is solely a mendacious advocate for the interests of Big Capital. In other words, an oversupply of cheap labor massively competing for the privilege, and the importation of completely alien peoples who have not a clue about the rationale and nature of a properly working republican nation, as they are nepotistic tribalists only here to forward their group interests while feasting on the carcass as either an element of the cheap labor pool, or serving as a new, politically captive managerial class.

  16. Oh, every major industrial nation got destroyed except UK (which lost is wealth, though) and USA. The Soviet Union never recovered from the war. Japan was in pieces. Germans had nothing after the war. That is an explanation.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Gc

    Per the Maddison Project

    The growth rate in per capita product in Germany, Japan, and Italy over the period running from 1913 to 1960 exceeded that registered in those countries during the period running from 1866 t0 1913. Sames true in the United States, Soviet Russia, Britain, France, Spain, and a bevy of smaller European countries. War reconstruction was complete by 1960.

    Replies: @Gc, @International Jew

  17. I believe and I tell people that one reason for illegal immigration is because Americans would rather hire illegals then deal with blacks.
    Illegals are seen as easier to deal with then blacks and they directly undercut lower working class wages.
    There would be no need to push for a $15 dollar minimum wage except for illegal immigration.

    Our elite see themselves as North American Conquistadors and believe that in the future illegals will be docile and present no challenge to their continued political and economic domination. They believe this will lock in control for their descendants. A large black minority would be a significant political and economic bloc that would be more difficult to deal with.

    American blacks have been badly hurt by illegal immigration globalization and outsourcing. Around the time that laws and practices came in to effect to ensure fair play in hiring and opportunity the rules changed. The punch bowl was pulled away as soon as they came to the table.

    • Agree: notsaying
    • Replies: @JMcG
    @mc203

    100% correct. My brother does high end kitchens and bathrooms. He’s a democrat but has never in thirty five years hired a black. It drives him crazy when I call him on it. His well to do customers wouldn’t tolerate it. They’re mostly all democrats too.

    Replies: @notsaying, @Anonymous

  18. @Aeronerauk
    The level of magical thinking in this article... As if white men were just so cruel and hateful that they deliberately limited their own productivity and profit just so a strong black woman couldn't show them up.

    I mean just print the damn thing in pidgin already.

    Replies: @Franz Liszt von raiding, @Kronos, @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder, @Bard of Bumperstickers

    Yes why is this obvious racism and sexism tolerated? Leftists played and are playing the race card everywhere possible. They decried racism at every turn in the 20th century. Yet they can’t realize their own odious, despicable hypocrisy? Good lord think how closed they’d be to MLK’s dream if they would just STOP being RACISTS TOWARDS EVERYONE. PERIOD.

  19. Sailer: *writes post critical of multiculti and our plutocratic economic system.
    Commenter 1: Great post steve (not mentining on Steve’s economic views)

    *** several posts later ***

    Commenter 2: I’m gonna vote for Andrew Yang.
    Commenter 1: It sure is a mystery why anybody here would want to vote for someone like Yang.

  20. “The economy thrived after World War II…”

    Everything that follows this line in his large essay falls by the wayside. Because IF the Golden Age of America’s Middle Class was from ca. 1946-1973 (or early to mid. ’70’s), he has to be cognizant of basic facts: Up to the 1970’s, America was ca.90% white. Up until the late ’60’s, women weren’t a significant percentage of the total US workforce. Up until 1965, immigration was restricted. For him to be largely ignorant of these basic facts during the time of which he claims the US middle class soared and enjoyed levels of prosperity that were previously unknown to American history suggests he didn’t pay attention in the classroom.

    Or worse, he is fairly aware of these basic facts that contradict his personal wet dream narrative and prefers not to notice that they align with his wish list for how the US had found its way on the road to unlimited prosperity.

    Also, he self-contradicts by admitting that minorities and women weren’t a large share of the total workforce during the time he states was America’s greatest for the middle class. Because if they didn’t play a significant contribution to the US’s overall economic prosperity for the middle class, then the lion’s share of the credit goes to white men.

  21. The United States long reserved its most lucrative occupations for an elite class of white men. Those men held power by selling everyone else a myth: The biggest threat to workers like you are workers who do not look like you. Again and again, they told working-class white men that they were losing out on good jobs to women, nonwhite men and immigrants.

    This Tankersley is in the “elite class” with a “lucrative occupation” literally selling everyone else a myth to protect people like himself.

    He thinks he’s a nail, like you and me, but he’s a hammer.

  22. Isn’t it a heady thrill imagining how those sex slave enterprises, immigrant sweatshops, drug runners and drunk drivers will lift all our boats? There’ll be good paying jobs for poc and women writers too, i.e. if you haven’t already got a craw full of how everything’s your fault. We’ll all join hands and sing “Whitey did it” to the tune of that old Negro spiritual “By Order of P.D.”.

  23. This is the kind of dumbing-down we see in our public discourse as elite opinions come to be based on childish thinking

    No, Steve. This is an example of the “re-write history” portion that comes after “smashing the idols of the conquered.”

    • Agree: Kylie
  24. Maybe Jim T can start the remedy ball rolling by resigning his position on the condition that it be filled by a lesbo or BIPOC.

    But I don’t think that’s what he had in mind, for after all, he is a member in good standing of the nomenklatura. You and me, on the other hand, can eat shit and die for all he cares.

    “The nomenklatura (Russian: номенклату́ра, IPA: [nəmʲɪnklɐˈturə]; Latin: nomenclatura) were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in the bureaucracy, running all spheres of those countries’ activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region. ”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @Jim Don Bob

    We routinely use the word nomenklatura, even today, to describe such structures, and not necessarily ironically, or as a dog whistle. Conservative Inc. would be described as such in Eastern Europe and teh apparatchiks of the two parties are routinely referred to as a nomenklatura.

  25. • Leaving the Gold Standard which lead to the hyper financialization of the economy.

    https://wtfhappenedin1971.com

  26. @Aeronerauk
    The level of magical thinking in this article... As if white men were just so cruel and hateful that they deliberately limited their own productivity and profit just so a strong black woman couldn't show them up.

    I mean just print the damn thing in pidgin already.

    Replies: @Franz Liszt von raiding, @Kronos, @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder, @Bard of Bumperstickers

    I’m curious if the saner NYT writers need to get really high or drunk to write this stuff. I’d really need to get wasted to write woke Capital narratives for the NYTs.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Kronos

    Yeah, but Hunter S. Thompson was not woke at all, no matter what (and what amounts of what) he indulged. - Maybe he reached a point at which he was mentally sterile - no infection whatsoever possible - and nothing left alive inside of him other than - Hunter S. Thompson. He sure flew high at times. I'd say that as a writer he was (and still might be) grossly overrated. I was really astonished to hear Matt Taibbi at Joe Rogan's Experience - brag about how big an influence Hunter S. Thompson was and how inspiring and all that... - it sounded a lot like lip-service (something quite woke, btw. .... ah - - - full circle - - -

    PS

    Will the Circle be Unbroken...

    Replies: @Kronos

  27. After reading this crap from Tankersley, and assuming that this is not a put-on or a late April Fool’s column, I have only one comment for Mr. Tankersley.

    “I don’t know what drugs you’re on, but I want some!!”

  28. @Aeronerauk
    The level of magical thinking in this article... As if white men were just so cruel and hateful that they deliberately limited their own productivity and profit just so a strong black woman couldn't show them up.

    I mean just print the damn thing in pidgin already.

    Replies: @Franz Liszt von raiding, @Kronos, @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder, @Bard of Bumperstickers

    The United States long reserved its most lucrative occupations for an elite class of white men. Those men held power by selling everyone else a myth: The biggest threat to workers like you are workers who do not look like you. Again and again, they told working-class white men that they were losing out on good jobs to women, nonwhite men and immigrants.

    Since this supposedly happened “again and again” during that “Golden Era of the middle class that boomed after World War II” it shouldn’t be too hard to include some examples. Even just a couple.

  29. anon[321] • Disclaimer says:

    Jim Tankersley wrote:

    “…….expanding opportunity for women, immigrants and nonwhite workers helped everyone…..”

    Sounds great, right? We encourage companies to hire women, immigrants, and non-white workers already. What does Tankersley really want? We have preferential hiring and promotion for these groups already. He wants -very-preferential treatment for them. Basically no white male promotions ever if we can help it. Its not that he loves these groups. He just hates better white men than his beta-ass self.

  30. Mr. Tankersley obviously hasn’t read “Deaths of Despair” by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, which shows that the mortality rate for working-class whites has increased in the last two decades.

    https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691190785/deaths-of-despair-and-the-future-of-capitalism

    https://www.takimag.com/article/deaths-of-despair/

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @JohnnyD


    Mr. Tankersley obviously hasn’t read “Deaths of Despair” by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, which shows that the mortality rate for working-class whites has increased in the last two decades.
     
    He would likely say that their despair leading to premature death is a product of bad life outcomes caused by their own racism, xenophobia and sexism, which blinds them to the fact that Rich Uncle Pennybags is really holding him down.

    Note that Mr. Tankersley is a native of Oregon - which as of 2016 is 1.9% black in demographic terms. He clearly knows what he's talking about.

    Replies: @Poirot

  31. Anon[804] • Disclaimer says:
    @NJ Transit Commuter
    The main factor for middle class prosperity from Truman to Carter was a one off factor that cannot be recreated: the world needed to be rebuilt after WWII and the US possessed half the globe’s industrial capacity.

    Where I think the US can do more is to work on trade policies more beneficial to the country. The classic economic argument that free trade creates growth is true, but what that argument misses is the distribution of the growth. US free trade with China has lifted tens of millions out of poverty in China, but in the US the benefits have mainly gone to management and capital. With limited exceptions, labor has been harmed.

    A more mercantilist pro-US trade policy would reduce economic growth, but could steer more benefit to the US. When Trump has pushed for new trade deals, other countries have generally agreed. I think that’s because they know they have been taking advantage of US generosity, and don’t want to kill the golden goose.

    Replies: @Anon

    The main factor for middle class prosperity from Truman to Carter was a one off factor that cannot be recreated: the world needed to be rebuilt after WWII and the US possessed half the globe’s industrial capacity.

    And that was the main factor for its end. Keeping the old pre-war assembly lines and steel mills — while Germany and Japan retooled and redesigned their industrial base.

    A memory of the 70s is how crude American cars and manufacturing in general was compared to German and Japanese. And by the time we noticed, it was over.

  32. Amazing – hopefully the leadership of Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, Amazon, and so on read it and realize they’ve been Doing It Wrong and needlessly handicapping their growth.

  33. @Kibernetika
    The real story of America today is this: If you want to restore the greatness of an economy that doesn’t work for you or your children the way that it used to, those women and men are your best shot at salvation. Their progress will lift you up.

    “The Riches of This Land: The Untold, True Story of America’s Middle Class.” What a dirt bag this guy is.

    This chump is a good example of the kind of person that I've been trying to understand my entire life (unsuccessfully, as it turns out). He's obviously intelligent in some ways, yet such a dolt in others. He can write decently but the ideas that he wants to convey are demeaned by his silly prose. Hell, I know that I'm a crappy writer. Tanksy doesn't know his weaknesses. And he doesn't know his own country.

    Replies: @SFG

    He has a talent for writing things, but there are only certain things you’re allowed to say. (This is true in any society, to be honest.) I think it was Keynes who said it’s hard to make a man understand things when his livelihood depends on him not understanding them. So he plies his craft in service of the powers that be. It’s not that different from working in advertising, really. If you’ve ever tried to convince anyone of anything for self-interested purposes, ranging from getting out of a ticket to getting a woman to sleep with you…it’s like that.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @SFG

    I'm pretty sure it wasn't Keynes.

    ...Upton Sinclair.

    , @Kibernetika
    @SFG

    If you’ve ever tried to convince anyone of anything for self-interested purposes, ranging from getting out of a ticket to getting a woman to sleep with you…it’s like that.

    Well, I have some experience with the latter... Wait, you haven't been speaking with my wife, have you?

    I've been trying to get my wife to dress up as Stacey Abrams. The hip therapists call it role playing or something. You know, to spice things up. And she just laughs at me for some reason.

    But the kids are headed back to the Covid dorms soon so I remain optimistic. The universities will probably remain open for at least a cople of weeks before everyone freaks out and the kids must return home. This is my window of opportunity.

    Been stocking up on wine (and paying close attention to the ABV). Once the kids have been dispatched to go and burn down police buildings, or whatever it is that kids do at university these days, I'll make my move.

    I have but one desire: to steep myself in the softness that is Stacey.

  34. Anon[391] • Disclaimer says:

    We were wondering the other day on Twitter about how the Boomers got so wealthy and why Gen X and the Millienials didn’t. Someone suggested it was because Gen X, specifically, had to immediately deal with the flood of H1bs that came into the country following the 1990 Immigration act.

    I was trying to do some back of the napkin math to determine how quickly the mix of ethnicities that someone was born into in the US in 1972 turned into by the time they were 22. In 1972, the births looked roughly like this:

    White …2,522,780 – 78%
    Hispanic… 132,778 – 4.1%
    Black …531,329 – 16.5%
    Asian …22,438 – .7%
    American Indian …11,688
    Other …1,400
    Total 3,222,413

    I cannot seem to find a good source that tells me current demography by year but I do see sources that suggest Gen X is now 65% white. That means in the time since 48 year olds were born, their same year birth cohort has dramatically shifted in favor of Hispanics and Asians.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Anon

    Gen X = Divorce, which overwhelmingly affects whites. All peoples allowed to retain traditional cultures dodge the divorce bullet (which, in theory, applies equally to them).

    , @Kronos
    @Anon


    We were wondering the other day on Twitter about how the Boomers got so wealthy and why Gen X and the Millienials didn’t.
     
    This simplest answer is that their sheer voting size (90 million if you include the war babies) made it extremely easy to reconfigure government policies/regulation to their choosing.
    Many of them blabber about checks and balances but their voting size bypassed anything the Founding Fathers could construct. (Checks and balances are only for other generations.)

    They could vote themselves assets and vote away liabilities. They could grant themselves tax breaks while you made it up via your payroll taxes a few decades later.

    https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/e11/fd2/d59b8346b7cd2c26dc9768515e35faae0e-29-bill-hillary-clinton-balloons-lede.2x.h473.w710.jpg
    , @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Anon


    We were wondering the other day on Twitter about how the Boomers got so wealthy and why Gen X and the Millienials didn’t.
     
    Ehhhhhhhhh, in my personal Gen X case it's because I failed to educate myself about finances and properly manage my capital until my late 30s.

    Replies: @Kronos

    , @Ben tillman
    @Anon

    It’s immigration. There are about a million 48-year-old immigrants in this country.

  35. By Jim Tankersley

    Jim Tankersley = Tiny’s lame jerk.

    Really, if it wasn’t so verbose, our Duck could have written it.

  36. This country is so stupid. Everyone in it is so dumb.

    People in the U.S. have no fucking clue what is coming… none at all.

    But hey, blacks built the white house. That means…something… right?

  37. @Aeronerauk
    The level of magical thinking in this article... As if white men were just so cruel and hateful that they deliberately limited their own productivity and profit just so a strong black woman couldn't show them up.

    I mean just print the damn thing in pidgin already.

    Replies: @Franz Liszt von raiding, @Kronos, @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder, @Bard of Bumperstickers

    The author’s warped view that, “The United States long reserved its most lucrative occupations for an elite class of white men.” shows total ignorance about “How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes” as Peter Schiff titled his 2010 illustrated children’s Econ 101 book. Those so-called elite white men created their own positions and provided millions of living wage and even upwardly mobile wage jobs by their efforts. Some magical job-creating entity called “America” “reserved” nothing for them – those men created America. There were not positions created by the adoption of a constitution, waiting to be filled. Entrepreneurs seeing opportunity built it (sorry, Obummer).

    The author also must believe that an entire class of workers are systematically paid less for the same work – women. More economic ignorance. Generally, women DO earn less overall than men – but not if performing the same type, quality, and amount/duration of work as men. If any employer in any field had a choice between two candidates for the same position, both of whom would perform identically, but one at substantially less compensation, the lower-paid one would invariably be hired over the other. Only some tenured academic slug, a bureaucratic placeholder, a cultural Marxist-indoctrinated, dumbed-down college “student”, or a Ministry of Truth presstitute like our NYT propagandist above, could believe otherwise.

    • Agree: Mark G., Gabe Ruth
  38. ‘…This is the kind of dumbing-down we see in our public discourse as elite opinions come to be based on childish thinking about who are the Good Guys and who are the Bad Guys.’

    It’s not intended to be thought about.

    It’s there to be uncritically imbibed by those who find the message congenial to begin with.

  39. @SFG
    @Kibernetika

    He has a talent for writing things, but there are only certain things you're allowed to say. (This is true in any society, to be honest.) I think it was Keynes who said it's hard to make a man understand things when his livelihood depends on him not understanding them. So he plies his craft in service of the powers that be. It's not that different from working in advertising, really. If you've ever tried to convince anyone of anything for self-interested purposes, ranging from getting out of a ticket to getting a woman to sleep with you...it's like that.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Kibernetika

    I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Keynes.

    …Upton Sinclair.

    • Agree: JackOH
  40. Anonymous[349] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie
    @JohnnyWalker123


    When a female earns the same amount as her spouse (more especially if she earns more), she goes from a subordinate to an equal partner.
     
    A wife is an equal partner regardless of whether she earns less than, more than, or the same as, her husband. Mr. Rosie and I have switched places throughout our marriage, and he has treated me the same no matter what, thank Heaven.

    Anyway, I thought the title of this post was hyperbole, but no, the New York Slimes has really outdone itself this time.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @JohnnyWalker123

    A wife is an equal partner regardless of whether she earns less than, more than, or the same as, her husband.

    You are talking about “equal” in some sort of moral, spiritual, or metaphysical sense. That is not what JohnnyWalker123 is talking about here. Obviously, in other dimensions, men and women, husbands and wives, are not equal.

