(00:00:00) It's a bit difficult for me to introduce our next panelist because as a producer, I'm pretty competitive whenever we'd start to have some spirited discussion in the MPR News Room on issues of race and economics. I think to myself I'm calling Sam Myers at the Humphrey Institute. Someone would invariably ask me. What are you thinking and I was thinking he's mine all mine and then run to my desk to book a man that I consider one of the most provocative thinkers in town Samuel Myers Junior received his PhD in economics in 1976 for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He serves as the Roy Wilkins professor of human relations and social justice here at the Humphrey Institute of public affairs beginning that post in 1992 before moving to Minnesota, Sam Myers held a number of faculty appointments from Harvard to most recently the University of Maryland from 1982 82. He served as a senior Economist with the Federal Trade Commission also while in Washington Professor Meyers, sir. As a consultant to members of the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime and he held a faculty fellowship at the National Institute of Justice. Dr. Meyers traveled to Liberia and the mid-70s as a Fulbright lecturer at cutting tin University College. When you call up Sam Myers name on the Internet you better settle back into your seat as a computer catalogs and impressive list of Articles monographs in books in 1990. Professor. Meyers was recognized by the review of black political economy. As one of the top 20 U.S. Black economists suffice to say if you want a Frank and spirited discussion on the effect of social policies on the poor Sam Myers is your guy, please join me in welcoming. Dr. Samuel Myers Junior. (00:01:53) Thank you very much. The United States House of Representatives passed one of the most revolutionary income redistribution schemes in the history of our nation, unlike the 1954 tax code which attempted to strengthen the progressivity of the tax system the tax cuts and vision are ones designed to reduce the procas Ft of their overall taxation scheme in our nation, even the 1986 Provisions in the tax code with sort with limited success to close many loopholes for wealthy tax avoiders maintain considerable progressivity of the tax system. We believed that progressivity and the tax system was a desirable goal. We believed that the rich should pay a larger share of their income in taxes than the poor. We believed that we rested on a common ground when we argue for direct redistribution of income from the most wealthy of Americans to the ports of our citizens. We believed that equality was a morally justifiable social goal. That is we believed all those things up until now the contract with America is an explicit statement of reversals of these core beliefs. The tax cut is still a form of redistribution but instead of which building and come from the rich to the poor we are now, We're Distributing income from the poor to the rich and the nearby Church, even if the middle class gangs that net effect of these tax cuts is the Ferdinand further widen the gap between the top and the bottom in American society. The tax cut along represents a significant Retreat from progressive taxation, but along with the spending cuts on vitally needed social programs. The total effect is to assure that those at the bottom of the income distribution or worse off in two ways. They'll have less money to spend and they will have fewer in-kind services available to them. What happened? What happened in America so that this undesirable result could come about. What has happened in this country that at least when it's faced as a spouse or goal of equality for so many generations. Why is it that there still isn't do assault on the most vulnerable citizens in America? There are at least seven reasons that I can think of each suggest a different strategy for returning to the goal of equality and each race has unique questions about our commitment to equality and United States these seven reasons relate to the undeserved and it's of the poor the slipping of the moral foundation for civil rights and equality the threat posed by a changing economy the failure of affirmative action and related remedies to eradicate racism and to create equality. But the generation of the economic position of white males in society. A clever although deceptive argument that special help for disadvantaged amounts to a violation of the Creed of fairness and equality and finally as if the previous explanations were not enough. It's the will of the majority. The Retreat from the goal of equality 1990s parallels a similar Retreat from the goal of emancipation During the Reconstruction Era and I'll be happy to engage our first Speaker over this misconceptions about what happened during the Reconstruction Era The Retreat from the goal of equality in the 1990s has many of the same characteristics of the don't ask don't tell strategy of reforming the military and its many detractors and even some Defenders among those very people that the policies were designed to assess this Retreat. Therefore seems destined for Success simply because it is fair to Marshall uniform opposition from all groups that normally would rise to overturn these outrageous initiatives. Let me say a word about each of these explanations for the retreat from equality and then try to summarize what it all means for the creation of a common ground and our communities. Let me Begin by talking about the undeserving poor the most vulnerable are not considered to be deserving of our support the original plant welfare America at least has received at 1936. What's to provide Aid to widows and their children people who are not expected to work and thus no but not always be covered under the newly enacted Social Security laws. It was designed for white women. It was not intended for blacks and other one writes. It was not intended for divorcees or woman who bought children out of wedlock and at least for the first 25 years of the program most white female heads of family were indeed female heads as a result of what I heard. The growth of black and Latina participation and afdc and to change in the composition of the program from one with largely widowed woman took one predominantly with divorced and never married mothers. I should I should attend an air of the clotting support for welfare the Democratic shift occurred the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s the welfare bureaucracy grew employing increasing shares of people of color the programs became more expensive the support all but evaporated when Ronald Reagan was elected Raonic Lee throw it became increasingly difficult to trim the program because we had no plan no program at no alternative in place Richard Nixon proposed the family assistance plan and idea based on the ideas of conservative Economist and Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman, one of the biggest supporters of this program