It won't do. That answer on black unemployment was awful. I'm out of my realm here, and I'm not sure what should be done. Economics isn't my area. But Obama's basic position seems to be that government really has no active role in rectifying racial disparities. If that's his position, then he should say it. If his position is that it's better to target by other demographic categories, besides race, he should say that. But he ducked that one. And then ducked the follow-up. Weak, weak, weak.
I'm hoping someone with a better grasp of the numbers will challenge him on this. Not in that weak "You didn't say Martin Luther King's whole name" way, but in a serious policy-driven way.
UPDATE: I've got two editors breathing down my neck for stories, and this blog, and my own reading. But the answer really pissed me off--so much so, that I am really going to try to expend some shoe leather this week and get underneath of it.
I think what really got me was, as much as I appreciate what Obama has done with respect to black media, I don't think he took the question seriously. I don't think his answer was particularly thoughtful, or illuminating. Which says to me he hasn't been thinking about it. I could be wrong, but it's what I feel.
I need to go do my damn job...
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I don't have a specific grasp of the numbers but I thought his response was fine. He mentioned the types of programs (like the one in DC) that he thought might be effectively exported and that he would like to give the broader economic stimulus a chance to cover all bases before deciding whether taking a more targeted approach is called for. With the state of the US economy I'm not sure how this answer could be seen as insufficient.
Not sure about your ire here, TNC.
He said that the black unemployment was worse before the meltdown, so it is obviously worse now during the economic crisis. i didn't see him rejecting an active government role in rectifying racial disparities. I have never heard him talk against affirmative action, etc. Have I missed something?
I didn't see him as ducking the question. I think that Obama really believes that by helping the whole economy, he is helping blacks as well. A reasonable person could think this is the best way to solve the problem, although it is certainly your perogative(sp?) to disagree.
Maybe what he really means is "If I'm seen as giving special attention to African-Americans in my economic policy, my political capital would be depleted, and I wouldn't be any good to anyone."
TNC, I must say I disagree. Or perhaps I don't understand your frustration with his answer. What I heard was that it makes sense to fix the economy as a whole this year and then, when the economy-wide issues are less dire, to target specific ethnic groups including African Americans who suffer disproportionately and from unique challenges. What's so objectionable about that? It seems to me that the question was "why wait til next year?" -- a legitimate question. And Obama's answer was "logistics demand we plug the hole first and then mend the sails" -- a legitimate answer.
It would be best to address these things simultaneously, as addressing the chronically high unemployment in urban, poor black communities is decades overdue, but I'm not that bothered by waiting to look at which targeted programs work and can be duplicated until 2010.
That last part. I didn't hear that last part in his answer, and that's my fear. Once we get this thing fixed, what then? Do we just go back to things as they were?
Here is something to chew on--The last time we employed the "rising tide" logic (Clinton in the 90s) we saw great improvements for every sector of society except the most troubled one--black men. That should chasten us a bit.
Or maybe I'm too sensitive...
I don't think you're being too sensitive. He either clearly didn't take the question seriously enough, or he was unprepared, which would indicate that he's not thinking about this too much these days. Surely, he has much on his plate, and he has to worry about getting the economy's shit down to shoe-level first, but I'd like to see him elaborate more on his thinking here. This is a topic worth exploring, and by all means, pursue it.
Cite?
A quick, but fairly credible one. From the Center for American Progress's report on Black Men during the Recession:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/pdf/black_men_recession.pdf
I can gather more. But this is pretty established fact among social scientists. The 90s were great, in terms of jobs, for almost everyone except black men
I'm at work, so I can't spend too much time researching the issue myself. But I do know that black people in general (why are you limiting your comments to just black men? what about the income and poverty rate changes for black families and black children?) did very well economically during the Clinton years. Maybe I'll go digging for stats this evening.
One reason I never bought into the "Clinton Loves The Bruhs" hype.
He threw us under the bus by letting law enforcement run wild on us (didnt drug offense arrests and harrassment of Black males increase during his tenure?) He threw us under the bus with his little weak Sistah Souljah moment. And he threw Rwanda and Somalia under the bus.
So whether he knew it or not, he had primed some of us nicely to lash out at him when he pulled his old tricks in SC last year.
Well you asked for a cite, and I gave one. Black people did do very well during Clinton's time--but social scientists have crunched the numbers, and most of the gains were made by black women. This is not a novel theory. In terms of why I'm limiting my critique, I'm limiting it to where the problem has traditionally been.
I think you're being unfair to the Clinton administration. During the Clinton years, we saw a historic drop of the unemployment and poverty rates for black america. We saw black household income rise to its highest level ever, and a rise in black home ownership. By skipping all of that and just mentioning the stagnant employment rates of black men, you're giving a skewed picture of what "A Rising Tide..." can actually accomplish.
If all of the gains were among Black women, dwhite, didnt that only further exacerbate some of the large-scale pressures fracturing the Black family? How can a Black community rise in education and wealth and drop in imprisonment and mortality when the men are being excluded from the kind of gains you proudly (and rightfully) cite?
MR Coates I went to your link and what i saw was that the unemployment rate for blacks did go down in the 1990's.
Obviousely they are extremly high now.And they were probably too high in the 1990's. But I think that the best thing MR Obama can do for all of the unemployed or underemployed [black,white or any race] is to get the economy back on track.This will not solve all of our problems .But I feel [and i think that President Obama feels the same] that we are still in serious danger of having the whole economy go to hell like in the 1930's.
Quite frankly ,if he can keep the unemployment rate below 10 percent ,i think he will be doing a good job.
My personal opinion is that MR Obama is taking the issue of unemployment very seriously .
TNC,
I don't think you're too sensitive; it's just that you expect more from Obama than you would from a Bill Clinton or a Dubya, particularly on this issue. Considering that Obama is a former community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, and that his work as an organizer dealt specifically with issues of unemployment, you would think that President Obama could draw upon that experience and provide an insightful answer to this question. Instead, politician Obama intervened and silenced the voice of community organizer Obama.