    For example, take height. The vast majority of husbands are taller than their wives. Husbands and wives are generally not “equal” in that dimension. If some husbands physically shrank during marriage and became shorter than their wives, do you think that would have an effect on those marriages? It’s well established that women prefer tall men and husbands at least taller than themselves.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    @Anonymous

    Right.

    In this context, inequality doesn't necessarily imply one is better than another. It implies distinction.

    Men prefer women who have girly feminine voices, while women prefer men with deep masculine voices. It doesn't mean one is more valuable than another, merely that there's a difference.

    Attraction is, to some extent, based on sexual polarity. We want something that's the opposite of us. Men want to feel like a protector&provider, while women want a man to save them (or at least this use to be the case). Men want to be powerful, while women want to feel overpowered.

    When both men and women assume the same roles, sexual polarity doesn't exist with the same force.

    With that said, there are a lot of practical/financial reasons for men and women to play similar roles. So I'm not saying it's completely bad. I'm saying there are trade offs.

    Today's men don't have the shoulder the burdens of being in charge of the family, like previous generations. So it's easier in a sense. However, they don't have the same type of relationships with their wives as previous generations. They're no longer "head of the family."

    Life is about trade offs.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @SunBakedSuburb

  41. “ there’s a funny scene in Mad Men in 1960 in which the clock at the ad agency strikes 5:15 so all the white collar workers pack up and go home”

    I watched half an episode of Mad Men and found it pretentious and boring.

    However, the same joke was in Netflix’s French series A Very Secret Service, a zany Get Smart comedy set in Paris, Moscow, and Algiers of the early 1960s.

    You get the same glamorous early 60s moderne sets and clothing and busty secretaries serving cocktails, but it is fast paced and hilarious.

    • Thanks: The Wild Geese Howard
    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    @Lot

    If you liked that, you would probably like the 2006 and 2009 OSS-117 movies - kind of like a French "Get Smart", with the engaging Jean Dujardin in the title role.

    This bit with 117 and some Mossad guys is pretty indicative.


    "Chasing a Nazi with [the aid of] Jews? Ridiculous. They'll be able to be identified!"

    How?

    Where do I start? The nose..."
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTKn_7Yh6Hw

    Equally, he thinks it's risible that Arabic is spoken by "millions" of people... and at 1:45 he tries to prove to a Chinese spy that he's not racist.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0LoF3V9_ls
    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Lot


    I watched half an episode of Mad Men and found it pretentious and boring.

     

    We Calvinists managed a full episode, but similarly couldn't stand any more.

    The first couple of seasons of Endeavour also have a bit of that glammy early 60s vibe.
    , @Romanian
    @Lot

    I was really into it, despite its plodding pace. Went on for far too long, but I think that there were a lot of subversive aesthetics there, outside of the obvious subversive elements of the poz.

    The Don Draper character was very interesting, shedding his old skin to become something new and divorced from his roots, but being totally troubled and unmoored because of it. Sort of like a proto-bugman, but without the demasculinization.

    I wish Trevor Lynch would review it. James O'Meara did https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/09/the-ordeal-of-superficiality/

  42. White men at the NYT have developed Stockholm Syndrome.

    I’m starting a GoFundMe page to break this poor bastard out. I can have six hard men working on extraction as soon as we hit 300k.

    Think of his wife and child. Donate now!

    https://www.gofundme.com/f/free-jim-tankersley-from-jewish-revolutionary-army*

    *Note: URL may not be real.

    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @Change that Matters

    "White men at the NYT have developed Stockholm Syndrome."

    To avoid marginalization in the new America white men must submit to a detesticlization procedure. It appears the testes of white men are a point of obsession for the growing People of Colour overclass.

  43. How is this stupid or dumbed down? It’s not; it’s simply lying. The author knows he is lying, the editorial staff of the NYT know he is lying. These are lies that advance the interests of the billionaires the NYT serves so they are just doing their job and propagating these lies for an agenda.

    • Agree: J.Ross, Beavertales
  44. @Anon
    We were wondering the other day on Twitter about how the Boomers got so wealthy and why Gen X and the Millienials didn't. Someone suggested it was because Gen X, specifically, had to immediately deal with the flood of H1bs that came into the country following the 1990 Immigration act.

    I was trying to do some back of the napkin math to determine how quickly the mix of ethnicities that someone was born into in the US in 1972 turned into by the time they were 22. In 1972, the births looked roughly like this:

    White ...2,522,780 - 78%
    Hispanic... 132,778 - 4.1%
    Black ...531,329 - 16.5%
    Asian ...22,438 - .7%
    American Indian ...11,688
    Other ...1,400
    Total 3,222,413

    I cannot seem to find a good source that tells me current demography by year but I do see sources that suggest Gen X is now 65% white. That means in the time since 48 year olds were born, their same year birth cohort has dramatically shifted in favor of Hispanics and Asians.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Kronos, @The Wild Geese Howard, @Ben tillman

    Gen X = Divorce, which overwhelmingly affects whites. All peoples allowed to retain traditional cultures dodge the divorce bullet (which, in theory, applies equally to them).

  45. I think it is worth dwelling on the precise mechanism by which immigration hurts wages.

    It can’t simply be “more people”, otherwise we would see countries with smaller populations have higher wages. Sweden has fewer people than the USA…higher wages?

    What happens, I think, is that by having an exogenous supply of labor come in, you move labor markets from one equilibrium, to a new one where wages are lower. Over time, the supply should create it’s own demand, the Indian greencard holder buys a house, car, whatever and stimulates the rest of the economy. But there are more immigrants always coming in, always applying pressure on wages.

    Did women affect typical wages when they joined the labor force? At first, but I think the effect should have gradually faded, hence the need to ramp up immigration in the mid 90s. Really I think the most productive way to talk about this is the “labor share of GDP” how much of income is paid as wages and benefits, that’s down from the 70s peak. Ideally you’d remove compensation for executives, athletes and entertainers as well and look at how much of GDP gets paid out to normal workers.

    • Replies: @Ben tillman
    @Boswald Bollocksworth

    The answer is that the amount of capital does not increase proportionately to the increase in labor.

    , @Kratoklastes
    @Boswald Bollocksworth


    I think it is worth dwelling on the precise mechanism by which immigration hurts wages.
     
    It's the short term effect on the capital/labour ratio - more labour, plus fixed capital, means that the marginal product of labour falls.

    If wages are sticky, then people (mostly indigenes) get sacked (and so the effect is not on wages, but higher levels of indigenous unemployment ("Dey tuk ahr jaaaahbs"). If wages can 'flex', it will be a combination of reduced wages and lower employment - until returns on capital rise enough to make additional capital worthwhile.

    This only makes sense if there's an assumption that the economy is already at full employment (at least, in the segments of the labour market in which immigrants compete). It's very weak sauce, frankly: if there's not full employment in immigrant-competing labour segments, then there is no pressure on wages or employment until immigrants have filled the slack.

    That said, wage/unemployment effects are not the primary economic effect postulated by people who are anti-immigration.

    Anyone who looks at the data can see that any (tiny) reduction in the general wage level is the result of the fact that wages earned by immigrants are lower than those earned by indigenes, even holding constant the unemployment rate among indigenes.

    The main argument that anti-immigration types generally run with, involves some notion that immigrants are, on average, more costly to government budgets, because they have higher-than-average levels of use of government services. They send their kids to government schools - before they have 'contributed' anything in taxes. They use publicly-funded infrastructure - roads, water treatment etc - without having contributed to it. (There are also arguments about effects on culture).

    All of that is absolutely true: the higher-than-average levels of demand for government services arise because immigrants as a group aren't 'average'; they're in line with levels of use of government services in the bottom 40%.

    In other words, permitting non-merit-based immigration is the same thing as adding to your stock of poor people. There's some merit to the argument.

    The main reason this has started to genuinely 'bite' is because in a modern economy, everyone outside the top quintile, contributes less in taxes than they receive in tax-funded goods and services. Worse still, for half of the top quintile their entire income is recycled taxes (i.e., they're bureaucrats: 1 in 6 employed persons work for the government, and they earn on average 120% of private sector average wages... all of which is paid out of the taxes taken from private-sector wages).

    Under those sorts of conditions, the 'solution' (according to anti-immigration folks) isn't to reduce handouts to middle-class urban people, or to slow the rate of growth of the bureaucracy's wage bill. No... those aren't the answer: the answer it to stop immigration. It's like pissing on a forest fire.

    However... almost everyone alive grew up during periods of mounting government debt - and so every cohort of indigenes has taken more out of the pot than was put in (and is the promisee of shitloads of future tax-funded entitlements).

    So every kid the indigenes squirt out, starts life with a larger debt to pay for all that infrastructure: the immigrants aren't the ones who have spent generations adding to the government credit card.

    If government could ever get its fiscal act together and stop the rate of growth of government debt, then each immigrant would actually reduce the indigenous population's share of outstanding debt. That would lower the implied rate of future taxation required to service the existing debt.

    However government simply cannot slow its rate of debt accumulation: that horse has bolted, and will only get worse as time goes one, because of unfunded entitlements to past generations of indigenes (e.g., aged pensions and healthcare).

    In the past, anti-immigrationists have made the same "they use shit we've paid for" about Chinese, Irish, Germans, Italians, Catholics, Greeks, and immigrants of every conceivable hue or stripe. It's a trope that assumes that "shit we've paid for" means that it's owned free and clear - i.e., there was zero debt associated with existing infrastructure the immigrants got off the boat. That hasn't been true for 3 generations.

    Fact is: once the 'core' Anglo land-thieves have finished stealing the natives' shit, they want to raise the drawbridge and lower the portcullis. It's happened everywhere.
    , @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Boswald Bollocksworth


    I think it is worth dwelling on the precise mechanism by which immigration hurts wages.

    It can’t simply be “more people”, otherwise we would see countries with smaller populations have higher wages. Sweden has fewer people than the USA…higher wages?

    What happens, I think, is that by having an exogenous supply of labor come in, you move labor markets from one equilibrium, to a new one where wages are lower. Over time, the supply should create it’s own demand, the Indian greencard holder buys a house, car, whatever and stimulates the rest of the economy. But there are more immigrants always coming in, always applying pressure on wages.

    Did women affect typical wages when they joined the labor force? At first, but I think the effect should have gradually faded, hence the need to ramp up immigration in the mid 90s. Really I think the most productive way to talk about this is the “labor share of GDP” how much of income is paid as wages and benefits, that’s down from the 70s peak. Ideally you’d remove compensation for executives, athletes and entertainers as well and look at how much of GDP gets paid out to normal workers.

     

    Well, you're missing part of the plot - if immigrants are creating demand for housing, they're driving up prices for a commodity necessary for entry into the middle class. And when new homes are constructed largely with immigrant labor - much of it illegal (i.e., Mexican framing crews) - your average blue collar American is getting it from both ends.

    But the "demand" on the low end is for plastic Chinese consumer goods. So rather than a middle class job in the trades or manufacturing, your American worker is stocking Chinese trinkets and textiles at Target for $8 per hour.

    Of course, it's also the case that immigrants immediately qualify for preferential treatment in education and employment in our Affirmative Action caste system (which was originally justified by the mistreatment of the descendants of African slaves brought to the United States numbering no more than 12% of the population at the time of Bakke).
  46. > Americans deserve to know the truth about that Golden Era, which was not the whitewashed, “Leave It to Beaver” tale that so many people have been led to believe.

    In this reference to “Leave It To Beaver,” is Jim Tankersley being too clever by half or too stupid by half? Has he thought through whatever argument he is trying to make? Has he ever watched an episode of the show?

    In the Civil Rights Era, the movement portrayed its goals as overcoming the injustices that prevented black Americans from participating in the American Dream — in other words, black families would be accepted into the world of Ward and June Cleaver. An honest day’s middle-class work for an honest day’s middle-class pay. The half-hour morality tales — stealing is bad, a man’s word is his bond, stand up to bullies, treat women with respect — would be as valid for black kids as for Beaver and his brother.

    How far we have come in 60 years.

    The central literary device of “Between The World And Me” is Coate’s re-casting of the American Dream. The book culminates with the Biblical curse that he lays upon the Dreamers.

    Tankersley, too, scorns the concept of post-war middle-class prosperity. Uh, that’s the same middle class prosperity that his Monorail plan will deliver to all worthier-than-white-male Americans. So which is it?

    The NYT’s Op-Ed editors aren’t going to ask Jim to puzzle out the implications of his ideas. “Four legs good, two legs bad” suffices for a Gray Lady essay. Heck, in the Current Year, it’s enough for an entire book.

  47. The economy thrived after World War II… In 1960, cutting-edge research… has documented…disparity was by design.

    I’m not sure about the logic here. Blacks and women were allowed to be managees, lawyers, doctors, etc from 1946-1959, then white men forced blacks back into their janitorial jobs and women back into their kitchens?

    If that really happened, then good news–maybe we can force immigrants back their own countries again too!

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Chrisnonymous

    I'm not sure Tankersley knows when the Postwar Era was.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Brobert

  48. @JohnnyWalker123

    quite a bit was due to changes that increased the labor supply, such as the feminist revolution, broadly supported by corporations
     
    Feminism wasn't that popular in Big Corps until the 90s. Before then, there was a sense that if a girl could find a prosperous husband, that was the best way forward.

    Female careerism, girl power, sisters doing for themselves, and power couples were seen as a bit strange. Remember the criticism that Hillary Clinton and Murphy Brown got back in the early 90s?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnhhZ0LVNPU

    Things are obviously very different today.

    One problem with female careerism is that it makes it more difficult for men and women to be satisfied in relationships. When a female earns the same amount as her spouse (more especially if she earns more), she goes from a subordinate to an equal partner. Sometimes she even starts to "wear the pants." That's an inversion of the historical arrangement that existed between the genders.

    It's like being with a woman who's taller and stronger than you. Or has had more sexual experience than you. Or is smarter than you. Or is better at working with her hands. Or is older than you.

    You feel weird and so does she.

    It's like if you see a couple of men walking down the street and holding hands. Imagine if they have a child with them. It's like the natural order has somehow been inverted.

    With that said, it's hard to pay the bills with only one breadwinner. So if your wife doesn't work, you can't always pay the mortgage, car payments, insurance, electricity, water, and food. Try living in a coastal metro on one paycheck.

    With a working wife, you can sometimes get extra stuff. A second vacation home. Trips overseas. Dining at cool restaurants. Braces for the kids.

    Most women work not because they enjoy it, but because money doesn't grow on trees. If you want lots of nice stuff and fun experiences, you need money.

    If you look at religious fundamentalists who still have high fertility and stay-at-home wives, their lives are often very simple and austere. Kids share bedrooms. Kids wear hand-me-downs. The kids take away all the time from the parents, so there's little (if any) "me time." They have sex only occasionally. There's an old station wagon and a minivan. They eat out once a week, at McDonald's. They go on vacation to Ocean Shores, Oregon. They spend long periods of time at Church.

    Life is all about trade offs.

    In some ways, you're better off than your ancestors. In other ways, worse off.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Change that Matters, @Anon

    Lines that didn’t age well (at 1:56): “I doubt my status as a single mother has contributed all that much to the breakdown of Western civilization.”

  49. This outline seems ridiculous, but it is intended to institutionalize a cheap-labor nation, hopefully forever. Somehow more and more people will create more and more jobs. You’re right, Steve. This genius got it exactly backwards. We became the most powerful and richest country on earth when it was 90% White. We began a long slide when the doors opened, and corporations were allowed to hire cheap imported workers here, and send their factories to even cheaper workers overseas.

    The most sinister part of this New Spiel, is to provide an excuse for treating white people like second and third class citizens. This is not about Justice it’s about revenge. Newcomers and Native non-whites are fed a steady diet of how lousy they were treated historically by those terrible white working-class men. They will enjoy their fall, even though they have no memory of their crimes.

    In this, our elites are motivated mostly by pragmatism. Whites have always been the most potent opponents of ravaging elites. History of American labor movements is still the most overlooked in American Education. What we get instead is lionization of Lefty nonsense that was largely insignificant in the real world here. American white workers never fell for the Marxist siren song. Something in them told them it’s simply wouldn’t work. The past Century proved them correct.

    But newly arrived workers, galvanized Americans, will have a ready-made foe when time comes to explain they’re frustrated hopes, they’re unrealised dreams. Bad Whitey is screwing them again.

    Tankersley mentions the working class white guys with whom he went to high school – indicating he was not of them. No wonder he’s so ready to dump them. He doesn’t think they matter. It’s time to working class recognized who their enemies are. And began to act.

    • Replies: @S
    @San Fernando Curt


    This outline seems ridiculous, but it is intended to institutionalize a cheap-labor nation, hopefully forever.
    Somehow more and more people will create more and more jobs. You’re right, Steve. This genius got it exactly backwards.
     
    Yes, exactly.

    In the Anglosphere countries of the US, Australia, and Canada, there was a powerful push in the mid to letter 19th century to 'import' by diktat tens of millions of Chinese wage slaves, ie so called 'cheap labor'. This scheme failed, ultimately, but not for lack of trying.

    The Pall Mall Gazette of London in 1874 specifically identified 'race' as the primary impediment blocking this scheme's success, which it much lamented.

    A pretty powerful case could be made that the sole purpose of the development of the modern ideology of Multiculturalism, along with it's accompanying anti-race campaign, has been to make the world safe for cheap labor, though to be sure I think there's more to it than that.

    Tankersley is just what the doctor ordered for those shamelessly pushing such things.


    Pall Mall Gazette (Spring, 1874) – ‘Chinamen Out of China’

    “A dread of what might happen if capitalists could command and control these vast hordes of workmen as against men of their own race, has made the labouring class, at any rate, blind to their good qualities.”
     