with Daniel Patrick Moynihan if what the form? Up the wreck castrate US Vision from high-income taxpayers to low-income taxpayers. It was a negative income tax on the lowest income earners. But yeah, it never passed. It was too radical for its day with no plan. No program no alternative in place the Republican administrations and state legislatures of the 1980s chose instead to strangle Welfare by curbing. Well welfare benefits tightening eligibility and attempting to force women with young children to work. Unfortunately, there were no jobs and the cost of training transportation and child child care needed to make workfare work. We're just two enormous still with no plan. No program. No alternative The Next Step was to Simply labeled as we did in 18th century England the welfare class as undeserving. But of course has set the stage for the elimination of welfare as we know it what will remain poor people who are now Burton local governments and Charities which neither have the resources nor the will to take on this massive task. The second explanation is that the moral foundations for the goal of equality have eroded we have retreated from some of the most basic ideas about democracy using ironically the very language of democracy to justify this Retreat for now, but I'll wrote in 1944 an American dilemma. The problem of the racial divide in America was on moral one. Well, the nation was founded on the principle of equality to reality was one of strict racial and equality. The laws the social Economic Institutions, the functioning of society would all one great lie. As long as the nation left this lie, that was a threat to the very underlying moral fabric of the country. We needed to own up to this lie. If we were to be true to our cherished ideals of freedom and democracy it is no surprise. Then that many of the leaders of the Civil Rights movements of the 1940s and the 1950s were religious leaders the struggle for equal opportunity and anti-discrimination legislation was led As Much from the pulpit as it was from the courts the ground with a high ground. It was on more ground or ground that stated it quality is the result that we wish to achieve because it quality is the measure of our goodness. In short the goal of equality was a desirable goal, which rested Stanley on more grants in recent years. However, this more ground has slipped away in some senses. This is because of the tensions brought on among the various segments of the earliest sick rights movements over support for specific methods of achieving the goal of equality. Some of it comes about because of differing views over whether what we are fighting for is equality of treatment or equality of outcomes, but the most important reason for the loss of this more ground is the loss of moral leadership. The leadership of the Civil Rights Movement increasingly shifted away from hands of fishing area leaders into the hands of pragmatic administrators as political gains accrued the beneficiaries were not always the masses of the oppressed. They often were managerial Elise whose interests and Ambitions often diverged from those at the bottom of the social and economic ladder. The moral imperative of the quality got lost in the shuffle of programs plans timetables and other strategies designed to achieve equality. A third expression concerns some traumatic shifts and the world economy will threatened by changing economic Fortunes. In other parts of the world. We feel vulnerable other nations with far less equality. And for unless democracy the Niles seem to have jumped on the market superhighway and are now speeding past us. How could the dollar be falling relative to the end how good the rate of return of investments in Singapore or Hong Kong exceed the Blue Chip US Stocks many of our latest honestly believe these discredited economic theories suggesting that greater economic and equality is good for economic growth or for increased savings and Investments. Many of our leaders are adopting what discredit economic model that says the inequality is Good for the economy. In other words. We're turning away from a heartfelt commitment to equality to a new vision. Blakeley and of a so indirectly many of our national leaders and policymakers are adopting a different stance. They now contend that inequality is not so bad after all the rich faith and savings are needed in order for the economy to grow and growth is our best defense against deficits and reduce International competitors given the choice between stimulating economic growth with unknown effects on the distribution of income and redistributing income from the rich to the poor our best thinkers and Economist now advised growth and it more inequality is the result of growth than what the heck they'll be a bigger pipe work there. Explanation climbs that for efforts to create equality. I felt afraid of action minority business set-asides race based scholarships preferential admissions have done little to ease the plight of the people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder these policies focusing on those with jobs those with the preparation to attend college on those with business experience have helped to compensate for prior and continuing discrimination against the average flat, but they have not eradicated the legacy of racism or segregation that makes those policies need it in the first place. In other words prior efforts, especially affirmative action type efforts not an ally under attack could be legally Justified based on prior wrongs, but nonetheless were never highly efficient and dealing with the broader problems of racial inequality. Now, there are two groups that have converged in their opposition to affirmative action. What argues that equality was never a desirable goal equality of opportunity perhaps but not true equality true equality as measured by outcomes. This group went underground for a while. But as we emerge and thou and power for office throughout the United States, The second group believed and equality in the true sense, but was frustrated by the apparent inability of simple and straightforward policies like affirmative action to solve the root underlying problems associated with people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder empirical evidence from researchers, like University of California columnist. Jonathan leadman clearly confirms that affirmative action works, but unfortunately, it doesn't work for everybody especially for blacks at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder the second group. However, never heavily invested in discovering an alternative scheme for achieving quality. The result their abandonment of affirmative action is seen as being equivalent to their abandonment of the goal of equality. Explanation for the retreat from equality stems from the concern that the middle class is worse off white males are falling behind. It is easy to be all for equality. If someone else has to pay for it it is