Perhaps you are feeling sensitive, and feel that as a black man, Obama should at least care more about the black community than previous presidents have. I don't know, and you are certainly entitled to your feelings. But I have to say that is what occurred to me when I first read your post-- that you were feeling dissed by your president.
I don't argue with the legitimacy of your feelings, but I do know that I have heard him answer this question before several times, including during the campaign, and he answered the question the same way every time. i wonder why you are getting angry about it this time? Did you feel just as angry before? This is quite a strong reaction.
Meh, it's not that strong. Scroll through and look at everything I've written about his public statements. I'm a fan. He's a brilliant dude--he applied that brilliance to Iran, today. I want him to apply that brilliance to black male unemployment--it's ancient, nagging problem. His solutions don't have to match my politics, but I want him to at least seem like he's thought about it.
That I can agree with, because he usually takes a very thoughtful approach to answering questions. it seemed to me that he didn't like the reporter and was tired of getting the question, and he did seem annoyed with it.
TNC,
What makes this failure especially galling is that he has had the opportunity and experience to think about this problem. He was a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, and a state senator from a South Side district.
He saw the long-term effect of the closing down of US Steel and Wisconsin Steel on unemployment on the South Side. He has seen how decades of inequalities between communities in the funding and providing of education contributes massively to persistent unemployment minorities, particularly Black men. He certainly must have seen from his time as both a community organizer and as a state senator how having a criminal record is an enormous albatross on Black men to a far greater degree than it is for white men.
These and other phenomena that contribute to structural unemployment among Black men in our inner cities are things he must have seen and thought about many a time.
Seems to me he's probably feeling a little overextended, and the question of "are you looking out for Black folks" probably gets under his skin in a way that other questions / accusations dont.
When Obama gets annoyed he can definitely be dismissive.
Still, I agree with TNC--even with problems on multiple fronts (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, N.Korea, the economy, the financial industry, the auto industry, the Dem party, Congress, etc.) he cant lose sight of the folks that got him elected--Black folks, progressives, Gay and Lesbian Americans, big city liberals.
I sympathize with the taxing demands of the job, but thats the job.
Well, I welcome your reporting on this topic, because I think it's important and I always welcome your reporting. But I do believe I heard in the reporter's question (need to find out her name) that she was asking about a proposal that already acknowledges a need for targeted solutions built in, but does not make those programs a priority until next year. He did not repeat that in his answer though, which he should have.
I don't disagree that the answer was not one of his most deft, and he did seem a bit caught off guard, which is odd, since black reporters ask him a version of this question pretty often, but I don't think his attitude or policy position is that of Clinton's. As another commenter pointed out, he didn't shy away from the importance of addressing the specific barriers to employment faced by the urban poor during the campaign. I believe the question was "when" not "if," but it's always good to get clarity on a matter as important as this one.
For what it's worth, I didn't hear the last part either. But the question was "Why not go for another round of stimulus because of horrific unemployment in the African-American community?" A shorter answer might have been that stimulus is too blunt an instrument. The program he cited I think was the kind of targeted approach he thinks can work. And yeah, while I'm far from an expert on African-American unemployment, if that's the whole plan, it's kind of lame.
Obama is in the unenviable position of telling people who are hurting that, yes, we have some bandaids, but the real fix is long term. His challenge right now is to keep unemployment as low as possible, to keep as many people in their homes as possible, and to show progress on some campaign promises such as healthcare reform. But, most importantly, he has to convince us to be visionaries and to see that the overhaul of the economy, and yes we are talking overhaul, is a multi year and perhaps multi decade endeavor.
I do not see anything terribly wrong with his response to the question about black unemployment. It is absolutely true that black and Latino unemployment is consistently higher than white, and that blacks and Latinos are hit harder by recessions. And I certainly have no problem with programs that prepare people for employment. Workforce development is unquestionably part of the solution.
What Obama could have possibly said that he didn't would have been to make the link between job creation associated with his plans for green energy, the auto industry, infrastructure improvement, and so forth because these are the areas that will create the jobs that will replace those lost with the decimation of our manufacturing sector. It is the manufacturing sector that provided entry to middle class employment for those with only a high school education or less and it is the destruction of that sector over the last 15+ years (combination of bad trade agreements and an auto industry that doomed itself to self-destruct) that has hurt the most.
Nothing wrong with your post, Coates. He's had the question asked before and gave the same bullshyt answer. He needs to step up to the plate and have something substantial to say. Period. I understood why it pissed you off; it made me mad too.
I thought it was a duck as well. We've all lauded Obama for his thoughtful and multi-faceted answer to questions before, unfortunately this was not an answer like that. Plus, his "steamrolling" over the reporter to move on seemed a bit disrespectful. I'd like to hear him, or someone from the administration, give a more detailed response, and I'd welcome some reporting from TNC on it.
I touched on this topic in a recent post elsewhere ("Lessons from the European Elections"), noting that the unemployment rate for black teens is now almost 40%. There may be some cognitive dissonance at work here for many Democrats on this issue, because two Dem policy goals -- maintaining or expanding unskilled immigration from Latin America, and increasing employment opportunities for Americans -- are in direct conflict with each other.
If you free up some time, do a little digging on this Ta-Nehisi, and see what you think. Here are two leads you may want to follow up on. Check out the work George Borjas of Harvard has done on the effects of unskilled immigration on the wages and unemployment rates of native unskilled workers. Also, there's an example from the Baltimore area you may want to check out, where Mexican women were imported under special visa program to work for (if memory serves) $10 per hour in some crab cannery, while living rent free in dorms nearby (again, if memory serves). Are there no unemployed African Americans in the area willing to work for $10 per hour?
Umm, do you think they'd pay people's living expenses if there were locals living nearby who wanted to do the work? Also, you know, the government just does special visa programs on a whim, you know? And you know, working in a crab cannery is really pleasant, as well. Yeah, there's probably some conspiracy here.