    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.55223460&view=1up&seq=136&skin=mobile

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Beavertales

  50. If you liked the 1619 project, you’ll love the 1961 Project.

  51. This outline seems ridiculous, but it is intended to institutionalize a cheap-labor nation, hopefully forever. Somehow more and more people will create more and more jobs. You’re right, Steve. This genius got it exactly backwards. We became the most powerful and richest country on earth when it was 90% White. We began a long slide when the doors opened, and corporations were allowed to hire cheap imported workers here, and send their factories to even cheaper workers overseas.

    The most sinister part of this New Spiel, is to provide an excuse for treating white people like second and third class citizens. This is not about Justice it’s about revenge. Newcomers and Native non-whites are fed a steady diet of how lousy they were treated historically by those terrible white working-class men. They will enjoy their fall, even though they have no memory of their crimes.

    In this, our elites are motivated mostly by pragmatism. Whites have always been the most potent opponents of ravaging elites. History of American labor movements is still the most overlooked in American Education. What we get instead is lionization of Lefty nonsense that was largely insignificant in the real world here. American white workers never fell for the Marxist siren song. Something in them told them it’s simply wouldn’t work. The past Century proved them correct.

    But newly arrived workers, galvanized Americans, will have a ready-made foe when time comes to explain their frustrated hopes, their unrealised dreams. Bad Whitey is screwing them again.

    Tankersley mentions the working class white guys with whom he went to high school – indicating he was not of them. No wonder he’s so ready to dump them. He doesn’t think they matter. It’s time to working class recognized who their enemies are. And began to act.

    • Replies: @Beavertales
    @San Fernando Curt

    "But newly arrived workers,(immigrants), will have a ready-made foe when time comes to explain their frustrated hopes, their unrealised dreams"

    Yes, I'm thinking of the insufferable second generation brown or black immigrant kid who blames racism for their failure to land a great office job in a saturated market. They feel entitled to the American dream just for showing up and getting through school.

  52. @Daniel H
    In 1960, cutting-edge research from economists at the University of Chicago and Stanford University has documented, more than half of Black men in America worked as janitors, freight handlers or something similar.

    What was that "something similar"? If Tankersley had any real acquaintance with African Americans of a certain age from the "rust belt" he would have heard tales of plenty of blacks working on an auto assembly line or in a steel mill or some other very fairly compensated blue collar job back in the 60s or 70s. And even janitors and warehouse workers were usually decently paid back them, due to unionization, no outsourcing and lack of ferocious competition from immigrants.

    What's the use arguing with this type. Facts, reason don't matter. Mass immigration, the permanent altering of the racial composition of the west is a religious tenet for them.

    Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @James O'Meara, @Kerryokwan

    My father was a Teamster warehouseman from 1962 until 1983. From 1975 – 1983 he never earned less than $30,000 per year with excellent benefits, which would be equal to about $90,000 per year today.

    His hourly pay was about $12 per hour in the late 1970s , but he worked overtime often , getting paid $18 per hour when he worked over 40 hours. So he averaged about $15 per hour, equal to $45 per hour today. The contract they had in the 70s was tied to inflation , so they got automatic raises during the seventies.

    my mother was a high school teacher earning about $14,000 per year in 1979. Every summer We were able to rent a house at the jersey shore for an entire month each summer. It was a great life for my old man, working loading trucks and boxcars kept him in good shape, he had no stress and no need to get fancy cloths are spend money on dry etc…

    • Replies: @danand
    @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco


    “From 1975 – 1983 he never earned less than $30,000 per year with excellent benefits.”
     
    Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, your father was making out well for 1975, and darn good even by ‘83. A typical new home didn’t cost much over $30K in ‘75.


    The median income of families in the United States was $9,870 in 1970.
    Of the 51.9 million families in the United States 8.9 percent had incomes below $3,000. Families with incomes between $3,000 and $5,000 accounted for 5.3 million; 6.1 million had incomes between $5,000 and $7,000; 10.3 million families had incomes between $7,000 and $10,000.

    2018 United States Median Household Income was $60,293. Inflation was right around 6X from 1970 to 2020, so appears median family/household income remained roughly stagnate over those five decades.

    GDP
    $1.07 Trillion USD 1970 ~203 Million pop
    $21.4 Trillion USD 2020 (pre SARS proj, $3.5T in 1970 USD’s) ~331 Million pop

    1.63 times as many people (331/203) in the US in 2020 generated 3.27 times the GDP (3.5/1.07) as they did in 1970.

    Roughly twice the economic output generated per person in 2020 by workers paid the same real wage or salary they made in 1970. The country as a whole is much richer 50 years on, but average Joe is only doing about the half as well, piece of the US pie wise, as he was 50 years back.

    May be why average Joe feels worse off now, even though day to day, year to year, decade to decade; he’s kind of doing about the same.
  53. @JimB
    Try Googling "do women in work force drive down wages?" This tripe from the Harvard Business Review rises to the top of the search.

    https://hbr.org/2018/01/when-more-women-join-the-workforce-wages-rise-including-for-men

    Further down there is this,

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html

    Of course, you are supposed to believe the cause of lower pay is female dominance, not labor market oversupply. However, law of supply and demand predicts that if a large number of women begin competing with men in a particular male-dominated field, labor oversupply results in lower wages. Even as men leak out of such professions to get higher wages, the applicant pool is still larger than before, and the wages are lower for both men and women in the newly women "dominated" field.

    Replies: @Known Fact

    That’s right, but it’s not just a matter of supply and demand. When women take over a formerly male field, that means the important work has been done, the physical and theoretical structure is in place, the innovation and risk-taking is largely over and now just housekeeping remains. So of course the rewards will be lower.

  54. @Mercer
    The boom was from 1946 to 1972. The big civil rights act passed in 1964. How can anyone think the boom was caused by a law that passed after the midpoint of the expansion?

    Replies: @Bragadocious, @Hypnotoad666, @Ben tillman, @JackOH

    I don’t even think the boom lasted that long. The stock market after a 21-year rally started cratering in 1967 and wouldn’t recover until 1983. Inflation began soaring in the late 60s. I still remember my parents grousing about the cost of beef.

    Yeah, this guy’s all wet.

  55. “ Then, the social revolution of the 1960s permeated our institutions throughout the 1970s, and the golden age of the American working man was clearly over. ”

    Jewish elite takes over from WASP elite. That’s the whole story.

  56. Jim Tankersley worked at the Washington Post and NYTimes, on economic policy. His credentials: BA in political science (from Stanford, but nowadays maybe he would have learned more truth at George Mason). https://www.linkedin.com/in/jim-tankersley-414a9371

  57. @Gc
    Oh, every major industrial nation got destroyed except UK (which lost is wealth, though) and USA. The Soviet Union never recovered from the war. Japan was in pieces. Germans had nothing after the war. That is an explanation.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Per the Maddison Project

    The growth rate in per capita product in Germany, Japan, and Italy over the period running from 1913 to 1960 exceeded that registered in those countries during the period running from 1866 t0 1913. Sames true in the United States, Soviet Russia, Britain, France, Spain, and a bevy of smaller European countries. War reconstruction was complete by 1960.

    • Replies: @Gc
    @Art Deco

    Ok, but you see when you analyze data if you take that long periods, you miss the relevance. This was about 1935-1963. Just looks at the graphs, Japan and Germany took a big dive, UK stalls, USA continues as there was no war. It seems to me that Germany was in 1935 level in a year 1955. USA didn't even have food coupons during the war. Here is a graph.

    Replies: @anon, @Art Deco

    , @International Jew
    @Art Deco

    That's interesting, but let's remember that a lot of capita — your denominator — were lost in the two world wars.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  58. @Mercer
    The boom was from 1946 to 1972. The big civil rights act passed in 1964. How can anyone think the boom was caused by a law that passed after the midpoint of the expansion?

    Replies: @Bragadocious, @Hypnotoad666, @Ben tillman, @JackOH

    The boom was from 1946 to 1972. The big civil rights act passed in 1964. How can anyone think the boom was caused by a law that passed after the midpoint of the expansion?

    Same for the 1965 Immigration Act. The highest blue collar wage growth was pre-civil rights era, pre-feminism, and pre-mass immigration. Hmmm . . . maybe there is a correlation here after all.

  59. Immigration liberalization act came in ‘65, twenty years after WW2. Even after it’s Immediate passage immigration was limited. The pickup of legal immigration didn’t pick up until 1990.

  60. It’s probably some weird combination of broad based economic and sociological factors…..i don’t for instance think its pure coincidence we abandoned the gold standard around the same time worker wages stagnated….and then Nixon started to get hit with the imflation JFK and LBJ used to finance the Vietnam war and the space program….and the Great Society….

  61. @Anon
    We were wondering the other day on Twitter about how the Boomers got so wealthy and why Gen X and the Millienials didn't. Someone suggested it was because Gen X, specifically, had to immediately deal with the flood of H1bs that came into the country following the 1990 Immigration act.

    I was trying to do some back of the napkin math to determine how quickly the mix of ethnicities that someone was born into in the US in 1972 turned into by the time they were 22. In 1972, the births looked roughly like this:

    White ...2,522,780 - 78%
    Hispanic... 132,778 - 4.1%
    Black ...531,329 - 16.5%
    Asian ...22,438 - .7%
    American Indian ...11,688
    Other ...1,400
    Total 3,222,413

    I cannot seem to find a good source that tells me current demography by year but I do see sources that suggest Gen X is now 65% white. That means in the time since 48 year olds were born, their same year birth cohort has dramatically shifted in favor of Hispanics and Asians.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Kronos, @The Wild Geese Howard, @Ben tillman

    We were wondering the other day on Twitter about how the Boomers got so wealthy and why Gen X and the Millienials didn’t.

    This simplest answer is that their sheer voting size (90 million if you include the war babies) made it extremely easy to reconfigure government policies/regulation to their choosing.
    Many of them blabber about checks and balances but their voting size bypassed anything the Founding Fathers could construct. (Checks and balances are only for other generations.)

    They could vote themselves assets and vote away liabilities. They could grant themselves tax breaks while you made it up via your payroll taxes a few decades later.

  62. Mr. Tankersley should learn to code.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    @Moses

    He's a political 'science' major - he would have to learn to count first.

  63. @Anon
    We were wondering the other day on Twitter about how the Boomers got so wealthy and why Gen X and the Millienials didn't. Someone suggested it was because Gen X, specifically, had to immediately deal with the flood of H1bs that came into the country following the 1990 Immigration act.

    I was trying to do some back of the napkin math to determine how quickly the mix of ethnicities that someone was born into in the US in 1972 turned into by the time they were 22. In 1972, the births looked roughly like this:

    White ...2,522,780 - 78%
    Hispanic... 132,778 - 4.1%
    Black ...531,329 - 16.5%
    Asian ...22,438 - .7%
    American Indian ...11,688
    Other ...1,400
    Total 3,222,413

    I cannot seem to find a good source that tells me current demography by year but I do see sources that suggest Gen X is now 65% white. That means in the time since 48 year olds were born, their same year birth cohort has dramatically shifted in favor of Hispanics and Asians.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Kronos, @The Wild Geese Howard, @Ben tillman

    We were wondering the other day on Twitter about how the Boomers got so wealthy and why Gen X and the Millienials didn’t.

    Ehhhhhhhhh, in my personal Gen X case it’s because I failed to educate myself about finances and properly manage my capital until my late 30s.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    You might enjoy this book.

    https://youtu.be/HA-KLZvpMsI

    But keep in mind plenty of Baby Boomers engaged in similar if not worse financial behavior and still obtained more wealth than any penny-pinching Gen X or Millennial if matched by age/wealth progression. Real estate was dirt cheap in the 1970s and 1980s and the core household costs were well within average salaries. They didn’t go bankrupt if they took a lawn dart to the nuts.

    https://youtu.be/9VHwjAkp76c

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

  64. Anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    quite a bit was due to changes that increased the labor supply, such as the feminist revolution, broadly supported by corporations
     
    Feminism wasn't that popular in Big Corps until the 90s. Before then, there was a sense that if a girl could find a prosperous husband, that was the best way forward.

    Female careerism, girl power, sisters doing for themselves, and power couples were seen as a bit strange. Remember the criticism that Hillary Clinton and Murphy Brown got back in the early 90s?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnhhZ0LVNPU

    Things are obviously very different today.

    One problem with female careerism is that it makes it more difficult for men and women to be satisfied in relationships. When a female earns the same amount as her spouse (more especially if she earns more), she goes from a subordinate to an equal partner. Sometimes she even starts to "wear the pants." That's an inversion of the historical arrangement that existed between the genders.

    It's like being with a woman who's taller and stronger than you. Or has had more sexual experience than you. Or is smarter than you. Or is better at working with her hands. Or is older than you.

    You feel weird and so does she.

    It's like if you see a couple of men walking down the street and holding hands. Imagine if they have a child with them. It's like the natural order has somehow been inverted.

    With that said, it's hard to pay the bills with only one breadwinner. So if your wife doesn't work, you can't always pay the mortgage, car payments, insurance, electricity, water, and food. Try living in a coastal metro on one paycheck.

    With a working wife, you can sometimes get extra stuff. A second vacation home. Trips overseas. Dining at cool restaurants. Braces for the kids.

    Most women work not because they enjoy it, but because money doesn't grow on trees. If you want lots of nice stuff and fun experiences, you need money.

    If you look at religious fundamentalists who still have high fertility and stay-at-home wives, their lives are often very simple and austere. Kids share bedrooms. Kids wear hand-me-downs. The kids take away all the time from the parents, so there's little (if any) "me time." They have sex only occasionally. There's an old station wagon and a minivan. They eat out once a week, at McDonald's. They go on vacation to Ocean Shores, Oregon. They spend long periods of time at Church.

    Life is all about trade offs.

    In some ways, you're better off than your ancestors. In other ways, worse off.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Change that Matters, @Anon

    We should win the battle for language, by talking not about “decent wages” but about the need for a “family wage”. A salary that allows for one breadwinner and one stay-at-home partner, ideally the mom. Better food, better manners, better health, better everything within that little space of liberty and contentment called ‘home’.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  65. “Well, I’ve been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that’s the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones. ” — Maj Kong, “Dr. Strangelove”

  66. @Chrisnonymous

    The economy thrived after World War II... In 1960, cutting-edge research... has documented...disparity was by design.
     
    I'm not sure about the logic here. Blacks and women were allowed to be managees, lawyers, doctors, etc from 1946-1959, then white men forced blacks back into their janitorial jobs and women back into their kitchens?

    If that really happened, then good news--maybe we can force immigrants back their own countries again too!

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    I’m not sure Tankersley knows when the Postwar Era was.

    • Agree: JackOH
    • LOL: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    In fairness, he's a journalist, not a historian, so he can't be expected to know all the small details about the jargon.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Brobert
    @Steve Sailer

    You can never be too careful. With punctuality being scientifically known to be a white supremacist construct and history to be cancelled in schools due to racism, Tankersley is making it clear he's a good guy by publicly announcing he doesn't even know time is linear.

  67. @Daniel H
    In 1960, cutting-edge research from economists at the University of Chicago and Stanford University has documented, more than half of Black men in America worked as janitors, freight handlers or something similar.

    What was that "something similar"? If Tankersley had any real acquaintance with African Americans of a certain age from the "rust belt" he would have heard tales of plenty of blacks working on an auto assembly line or in a steel mill or some other very fairly compensated blue collar job back in the 60s or 70s. And even janitors and warehouse workers were usually decently paid back them, due to unionization, no outsourcing and lack of ferocious competition from immigrants.

    What's the use arguing with this type. Facts, reason don't matter. Mass immigration, the permanent altering of the racial composition of the west is a religious tenet for them.

    Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @James O'Meara, @Kerryokwan

    He needed “cutting edge research” for that? I thought it was the assumption behind everything is academia, media or politics. Next he’ll demand “cutting edge research” to “prove” the police are systematically murdering innocent black bodies.

  68. I like how he makes sure to mention he “went to school with working class white men” — real salt of the earth guy. I guess that’s a version of “My father was a mailman”

  69. @J.Ross
    Only stupid if you assume that any NYT reader already knows that this guy is just flat out lying. These are modern NYT readers we're talking about, they don't know any better.
    ----------
    "I've Never Seen Anything Like It In My Life."
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/09/shark-tank-investor-herjavec-were-about-to-see-biggest-exodus-from-cities-in-50-years.html
    ESCAPE THE BLUE METROPOLI

    Replies: @James O'Meara, @Kolya Krassotkin, @JerseyJeffersonian

    “I recently moved out of Los Angeles into a suburban area, and I can tell you on a very personal level, my area is on fire,” he added. ”

    Poor choice of words?

  70. “Respectable” journalism and scholarship are hermetically sealed within what John Derbyshire has called “the Empire of Lies.” Every bit of historical and theoretical knowledge about humanity has been deliberately turned on its head: The races and sexes are equal in every way. blacks created all of America’s wealth. Women dominated the early world of computers, and black women took us to the moon. Similarly, the nation’s jails and prisons are full of innocent blacks. “Transgenders” are righteous victims. Whites somehow cause blacks and Hispanics to come down with the China Virus.

    These mopes are in a perpetual “can you top this” game of coming up with the most outrageous lie du jour, the most obscene homage to ugliness, the most outrageous salute to evil.

    And it’s been going on for app. 60 years. And what have Republicans and “conservatives” done about it? They’ve shouted “Me, too!”

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Nicholas Stix

    How come you think this disinformation business in the NYT started ca. 1960?

    I considered Stephen Jay Gould's IQ-argumentation to be an important stepping stone in this development. cf. Bernard D. Davis' book Storm over Biology. Davis was here quite clear about Gould and the NYT, but he still seemed surprised.

    https://www.abebooks.com/9780879753245/Storm-Over-Biology-Essays-Science-0879753242/plp

    , @vinteuil
    @Nicholas Stix


    These mopes are in a perpetual “can you top this” game of coming up with the most outrageous lie du jour, the most obscene homage to ugliness, the most outrageous salute to evil.

