{"id":6427,"date":"2016-10-01T16:33:26","date_gmt":"2016-10-01T21:33:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=6427"},"modified":"2016-10-15T21:27:01","modified_gmt":"2016-10-16T02:27:01","slug":"revolt-against-reaganomics-black-version","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=6427","title":{"rendered":"Revolt Against Reaganomics — Black Version"},"content":{"rendered":"

In my last post, I discussed the notion of a “political economy” and reviewed some very insightful thoughts by political journalist John Judis<\/a>, which seek to explain the rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in economic terms. In a nutshell, Judis feels that both Sanders and Trump represent different points on the same underlying wave of populist dissatisfaction with our nation’s current political economy. Just what is this “economy” that so many people are dissatisfied with? It’s a high-tech version of what we called “Reaganomics” back when it was introduced in the early 1980s, with various modifications and adjustments made during the presidency of Bill Clinton. As such, I call it the “Reagan-Clinton1” political economy, although Judis gives it the more academically acceptable tag of “market liberalism” (not to be confused with political liberalism, which largely detests Reaganomics). <\/p>\n

Many other pundits have explained the rise of Trump in terms of racism<\/a>, perhaps a backlash against the ascent of Barack Obama<\/a>. They admit that many of Trump’s largely white supporters have experienced tough economic times, but contend that the motivations behind Trump’s ascendancy largely reflect the fact that minorities have gained power, and that whites are increasingly anxious<\/a> about this. Certain pundits, however, (e.g. David Roberts<\/a> and Derek Thompson<\/a>) also contend that this racial resentment has an economic component, a racial selfishness reflecting the belief that whites are no longer automatically first in line when it comes to reaping the benefits of the system. <\/p>\n

My question is whether the political responses to Reaganomics from the black community and its leaders have in any way fed into the white racial anxieties that Trump seems to have drawn much of his support from. <\/p>\n

Ironically, a look at some income statistics spanning the past 40 years indicates that in the aggregate, whites have historically maintained their economic supremacy over minorities, and this does not change either in the post-9\/11 years or in the post-Financial Crash period. Let’s have a look. <\/p>\n

\n

<\/div>\n

I’ve posted here a chart from the US Census Bureau’s “Income and Poverty: 2015<\/a>” report, released just a few weeks ago. This chart shows yearly real (constant dollar value) median household income by race and Hispanic origin since the late 1960’s. A quick look indicates that non-Hispanic whites have always done better than Hispanics and blacks. A closer look shows that black income peaked in the year 2000 and then began trending downward, and the economic recovery after 2008 has hardly affected this trend. By comparison, whites income plateaued between 2000 and 2008, dipped down with the recession, but has since more than restored what was lost. This is also true, although at a constantly lower level and to a lesser degree, for Hispanics. <\/p>\n

I’ve picked out three periods to compare what has happened to white, black and Hispanic incomes: 1980 to 2000, 2000 to 2007, and 2008 to 2015. In the chart below, I’ve posted the absolute dollar amount of change in real median income over the period, and the percentage. <\/p>\n