"Umm, do you think they'd pay people's living expenses if there were locals living nearby who wanted to do the work?"
It depends partly on how nearby, but why not? Even paying for their housing in the same way, it would still be cheaper for the company to hire locals because then the company wouldn't have the legal and lobbying expenses of getting the visas.
"And you know, working in a crab cannery is really pleasant, as well."
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where we were arguing about the paucity of "really pleasant" jobs for African American men. I thought at this point we were just talking about the paucity of jobs, period. How about we worry about knocking down that unemployment rate first, before we worry about everyone getting his dream job?
"Yeah, there's probably some conspiracy here."
Not that I suggested there was a conspiracy, but go ahead and scratch out that possibility. Now tell me why it makes sense to import people from Mexico to work for $10 per hour when the unemployment rate is so high, particularly among black men?
Now tell me why it makes sense to import people from Mexico to work for $10 per hour when the unemployment rate is so high, particularly among black men?
Generally speaking, it doesn't. That's why undocumented immigrant labor is rarely paid a rate of $10 an hour. Ad whatever rate they are promised, they've no recourse if the employer decides to withhold or alter those wages. This is why unscrupulous employers prefer to hire undocumented workers to the native born who can hassle them if they don't follow the law.
I think there's a legitimate debate to be held about the affect of illegal immigrant labor on the employment opportunities and wages of native born unskilled workers, but it's a discussion that's tough to have because it's often accompanied by simplistic refrains and a hard-edged xenephobia/racism that invalidates a legitimate tension between creating a sensible and humane immigration policy and creating a fair domestic labor market, especially for the less skilled or unskilled.
I think perhaps you didn't understand my (somewhat sarcastic) reply.
I had the impression that you were giving examples of how black men had had the rug pulled out from under them in regards to employment. The story you told was woefully lacking in substance and details, and was (even if inadvertently) another "blame the Mexicans" story. And in this case, completely legal Mexicans, with visas and everything.
Before using a story like this as an example of a wrong done to a specific group, consider getting the facts instead of just speculating.
deva, these were legal workers with visas. Should we deny others a chance to work (legally) and feed their own families?
@lebecka: I don't think we should (legal or illegal), at least not in the somewhat reactionary terms Dave is suggesting and the sure-fire reactionary terms so many talking heads espouse.
The point I was trying to make, rather, is that there is a real tension between these positions (acknowledging Dave's basic point), but I do not think there has to be a knee jerk opposition between them. You can approach the issue as "our native born" against "those foreign interlopers," or you can approach the issue as a matter of justice and opportunity which both groups deserve. I don't think this is a zero sum game and that is the way it is framed.
A humane and sensible immigration policy (which we don't have), combined with humane and sensible labor initiatives for native born unskilled, as well as cracking down on exploitative employers (who exploit either/both groups) are all avenues to be examined.
I dont often agree with Dave, but I think thats a thin assumption.
All kinds of reasons why paying unskilled Mexican laborers $10 an hour is preferable to paying locals nearby...a strong Union culture in Bmore that the Mexican labor is probably indifferent to, an easier ability to control them and short them on basic benefits and treatment that a local Baltimore resident would be more inclined to request or demand, etc.
Are these legit? Dunno, but plausible maybe.
DaveinHackensack,
I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed or even emplyed African-Americans who are willing to work for $10 an hour in a crab cannery. The problem is that most employers would rather hire a Latin American immigrant with limited English skills over a native-born African-American. I have a feeling that many white employers possess such an irrational animus toward having African-American employees, that even if there were no immigrants available to fill a position, these employers would still balk at hiring an African-American. They would probably try to buy or build a robot to do the work instead.
This is where an ace reporter such as our host Ta-Nehisi may be able to shed some light on the topic. If you are right that irrational animus toward African Americans explains the desire to import unskilled immigrants from Mexico to Baltimore to work in a cannery, than that raises the question of why Democratic politicians have facilitated these visas.
As for your second comment, from an economic standpoint, if the choice is between hiring an unskilled immigrant and building a robot, we are better off with the robot. A robot would mean higher skilled (and higher paying) jobs for robot salesmen, repairmen, installers, etc. Plus, if the robot gets hurt on the job, it won't cost our emergency rooms a dime. And we won't have to worry about the robot having kids who are, like the kids of many unskilled immigrants, unwilling to do their parents' jobs and unable to get jobs that require more skills (there was a recent NY Times article on this phenomenon, focusing on the children of Salvadoran immigrants in the D.C. area).
"If you are right that irrational animus toward African Americans explains the desire to import unskilled immigrants from Mexico to Baltimore to work in a cannery, than that raises the question of why Democratic politicians have facilitated these visas."
Not really, Dave. Democratic politicians (and many Republican ones as well) are sympathetic toward expanding legal immigration in general, both skilled and unskilled, whether that immigration comes from the Americas, Africa, Europe, or Asia. They are not inclined to seeing increased legal immigration as a zero-sum game for African-Americans, since in a level playing field native-born americans should not only be competitive with immigrant workers, they should also have a home field advantage as well.
The fact that this does not occur in the reality of our job market implies that employers are not operating in good faith, and are engaging in discrimination against African-Americans (which indicates an animus against African-Americans to the point of irrationality). If discrimination is the cause, Dave, the fault is with the employers, not with the immigrants or the Democratic & Republican politicians who support increased legal immigration.
"As for your second comment, from an economic standpoint, if the choice is between hiring an unskilled immigrant and building a robot, we are better off with the robot. A robot would mean higher skilled (and higher paying) jobs for robot salesmen, repairmen, installers, etc. Plus, if the robot gets hurt on the job, it won't cost our emergency rooms a dime. And we won't have to worry about the robot having kids who are, like the kids of many unskilled immigrants, unwilling to do their parents' jobs and unable to get jobs that require more skills (there was a recent NY Times article on this phenomenon, focusing on the children of Salvadoran immigrants in the D.C. area)."