    And it’s been going on for app. 60 years. And what have Republicans and “conservatives” done about it? They’ve shouted “Me, too!”
     
    Well, at first they just whispered their agreement. Only since Trump have they begun shouting it.
  71. @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Anon


    We were wondering the other day on Twitter about how the Boomers got so wealthy and why Gen X and the Millienials didn’t.
     
    Ehhhhhhhhh, in my personal Gen X case it's because I failed to educate myself about finances and properly manage my capital until my late 30s.

    Replies: @Kronos

    You might enjoy this book.

    But keep in mind plenty of Baby Boomers engaged in similar if not worse financial behavior and still obtained more wealth than any penny-pinching Gen X or Millennial if matched by age/wealth progression. Real estate was dirt cheap in the 1970s and 1980s and the core household costs were well within average salaries. They didn’t go bankrupt if they took a lawn dart to the nuts.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Kronos

    Oh, I've been experiencing the joy of living well below my means for a few years now.


    Real estate was dirt cheap in the 1970s and 1980s and the core household costs were well within average salaries.
     
    Well, yes. This is why I politely smile and nod when people try to tell me what a great investment real estate is here in 2020.
  72. @Rosie
    @JohnnyWalker123


    When a female earns the same amount as her spouse (more especially if she earns more), she goes from a subordinate to an equal partner.
     
    A wife is an equal partner regardless of whether she earns less than, more than, or the same as, her husband. Mr. Rosie and I have switched places throughout our marriage, and he has treated me the same no matter what, thank Heaven.

    Anyway, I thought the title of this post was hyperbole, but no, the New York Slimes has really outdone itself this time.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @JohnnyWalker123

    Well, there are 2 types of equality.

    Equality of value.

    Equality of function.

    The first type of equality (value) is about how much both spouses bring to the relationship. Traditionally, most cultures (including Western) theoretically recognized both husbands and wives as having equal value. Husbands as providers and decision makers, wives as mothers and nurturers. The view was that husbands should treat their wives well because they were fulfilling an equally important function in the family, but that husbands should be in charge.

    The second type of equality (function) is about what role each spouse fills. In recent times, with the rise of working women, we’ve seen women assume male responsibilities. We’ve also seen men assume female responsibilities, like providing childcare and cooking.

    Equality of function is obviously much more practical and easy for both spouses in the modern age, but it’s very different from how human beings lived for thousands of years. There are lots advantages to the arrangement, but some disadvantages too.

    You’re correct that wives are generally recognized as having equal value to men, regardless of wage. However, equality of function doesn’t really happen until the wife starts earning a similar salary as her husband (or out earning). At that point, she “wears the pants.”

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @JohnnyWalker123


    Husbands as providers and decision makers, wives as mothers and nurturers. The view was that husbands should treat their wives well because they were fulfilling an equally important function in the family, but that husbands should be in charge.
     
    Yawn. To claim that husbands are entitled to be the "decision makers" and to be "in charge" precisely to assert that their role is more important than a mother's role, notwithstanding any attempt to conceal that fact.
  73. @Steve Sailer
    @Chrisnonymous

    I'm not sure Tankersley knows when the Postwar Era was.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Brobert

    In fairness, he’s a journalist, not a historian, so he can’t be expected to know all the small details about the jargon.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Chrisnonymous

    He wrote a freaking book about it and points to his book as his biggest qualification.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  74. @Mercer
    The boom was from 1946 to 1972. The big civil rights act passed in 1964. How can anyone think the boom was caused by a law that passed after the midpoint of the expansion?

    Replies: @Bragadocious, @Hypnotoad666, @Ben tillman, @JackOH

    You’re right. Tankersley is lying.

  75. @Anon
    We were wondering the other day on Twitter about how the Boomers got so wealthy and why Gen X and the Millienials didn't. Someone suggested it was because Gen X, specifically, had to immediately deal with the flood of H1bs that came into the country following the 1990 Immigration act.

    I was trying to do some back of the napkin math to determine how quickly the mix of ethnicities that someone was born into in the US in 1972 turned into by the time they were 22. In 1972, the births looked roughly like this:

    White ...2,522,780 - 78%
    Hispanic... 132,778 - 4.1%
    Black ...531,329 - 16.5%
    Asian ...22,438 - .7%
    American Indian ...11,688
    Other ...1,400
    Total 3,222,413

    I cannot seem to find a good source that tells me current demography by year but I do see sources that suggest Gen X is now 65% white. That means in the time since 48 year olds were born, their same year birth cohort has dramatically shifted in favor of Hispanics and Asians.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Kronos, @The Wild Geese Howard, @Ben tillman

    It’s immigration. There are about a million 48-year-old immigrants in this country.

  76. Gc says:
    @Art Deco
    @Gc

    Per the Maddison Project

    The growth rate in per capita product in Germany, Japan, and Italy over the period running from 1913 to 1960 exceeded that registered in those countries during the period running from 1866 t0 1913. Sames true in the United States, Soviet Russia, Britain, France, Spain, and a bevy of smaller European countries. War reconstruction was complete by 1960.

    Replies: @Gc, @International Jew

    Ok, but you see when you analyze data if you take that long periods, you miss the relevance. This was about 1935-1963. Just looks at the graphs, Japan and Germany took a big dive, UK stalls, USA continues as there was no war. It seems to me that Germany was in 1935 level in a year 1955. USA didn’t even have food coupons during the war. Here is a graph.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Gc

    USA didn’t even have food coupons during the war.

    That is not true.

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/28/69/68/2869682f9104fe7ce1fdb206a0d69370.jpg

    https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2678/4329305982_07cf87f2ec_z.jpg

    https://www.stampcommunity.org/uploaded/wt1/20101023_RationSheet.jpg

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/dd/56/6a/dd566a67bf9310d62c9f6f998082922a.jpg

    , @Art Deco
    @Gc

    Not sure what your complaint is. The point of my comment was that the damage done to productive capacity during the period running from 1914 to 1945 was entirely repaired and then some in the 15 years after the war. (And there was food rationing in the US during the war).

  77. He keeps bringing up good new jobs. We need tens of millions of them. What current or future industries are going to require new full-time workers by the millions who will make $20, $30 or $40 an hour without a four year college degree? Tankersley’s making promises here without providing any indication of how the promises of tens of millions of good new full-time jobs will be kept. But he is not alone: I never read about what the wonderful new jobs will be, only that they will magically exist.

    I believe Andrew Yang and the experts who say we will experience catastrophic permanent job loss due to technological change. I believe we need to start cutting back on immigration now so we’ll have fewer people to take care of and find jobs for during the bad times that are coming.

  78. As usual amongst our neoliberal friends, societal success is never measured in GDP per capita instead of total-you’d think with the rise of India and China, the foolishness of the latter should be obvious. But propaganda aside, I think this does touch on something interesting, albeit indirectly: immigrant labor is disproportionately concentrated in the private sector. That explains why the labor union bosses and public sector workers are OK with it, given how they’ve become increasingly restricted to the public sector.

    The big losers from this, of course, are still native workers who don’t have the connections or background necessary to get into the latter, and their numbers are growing given the massive rentiering of the American economy over the last few decades. So this guy is still lying through his teeth when he says that immigration has no downsides for Americans. But I think if you want to understand why economic arguments about immigration fall flat with traditional Democratic constituencies, you start there. Immigration certainly benefits Capital at the expense of Labor, but not all sectors of Labor are equally impacted.

    >The rest, 86 percent, were founded entirely by men.

    He’s at least self-aware enough to not try to claim that it is dominated by white men.

    • Agree: ic1000
  79. Anonymous[344] • Disclaimer says:

    A native of McMinnville, Ore., Jim is a Stanford graduate — Class of 2000, political science

    The most important newspaper on the planet couldn’t find someone with an economics background to be its economics reporter?

  80. @Steve Sailer
    @Chrisnonymous

    I'm not sure Tankersley knows when the Postwar Era was.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Brobert

    You can never be too careful. With punctuality being scientifically known to be a white supremacist construct and history to be cancelled in schools due to racism, Tankersley is making it clear he’s a good guy by publicly announcing he doesn’t even know time is linear.

  81. Steve, I am shocked that you think this is the dumbest thing that you have read in the liberal Bible. How did this beat 1619, ISIS is not Islamic, Trump is literally a modern Hitler, or all the articles about black women are traumatized because white women keep touching their hair? There are so many op Ed’s to choose from. You can probably just take any random Kristof or Blow opinion piece and challenge this one for dumbest.

    You think this article is stupid because you know what happened and understand that his version of history is 180 degrees from reality. Most people have very little understanding of history. If you know what really happened all you have to do is unlearn it. Problem solved!

    Reality for good smart people is whatever they are told by their masters is reality. The dumber the better because obviously dumb things will be automatically rejected by bad whites

    Since that fateful day when Orange Man rode down that escalator, believing what the NYT wants you to think is how you show you are a good, smart person. Questioning the NYT is like questioning the Bible or Quran with people of other, more traditional religions

    This idiotic article is similar to talking points that marketing provides to the salesforce. Now good whites know what to think about this topic. It is the new reality and will greatly help his book sales.

  82. @Art Deco
    @Gc

    Per the Maddison Project

    The growth rate in per capita product in Germany, Japan, and Italy over the period running from 1913 to 1960 exceeded that registered in those countries during the period running from 1866 t0 1913. Sames true in the United States, Soviet Russia, Britain, France, Spain, and a bevy of smaller European countries. War reconstruction was complete by 1960.

    Replies: @Gc, @International Jew

    That’s interesting, but let’s remember that a lot of capita — your denominator — were lost in the two world wars.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @International Jew

    Contemporary estimates have it that the population of Europe, the Ottoman Empire, North Africa, Japan, Korea, French Indochina, the Philippines, and Indonesia summed to about 650 million in 1914. Estimates of the death toll in the two world wars vary, but they seem to bounce around 65 million, of which about 10 million were in China. To that you can add some of the appended wars in the Far East (in Korea, Indochina, and Indonesia). The dead (outside China) amount to 9% of the 1914 population in these places.

    Replies: @International Jew

  83. A Poli”Sci” major thinks he can ‘woke’ his way to a coherent explanation of economic development – it would be remarkable if it didn’t result in an unreadable sub-sophomoric shitshow.

    So in that sense, Tankersley’s brain-grogans are unremarkable.

    The “Sci” in Poli”Sci” is a marketing device, not a description of their method. They are not scientists, and their quantitative methodologies ought to have been mothballed after Lucas’ 1976 critique of reduced-form modelling.

    They are hand-waving essay-writers – but “Political Rhetoric” as a department name is unlikely to attract enough students to keep the student fees rolling in.

  84. @Moses
    Mr. Tankersley should learn to code.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

    He’s a political ‘science’ major – he would have to learn to count first.

  85. Somewhat Off Topic:

    Yahoo has this story from Time magazine writer Ian Bremmer. I have seen his stuff before; he’s usually talking up China or the wonders of immigration. Not today though. His topic today is the coming global depression. I can’t say he convinced me but he made some good points. He talks about job loss but not what our good future jobs will be:

    “The Congressional Budget Office has warned that the unemployment rate will remain stubbornly high for the next decade, and economic output will remain depressed for years unless changes are made to the way government taxes and spends.”

    “What could world leaders do to shorten this global depression? They could resist the urge to tell their people that brighter days are just around the corner. People need leaders to take responsibility for tough decisions.”

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/next-global-depression-coming-optimism-104042721.html

  86. @Boswald Bollocksworth
    I think it is worth dwelling on the precise mechanism by which immigration hurts wages.

    It can't simply be "more people", otherwise we would see countries with smaller populations have higher wages. Sweden has fewer people than the USA...higher wages?

    What happens, I think, is that by having an exogenous supply of labor come in, you move labor markets from one equilibrium, to a new one where wages are lower. Over time, the supply should create it's own demand, the Indian greencard holder buys a house, car, whatever and stimulates the rest of the economy. But there are more immigrants always coming in, always applying pressure on wages.

    Did women affect typical wages when they joined the labor force? At first, but I think the effect should have gradually faded, hence the need to ramp up immigration in the mid 90s. Really I think the most productive way to talk about this is the "labor share of GDP" how much of income is paid as wages and benefits, that's down from the 70s peak. Ideally you'd remove compensation for executives, athletes and entertainers as well and look at how much of GDP gets paid out to normal workers.

    Replies: @Ben tillman, @Kratoklastes, @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    The answer is that the amount of capital does not increase proportionately to the increase in labor.

    • Thanks: Boswald Bollocksworth
  87. @Lot
    “ there’s a funny scene in Mad Men in 1960 in which the clock at the ad agency strikes 5:15 so all the white collar workers pack up and go home”

    I watched half an episode of Mad Men and found it pretentious and boring.

    However, the same joke was in Netflix’s French series A Very Secret Service, a zany Get Smart comedy set in Paris, Moscow, and Algiers of the early 1960s.

    You get the same glamorous early 60s moderne sets and clothing and busty secretaries serving cocktails, but it is fast paced and hilarious.

    https://aws1.vdkimg.com/tv_show/6/4/0/0/64001_backdrop_scale_1280xauto.jpg

    https://www.dvdfr.com/images/anecdotic/_news/2018/07/au_service_de_la_france_saison_2_5.jpg

    http://www.theartchemists.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/au-service-de-la-france.jpg

    Replies: @Kratoklastes, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Romanian

    If you liked that, you would probably like the 2006 and 2009 OSS-117 movies – kind of like a French “Get Smart“, with the engaging Jean Dujardin in the title role.

    This bit with 117 and some Mossad guys is pretty indicative.

    “Chasing a Nazi with [the aid of] Jews? Ridiculous. They’ll be able to be identified!”

    How?

    Where do I start? The nose…”

    Equally, he thinks it’s risible that Arabic is spoken by “millions” of people… and at 1:45 he tries to prove to a Chinese spy that he’s not racist.

  88. @Anonymous
    @Rosie


    A wife is an equal partner regardless of whether she earns less than, more than, or the same as, her husband.
     
    You are talking about "equal" in some sort of moral, spiritual, or metaphysical sense. That is not what JohnnyWalker123 is talking about here. Obviously, in other dimensions, men and women, husbands and wives, are not equal.

    For example, take height. The vast majority of husbands are taller than their wives. Husbands and wives are generally not "equal" in that dimension. If some husbands physically shrank during marriage and became shorter than their wives, do you think that would have an effect on those marriages? It's well established that women prefer tall men and husbands at least taller than themselves.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    Right.

    In this context, inequality doesn’t necessarily imply one is better than another. It implies distinction.

    Men prefer women who have girly feminine voices, while women prefer men with deep masculine voices. It doesn’t mean one is more valuable than another, merely that there’s a difference.

    Attraction is, to some extent, based on sexual polarity. We want something that’s the opposite of us. Men want to feel like a protector&provider, while women want a man to save them (or at least this use to be the case). Men want to be powerful, while women want to feel overpowered.

    When both men and women assume the same roles, sexual polarity doesn’t exist with the same force.

    With that said, there are a lot of practical/financial reasons for men and women to play similar roles. So I’m not saying it’s completely bad. I’m saying there are trade offs.

    Today’s men don’t have the shoulder the burdens of being in charge of the family, like previous generations. So it’s easier in a sense. However, they don’t have the same type of relationships with their wives as previous generations. They’re no longer “head of the family.”

    Life is about trade offs.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @JohnnyWalker123

    I prefer tomboys with masculine interests and personalities. I can make relationships with stereotypically feminine women work, but it takes a lot of effort and mental energy.

    I wonder if it is the same, but the opposite way around for other men.

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @JohnnyWalker123

    "We want something that's the opposite of us."

    That explains my attraction to homely women.

  89. Since it reads like the “Hidden Figures” interpretation of history, Tankersley may be shopping a screenplay adaptation about the unacknowledged D.C.-based op-ed authors who got us to the moon… personally I don’t like its Oscar chances against Beyoncé’s “BIK 2: Age of Melanin,” likely to sweep all but the Best Foreign Film category, which is a scandalous loophole we need to take a look at immediately…

  90. Anon[183] • Disclaimer says:

    “More than half of black workers [worked mental jobs]” : half of blacks have an IQ below 85, as do 1 in 6 whites. Menial jobs are all they can do, but the jobs don’t exist in such quantities anymore, and illegal aliens are doing what’s left. Today those sub-85 blacks are pregnant or in jail or making trouble, because their jobs are gone and they expect to do cushy jobs.

    Neither Steve nor the opinionsist mention the professional-managerial class chunk of the middle class, the lawyers, doctor, professors, journalists, et al., who were riding high through the mid 1970s or so, then began to crumble as they ended up as powerless salaried employees of giant corporations a.m.institutions, or contractors: adjunct professors, HMO doctors, contract attorneys, non-partner track attorneys, contact software developers, and so on. Journalism fell apart more recently. These PMC-manqué are causing all sorts of trouble, such as leading the woke revolution, taking low-level jobs away from people without college degrees.

  91. @Boswald Bollocksworth
    I think it is worth dwelling on the precise mechanism by which immigration hurts wages.

    It can't simply be "more people", otherwise we would see countries with smaller populations have higher wages. Sweden has fewer people than the USA...higher wages?

    What happens, I think, is that by having an exogenous supply of labor come in, you move labor markets from one equilibrium, to a new one where wages are lower. Over time, the supply should create it's own demand, the Indian greencard holder buys a house, car, whatever and stimulates the rest of the economy. But there are more immigrants always coming in, always applying pressure on wages.

    Did women affect typical wages when they joined the labor force? At first, but I think the effect should have gradually faded, hence the need to ramp up immigration in the mid 90s. Really I think the most productive way to talk about this is the "labor share of GDP" how much of income is paid as wages and benefits, that's down from the 70s peak. Ideally you'd remove compensation for executives, athletes and entertainers as well and look at how much of GDP gets paid out to normal workers.

    Replies: @Ben tillman, @Kratoklastes, @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    I think it is worth dwelling on the precise mechanism by which immigration hurts wages.