all right to see a quality as an abstract idea, but if somebody has to lose a job and if that someone has to be me that I've against equality the majority of people will say to understand this explanation what needs to understand the dramatic shift and well-being of persons at the middle of the income distribution expressed in 1982, 1984 dollars, the median wage and salary incomes of family hatch in the middle fifth of the income distribution Was Eighteen thousand five hundred nineteen dollars and 1976 eighteen thousand five hundred and eighty seven dollars and 1985. Seventeen thousand nine hundred ninety three dollars in 1993. In other words. There was a drop in real incomes of the average family head in the middle of the income distribution. That's right amount of to about 3% from 1985 to 1993. Now just below the middle felt real wage and salary income stripe 8% from 1976 like that a father and another 3% from 1985 1993 in other words and then loving percent drop from 1976 to 1993 just bought the middle. There was a net increase from 1976 the 1993 these numbers confirm that the metal was shrinking those above the middle rising up those at and below the middle falling behind in 1976 85% of the middle of the earnings distribution among families heads with a counter for White male hits a family with 85% and 1976 that's felt night to 79 percent in 1985 and it fell again to 75% at 1993. In other words the share of the metal helped by white male heads family was shrinking. All right. Anyway, you look at it. The traditional middle seems to be in trouble. Now, why does it say I have anything to do with support for equality? That's us precisely because somebody has to be blamed. Forget the fact that most of the increase in the share the metal comes from white females not blacks or the races white female share of the middle more than doubled from 4.9% 1976 to 10.3% in 1993. Forget the fact that while the white middle class may have Shrunk the white upper class grew and Leaps and Bounds the top Feth grew by a phenomenal 17.5% from 1976 to 1993. But got all of the statistical facts. What matters is what people think not what the census shows and what do people think people think that the cause of the shrinking middle class is the invasion of illegal aliens black welfare cheats of inner-city gangs and who knows what else? Sex explanation has to do with the unfairness of special treatment. A particularly eloquent argument against equality. It's that to achieve equality. We must violate one of our most cherished principles that of equality. The argument goes isn't it against the American Cree to give special preferences now to previous victims of an equality. How can we achieve equality and be true to the goal of equality by using methods that treat people unequally? That's a boy elegant argument. The courts have wrestled with this issue repeatedly in cases like the Parker case the crossing case and now the Banneker scholarship case ultimately. However, I think we need to come to grips with this dilemma. Will it ever be possible to be trust previous in equality when the beneficiaries of the beneficiaries of that professional quality in the past may have to be curtain in this generation what state it differently. Is it reasonable to ought to Halt efforts now to promote equality on behalf of historically disadvantaged groups, simply because the better off group it's made worse off suppose. The federal of group is made worse off but it's at least as well off as it would have been if there had never been any quality begin with What this be an acceptable trade-off to create equality in some sense. This is an intellectual Bank brain teaser. It is suppose there exists a qualified white male who has passed over for promotion simply because he's white is this Fair? But I think a way to restate this question as suppose that that same white man is passed over for promotion, but another white man who is equally qualified. By the way, there's only one person that's kind of got promoted. We've got a hunter white man. So they're going to be 99 white men who are going to be turned over for promotion anyway, It's the circumstance any less unfair because the competitor is white and since the white man could probably or what happened passed over anyway, isn't this really just an artificial argument against equality for blacks and not an argument in favor of fairness twice? Or put differently perhaps the claims about reverse discrimination or really just post Jim Crow ways of saying that we are not in favor of equality. The seventh reason is the one that is driving much of our political discussion. Well Paul's vary in their wording and show concerned about equality of opportunity. The overwhelming majority of Americans are opposed to direct government efforts great equality of outcomes this opposition to equality from the majority is precisely what permits politicians to pass a law that so blatantly creates more inequality. But other words the biggest threat to equality today, it's the fact that in pose people say we're not in favor of government efforts nor the crate in quality, but shut up to Citizens about treatment of historically disadvantaged minority group members be guided by the will of the majority if that were the case. We will still have slavery in America. This is the main problem that I have with the call for common ground. Full consensus models of equality and for recent efforts to reignite the sense of community and shared values suppose that the group that is disadvantaged and discriminated against it's a minority principally because it does not live on the common ground that it cannot force a consensus among the majority that it does not share the community or the values of those who previously oppress them the Nicole for common ground for consensus or for shared values. It's nothing more than an acknowledgement that The Outsiders will always be Outsiders that The Unwanted will remain unwanted. In fact, the minority will suffer as a minority no matter how attractive the ideal of a common community may sound on paper. We must question. What does it mean for people who are not like us the reason we resist the movement of low-rent Housing and to our Suburban communities, it's not But the people are poor or that the people are people of color rather it is because they are not like us their equality depends on their assimilation into our mainstream, but what if by virtue of years of neglect isolation and segregation they have develop alternative institutions alternative values and modes of expression and behaviors suppose that they have invested heavily in coping mechanisms so that they can buffer there sucks of their exclusion from the mainstream that's their equality in a subsequent are require that they give up that investment and relinquish any claim they had upon the accumulated returns. It's the only way to be equal to be like all the rest if that is true that maybe equality is not such a great idea after all.