Dave,
Wouldn't this logic also apply if the choice were between hiring an unskilled worker who is native-born, or building a robot? Last time I worked, native-born workers get hurt on the job too, which also incurs emergency room costs, and many children of unskilled workers who are native-born also don't want to do their parents' jobs and are unable to get higher-skilled jobs. Last time I looked, intergenerational poverty and welfare dependency in the United States were not limited to immigrants.
Eltoro,
It's true that there has been a consensus among elites in both the Democratic and Republican parties in support of unskilled immigration, both legal and illegal. Let's be honest though about the motivations for this. Most Republicans who support unskilled immigration do so because the Chamber of Commerce likes cheap labor (a few also harbor delusions about Latino busboys and day laborers comprising a natural constituency for the GOP). Most Democrats who support unskilled immigration do so because they know that when these immigrants are naturalized, most of them will vote Democratic.
Supply and demand is a pretty basic concept, but many of us choose to ignore it in the context of the labor markets. If you increase the supply of unskilled labor, you lower the price (i.e., wages) for it. That's Econ 101. Now, it's possible that the high unemployment rate of African American men is due mainly to racist employers denying their applications, but there is, I think, a subtler, and more likely possibility: the competition from immigrants discourages some African American men from applying in the first place, partly because they don't speak Spanish, and partly because the presence of immigrant laborers has lowered the prevailing wages for the jobs. Perhaps there are other reasons, I don't know. I'd be interested in seeing what Ta-Nehisi turns up. The reason I'm skeptical that it's the result of overt racism is that the EEOC will slap serious fines on any employer caught doing that, and I think most employers are well aware of this.
El Toro,
"Wouldn't this logic also apply if the choice were between hiring an unskilled worker who is native-born, or building a robot?"
Yes, it would.
"Last time I worked, native-born workers get hurt on the job too, which also incurs emergency room costs, and many children of unskilled workers who are native-born also don't want to do their parents' jobs and are unable to get higher-skilled jobs. Last time I looked, intergenerational poverty and welfare dependency in the United States were not limited to immigrants."
That's true, which is all the more reason to stop importing unskilled immigrants. If we don't import unskilled immigrants, we'll still have the challenges of dealing with poor, unskilled Americans (who will be more likely to find jobs absent the competition from unskilled immigrants). If we import the unskilled immigrant workers, then we will have to deal with the social welfare challenges of both the unskilled Americans and the unskilled immigrants.
MR DaveinHackensack
Could you please provide a link to the story about the cannery in Baltimore.I am not saying that it is not true, but the only crab cannerys that i know of are on the Eastern Shore.They are all a long way from Baltimore.You might have been misled by the term Baltimore "AREA".If the cannery is 50 to 100 miles away it does not help those without a car [a large percent of Baltimore in otherwords].
For the record I work in construction in Baltimore and I have many friends [white ,black and hispanic] who do as well.And all would jump at the chance to work for $10 an hour, including myself.The unemployment situation is the worst that i have seen in 40 years and wages have always been low in Baltimore. I have worked a lot of back breaking jobs for less than $10 an hour in Baltimore.
Beleive me ,if you go to any one of the temporary "day labor" offices you will see plenty of people lining up at 5 am to work for $6.55 an hour [minimum wage].I have stood in these lines myself recently.There are hardly any jobs going out ,so most of us went home empty handed.
The situation right now is bad for everyone. But manufacoring and construction are getting hit the hardest. I myself am white , but many people in construction and manufacuring are [or were] black.
By the way, most of the hispanics in my neighborhood are out of work as well.
More broadly, too, check out Mark Perry's recent post (or my summary of it) on the "Lipstick Economy": black men are probably the worst off, but men in general -- all races taken together -- are lagging women in employment and educational attainment. There is a 2.5% gap now in the unemployment rates between men and women, partly because men are better represented among hard-hit sectors such as manufacturing and construction, while women are better represented in stabler sectors such as education and health care.
DaveinHackensack,
Part of the gap in the unemployment rate between men and women is probably due to age discrimination. Workers over 50 who become unemployed tend to have a tougher time regaining employment than a worker under the age of 50 with similiar skill sets. Since many workplaces up until the 1970s or even the 1980s were male-dominated, a disproportionate number of older workers in many industries (particularly in manufacturing or construction) tend to be men.
Eltoro,
The one problem with your theory is that older workers have been the one demographic gaining jobs in recent months. Check the stats. What the reason for this is, I don't know.
Dave,
Contradicting that is data showing that joblessness among workers 55 or older has increased at a greater rate than joblessness among their younger cohorts. Unemployment has grown 116 percent among the over 55 set, while it has grown 63 percent among workers aged 16 to 24, and 110 percent among workers aged 25 to 54. So even if older workers are starting to regain some ground recently, they have also lost more ground overall. In addition, if increasing employment among older workers is concentrated in female-friendly industries like education or health care, and increasing unemployment among older workers is concentrated in more male-dominated industries like manufacturing and construction, then age discrimination is still a potential factor; it's just simply more of a factor in male-dominated industries than in industries where female employment is more prevalent.
MR Daveinhackensack
I would agree with you that the main reason black unemployment is rising is because of the manufacturing and construction industries being in bad shape right now.I would disagree with the suggestion that it has to do with immagrants doing jobs that Baltimore residents refuse to do. [please see my other comment above].
Baltimore has a small latino population .And they generally can not undercut the blacks and the whites on wages.Labor is really cheap in Baltimore ,hence our small hispanic population compared to better paying Washington DC [ immigrants go where the wages are highest].
"I think what really got me was, as much as I appreciate what Obama has done with respect to black media, I don't think he took the question seriously. I don't think his answer was particularly thoughtful, or illuminating."
A reason for that might be a weariness on his part for this particular question. I remember atleast one other instance at a national press conference where he was asked essentially the same question of what was he doing to specifically address black unemployment. And it seems to me if you think about how Obama approaches problems in general, his answer would not be a govt program which gives out jobs only to blacks (I am oversimplifying here...), but rather his answer would always focus on how the recession affects everyone, and how more stimulus, public health care insurance, more unemployment benefits, etc IN GENERAL are required. What would be left unsaid is that these benefits would actually benefit the black community more simply because they have more needy folks.