    It’s the short term effect on the capital/labour ratio – more labour, plus fixed capital, means that the marginal product of labour falls.

    If wages are sticky, then people (mostly indigenes) get sacked (and so the effect is not on wages, but higher levels of indigenous unemployment (“Dey tuk ahr jaaaahbs“). If wages can ‘flex’, it will be a combination of reduced wages and lower employment – until returns on capital rise enough to make additional capital worthwhile.

    [MORE]

    This only makes sense if there’s an assumption that the economy is already at full employment (at least, in the segments of the labour market in which immigrants compete). It’s very weak sauce, frankly: if there’s not full employment in immigrant-competing labour segments, then there is no pressure on wages or employment until immigrants have filled the slack.

    That said, wage/unemployment effects are not the primary economic effect postulated by people who are anti-immigration.

    Anyone who looks at the data can see that any (tiny) reduction in the general wage level is the result of the fact that wages earned by immigrants are lower than those earned by indigenes, even holding constant the unemployment rate among indigenes.

    The main argument that anti-immigration types generally run with, involves some notion that immigrants are, on average, more costly to government budgets, because they have higher-than-average levels of use of government services. They send their kids to government schools – before they have ‘contributed’ anything in taxes. They use publicly-funded infrastructure – roads, water treatment etc – without having contributed to it. (There are also arguments about effects on culture).

    All of that is absolutely true: the higher-than-average levels of demand for government services arise because immigrants as a group aren’t ‘average’; they’re in line with levels of use of government services in the bottom 40%.

    In other words, permitting non-merit-based immigration is the same thing as adding to your stock of poor people. There’s some merit to the argument.

    The main reason this has started to genuinely ‘bite’ is because in a modern economy, everyone outside the top quintile, contributes less in taxes than they receive in tax-funded goods and services. Worse still, for half of the top quintile their entire income is recycled taxes (i.e., they’re bureaucrats: 1 in 6 employed persons work for the government, and they earn on average 120% of private sector average wages… all of which is paid out of the taxes taken from private-sector wages).

    Under those sorts of conditions, the ‘solution’ (according to anti-immigration folks) isn’t to reduce handouts to middle-class urban people, or to slow the rate of growth of the bureaucracy’s wage bill. No… those aren’t the answer: the answer it to stop immigration. It’s like pissing on a forest fire.

    However… almost everyone alive grew up during periods of mounting government debt – and so every cohort of indigenes has taken more out of the pot than was put in (and is the promisee of shitloads of future tax-funded entitlements).

    So every kid the indigenes squirt out, starts life with a larger debt to pay for all that infrastructure: the immigrants aren’t the ones who have spent generations adding to the government credit card.

    If government could ever get its fiscal act together and stop the rate of growth of government debt, then each immigrant would actually reduce the indigenous population’s share of outstanding debt. That would lower the implied rate of future taxation required to service the existing debt.

    However government simply cannot slow its rate of debt accumulation: that horse has bolted, and will only get worse as time goes one, because of unfunded entitlements to past generations of indigenes (e.g., aged pensions and healthcare).

    In the past, anti-immigrationists have made the same “they use shit we’ve paid for” about Chinese, Irish, Germans, Italians, Catholics, Greeks, and immigrants of every conceivable hue or stripe. It’s a trope that assumes that “shit we’ve paid for” means that it’s owned free and clear – i.e., there was zero debt associated with existing infrastructure the immigrants got off the boat. That hasn’t been true for 3 generations.

    Fact is: once the ‘core’ Anglo land-thieves have finished stealing the natives’ shit, they want to raise the drawbridge and lower the portcullis. It’s happened everywhere.

  92. @JohnnyWalker123
    @Rosie

    Well, there are 2 types of equality.

    Equality of value.

    Equality of function.

    The first type of equality (value) is about how much both spouses bring to the relationship. Traditionally, most cultures (including Western) theoretically recognized both husbands and wives as having equal value. Husbands as providers and decision makers, wives as mothers and nurturers. The view was that husbands should treat their wives well because they were fulfilling an equally important function in the family, but that husbands should be in charge.

    The second type of equality (function) is about what role each spouse fills. In recent times, with the rise of working women, we've seen women assume male responsibilities. We've also seen men assume female responsibilities, like providing childcare and cooking.

    Equality of function is obviously much more practical and easy for both spouses in the modern age, but it's very different from how human beings lived for thousands of years. There are lots advantages to the arrangement, but some disadvantages too.

    You're correct that wives are generally recognized as having equal value to men, regardless of wage. However, equality of function doesn't really happen until the wife starts earning a similar salary as her husband (or out earning). At that point, she "wears the pants."

    Replies: @Rosie

    Husbands as providers and decision makers, wives as mothers and nurturers. The view was that husbands should treat their wives well because they were fulfilling an equally important function in the family, but that husbands should be in charge.

    Yawn. To claim that husbands are entitled to be the “decision makers” and to be “in charge” precisely to assert that their role is more important than a mother’s role, notwithstanding any attempt to conceal that fact.

  93. @Lot
    “ there’s a funny scene in Mad Men in 1960 in which the clock at the ad agency strikes 5:15 so all the white collar workers pack up and go home”

    I watched half an episode of Mad Men and found it pretentious and boring.

    However, the same joke was in Netflix’s French series A Very Secret Service, a zany Get Smart comedy set in Paris, Moscow, and Algiers of the early 1960s.

    You get the same glamorous early 60s moderne sets and clothing and busty secretaries serving cocktails, but it is fast paced and hilarious.

    https://aws1.vdkimg.com/tv_show/6/4/0/0/64001_backdrop_scale_1280xauto.jpg

    https://www.dvdfr.com/images/anecdotic/_news/2018/07/au_service_de_la_france_saison_2_5.jpg

    http://www.theartchemists.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/au-service-de-la-france.jpg

    Replies: @Kratoklastes, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Romanian

    I watched half an episode of Mad Men and found it pretentious and boring.

    We Calvinists managed a full episode, but similarly couldn’t stand any more.

    The first couple of seasons of Endeavour also have a bit of that glammy early 60s vibe.

  94. anon[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @Gc
    @Art Deco

    Ok, but you see when you analyze data if you take that long periods, you miss the relevance. This was about 1935-1963. Just looks at the graphs, Japan and Germany took a big dive, UK stalls, USA continues as there was no war. It seems to me that Germany was in 1935 level in a year 1955. USA didn't even have food coupons during the war. Here is a graph.

    Replies: @anon, @Art Deco

    USA didn’t even have food coupons during the war.

    That is not true.

  95. S says:

    Haven’t any of these writers ever read 1984? Have they no self awareness at all?

    The United States long reserved its most lucrative occupations for an elite class of white men. Those men held power by selling everyone else a myth: The biggest threat to workers like you are workers who do not look like you. Again and again, they told working-class white men that they were losing out on good jobs to women, nonwhite men and immigrants.

    Americans deserve to know the truth about that Golden Era, which was not the whitewashed, “Leave It to Beaver” tale that so many people have been led to believe…We need to hear it because it is a beacon of hope in a bleak time for our economy, but more important, because the lies that elite white men peddle about workers in conflict have made the economy worse for everyone, for far too long.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Robert_Howlett_%28Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel_Standing_Before_the_Launching_Chains_of_the_Great_Eastern%29%2C_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art_%28cropped%29.jpg/800px-Robert_Howlett_%28Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel_Standing_Before_the_Launching_Chains_of_the_Great_Eastern%29%2C_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art_%28cropped%29.jpgan6f
    ‘These rich men were called capitalists.’

    1984

    “In the old days [it ran], before the glorious revolution, London was not the beautiful city that we know today. It was dark, dirty, miserable place where we know nobody had enough to eat and where hundreds and thousands of poor people had no boots on their feet and not even a roof to sleep under. Children no older than you are had to work twelve hours a day for cruel masters, who flogged them with whips if they worked too slowly and fed them on nothing but stale breadcrusts and water. But in among all this terrible poverty there were just a few great big beautiful houses that were lived in by rich men who had as many as thirty servants to look after them.

    These rich men were called capitalists. They were fat, ugly men with wicked faces, like the one in the picture on the opposite page. You can see he is dressed in a long black coat which was called a frock coat, and a queer, shiny hat shaped like a stovepipe, which was called a top hat. This was the uniform of the capitalists, and no one else was allowed to wear it. The capitalists owned everything in the world, land, all the houses, all the factories, and all the money. If anyone disobeyed them, they could throw him into prison, or they could take his job away and starve him, and take off his cap and address him as Sir. The chief of all the capitalists was called the King, and—“

  96. So this is why everyone remembers nostalgically the post-War Golden Age of 1975.

  97. In an unintentional way, this man is right. Blacks and women are the key to American revival. Stop all government programs that give out money to them and repeal all laws that deny people the right to discriminate. Blacks and women will thereupon be induced to find their natural positions in society and the rest of us can get on with our lives.

  98. S says:
    @San Fernando Curt
    This outline seems ridiculous, but it is intended to institutionalize a cheap-labor nation, hopefully forever. Somehow more and more people will create more and more jobs. You're right, Steve. This genius got it exactly backwards. We became the most powerful and richest country on earth when it was 90% White. We began a long slide when the doors opened, and corporations were allowed to hire cheap imported workers here, and send their factories to even cheaper workers overseas.

    The most sinister part of this New Spiel, is to provide an excuse for treating white people like second and third class citizens. This is not about Justice it's about revenge. Newcomers and Native non-whites are fed a steady diet of how lousy they were treated historically by those terrible white working-class men. They will enjoy their fall, even though they have no memory of their crimes.

    In this, our elites are motivated mostly by pragmatism. Whites have always been the most potent opponents of ravaging elites. History of American labor movements is still the most overlooked in American Education. What we get instead is lionization of Lefty nonsense that was largely insignificant in the real world here. American white workers never fell for the Marxist siren song. Something in them told them it's simply wouldn't work. The past Century proved them correct.

    But newly arrived workers, galvanized Americans, will have a ready-made foe when time comes to explain they're frustrated hopes, they're unrealised dreams. Bad Whitey is screwing them again.

    Tankersley mentions the working class white guys with whom he went to high school - indicating he was not of them. No wonder he's so ready to dump them. He doesn't think they matter. It's time to working class recognized who their enemies are. And began to act.

    Replies: @S

    This outline seems ridiculous, but it is intended to institutionalize a cheap-labor nation, hopefully forever.
    Somehow more and more people will create more and more jobs. You’re right, Steve. This genius got it exactly backwards.

    Yes, exactly.

    In the Anglosphere countries of the US, Australia, and Canada, there was a powerful push in the mid to letter 19th century to ‘import’ by diktat tens of millions of Chinese wage slaves, ie so called ‘cheap labor’. This scheme failed, ultimately, but not for lack of trying.

    The Pall Mall Gazette of London in 1874 specifically identified ‘race’ as the primary impediment blocking this scheme’s success, which it much lamented.

    A pretty powerful case could be made that the sole purpose of the development of the modern ideology of Multiculturalism, along with it’s accompanying anti-race campaign, has been to make the world safe for cheap labor, though to be sure I think there’s more to it than that.

    Tankersley is just what the doctor ordered for those shamelessly pushing such things.

    Pall Mall Gazette (Spring, 1874) – ‘Chinamen Out of China’

    “A dread of what might happen if capitalists could command and control these vast hordes of workmen as against men of their own race, has made the labouring class, at any rate, blind to their good qualities.”

    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.55223460&view=1up&seq=136&skin=mobile

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @S

    >In the Anglosphere countries of the US, Australia, and Canada, there was a powerful push in the mid to letter 19th century to ‘import’ by diktat tens of millions of Chinese wage slaves, ie so called ‘cheap labor’. This scheme failed, ultimately, but not for lack of trying.

    This did happen, albeit on a much more limited scale, in colonial Malaysia. Indians-mostly Tamil-were also imported.

    Previous waves of Chinese emigration in Southeast Asia largely oriented around middle class traders who'd as often as not marry a local woman and assimilate-the current Thai royal dynasty was founded by the grandson of a Cantonese trader. In 1800s Malaysia, by contrast, you had tons of blue collars being imported by the British who were far less assimilable. Partly, this was because the indigenous inhabitants were Muslim Austro-Polynesians, presenting much higher intermarriage barriers than Vietnamese or Thais did, but it was also partly the inevitable result of mass peasant migration. The emigrants brought over blood feuds from the home country-the Hakka and the Cantonese in particular hated each other-hence the constant spate of communal violence they had to deal with. Organized crime also exploded.

    There was a point that Malaysia was over 1/3rd Chinese, before the Malays enacted the bumi-favoring AA laws and the brain drain began.

    , @Beavertales
    @S

    "A pretty powerful case could be made that the sole purpose of the development of the modern ideology of Multiculturalism, along with it’s accompanying anti-race campaign, has been to make the world safe for cheap labor, though to be sure I think there’s more to it than that."

    Cheap labor and bodies to fill the run-down urban centers. Multiculturalism was and is a scheme to stimulate an economic sector which was on its knees by the late 1960's.

    Mass immigration lowered the risk of investing in downtown residential and commercial RE.

    In the late 20th century it was major cities. Now it's places like Lewiston, Maine or Winnipeg, Canada.

  99. @S
    @San Fernando Curt


    This outline seems ridiculous, but it is intended to institutionalize a cheap-labor nation, hopefully forever.
    Somehow more and more people will create more and more jobs. You’re right, Steve. This genius got it exactly backwards.
     
    Yes, exactly.

    In the Anglosphere countries of the US, Australia, and Canada, there was a powerful push in the mid to letter 19th century to 'import' by diktat tens of millions of Chinese wage slaves, ie so called 'cheap labor'. This scheme failed, ultimately, but not for lack of trying.

    The Pall Mall Gazette of London in 1874 specifically identified 'race' as the primary impediment blocking this scheme's success, which it much lamented.

    A pretty powerful case could be made that the sole purpose of the development of the modern ideology of Multiculturalism, along with it's accompanying anti-race campaign, has been to make the world safe for cheap labor, though to be sure I think there's more to it than that.

    Tankersley is just what the doctor ordered for those shamelessly pushing such things.


    Pall Mall Gazette (Spring, 1874) – ‘Chinamen Out of China’

    “A dread of what might happen if capitalists could command and control these vast hordes of workmen as against men of their own race, has made the labouring class, at any rate, blind to their good qualities.”
     

    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.55223460&view=1up&seq=136&skin=mobile

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Beavertales

    >In the Anglosphere countries of the US, Australia, and Canada, there was a powerful push in the mid to letter 19th century to ‘import’ by diktat tens of millions of Chinese wage slaves, ie so called ‘cheap labor’. This scheme failed, ultimately, but not for lack of trying.

    This did happen, albeit on a much more limited scale, in colonial Malaysia. Indians-mostly Tamil-were also imported.

    Previous waves of Chinese emigration in Southeast Asia largely oriented around middle class traders who’d as often as not marry a local woman and assimilate-the current Thai royal dynasty was founded by the grandson of a Cantonese trader. In 1800s Malaysia, by contrast, you had tons of blue collars being imported by the British who were far less assimilable. Partly, this was because the indigenous inhabitants were Muslim Austro-Polynesians, presenting much higher intermarriage barriers than Vietnamese or Thais did, but it was also partly the inevitable result of mass peasant migration. The emigrants brought over blood feuds from the home country-the Hakka and the Cantonese in particular hated each other-hence the constant spate of communal violence they had to deal with. Organized crime also exploded.

    There was a point that Malaysia was over 1/3rd Chinese, before the Malays enacted the bumi-favoring AA laws and the brain drain began.

    • Thanks: S
  100. @JohnnyWalker123
    @Anonymous

    Right.

    In this context, inequality doesn't necessarily imply one is better than another. It implies distinction.

    Men prefer women who have girly feminine voices, while women prefer men with deep masculine voices. It doesn't mean one is more valuable than another, merely that there's a difference.

    Attraction is, to some extent, based on sexual polarity. We want something that's the opposite of us. Men want to feel like a protector&provider, while women want a man to save them (or at least this use to be the case). Men want to be powerful, while women want to feel overpowered.

    When both men and women assume the same roles, sexual polarity doesn't exist with the same force.

    With that said, there are a lot of practical/financial reasons for men and women to play similar roles. So I'm not saying it's completely bad. I'm saying there are trade offs.

    Today's men don't have the shoulder the burdens of being in charge of the family, like previous generations. So it's easier in a sense. However, they don't have the same type of relationships with their wives as previous generations. They're no longer "head of the family."

    Life is about trade offs.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @SunBakedSuburb

    I prefer tomboys with masculine interests and personalities. I can make relationships with stereotypically feminine women work, but it takes a lot of effort and mental energy.

    I wonder if it is the same, but the opposite way around for other men.

  101. @Kronos
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    You might enjoy this book.

    https://youtu.be/HA-KLZvpMsI

    But keep in mind plenty of Baby Boomers engaged in similar if not worse financial behavior and still obtained more wealth than any penny-pinching Gen X or Millennial if matched by age/wealth progression. Real estate was dirt cheap in the 1970s and 1980s and the core household costs were well within average salaries. They didn’t go bankrupt if they took a lawn dart to the nuts.

    https://youtu.be/9VHwjAkp76c

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    Oh, I’ve been experiencing the joy of living well below my means for a few years now.

    Real estate was dirt cheap in the 1970s and 1980s and the core household costs were well within average salaries.

    Well, yes. This is why I politely smile and nod when people try to tell me what a great investment real estate is here in 2020.

  102. OMG!

    I’m averse to one word comments, but I’m nearly speechless at Tankersley’s brains-free piece.

  103. @J.Ross
    Only stupid if you assume that any NYT reader already knows that this guy is just flat out lying. These are modern NYT readers we're talking about, they don't know any better.
    ----------
    "I've Never Seen Anything Like It In My Life."
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/09/shark-tank-investor-herjavec-were-about-to-see-biggest-exodus-from-cities-in-50-years.html
    ESCAPE THE BLUE METROPOLI

    Replies: @James O'Meara, @Kolya Krassotkin, @JerseyJeffersonian

    The NYTLATChiTribWaPo is written to appeal to aspirational midwits, who read their copies, as they sip their morning’s tall skinny soy lattes with just a soupçon of fair-trade nutmeg, and nod knowingly.

  104. @Kronos
    @Aeronerauk

    I’m curious if the saner NYT writers need to get really high or drunk to write this stuff. I’d really need to get wasted to write woke Capital narratives for the NYTs.


    https://youtu.be/cQCFdcEXknc

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Yeah, but Hunter S. Thompson was not woke at all, no matter what (and what amounts of what) he indulged. – Maybe he reached a point at which he was mentally sterile – no infection whatsoever possible – and nothing left alive inside of him other than – Hunter S. Thompson. He sure flew high at times. I’d say that as a writer he was (and still might be) grossly overrated. I was really astonished to hear Matt Taibbi at Joe Rogan’s Experience – brag about how big an influence Hunter S. Thompson was and how inspiring and all that… – it sounded a lot like lip-service (something quite woke, btw. …. ah – – – full circle – – –

    PS

    Will the Circle be Unbroken…

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Dieter Kief

    True, but what kinda stuff is “the drug of choice” at the NYTs so they can produce this garbage?

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  105. @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco
    @Daniel H

    My father was a Teamster warehouseman from 1962 until 1983. From 1975 - 1983 he never earned less than $30,000 per year with excellent benefits, which would be equal to about $90,000 per year today.

    His hourly pay was about $12 per hour in the late 1970s , but he worked overtime often , getting paid $18 per hour when he worked over 40 hours. So he averaged about $15 per hour, equal to $45 per hour today. The contract they had in the 70s was tied to inflation , so they got automatic raises during the seventies.

    my mother was a high school teacher earning about $14,000 per year in 1979. Every summer We were able to rent a house at the jersey shore for an entire month each summer. It was a great life for my old man, working loading trucks and boxcars kept him in good shape, he had no stress and no need to get fancy cloths are spend money on dry etc...

    Replies: @danand

    “From 1975 – 1983 he never earned less than $30,000 per year with excellent benefits.”

    Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, your father was making out well for 1975, and darn good even by ‘83. A typical new home didn’t cost much over $30K in ‘75.

    The median income of families in the United States was $9,870 in 1970.
    Of the 51.9 million families in the United States 8.9 percent had incomes below $3,000. Families with incomes between $3,000 and $5,000 accounted for 5.3 million; 6.1 million had incomes between $5,000 and $7,000; 10.3 million families had incomes between $7,000 and $10,000.

    2018 United States Median Household Income was $60,293. Inflation was right around 6X from 1970 to 2020, so appears median family/household income remained roughly stagnate over those five decades.

    GDP
    $1.07 Trillion USD 1970 ~203 Million pop
    $21.4 Trillion USD 2020 (pre SARS proj, $3.5T in 1970 USD’s) ~331 Million pop

    1.63 times as many people (331/203) in the US in 2020 generated 3.27 times the GDP (3.5/1.07) as they did in 1970.

    Roughly twice the economic output generated per person in 2020 by workers paid the same real wage or salary they made in 1970. The country as a whole is much richer 50 years on, but average Joe is only doing about the half as well, piece of the US pie wise, as he was 50 years back.

    May be why average Joe feels worse off now, even though day to day, year to year, decade to decade; he’s kind of doing about the same.

    • Thanks: Gabe Ruth
  106. @San Fernando Curt
    This outline seems ridiculous, but it is intended to institutionalize a cheap-labor nation, hopefully forever. Somehow more and more people will create more and more jobs. You're right, Steve. This genius got it exactly backwards. We became the most powerful and richest country on earth when it was 90% White. We began a long slide when the doors opened, and corporations were allowed to hire cheap imported workers here, and send their factories to even cheaper workers overseas.

    The most sinister part of this New Spiel, is to provide an excuse for treating white people like second and third class citizens. This is not about Justice it's about revenge. Newcomers and Native non-whites are fed a steady diet of how lousy they were treated historically by those terrible white working-class men. They will enjoy their fall, even though they have no memory of their crimes.

    In this, our elites are motivated mostly by pragmatism. Whites have always been the most potent opponents of ravaging elites. History of American labor movements is still the most overlooked in American Education. What we get instead is lionization of Lefty nonsense that was largely insignificant in the real world here. American white workers never fell for the Marxist siren song. Something in them told them it's simply wouldn't work. The past Century proved them correct.

    But newly arrived workers, galvanized Americans, will have a ready-made foe when time comes to explain their frustrated hopes, their unrealised dreams. Bad Whitey is screwing them again.

    Tankersley mentions the working class white guys with whom he went to high school - indicating he was not of them. No wonder he's so ready to dump them. He doesn't think they matter. It's time to working class recognized who their enemies are. And began to act.

    Replies: @Beavertales

    “But newly arrived workers,(immigrants), will have a ready-made foe when time comes to explain their frustrated hopes, their unrealised dreams”

    Yes, I’m thinking of the insufferable second generation brown or black immigrant kid who blames racism for their failure to land a great office job in a saturated market. They feel entitled to the American dream just for showing up and getting through school.

  107. @Daniel H
    In 1960, cutting-edge research from economists at the University of Chicago and Stanford University has documented, more than half of Black men in America worked as janitors, freight handlers or something similar.

    What was that "something similar"? If Tankersley had any real acquaintance with African Americans of a certain age from the "rust belt" he would have heard tales of plenty of blacks working on an auto assembly line or in a steel mill or some other very fairly compensated blue collar job back in the 60s or 70s. And even janitors and warehouse workers were usually decently paid back them, due to unionization, no outsourcing and lack of ferocious competition from immigrants.

    What's the use arguing with this type. Facts, reason don't matter. Mass immigration, the permanent altering of the racial composition of the west is a religious tenet for them.

    Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @James O'Meara, @Kerryokwan

    Cleveland had a substantial and growing Black middle class by the 1960s. Almost all of it based on manufacturing jobs. In addition, as White middle class left for the suburbs, it left behind relatively inexpensive but well maintained housing.

    So while there was lots of urban decay around the city, there were plenty of stable middle class Black neighborhoods. Things didn’t go badly off the rails until the 70s

  108. Very good summary Steve.

    I would add one thing to the reason for the move to China and Mexico and the resulting loss of bargaining power by our Unions and the ensuing decline in wages and that’s this, the single most important event in the entire 1970’s labor/management struggle:

    And management took him up on his proposal.

  109. @S
    @San Fernando Curt


    This outline seems ridiculous, but it is intended to institutionalize a cheap-labor nation, hopefully forever.
    Somehow more and more people will create more and more jobs. You’re right, Steve. This genius got it exactly backwards.
     
    Yes, exactly.

    In the Anglosphere countries of the US, Australia, and Canada, there was a powerful push in the mid to letter 19th century to 'import' by diktat tens of millions of Chinese wage slaves, ie so called 'cheap labor'. This scheme failed, ultimately, but not for lack of trying.

    The Pall Mall Gazette of London in 1874 specifically identified 'race' as the primary impediment blocking this scheme's success, which it much lamented.

    A pretty powerful case could be made that the sole purpose of the development of the modern ideology of Multiculturalism, along with it's accompanying anti-race campaign, has been to make the world safe for cheap labor, though to be sure I think there's more to it than that.

    Tankersley is just what the doctor ordered for those shamelessly pushing such things.


    Pall Mall Gazette (Spring, 1874) – ‘Chinamen Out of China’

    “A dread of what might happen if capitalists could command and control these vast hordes of workmen as against men of their own race, has made the labouring class, at any rate, blind to their good qualities.”
     

    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.55223460&view=1up&seq=136&skin=mobile

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Beavertales

    “A pretty powerful case could be made that the sole purpose of the development of the modern ideology of Multiculturalism, along with it’s accompanying anti-race campaign, has been to make the world safe for cheap labor, though to be sure I think there’s more to it than that.”

    Cheap labor and bodies to fill the run-down urban centers. Multiculturalism was and is a scheme to stimulate an economic sector which was on its knees by the late 1960’s.

    Mass immigration lowered the risk of investing in downtown residential and commercial RE.

    In the late 20th century it was major cities. Now it’s places like Lewiston, Maine or Winnipeg, Canada.

  110. S says:

    Limited supply of labor due to so many women being out of the work taking care of the Baby Boom generation

    Was it one of the Rockefellers who said the actual reason for the promotion of women in the workforce was to increase the government tax base, which in turn would help fund ‘progressive’ government social programs?

    That in turn would provide a somewhat cynical ulterior motive for the promotion of single working women in television shows such as That Girl (1966-71) and later that same decade Mary Tyler Moore. This had the happy effect (for industry) of ‘cheapening’ labor, but, not so happily, also putting some great stress on the traditional family.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Girl

  111. @songbird
    I expected the crazy ideas, but it seems like their vocab is becoming less refined.

    Replies: @slumber_j

    Yeah, plus the deranged syntax of the dek, which Joe Biden apparently wrote in his ample spare time while not playing Ms. Pac-Man in that Delaware basement:

    How expanding opportunity for women, immigrants and nonwhite workers helped everyone — and why we need to do so again.

  112. @Nicholas Stix
    “Respectable” journalism and scholarship are hermetically sealed within what John Derbyshire has called “the Empire of Lies.” Every bit of historical and theoretical knowledge about humanity has been deliberately turned on its head: The races and sexes are equal in every way. blacks created all of America’s wealth. Women dominated the early world of computers, and black women took us to the moon. Similarly, the nation’s jails and prisons are full of innocent blacks. “Transgenders” are righteous victims. Whites somehow cause blacks and Hispanics to come down with the China Virus.

    These mopes are in a perpetual “can you top this” game of coming up with the most outrageous lie du jour, the most obscene homage to ugliness, the most outrageous salute to evil.

    And it’s been going on for app. 60 years. And what have Republicans and “conservatives” done about it? They’ve shouted “Me, too!”

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @vinteuil

    How come you think this disinformation business in the NYT started ca. 1960?

    I considered Stephen Jay Gould’s IQ-argumentation to be an important stepping stone in this development. cf. Bernard D. Davis’ book Storm over Biology. Davis was here quite clear about Gould and the NYT, but he still seemed surprised.

    https://www.abebooks.com/9780879753245/Storm-Over-Biology-Essays-Science-0879753242/plp

  113. S says:

    Haven’t any of these writers ever read 1984? Have they no awareness of how they come across at all?

    The United States long reserved its most lucrative occupations for an elite class of white men. Those men held power by selling everyone else a myth: The biggest threat to workers like you are workers who do not look like you. Again and again, they told working-class white men that they were losing out on good jobs to women, nonwhite men and immigrants.

    Americans deserve to know the truth about that Golden Era, which was not the whitewashed, “Leave It to Beaver” tale that so many people have been led to believe…We need to hear it because it is a beacon of hope in a bleak time for our economy, but more important, because the lies that elite white men peddle about workers in conflict have made the economy worse for everyone, for far too long.


    ‘These rich men were called capitalists.’

    1984

    “In the old days [it ran], before the glorious revolution, London was not the beautiful city that we know today. It was dark, dirty, miserable place where we know nobody had enough to eat and where hundreds and thousands of poor people had no boots on their feet and not even a roof to sleep under. Children no older than you are had to work twelve hours a day for cruel masters, who flogged them with whips if they worked too slowly and fed them on nothing but stale breadcrusts and water. But in among all this terrible poverty there were just a few great big beautiful houses that were lived in by rich men who had as many as thirty servants to look after them.”

    “These rich men were called capitalists. They were fat, ugly men with wicked faces, like the one in the picture on the opposite page. You can see he is dressed in a long black coat which was called a frock coat, and a queer, shiny hat shaped like a stovepipe, which was called a top hat. This was the uniform of the capitalists, and no one else was allowed to wear it. The capitalists owned everything in the world, land, all the houses, all the factories, and all the money. If anyone disobeyed them, they could throw him into prison, or they could take his job away and starve him, and take off his cap and address him as Sir. The chief of all the capitalists was called the King, and—“

    • Replies: @anon
    @S

    Haven’t any of these writers ever read 1984?

    Sure have! They just don't regard it as a warning, but more like a "how to" manual.

    , @Anonymous
    @S

    That picture is of the great Franco-British engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel.

    No capitalist he, although he might look the part.

    Basically, he perfected the 19th century's means of mass transport, railroads, steam ships, bridges, tunnels etc.
    As pertaining to Americans, he, more or less, developed the screw driven, iron hulled, mass capacity steam ship - something which brought over the seas the ancestors of a great many white Americans.

  114. Just two of many potential smell tests for this thesis:

    If women and blacks are bursting with so much dynamic productivity, why do the standards have to be lowered for them?

    Also why were large sectors of the economy only desegregated and liberalized by government action? No one wanted to cash in on that competitive advantage?

  115. @Dieter Kief
    @Kronos

    Yeah, but Hunter S. Thompson was not woke at all, no matter what (and what amounts of what) he indulged. - Maybe he reached a point at which he was mentally sterile - no infection whatsoever possible - and nothing left alive inside of him other than - Hunter S. Thompson. He sure flew high at times. I'd say that as a writer he was (and still might be) grossly overrated. I was really astonished to hear Matt Taibbi at Joe Rogan's Experience - brag about how big an influence Hunter S. Thompson was and how inspiring and all that... - it sounded a lot like lip-service (something quite woke, btw. .... ah - - - full circle - - -

    PS

    Will the Circle be Unbroken...

    Replies: @Kronos

    True, but what kinda stuff is “the drug of choice” at the NYTs so they can produce this garbage?

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Kronos

    Oestrogen & oxytocin. What holds the tribe together. Angst-lust too. Sadism. - Primal energy driven (Freud). - The kind of strongest impulses mother nature bestowed us with.

  116. @J.Ross
    Only stupid if you assume that any NYT reader already knows that this guy is just flat out lying. These are modern NYT readers we're talking about, they don't know any better.
    ----------
    "I've Never Seen Anything Like It In My Life."
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/09/shark-tank-investor-herjavec-were-about-to-see-biggest-exodus-from-cities-in-50-years.html
    ESCAPE THE BLUE METROPOLI

    Replies: @James O'Meara, @Kolya Krassotkin, @JerseyJeffersonian

    I’ll really believe it when I see major cultural institutions such as museums of art, museums/institutes of science, etc. realize in their bones that they are now in completely unfriendly territory, and not only will their patrons no longer feel safe to partake of their offerings, but also that that the very nature of their collections, offensive reminders of Whiteness that they almost universally are, endanger the continued safety of their holdings. All of these things together should lead them to seriously contemplate relocating out of these corrupt, leftist cesspits. The past history of hard leftism – Spain during their Civil War, communist Russia, China during the Cultural Revolution – unmistakably reveals the nihilistic, destructive impulse inherent in these leftist movements; the responsible parties need to take heed of this recurrent pattern.

    But sadly, in consideration of the fact that their “leaders” are all too often condign leftist cowards and cuckolds, and members in good standing of the Church of DIE themselves, they will likely disregard these warning signs, hold their vanishing patrons in contempt, and double down on their locations. They may wind up suffering the same fate as Grant’s tomb, surrounded by decay, defaced, if not physically destroyed because of their “leaders’” false pride and failure of stewardship. These “leaders” will in this way be like those men who wind up killing their whole families to “spare” them the shame of their failures; i.e., in this case, the unpardonable sin of Whiteness.

    On a personal note, my wife and I this last year began attending musical performances in Philadelphia, always at night. Now, I am not sure that even these superlative performances are worth the risk of exposure to the emboldened vibrancy, particularly in this time of de-policing, and the policy of Philly’s Soros-adjacent DA of cut ’em loose treatment of criminals. It is the beginning of civilizational collapse.

  117. @Jim Don Bob
    Maybe Jim T can start the remedy ball rolling by resigning his position on the condition that it be filled by a lesbo or BIPOC.

    But I don't think that's what he had in mind, for after all, he is a member in good standing of the nomenklatura. You and me, on the other hand, can eat shit and die for all he cares.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87c2f2d7982bad51e07f129fe0f19deb5e32169829378830a5fa01a80eb04578.jpg

    "The nomenklatura (Russian: номенклату́ра, IPA: [nəmʲɪnklɐˈturə]; Latin: nomenclatura) were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in the bureaucracy, running all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region. "

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura

    Replies: @Romanian

    We routinely use the word nomenklatura, even today, to describe such structures, and not necessarily ironically, or as a dog whistle. Conservative Inc. would be described as such in Eastern Europe and teh apparatchiks of the two parties are routinely referred to as a nomenklatura.

  118. Anonymous[357] • Disclaimer says:

    The phrase “Judas Goat” springs to mind.

  119. @Lot
    “ there’s a funny scene in Mad Men in 1960 in which the clock at the ad agency strikes 5:15 so all the white collar workers pack up and go home”

    I watched half an episode of Mad Men and found it pretentious and boring.

    However, the same joke was in Netflix’s French series A Very Secret Service, a zany Get Smart comedy set in Paris, Moscow, and Algiers of the early 1960s.

    You get the same glamorous early 60s moderne sets and clothing and busty secretaries serving cocktails, but it is fast paced and hilarious.

    https://aws1.vdkimg.com/tv_show/6/4/0/0/64001_backdrop_scale_1280xauto.jpg

    https://www.dvdfr.com/images/anecdotic/_news/2018/07/au_service_de_la_france_saison_2_5.jpg

    http://www.theartchemists.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/au-service-de-la-france.jpg

    Replies: @Kratoklastes, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Romanian

    I was really into it, despite its plodding pace. Went on for far too long, but I think that there were a lot of subversive aesthetics there, outside of the obvious subversive elements of the poz.

    The Don Draper character was very interesting, shedding his old skin to become something new and divorced from his roots, but being totally troubled and unmoored because of it. Sort of like a proto-bugman, but without the demasculinization.