Wait, but no one's asking for that. There are many ways of approaching problems that tend to afflict black people more than other people, without making it race-exclusive. If you want to deal with the black male incarceration rate, you don't just random let a bunch of black people go--you change the crack/cocaine penalty ratio, for instance.
But that isn't what he said, and even that answer doesn't grapple with the long, persistent, intractable unemployment rates among black men in major cities.
unfortunately it goes deeper and wider than all of that as the new global economy adds to the existing problems check out:
http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/06/14577
But I did hear him say exactly that, TNC, in a debate with John McCain last year. He didn't say it today, but he has addressed this issue repeatedly.
Remember that Obama is interested in being the president of all Americans, not just blacks or gays or latinos, and when he answers, he is more likely to talk about how his programs will help a large variety of people, not just blacks.
I think you are unfairly putting an extra set of expectations on him here, to be ultra-concerned about the problems of blacks, rather than the problems of the unemployed in general. Perhaps he is personally, but as a public servant, he probably feels that he needs to think about everyone, and be addressing issues broadly.
Yup, I understand your point. This answer indeed does not address the systemic and unique/particularly debilitating issues that afflict the black community. Even though I have some vague idea about those, I would be very interested in reading more about them in depth.
Ta-Nehisi,
I think this is a blind spot among smart progressives in general, and not just Barack Obama, and it affects not just many black men but blue collar whites as well. I hate to refer to two posts of mine in one of your threads, but I made the point recently ("How not to create Broad-Based Prosperity") that some smart liberals acknowledge how globalization has challenged the American middle and working classes, but have difficulty proposing constructive solutions:
So we should stop caring about carbon and global warming, stop worrying about developing alternative forms of energy, and just simply keep out unskilled immigrants? This is silly. Surely we can think of a better solution than that.
You do realize that working in green energy manufacturing jobs doesn't require much more skill than working in any other kind of manufacturing jobs right? I'm not try to knock your motivation but I think its a strawman argument to say that switching from the manufacturing based industries we have now to greener ones which is what CAP and other liberal and progressive think tanks advocate would hurt the middle class. In fact it would give them jobs that are a lot harder to export and that will probably have a lot more security going forward. Besides that those industries could potentially revitalize areas where there used to be say natural resource jobs or manufacturing jobs that have since gone away like places in Michigan or Pennsylvania.
Sgwhiteinfla,
The current liberal policies on energy will make energy more expensive. When you crack down on fossil fuels without expanding nuclear power, you're left with alternative sources of energy (e.g., wind, solar) that are more expensive. That will hurt energy-intensive industries such as manufacturing. It doesn't matter if you are manufacturing windmills or tanks, if energy is more expensive, it will be more expensive to manufacture them here. So more manufacturers will manufacture them elsewhere.
I pointed out the effect of high energy costs in a post last fall, comparing the unemployment rates of Utah and Rhode Island, respectively ("A Tale of Two States: Utah versus Rhode Island"). There are a number of factors that go into the decision of where to set up a factory or other energy-intensive business, but energy costs are a major factor, and as I noted in that post, industrial electricity rates in Rhode Island were three times as high as they were in Utah, thanks to Utah's coal-fired plants. Which state do you think had lower unemployment?
Yeah, sorry, not true. The CBO just scored the cap and trade bill. if you have some kind of special super undercover information about energy prices then you should present it to the world. But the CBO says it just isn't true.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=300
I don't find your arguments very convincing.
Sgwhiteinfla,
"Yeah, sorry, not true."
1) By current liberal policies on energy, I'm referring not just to Cap & Trade, but liberals' resistance to increase domestic fossil fuel production and their resistance to expanding the use of nuclear power. The result of all of these policies is higher energy prices.
2) The effect of higher energy prices on energy-intensive industries isn't difficult to see, as the Utah versus Rhode Island example (which you seem to have ignored) shows. It should be clear to you intuitively why this is, but if not...
3) The CBO report you linked focuses on the cost to households of the proposed Cap & Trade legislation, noting that it will result in higher energy costs but that these will be offset with transfer payments. The CBO report does note in passing the point I've made here: that higher energy costs will hurt energy-intensive industries. From p. 8 of the report:
"So we should stop caring about carbon and global warming, stop worrying about developing alternative forms of energy, and just simply keep out unskilled immigrants? This is silly. Surely we can think of a better solution than that."
I realize that it's easier to caricature what I've written than to acknowledge the points I've made (particularly about how different liberal policy goals conflict with each other) and engage thoughtfully with the topic, but if you change your mind at some point and are interested in having a thoughtful conversation about this, let me know.
"By current liberal policies on energy, I'm referring not just to Cap & Trade, but liberals' resistance to increase domestic fossil fuel production and their resistance to expanding the use of nuclear power. The result of all of these policies is higher energy prices."
Dave,
Preventing an increase in domestic fossil fuel production isn't necessarily a liberal policy. Liberals often oppose measures such as increased off-shore drilling and opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve not because they are inherently opposed to fossil fuel production, but because they feel the costs imposed on the American people by increased enviromental degradation outweighs any marginal benefit to the American people (although oil companies will benefit greatly). Since prices are dictated by both supply and demand, increasing domestic oil production won't necessarily lead to decreased domestic energy prices in either the short or long run; the effect of exponential increases in demand for fossil fuels in the developing world can more than offset the increase in supply providing by off-shore drilling and opening up ANWR.
Likewise, opposing the expansion of nuclear power isn't necessarily a liberal policy, since there is nothing inherently anti-liberal about using nuclear fission to produce energy. Liberals are merely concerned about the problem of storing nuclear reactor waste on the increased scale that widespread nuclear reactor use would entail. (You may have heard that nuclear waste is highly radioactive.) Deal with the waste problem properly, and liberals in this country will have no problem with expanding use of nuclear fission. (Of course, if you could develop a method of cold nuclear FUSION, then we could get rid of both fossil fuels and nuclear fission generators.)