    I wish Trevor Lynch would review it. James O’Meara did https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/09/the-ordeal-of-superficiality/

  120. @Gc
    @Art Deco

    Ok, but you see when you analyze data if you take that long periods, you miss the relevance. This was about 1935-1963. Just looks at the graphs, Japan and Germany took a big dive, UK stalls, USA continues as there was no war. It seems to me that Germany was in 1935 level in a year 1955. USA didn't even have food coupons during the war. Here is a graph.

    Replies: @anon, @Art Deco

    Not sure what your complaint is. The point of my comment was that the damage done to productive capacity during the period running from 1914 to 1945 was entirely repaired and then some in the 15 years after the war. (And there was food rationing in the US during the war).

  121. @Kronos
    @Dieter Kief

    True, but what kinda stuff is “the drug of choice” at the NYTs so they can produce this garbage?

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Oestrogen & oxytocin. What holds the tribe together. Angst-lust too. Sadism. – Primal energy driven (Freud). – The kind of strongest impulses mother nature bestowed us with.

  122. @JohnnyD
    Mr. Tankersley obviously hasn't read "Deaths of Despair" by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, which shows that the mortality rate for working-class whites has increased in the last two decades.

    https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691190785/deaths-of-despair-and-the-future-of-capitalism

    https://www.takimag.com/article/deaths-of-despair/

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Mr. Tankersley obviously hasn’t read “Deaths of Despair” by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, which shows that the mortality rate for working-class whites has increased in the last two decades.

    He would likely say that their despair leading to premature death is a product of bad life outcomes caused by their own racism, xenophobia and sexism, which blinds them to the fact that Rich Uncle Pennybags is really holding him down.

    Note that Mr. Tankersley is a native of Oregon – which as of 2016 is 1.9% black in demographic terms. He clearly knows what he’s talking about.

    • Replies: @Poirot
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    “He would likely say that their despair leading to premature death is a product of bad life outcomes caused by their own racism, xenophobia and sexism.”

    Or, in one word, “whiteness”.
    They are “Dying of Whiteness”. (the title of a book by Dr. Jonathan Metzl)

  123. @International Jew
    @Art Deco

    That's interesting, but let's remember that a lot of capita — your denominator — were lost in the two world wars.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Contemporary estimates have it that the population of Europe, the Ottoman Empire, North Africa, Japan, Korea, French Indochina, the Philippines, and Indonesia summed to about 650 million in 1914. Estimates of the death toll in the two world wars vary, but they seem to bounce around 65 million, of which about 10 million were in China. To that you can add some of the appended wars in the Far East (in Korea, Indochina, and Indonesia). The dead (outside China) amount to 9% of the 1914 population in these places.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Art Deco

    That's nothing to sneeze at. And now let's consider the numerator: a lot of GDP from 1913-1945 was stuff that blows up and kills people. Counts as GDP, but hardly contributes to the quality of life. And then you have the USSR which, when at peace, was in economic terms a giant machine for converting valuable natural resources into pollution and capital goods (whose purpose was to produce yet more capital goods and pollution).

  124. @J.Ross
    Is there any point at which he attempts to offer a summarized mechanism of action or is he seriously just saying "the guy taking a job you could have taken is making you rich, trrrrust me"?

    Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian

    No, he is solely a mendacious advocate for the interests of Big Capital. In other words, an oversupply of cheap labor massively competing for the privilege, and the importation of completely alien peoples who have not a clue about the rationale and nature of a properly working republican nation, as they are nepotistic tribalists only here to forward their group interests while feasting on the carcass as either an element of the cheap labor pool, or serving as a new, politically captive managerial class.

  125. @Change that Matters
    White men at the NYT have developed Stockholm Syndrome.

    I'm starting a GoFundMe page to break this poor bastard out. I can have six hard men working on extraction as soon as we hit 300k.

    Think of his wife and child. Donate now!

    https://www.gofundme.com/f/free-jim-tankersley-from-jewish-revolutionary-army*

    *Note: URL may not be real.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    “White men at the NYT have developed Stockholm Syndrome.”

    To avoid marginalization in the new America white men must submit to a detesticlization procedure. It appears the testes of white men are a point of obsession for the growing People of Colour overclass.

  126. @Art Deco
    @International Jew

    Contemporary estimates have it that the population of Europe, the Ottoman Empire, North Africa, Japan, Korea, French Indochina, the Philippines, and Indonesia summed to about 650 million in 1914. Estimates of the death toll in the two world wars vary, but they seem to bounce around 65 million, of which about 10 million were in China. To that you can add some of the appended wars in the Far East (in Korea, Indochina, and Indonesia). The dead (outside China) amount to 9% of the 1914 population in these places.

    Replies: @International Jew

    That’s nothing to sneeze at. And now let’s consider the numerator: a lot of GDP from 1913-1945 was stuff that blows up and kills people. Counts as GDP, but hardly contributes to the quality of life. And then you have the USSR which, when at peace, was in economic terms a giant machine for converting valuable natural resources into pollution and capital goods (whose purpose was to produce yet more capital goods and pollution).

  127. @Boswald Bollocksworth
    I think it is worth dwelling on the precise mechanism by which immigration hurts wages.

    It can't simply be "more people", otherwise we would see countries with smaller populations have higher wages. Sweden has fewer people than the USA...higher wages?

    What happens, I think, is that by having an exogenous supply of labor come in, you move labor markets from one equilibrium, to a new one where wages are lower. Over time, the supply should create it's own demand, the Indian greencard holder buys a house, car, whatever and stimulates the rest of the economy. But there are more immigrants always coming in, always applying pressure on wages.

    Did women affect typical wages when they joined the labor force? At first, but I think the effect should have gradually faded, hence the need to ramp up immigration in the mid 90s. Really I think the most productive way to talk about this is the "labor share of GDP" how much of income is paid as wages and benefits, that's down from the 70s peak. Ideally you'd remove compensation for executives, athletes and entertainers as well and look at how much of GDP gets paid out to normal workers.

    Replies: @Ben tillman, @Kratoklastes, @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    I think it is worth dwelling on the precise mechanism by which immigration hurts wages.

    It can’t simply be “more people”, otherwise we would see countries with smaller populations have higher wages. Sweden has fewer people than the USA…higher wages?

    What happens, I think, is that by having an exogenous supply of labor come in, you move labor markets from one equilibrium, to a new one where wages are lower. Over time, the supply should create it’s own demand, the Indian greencard holder buys a house, car, whatever and stimulates the rest of the economy. But there are more immigrants always coming in, always applying pressure on wages.

    Did women affect typical wages when they joined the labor force? At first, but I think the effect should have gradually faded, hence the need to ramp up immigration in the mid 90s. Really I think the most productive way to talk about this is the “labor share of GDP” how much of income is paid as wages and benefits, that’s down from the 70s peak. Ideally you’d remove compensation for executives, athletes and entertainers as well and look at how much of GDP gets paid out to normal workers.

    Well, you’re missing part of the plot – if immigrants are creating demand for housing, they’re driving up prices for a commodity necessary for entry into the middle class. And when new homes are constructed largely with immigrant labor – much of it illegal (i.e., Mexican framing crews) – your average blue collar American is getting it from both ends.

    But the “demand” on the low end is for plastic Chinese consumer goods. So rather than a middle class job in the trades or manufacturing, your American worker is stocking Chinese trinkets and textiles at Target for $8 per hour.

    Of course, it’s also the case that immigrants immediately qualify for preferential treatment in education and employment in our Affirmative Action caste system (which was originally justified by the mistreatment of the descendants of African slaves brought to the United States numbering no more than 12% of the population at the time of Bakke).

  128. @JohnnyWalker123
    @Anonymous

    Right.

    In this context, inequality doesn't necessarily imply one is better than another. It implies distinction.

    Men prefer women who have girly feminine voices, while women prefer men with deep masculine voices. It doesn't mean one is more valuable than another, merely that there's a difference.

    Attraction is, to some extent, based on sexual polarity. We want something that's the opposite of us. Men want to feel like a protector&provider, while women want a man to save them (or at least this use to be the case). Men want to be powerful, while women want to feel overpowered.

    When both men and women assume the same roles, sexual polarity doesn't exist with the same force.

    With that said, there are a lot of practical/financial reasons for men and women to play similar roles. So I'm not saying it's completely bad. I'm saying there are trade offs.

    Today's men don't have the shoulder the burdens of being in charge of the family, like previous generations. So it's easier in a sense. However, they don't have the same type of relationships with their wives as previous generations. They're no longer "head of the family."

    Life is about trade offs.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @SunBakedSuburb

    “We want something that’s the opposite of us.”

    That explains my attraction to homely women.

  129. @Chrisnonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    In fairness, he's a journalist, not a historian, so he can't be expected to know all the small details about the jargon.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    He wrote a freaking book about it and points to his book as his biggest qualification.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @J.Ross

    The book has no notes and no proper bibliography. He appears to have relied some on reports from the Brookings Institution. He's been a reporter for about 20 years, working a half-dozen different outlets, and seems to have had no other occupation. He doesn't have any schooling in economics or business.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  130. @Mike Tre
    "Who can forget when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority decision upholding the Reagan Administration’s controversial Barefoot, Pregnant, and in the Kitchen Act of 1982 that fired all the women workers in the country?"

    This might be the funniest thing you have ever written, and that's saying something. Nicely done.

    Replies: @JimB

    The Barefoot, Pregnant, and in the Kitchen Act of 1982 would have been written by a Democrat Congress.

  131. Starting in the early 60’s my Dad was a building mechanic for a major utility company in the Western part of the USA.. He wasn’t big on the union but he was a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) He managed to raise four kids and my mom was able to stay home. At the time all the janitors were Black men. No women, no Hispanics just Black men. Some differences from then to now. The buildings/properties were owned by company not by a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) and leased by the company as it’s done today. More importantly the janitorial staff worked for company NOT a contracting firm. They had all the same benefits as all employees, full 100% health coverage, paid vacation, sick leave etc. Blacks and there families were welcome at company picnics etc. The company had a choir, yeah that’s right a choir. It was a Christmas thing. The choir was completely integrated, in fact Blacks participation was outsized. My Dad also sang in this choir. They put on a Christmas concert every year at the company HQ, but also performed at several churches both White and Black. They sang traditional religious Christmas carols. In 2020, this is all very hard to believe but it was true. This all started to fall apart in the 80’s & 90’s when firms started to contract out low skill labor. The first group that was hit were the janitors, who were replaced by contractors who did not offer benefits (FYI the company employed janitors also were included in the pension benefits) These contractors also lowered there wage cost by hiring less then we’ll documented employees. The racist era of Black male janitors had ended, everyone celebrate. Janitors have never been well paid but these Black men were able to raise there families. I wonder how many of them think we’re better off today?

    • Agree: notsaying
    • Thanks: Dieter Kief
  132. The hopeful truth is that when Americans band together to force open the gates of opportunity for women, for Black men, for the groups that have long been oppressed in our economy, everyone gets ahead.

    Nah. Think of Primate Ethology. When it was just us boys white boys in the club screwing our secretaries, we could function in a multi-layer collaborative structure to maximise opportunities for the whole group, albeit with ritualistic alpha-beta-omega rituals to show acceptance of the club norms. When some introduced females (bonobos), who insist on female supremacy, to the mix, it upsets the balance of power. Introducing blacks (gorillas), who use intimidation to dominate and selfishly lock out lesser males and females from opportunities, you completely destroy the advantages of having a multi-layer management structure, so the most economical approach defaults to a flatter management structure where only a select few benefit disproportionately.

  133. @mc203
    I believe and I tell people that one reason for illegal immigration is because Americans would rather hire illegals then deal with blacks.
    Illegals are seen as easier to deal with then blacks and they directly undercut lower working class wages.
    There would be no need to push for a $15 dollar minimum wage except for illegal immigration.

    Our elite see themselves as North American Conquistadors and believe that in the future illegals will be docile and present no challenge to their continued political and economic domination. They believe this will lock in control for their descendants. A large black minority would be a significant political and economic bloc that would be more difficult to deal with.

    American blacks have been badly hurt by illegal immigration globalization and outsourcing. Around the time that laws and practices came in to effect to ensure fair play in hiring and opportunity the rules changed. The punch bowl was pulled away as soon as they came to the table.

    Replies: @JMcG

    100% correct. My brother does high end kitchens and bathrooms. He’s a democrat but has never in thirty five years hired a black. It drives him crazy when I call him on it. His well to do customers wouldn’t tolerate it. They’re mostly all democrats too.

    • Replies: @notsaying
    @JMcG

    This is sickening in so many ways.

    The older I get, the sorrier I feel for the black descendants of slaves. If their parents didn't want black workmen in their houses, how many of the fighting white kids who are out on the streets supposedly fighting for black people will accept black workmen? How about all the woke college kids?

    All the immigrants gives white people the chance to opt out of hiring American blacks -- whose families have usually been here far longer than the white people's families have been.

    And yet the black politicians and activists back up the immigrants already here and back up the Democrats who demand lots more immigrants come in. American black descendants of slaves will never get ahead as long as immigration stays high and whites remain hypocritical.

    , @Anonymous
    @JMcG

    They're probably worried about people with ties to criminal gangs who will come and burgle the house later. This is a big problem in Brazil and South Africa. I know of self-described 'liberal' South Africans who won't allow strange blacks in their homes.

  134. Hi Steve. I note that this piece you cite has been adapted from a book. May I recommend another, publishing next week, which covers some of the same ground but takes a very different tack? I doubt you’ll find it particularly incendiary, but it may come as a mild surprise that a big publisher is offering this perspective to the world. It goes on sale the week after next. I’d be happy to send you a copy.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Philoctetes

    Ah, at long last The Enemy has a reaction to the 2016 election other than screaming and peeing themselves, even if it's thirty years overdue.

  135. @JMcG
    @mc203

    100% correct. My brother does high end kitchens and bathrooms. He’s a democrat but has never in thirty five years hired a black. It drives him crazy when I call him on it. His well to do customers wouldn’t tolerate it. They’re mostly all democrats too.

    Replies: @notsaying, @Anonymous

    This is sickening in so many ways.

    The older I get, the sorrier I feel for the black descendants of slaves. If their parents didn’t want black workmen in their houses, how many of the fighting white kids who are out on the streets supposedly fighting for black people will accept black workmen? How about all the woke college kids?

    All the immigrants gives white people the chance to opt out of hiring American blacks — whose families have usually been here far longer than the white people’s families have been.

    And yet the black politicians and activists back up the immigrants already here and back up the Democrats who demand lots more immigrants come in. American black descendants of slaves will never get ahead as long as immigration stays high and whites remain hypocritical.

  136. Americans deserve to know the truth about that Golden Era, which was not the whitewashed, “Leave It to Beaver” tale that so many people have been led to believe.

    It’s amazing how often Leave it to Beaver has been cited by the left as one of the great symbols of evil over the last five decades. I would’ve thought that was cliche by now, but apparently not. The left’s reasoning has morphed over the years; at first I think it was because the Cleavers were too functional and nuclear as a family. Then it was because June Cleaver was “forced” to wear nice clothes and high heels while milling about the house. (In truth, Barbara Billingsley was asked to wear high heels because the child actors who played her sons were growing and the producers wanted the mother character to maintain a height advantage for visual reasons.) Now it’s because they symbolize white supremacy.

    Stefan Molyneux has said that the show gave parents and children a great example of how to resolve conflicts (minimal screaming.) True, the reality of actual parenthood is pretty different and more complicated than Leave it to Beaver reflects, but when did reality become the standard by which TV is judged? (The black version of Leave it to Beaver, The Cosby Show – which was far less representative of black reality than LTB was of white reality – was revered by many of the same critics who despised the Cleaver family. At least until Bill Cosby went to jail.)

  137. Effete’ Dweeb?

    Check…

  138. Offsite anonymous statement relevant here:

    The funniest thing I’ve seen recently:

    advertisement for a property manager position at an apartment complex. These used to come with a free apartment but not in currentyear, no. This ad gave you a 10% discount on your 2200$/month required onsite living space.

    It was a fulltime position paying 15 an hour, so lets do some math here.

    15x40x4= 2400
    minus state and fed taxes = 1920
    minus peasant feed = 1700
    minus peasant health insurance = 1600

    income = 1600
    rent in required housing = 1980

    SO you have to either use your savings or have a second job just to be gifted the glory of having an apartment as the manager of the entire complex.

    Not sure what he meant by “health insurance.”
    Horrible racism, which I hate: what are the odds that these Asiatic screwover deals correlate with the increasing presence, in the real estate world, of people from regions where serfdom never ended?

    • Agree: notsaying
  139. @Philoctetes
    Hi Steve. I note that this piece you cite has been adapted from a book. May I recommend another, publishing next week, which covers some of the same ground but takes a very different tack? I doubt you'll find it particularly incendiary, but it may come as a mild surprise that a big publisher is offering this perspective to the world. It goes on sale the week after next. I'd be happy to send you a copy.
    https://www.amazon.com/Expendables-Middle-Class-Screwed-Globalization/dp/073527939X/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1596823979&sr=1-8

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Ah, at long last The Enemy has a reaction to the 2016 election other than screaming and peeing themselves, even if it’s thirty years overdue.

  140. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @JohnnyD


    Mr. Tankersley obviously hasn’t read “Deaths of Despair” by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, which shows that the mortality rate for working-class whites has increased in the last two decades.
     
    He would likely say that their despair leading to premature death is a product of bad life outcomes caused by their own racism, xenophobia and sexism, which blinds them to the fact that Rich Uncle Pennybags is really holding him down.

    Note that Mr. Tankersley is a native of Oregon - which as of 2016 is 1.9% black in demographic terms. He clearly knows what he's talking about.

    Replies: @Poirot

    “He would likely say that their despair leading to premature death is a product of bad life outcomes caused by their own racism, xenophobia and sexism.”