Since there is nothing inherently liberal about opposing increased domestic production of fossil fuels and expanding the use of nuclear power, it is possible to gain the support of liberals on these issues. Deal with the legitimate environmental concerns raised by liberals in connection with these solutions, and propose as part of a package along with Cap & trade policies, and you will find liberal support for those ideas.
I have a question for those who were unsatisfied or pissed off at his answer. What should he have said?
I ask because as rikyrah pointed out he has been asked and he has answered this question before pretty much in the same fashion and people were "outraged" then too. Yet I never saw someone say what he "should" have said. Just that he didn't say enough.
Well what are his options for targeting the black community specifically? And remember it would have to be in ways that he isn't already helping the.
If black folks are disproportionately unemployed then didn't adding money for unemployment disproportionately help them?
If black folks get disproportionate amounts of food stamps then aren't they getting helped disproportionately with the additonal funds for foodstamps he put in the stimulus bill?
And I could go on and on.
I am just missing what the hell it is he is supposed to say or do that he isn't saying or doing. Especially in a political climate where anything he says that can be twisted to depict him as a racist who favors minorities over white men will be played up to the hilt.
Check Pat Buchanan's never ending gig at MSNBC.
So maybe I am ignorant. Maybe I am over looking something obvious. Just please somebody school me up on this.
Just caught only that part of the press conference (man, do I hate the neologism "presser") on the radio. My quick (and, honestly, only) thought as I heard him brush the question aside:
It was definitely a duck, but more of a rhetorical mistake to use the Rising Tide frame and bring alone with it all its implications and failures.
Agreed about the rhetorical blunder. The reference to the Clinton era is the wrong one and I think it actually misrepresents his policy position as he's stated it before.
From left field: Obama strikes me as someone who would want to develop a cooperative effort with corporations and the private sector to address inner-city concerns, rather than create solely-government programs. He wants the win-win - businesses developing 'new markets' that benefit the populace. He's the "working together" guy. If this speculation happens to be true, the current economy is dictating progress on this front. If he talks about this concept now, he loses politically on both fronts - neither the people nor the corporatists will see it as realistic, given what's going on now and what's come before. In a year, in two years... when the economy's out of crisis, when he's established some trust and some connections with corps... targeted economic development will be higher on the to-do list. Showing this card now will only work against him. Again, all speculation.
"Generally speaking, it doesn't."
Great, we're making progress.
"That's why undocumented immigrant labor is rarely paid a rate of $10 an hour."
In the Maryland example I mentioned above, the immigrant workers were "documented", since they had temporary work visas. But even illegal immigrant workers often get paid $10 or more per hour (or at least did get paid that much, before the current recession). Do a little research on this and you may be surprised by what you find.
"I think there's a legitimate debate to be held about the affect of illegal immigrant labor on the employment opportunities and wages of native born unskilled workers, but it's a discussion that's tough to have because it's often accompanied by simplistic refrains and a hard-edged xenephobia/racism that invalidates a legitimate tension between creating a sensible and humane immigration policy and creating a fair domestic labor market, especially for the less skilled or unskilled."
That's one challenge of having the discussion. Another challenge is that it's often accompanied by unsupported accusations of xenophobia or racism which are intended to stifle the discussion. So what better forum for exploring this topic than Ta-Nehisi's blog? I think we can count on Ta-Nehisi to encourage his commenters to argue in good faith.
I'm not familiar with this particular Maryland example, but I know that hideously unpleasant jobs tend to have a high rate of turnover; even if it only takes one day to train the replacement, that's something an employer wants to avoid. A busload of people from one small faraway village -- they don't speak the local language, they only know each other, their work permits are only valid as long as they stay at this job, there's no phones or newspapers or anything within walking distance -- they're going to stick it out.
Plus if this factory is anything like the Postville meat-packing plant, those dorms aren't free at all, they're overpriced company housing and it's deducted from their paychecks. And they're probably working more hours than they get paid for.
It seems like, to me, you are doing everything you can to avoid addressing the difficult contradiction which DaveinHackensack has described: the tension between a pro-immigration stance and a pro-labor one.
Cesar Chavez was strongly opposed to both expanded legal and illegal immigration. He identified new immigrants as a likely source of scab labor. At one point, his union, the UFW, even patrolled the US-Mexico border in a manner comparable to that of the present-day Minutemen. For a while, Chavez and the UFW would report undocumented workers to the INS for deportation. (I've always found it bizarre how campus romantic-leftists would lionize Chavez while having no idea about his immigration stance: Chavez is a labor hero first and foremost, but has been re-invented into an ethnic one.)
There are a lot of ways to handle this issue. I, for one, am more pro-immigration than pro-native-labor, and that stance has a lot to do with my own family origins, and lack of particular loyalty to a national working class over an international one than anything else. But it is naive - pure whistling-in-the-dark - to think that the default progressive slate on this issue isn't fraught with contradiction. The American left is still confused and backward when it comes to understanding class and labor issues, and it shows.
I hope that as they consider the problem of the disproportionatly high unemployment rate of Black men, both the administration and TNC pay at least as much attention to the reasons for it, because without the "why," the "how" to solve or ameliorate it just won't happen. Is it racism? Those studies that show employers summarily turning away applicants with "names that sound Black" indicate that it is still with us. What about the high rates of incarceration for Black men which is usually a permanent blot on their records. Does that argue for sentencing reform and/or more sensible drug laws? How about high school drop out rates and poor inner city schools? Does that mean education reforms, if so which ones? Does the predominance of single parent households, particularly in the inner cities contribute to the problem and if so what is the government's role (if any) in encouraging two parent families? What impact do legal and illegal immigration policies have on this problem? While it may be successfully argued that we haven't done enough, there have been many programs targeting the problem. What has worked and why? What responsibilites do Black men have for solving this problem and what can/should the govt. do to help. The reporter's question was important and complex, as will be the ultimate answer. Pres. Obama gave an answer appropriate to the setting, but unless we accept this permanent underclass made up disproportionatly of some Black men, (and some do of course) we should examine the "why" as least as rigorously as the "how."