    Or, in one word, “whiteness”.
    They are “Dying of Whiteness”. (the title of a book by Dr. Jonathan Metzl)

  141. @J.Ross
    @Chrisnonymous

    He wrote a freaking book about it and points to his book as his biggest qualification.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    The book has no notes and no proper bibliography. He appears to have relied some on reports from the Brookings Institution. He’s been a reporter for about 20 years, working a half-dozen different outlets, and seems to have had no other occupation. He doesn’t have any schooling in economics or business.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Art Deco

    Hey, come on, come on, where would a reporter learn about sources or proper citation?

  142. @S
    Haven’t any of these writers ever read 1984? Have they no awareness of how they come across at all?

    The United States long reserved its most lucrative occupations for an elite class of white men. Those men held power by selling everyone else a myth: The biggest threat to workers like you are workers who do not look like you. Again and again, they told working-class white men that they were losing out on good jobs to women, nonwhite men and immigrants.

    Americans deserve to know the truth about that Golden Era, which was not the whitewashed, “Leave It to Beaver” tale that so many people have been led to believe…We need to hear it because it is a beacon of hope in a bleak time for our economy, but more important, because the lies that elite white men peddle about workers in conflict have made the economy worse for everyone, for far too long.
     
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Robert_Howlett_%28Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel_Standing_Before_the_Launching_Chains_of_the_Great_Eastern%29%2C_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art_%28cropped%29.jpg/800px-Robert_Howlett_%28Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel_Standing_Before_the_Launching_Chains_of_the_Great_Eastern%29%2C_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art_%28cropped%29.jpg
    ‘These rich men were called capitalists.’

    1984

    “In the old days [it ran], before the glorious revolution, London was not the beautiful city that we know today. It was dark, dirty, miserable place where we know nobody had enough to eat and where hundreds and thousands of poor people had no boots on their feet and not even a roof to sleep under. Children no older than you are had to work twelve hours a day for cruel masters, who flogged them with whips if they worked too slowly and fed them on nothing but stale breadcrusts and water. But in among all this terrible poverty there were just a few great big beautiful houses that were lived in by rich men who had as many as thirty servants to look after them."

    "These rich men were called capitalists. They were fat, ugly men with wicked faces, like the one in the picture on the opposite page. You can see he is dressed in a long black coat which was called a frock coat, and a queer, shiny hat shaped like a stovepipe, which was called a top hat. This was the uniform of the capitalists, and no one else was allowed to wear it. The capitalists owned everything in the world, land, all the houses, all the factories, and all the money. If anyone disobeyed them, they could throw him into prison, or they could take his job away and starve him, and take off his cap and address him as Sir. The chief of all the capitalists was called the King, and—“
     

    Replies: @anon, @Anonymous

    Haven’t any of these writers ever read 1984?

    Sure have! They just don’t regard it as a warning, but more like a “how to” manual.

    • LOL: JackOH
  143. @Art Deco
    @J.Ross

    The book has no notes and no proper bibliography. He appears to have relied some on reports from the Brookings Institution. He's been a reporter for about 20 years, working a half-dozen different outlets, and seems to have had no other occupation. He doesn't have any schooling in economics or business.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Hey, come on, come on, where would a reporter learn about sources or proper citation?

  144. @SFG
    @Kibernetika

    He has a talent for writing things, but there are only certain things you're allowed to say. (This is true in any society, to be honest.) I think it was Keynes who said it's hard to make a man understand things when his livelihood depends on him not understanding them. So he plies his craft in service of the powers that be. It's not that different from working in advertising, really. If you've ever tried to convince anyone of anything for self-interested purposes, ranging from getting out of a ticket to getting a woman to sleep with you...it's like that.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Kibernetika

    If you’ve ever tried to convince anyone of anything for self-interested purposes, ranging from getting out of a ticket to getting a woman to sleep with you…it’s like that.

    Well, I have some experience with the latter… Wait, you haven’t been speaking with my wife, have you?

    I’ve been trying to get my wife to dress up as Stacey Abrams. The hip therapists call it role playing or something. You know, to spice things up. And she just laughs at me for some reason.

    But the kids are headed back to the Covid dorms soon so I remain optimistic. The universities will probably remain open for at least a cople of weeks before everyone freaks out and the kids must return home. This is my window of opportunity.

    Been stocking up on wine (and paying close attention to the ABV). Once the kids have been dispatched to go and burn down police buildings, or whatever it is that kids do at university these days, I’ll make my move.

    I have but one desire: to steep myself in the softness that is Stacey.

    • LOL: notsaying
  145. @Nicholas Stix
    “Respectable” journalism and scholarship are hermetically sealed within what John Derbyshire has called “the Empire of Lies.” Every bit of historical and theoretical knowledge about humanity has been deliberately turned on its head: The races and sexes are equal in every way. blacks created all of America’s wealth. Women dominated the early world of computers, and black women took us to the moon. Similarly, the nation’s jails and prisons are full of innocent blacks. “Transgenders” are righteous victims. Whites somehow cause blacks and Hispanics to come down with the China Virus.

    These mopes are in a perpetual “can you top this” game of coming up with the most outrageous lie du jour, the most obscene homage to ugliness, the most outrageous salute to evil.

    And it’s been going on for app. 60 years. And what have Republicans and “conservatives” done about it? They’ve shouted “Me, too!”

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @vinteuil

    These mopes are in a perpetual “can you top this” game of coming up with the most outrageous lie du jour, the most obscene homage to ugliness, the most outrageous salute to evil.

    And it’s been going on for app. 60 years. And what have Republicans and “conservatives” done about it? They’ve shouted “Me, too!”

    Well, at first they just whispered their agreement. Only since Trump have they begun shouting it.

  146. Anonymous[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @JMcG
    @mc203

    100% correct. My brother does high end kitchens and bathrooms. He’s a democrat but has never in thirty five years hired a black. It drives him crazy when I call him on it. His well to do customers wouldn’t tolerate it. They’re mostly all democrats too.

    Replies: @notsaying, @Anonymous

    They’re probably worried about people with ties to criminal gangs who will come and burgle the house later. This is a big problem in Brazil and South Africa. I know of self-described ‘liberal’ South Africans who won’t allow strange blacks in their homes.

  147. “2 + 2 = 5”

    (Soviet slogan, Orwell, Lyons, others)

    One of the tragedies of the Western liberal experience is that enormous sums are spent on teaching young people that 2 + 2 = 4. Then, those same young people enter the work force or participate in public affairs to discover there are careers and reputations to be made by denying truth and uttering their masters’ 2 + 2 = 5.

    (Granted, I’ll allow for much “grayness” where truth isn’t quite known with certainty, and where people of good will may honestly disagree.)

  148. Anonymous[724] • Disclaimer says:
    @S
    Haven’t any of these writers ever read 1984? Have they no awareness of how they come across at all?

    The United States long reserved its most lucrative occupations for an elite class of white men. Those men held power by selling everyone else a myth: The biggest threat to workers like you are workers who do not look like you. Again and again, they told working-class white men that they were losing out on good jobs to women, nonwhite men and immigrants.

    Americans deserve to know the truth about that Golden Era, which was not the whitewashed, “Leave It to Beaver” tale that so many people have been led to believe…We need to hear it because it is a beacon of hope in a bleak time for our economy, but more important, because the lies that elite white men peddle about workers in conflict have made the economy worse for everyone, for far too long.
     
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Robert_Howlett_%28Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel_Standing_Before_the_Launching_Chains_of_the_Great_Eastern%29%2C_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art_%28cropped%29.jpg/800px-Robert_Howlett_%28Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel_Standing_Before_the_Launching_Chains_of_the_Great_Eastern%29%2C_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art_%28cropped%29.jpg
    ‘These rich men were called capitalists.’

    1984

    “In the old days [it ran], before the glorious revolution, London was not the beautiful city that we know today. It was dark, dirty, miserable place where we know nobody had enough to eat and where hundreds and thousands of poor people had no boots on their feet and not even a roof to sleep under. Children no older than you are had to work twelve hours a day for cruel masters, who flogged them with whips if they worked too slowly and fed them on nothing but stale breadcrusts and water. But in among all this terrible poverty there were just a few great big beautiful houses that were lived in by rich men who had as many as thirty servants to look after them."

    "These rich men were called capitalists. They were fat, ugly men with wicked faces, like the one in the picture on the opposite page. You can see he is dressed in a long black coat which was called a frock coat, and a queer, shiny hat shaped like a stovepipe, which was called a top hat. This was the uniform of the capitalists, and no one else was allowed to wear it. The capitalists owned everything in the world, land, all the houses, all the factories, and all the money. If anyone disobeyed them, they could throw him into prison, or they could take his job away and starve him, and take off his cap and address him as Sir. The chief of all the capitalists was called the King, and—“
     

    Replies: @anon, @Anonymous

    That picture is of the great Franco-British engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel.

    No capitalist he, although he might look the part.

    Basically, he perfected the 19th century’s means of mass transport, railroads, steam ships, bridges, tunnels etc.
    As pertaining to Americans, he, more or less, developed the screw driven, iron hulled, mass capacity steam ship – something which brought over the seas the ancestors of a great many white Americans.

  149. @Mercer
    The boom was from 1946 to 1972. The big civil rights act passed in 1964. How can anyone think the boom was caused by a law that passed after the midpoint of the expansion?

    Replies: @Bragadocious, @Hypnotoad666, @Ben tillman, @JackOH

    Mercer, I had a prof who about 1980 noted that real American wages had been stagnant since 1973.

    He was a quiet young prof, an MIT economics guy working as an adjunct, and I’ll take a wild guess his statement was based on his own research or on that of people whom he knew. So he wasn’t plucking dryasdust lecture material from professional journals.

    My classmates and I were young, and we’d grown up in a prosperous America that every year seemed to get even more prosperous. The import of what that diffident prof was saying simply didn’t sink in.
    The economic “normal” my classmates and I had enjoyed as youngsters was gone.

    Christopher Koch (?) had his Year of Living Dangerously. Maybe 1973 could be dubbed The Year We Got Fucked.

    • Replies: @anon
    @JackOH

    I had a prof who about 1980 noted that real American wages had been stagnant since 1973.

    He was correct. This fact keeps bubbling up in economistical discourse. Funny thing is, any time I read an article that even brushes up against "stagnant wages since 1973" there is never any word that contains the string "immig" to be found. Libtard, tradcuck, liberteeny, leftard, doesn't matter. Apparently it is impossible for most academic minds to wrap themselves around the notion that "supply and demand" doesn't just apply to cement, oil, rebar, opiates, cocaine and high end prostitutes, it also applies to labor both skilled and unskilled. Or maybe it's just one of those "paid not to understand" things. Either way, it's an odd coincidence. No, not odd, curious.

    In fact, it is a mystery wrapped in a riddle baked in a fine crust of enigma garnished with financialized gold leaf. With a sprig of thyme on top. Resting on a bed of crushed mint.

    , @Art Deco
    @JackOH

    Mercer, I had a prof who about 1980 noted that real American wages had been stagnant since 1973.

    They haven't been.

  150. In 1960, cutting-edge research from economists at the University of Chicago and Stanford University has documented, more than half of Black men in America worked as janitors, freight handlers or something similar. Only 2 percent of women and Black men worked in what economists call “high-skill” jobs

    The moron NYT reporter just disproved his thesis. In 1960, fully 15 years into the post-war miracle, blacks and women were afterthoughts in the economy that he wants to replicate.

    Based on his own research, the NYT reporter should support a revived, white-nationalist New Deal, complete with redlining and coordinated cultural discouragement of women entering high-skill professions.

  151. anon[116] • Disclaimer says:
    @JackOH
    @Mercer

    Mercer, I had a prof who about 1980 noted that real American wages had been stagnant since 1973.

    He was a quiet young prof, an MIT economics guy working as an adjunct, and I'll take a wild guess his statement was based on his own research or on that of people whom he knew. So he wasn't plucking dryasdust lecture material from professional journals.

    My classmates and I were young, and we'd grown up in a prosperous America that every year seemed to get even more prosperous. The import of what that diffident prof was saying simply didn't sink in.
    The economic "normal" my classmates and I had enjoyed as youngsters was gone.

    Christopher Koch (?) had his Year of Living Dangerously. Maybe 1973 could be dubbed The Year We Got Fucked.

    Replies: @anon, @Art Deco

    I had a prof who about 1980 noted that real American wages had been stagnant since 1973.

    He was correct. This fact keeps bubbling up in economistical discourse. Funny thing is, any time I read an article that even brushes up against “stagnant wages since 1973” there is never any word that contains the string “immig” to be found. Libtard, tradcuck, liberteeny, leftard, doesn’t matter. Apparently it is impossible for most academic minds to wrap themselves around the notion that “supply and demand” doesn’t just apply to cement, oil, rebar, opiates, cocaine and high end prostitutes, it also applies to labor both skilled and unskilled. Or maybe it’s just one of those “paid not to understand” things. Either way, it’s an odd coincidence. No, not odd, curious.

    In fact, it is a mystery wrapped in a riddle baked in a fine crust of enigma garnished with financialized gold leaf. With a sprig of thyme on top. Resting on a bed of crushed mint.

  152. @JackOH
    @Mercer

    Mercer, I had a prof who about 1980 noted that real American wages had been stagnant since 1973.

    He was a quiet young prof, an MIT economics guy working as an adjunct, and I'll take a wild guess his statement was based on his own research or on that of people whom he knew. So he wasn't plucking dryasdust lecture material from professional journals.

    My classmates and I were young, and we'd grown up in a prosperous America that every year seemed to get even more prosperous. The import of what that diffident prof was saying simply didn't sink in.
    The economic "normal" my classmates and I had enjoyed as youngsters was gone.

    Christopher Koch (?) had his Year of Living Dangerously. Maybe 1973 could be dubbed The Year We Got Fucked.

    Replies: @anon, @Art Deco

    Mercer, I had a prof who about 1980 noted that real American wages had been stagnant since 1973.

    They haven’t been.

  153. Pretty close to (hilariously) pure gaslighting.

    The United States long reserved its most lucrative occupations for an elite class of white men. Those men held power by selling everyone else a myth: The biggest threat to workers like you are workers who do not look like you. Again and again, they told working-class white men that they were losing out on good jobs to women, nonwhite men and immigrants.

    It’s pretty obvious that oligarchs sit around thinking of ways to increase worker solidarity and, in doing so, increase the power of labor unions. What really scares them is a diverse labor pool drawn from various races and nationalities from across the globe, because as we all know, that’s a recipe for decreased worker solidarity and therefore decreased labor union power. And nothing frightens big capital and the oligarchy like a powerless labor pool. The very idea keeps Jeff Bezos up at night.

    Diversity = oligarch’s Our Strength.

    In all seriousness, conservatism is dead. Leftism is dead. we need some kind of third position. Pro-worker economics plus nationalism. But, what to call this radical new system?

    How about Social Nationalism?

    • Replies: @S
    @Svigor


    Pretty close to (hilariously) pure gaslighting....It’s pretty obvious that oligarchs sit around thinking of ways to increase worker solidarity and, in doing so, increase the power of labor unions.
     
    LOL. Yeah, they want as much 'diversity' as possible, and have been this way for a very long time.

    During the primordial days of the multicult a hundred years ago the powers that be were quite open about this. See the Ludlow Massacre of 1914. Now with people such as this Times writer they've taken things to the final step..where people are to internalize this poison as good for them.


    As part of their campaign to break or prevent strikes, the coal companies had lured immigrants, mainly from southern and Eastern Europe and Mexico. CF&I’s management purposely mixed immigrants of different nationalities in the mines to discourage communication that might lead to organization…The men who worked in the southern Colorado mines in 1913 were largely from southern and eastern Europe, brought in originally as strike breakers in 1903 to replace an earlier wave of immigrant miners from Ireland and Wales.
     
    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_ludlow_massacre_of_1914_a_microcosm_of_modern_multi_culturalisml
  154. S says:
    @Svigor
    Pretty close to (hilariously) pure gaslighting.

    The United States long reserved its most lucrative occupations for an elite class of white men. Those men held power by selling everyone else a myth: The biggest threat to workers like you are workers who do not look like you. Again and again, they told working-class white men that they were losing out on good jobs to women, nonwhite men and immigrants.
     
    It's pretty obvious that oligarchs sit around thinking of ways to increase worker solidarity and, in doing so, increase the power of labor unions. What really scares them is a diverse labor pool drawn from various races and nationalities from across the globe, because as we all know, that's a recipe for decreased worker solidarity and therefore decreased labor union power. And nothing frightens big capital and the oligarchy like a powerless labor pool. The very idea keeps Jeff Bezos up at night.

    Diversity = oligarch's Our Strength.

    In all seriousness, conservatism is dead. Leftism is dead. we need some kind of third position. Pro-worker economics plus nationalism. But, what to call this radical new system?

    How about Social Nationalism?

    Replies: @S

    Pretty close to (hilariously) pure gaslighting….It’s pretty obvious that oligarchs sit around thinking of ways to increase worker solidarity and, in doing so, increase the power of labor unions.

    LOL. Yeah, they want as much ‘diversity’ as possible, and have been this way for a very long time.

    During the primordial days of the multicult a hundred years ago the powers that be were quite open about this. See the Ludlow Massacre of 1914. Now with people such as this Times writer they’ve taken things to the final step..where people are to internalize this poison as good for them.

    As part of their campaign to break or prevent strikes, the coal companies had lured immigrants, mainly from southern and Eastern Europe and Mexico. CF&I’s management purposely mixed immigrants of different nationalities in the mines to discourage communication that might lead to organization…The men who worked in the southern Colorado mines in 1913 were largely from southern and eastern Europe, brought in originally as strike breakers in 1903 to replace an earlier wave of immigrant miners from Ireland and Wales.

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_ludlow_massacre_of_1914_a_microcosm_of_modern_multi_culturalisml

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Becker update V1.3.2
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
How America was neoconned into World War IV