Ok I just watched the video of the presser again and specifically the question at the end about black unemployment and I am still confused, maybe even more so. Pres Obama says first and foremost getting the economy back on track will help minoritites. That sounded imminently reasonable. Then he talked about a program that helps mostly minorities who are on the lower end of the education scale get the skill to get jobs that he wanted to find a way to mirror and do things like that all over the country with programs that work.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31509043#31509043
Again I ask, what else was he supposed to say?
I am wondering that, too, and I am truly interested in the answer.
His answer, especially initially, also left me wanting more. It would have been helpful if he had elaborated on the programs that put people back to work. That's an important reminder that there are things that can be done and that high black unemployment does not have to be a fact of life. He also could have reiterated his call for true education reform, pointing out that our global competitiveness depends on ALL of our young people being educated.
Below is a Wash Post column that details the link between education and employment
There is a clear link between educational achievement and economic stability.
"Of the 6.8 million black men who are employed, the vast majority have at least a high school diploma. Many have college degrees or diplomas from technical schools. The same is true for the 8.4 million working black women.
For black men ages 20 to 24 without a high school diploma, on the other hand, the unemployment rate is 55 percent -- an abysmal 91 percent for 18- and 19-year-olds. For uneducated black women 20 to 24, it's close to 30 percent.
Now, give them each a professional degree -- and the unemployment rate all but disappears."
I hate to be a spoil sport, but the unemployment rate for black people is close to twice as high as that for white people at every education level. In 2008 the unemployment rate for people without a HS degree was 8.2 for white people and 14.5 for black people. At the BA or higher level the rate is 2.4 for white people and 4.0 for black people. Mind you, this is for black people in general, not black men specifically and this unemployment discreprancy has held steady for a few decades now.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat7.txt From the BLS site's CPS data.
This is what's wrong with the idea of a rising tide lifting all boats. Even when the tide rises, it lifts some boats more than others. Although black workers will benefit from a general improvement in the economy, unless the reasons for that *structural* disparity in employment are adressed *specifically*, black workers (especially black men) will find themselves as relatively disadvantaged in the economic recovery as they have been in the economic meltdown and before.
Anna Perez raised a number of good possible reasons for the unemployment disparity (particularly racism, incarceration, and low education). I would add two others, that in addition to low education, could be used as a way of addressing unemployment for both black men in inner cities and white men in rural areas (and thereby make the policies more palatable to the public). Namely, poor / inadequate networks for finding employment and, frankly, the dearth of actual employment opportunities in most of these communities. You can train and educate people all day long, but if the jobs aren't there (in their actual communities), the training is for nought.
I too was annoyed by the response the president gave to the question of black unemployment. I think he attempted to substantiate his answer with the discussin of Year Up, but that does little to speak to the millions of "educated" blacks who are, indeed, being disproportionately affected by unemployment. Maybe we don't have enough numbers on that yet, but from personal experience and from what I have gathered among the community, I think it will be an issue that requires more attention.
We all know that it's not new, the fact that in most instances the bad times hit us worse... moreover, for many, the "bad times" never went away.
I know that the President has to speak for all and not just one group, and I can do nothing but respect that because we are all his constituents. Might this be an opportunity for the black community to work on getting more involvement from congress or the VP, to dig deeper into this issue.
I would also like to see more discussion about "obama backlash"... I hear stories every day, but don't know if this can truly exist under a category other than "conspiracy theory."
Just so we are all focused on the same set of data here is the question and answer in full and I will add emphasis to the parts that have me scratching my head at the criticism.
Again to me this came off as an answer that focused on macro and micro concerns. Overall if the economy doesn't come back it won't matter what color you are, we are all screwed. But aside from that he is also talking about finding programs that can be mirrored around the country and help those inner city areas (minorities) that have high unemployment statistics even during the "good times".
Somebody please help me on this, what am I missing specifically that he could or should have said?
I think that Obama's answer is the the truthful response, and, probably, the best anyone could do in a Q&A setting. A more in depth response would have addressed the continuing, complex, seemingly intractable, structural poverty of about 13.3%-13.8% that has existed in the US since the late '50's when poverty was first quantified. Kenneth Galbraith defined structural poverty as "insular poverty." Here is how he defined it:
Insular poverty...refers to groups of people who are poor because the circumstances of their lives trap them in “social islands in which nearly everyone [is] poor, usually in a rural or urban environment that perpetuates its handicaps through poor schools, evil neighborhood influences, and bad preparation for life."
Ending "insular" poverty will require a tremendous changes in our cultural, educational, criminal justice systems. A press conference will not elicit the answers to these American tragedies.
The problem is not the answer, but rather Obama's philosophy, which was reflected in his response to the reporter's question. I haven't watched the presser, but I read the transcript, and his answer is the same one he gave to Andre Showell a couple of months ago during the last prime time presser. I don't like the "lift all boats" philosophy either, and the only remedy is if Obama changes his way of thinking about the issue and to be honest, I don't think that's going to be happen. He's said this type of thing consistently so those of us African-Americans who still voted for him shouldn't act surprised. To do so, in my humble opinion, would be a little dishonest. Also, I think a lot of the disappointment comes from the fact that you would think that a Black man who's done the work that he has and seen the things that he's seen would be able to relate or at least understand the plight of the average Black man or woman and have some sort empathy that influences the decision-making process. For example, maybe if Obama had gone to an HBCU or had some kind of connection to those communities, he would see that cutting funding wasn't a good idea (Yeah, I'm personally pissed off about that, but that's a different post). Unfortunately, and I know this may seem harsh,that doesn't seem to be the case with Obama, and I think that a lot of us are just now starting to realize it, me included.
BlackWomanRising,
I don't think that Obama believes that lifting all boats is all that he needs to do to combat the persistent problem of higher relative unemployment among Blacks. Obama has spoken often about the importance of education in his life and in Michelle's life, and how programs like the GI Bill vastly increased the access that Americans had to higher education and vocational training, and how many Americans would be in a position to take advantage of this country's economic opportunities if they were provided real access to higher education and vocational training, and how government can play a critical role in providing that access. So he is certainly aware of structural factors (such as unequal access to education) leading to unemployment, and he has said that government has a role in alleviating those structural factors.
The problem with Obama is that he is extremely fearful of publicly commenting on specific and current issues dealing with racial inequities, especially in the light of the controversy surrounding the Rev Wright (which almost cost him the Democratic nominaton). So he will comment on such issues in the vaguest and most superficial of terms, especially in comparison to the more in-depth comments he will present on foreign policy issues. It's not that he lacks empathy; it's just that today's press conference, politician Obama suppressed community organizer Obama, and didn't show any of the perspective and special insight that a former community organizer would present on this issue.
"It's not that he lacks empathy; it's just that today's press conference, politician Obama suppressed community organizer Obama, and didn't show any of the perspective and special insight that a former community organizer would present on this issue."
eltoro,
That's just it...this is going to sound weird, but I wonder if "community organizer" Obama is really there sometimes. I'm truly not trying to be snarky, but I'm wondering if he didn't do the community organizing thing long enough because I just don't see how witnessing someone's plight up close doesn't have an effect on you. Obama's current views about Black unemployment don't reflect that that it had a huge impact. And yes, I've read Dreams from My Father and what he may have thought back in the 80s in Chicago seems to be different now.
I wish at least one person would acknowledge the importance of workforce development programs.
A very good friend of mine was an engineer at a copper mine that shut down here in Arizona a few years ago. He watched 2,500 people lose their job that day and because of the emotional impact of that experience he became involved in workforce development.
He specialized in teaching math skills to those who never learned math for some reason or other. His results were quite phenomenal. Students were getting jobs, promotions, and pay increases and all of that was tracked over time. He went on to become the director of a small training institute here in Tucson, but the local "economic development council" took away his funding despite measurable success. He is now a researcher at some university in Kentucky.
My point is that what Obama said about workforce development programs is not insignificant.
I agree wholeheartedly but its almost as if people didn't notice that part of his answer or something.
I've worked in workforce development and economic development in three different states and here's the dirty little secret of most workforce development programs...they're only as good as the local labor market. Retraining people for new jobs works, if there are jobs available in that city, region, (or in the case of inner-city workers, in that area of the city).
In the case of your friend in AZ, there obviously were alternative jobs in the area to absorb many of the retrained workers. But in many cities, esp. inner-cities, and rural areas the supply of low educated workers is much bigger than pool of low skill jobs (thanks to de-industrialization and the movement of service businesses to the suburbs and exurbs).
In order for workforce development programs to be effective (and not just provide false hope to desperate people) they have to be in tune with the actual job opportunities in that city or region and workforce development policies have to work towards increasing job opportunities for low to middle skilled workers in the cities and city areas where they actually live.
You are absolutely right.
Tucson has major problems with providing decent jobs and is nationally recognized as both a low wage town and the call center capital of the US. We have Raytheon here and the University of Arizona, but something like 80% of the jobs are provided by small business.
Workforce development programs cannot work effectively without local economic development programs. We can't make the assumption that we can train people for the lower end of the labor market and they would have the resources to re-locate to where the jobs are. That happens at the high end of the labor market and we certainly feel that here in Tucson because we educate people at the UofA, but they move to Phoenix or other states to work.
I said upthread that President Obama's challenge is to turn us into visionaries who understand that the overhaul of the economy will be
a multi-year undertaking. And this connection between job creation and job training is something that he probably needs to incorporate into press conferences and speeches. I fully believe that he gets it.
Another thing about the workforce development/economic development enigma here in Tucson is that a small group of fat, corrupt bureaucrats literally have a stranglehold on the agencies that are involved. They pay themselves six figure salaries and accomplish absolutely nothing. My friend, the math guy, set up a blog in 2006 to expose some of this and it has attracted quite a bit of attention including the local newspaper. Right now the newspaper is all over this. The comment threads express a massive amount of public outrage, but so far nothing has happened to unseat any of the bureaucrats. But I suspect that there will eventually be some changes.
The major problems with economic development programs that I see are lack of oversignt and the failure to hold the bureaucrats accountable. These programs have immense potential and are critical if we are going to succeed in re-directing the economy into areas that will provide 21st century jobs.
hunnnh...
so you figured out that he is not only going to sell out americans, generally, but black folks specifically?
get used to it.
the next 3 plus years are going to be a repeat of this pattern.
obama "compromising" to get points on the board - any old legislation that will look good - to help his re-election, while he continutally sells out the basic principles he campaigned on.
it is simply disgusting.
By my calculation Obama has been in office five months. I'd like to hear what your specific "sell outs" have been? Post again in January 2011, and we may have something to discuss.
Sometimes I get the impression that a few people think Obama should be more than a president, that he should be a king, or a Dictator of The Good. Well, he's the President; not an imperial president, but one of the 'almost' co-equal branches of the government of the United States that most recent presidents have attempted to deconstruct.
It seems to me that some people fell into an Obama cult of personality, and those very people now realize he has to govern as a president, not a demi-god. And they are pissed.
A presidential campaign is many things: a test of the candidate's ability to paint a blueprint of his/her ideas, a test of will, of smarts, of responding to the unknowns, of physical and emotional weaknesses and strengths, etc. I think we know what his ideologically trajectory and governing style may be, but we don't know how all this will turn out. At least, I don't.
I think a dose of the reality of the modern American presidency should be taken by those who think Obama can cure every pimple on the ass of this country after five months or five years In office. It's not as if we have a pristine history that suddenly went bad when Bushmaster and his gang of dead-enders took over.