Income and Poverty Trends among Racial/Ethnic Groups in the US - Essay Example

Income and Poverty Trends among Racial/Ethnic groups in the United s: Identifying Explanatory Variables Part A Principal comparative differences employing a ratio of inequality over time The Colombian and Peruvian Latinos is a pair of Latino nationalities who have recorded distinct patterns of poverty rates during this period. The Colombians had a poverty rate of 14.5% in 1980 and recorded an increase of 0.1% to 14.5% a decade afterwards. A decade afterwards, the Colombians recorded a much bigger increase to 16.6%. During this period, the Peruvians recorded an average decrease from 13.9% in 1980 to 13.6% in 1990, then to 12.3% in 2000. From the year 2000, the Colombians’ living standards decreased from 16.6% to 11.9%. The Dominican and Mexican is another pair of Latino nationalities that have displayed distinct poverty rate trends starting from 1980 to 2005. The Dominicans had a higher poverty rate standing at 32.7% in 1980. Mexicans recorded a drastic increase between 1980 and 1990 to 26.8% from 23.2 %. From then on, poverty rates decreased to 23.0% in 2005. Dominicans recorded decreased poverty rates to 27.5% in 2000 and maintained the rate until 2005. Male and female Latinos from each pair played significant and distinct roles in the poverty rate trends. The Dominican males recorded a steady decrease from 29.2% to 23.6% in the year 2005. The male Mexicans recorded a drastic increase between 1980 and 1990 to 25.0% from 21.5%. Afterwards, rates decreased to 21.7%, then to 21.2% in 2005. Colombian males decreased rates between 1980 and 1990, and drastically increased to 15% in 2000. Male Peruvians recorded a steady decrease between 1980 and 2005 at 9.7% from 12.8% in 1980. Females Latinos recorded the highest poverty rates in comparison with the males. Female Dominicans held their rate at 35.6% in 1980 and decreased to 29.9% in 2000. Female Mexicans increased to 28.8% in 1990 from 25.0% in 1980 from 1990, female Mexicans steadily decreased their rate to 24.9% in 2005 from 25.5% in 2000. On the contrary, female Dominicans increased their rate to 30.3% in 2005 from 29.9% in 2000. Colombian females had steadily increased rates of 18.0% in 2000 from 15.5% in 1980. Peruvian females held a small increase in 1990 standing at 15.4% from 15.0%. Afterwards, they recorded a drastic decrease to 12.3% in 2005 from 13.5% in 2000. Colombian females similarly recorded a drastic decrease to 12.8% in 2005 from 18.0% in 2000. 2. Variables accountable for the differences in poverty rates’ trends a. Change in adverse treatment of people grounded on ethnicity Prior to early eighties, neoclassical and political economists have discovered that women and African-Americans have endured dissimilar labor market situations in comparison with whites and males. Normally, women and black protesters have called for the equalization of gender and ethnic origins amongst applicants in all organizations. This situation forms primary cause for the immense poverty rates amongst Dominican and Mexican females between 1980 and 2000. Discrimination by employers and government officials fostered lack of income amongst Latinos in the United States, causing the high rates of Male poverty rates amongst Mexicans and Dominicans (Albelda, Drago and Shulman 12). b. Inequality amongst minority genders Women brought about an important perception towards the query of inequality, even though it varied from African-Americans. During the nineteenth century, women were disenfranchised and regarded as property of owners, or husbands, similar to slaves. Nevertheless, the mid and late eighties saw transformations in gender relations’ redefinitions by incorporation and regular closeness between men and women. This trend was accountable for the decrease in poverty rates amongst Mexicans and Peruvians between 1980 and 2000 (Albelda, Drago and Shulman 12). c. The rise and fall of actual wages Documenting earnings inequity was the normal and widespread trend amongst employers in private and government agencies. Certain theories have proved the change of the pattern with the utilization of the employer–related knowledge that caused an increase in real incomes amongst during the eighties. Hispanic men, who were almost all employees working full time all year round, had their wages decreasing until 1990, when they witnessed median incomes rise back to the previous levels during the late seventies (Albelda, Drago and Shulman 15). Part B 1. Principal comparative differences (patterns) The median personal incomes for Non-Hispanic whites and Non-Hispanic African-Americans have distinct variations with respect to professional ranking. The management, expert and associated occupations for Non-Hispanic whites are the highest in comparison with Non-Hispanic African-Americans standing at $45,840. The median incomes for Non-Hispanic African-Americans appreciably vary between management, expert and associated occupations and service occupations that stand at $13,752. Similarly, median incomes for Non-Hispanic whites vary between and construction and maintenance occupations from $13,243 to $32,597. From then on, the median incomes for both ethnicities decrease drastically to $27,810 for Non-Hispanic whites and $20,373 for Non-Hispanic African-Americans, both working at production, transportation and material moving occupations. Male Non-Hispanic African-Americans recorded a median income of $45,331, a lower median income in comparison with Non-Hispanic whites, whose median income stood at $61,120. The figures drastically decrease to 20,745 for service occupations for male Non-Hispanic whites, and 16,299 for male Non-Hispanic African-Americans working at service occupations posts. Sales and office occupations have a median income of $23,429 for male Non-Hispanic African-Americans, a small figure when compared with the $35,653 of male Non-Hispanic whites. Male Non-Hispanic whites working at construction and maintenance occupation posts have a median income of $33,209, much higher than that of male Non-Hispanic African-Americans at the same occupational level with a median income of $25,059. Male Non-Hispanic African-Americans and Non-Hispanic whites endure a decrease between construction and maintenance occupations and transport, production and material moving occupations to $23,837 for Non-Hispanic African-Americans and $31,171 for Non-Hispanic whites. Female Non-Hispanic whites had median incomes of $36,061 at management, professional and associated occupations: a figure slightly higher from Non-Hispanic African-Americans, whose median income stood at $35,653. Nevertheless, female Non-Hispanic whites working at service occupations faced a considerable variation with median incomes of $10,390, similar to Non-Hispanic African-Americans who had $12,631 at similar posts. Female Non-Hispanic African-Americans had median incomes of $19,355 and Non-Hispanic whites had a higher median income of $20,373 at similar occupational posts. Construction and maintenance occupations had an increased median income in comparison with sales and office occupations with Non-Hispanic whites recorded at $23,429 and 25,467 for Non-Hispanic African-Americans. Female Non-Hispanic African-Americans and Non-Hispanic whites working as production, transportation and material moving workers had the smallest median incomes of $16,299 for Non-Hispanic whites and $18,366 for Non-Hispanic African-Americans. 2. Other variables (factors) that might account for some of the differences a. Increase in wage inequality Median annual incomes for Hispanic male and female employees between 1967 and 2008 have been analyzed and accounted for by use of aspects such as the rise in wage inequality. The gap amid high and low-income earners has consistently grown alongside the gap between salaries and profits made by companies. Table 2.1 displays the income that employees at 20th, 40th, 50th, 60th and 80th median percentiles made. Right around this period, employers and organizations were trying to adjust for an oncoming and predicted inflation, forcing them to make wages cutback based on ethnicity, gender and level of occupation. These cutbacks account for the drastic variations between the salaries of female and male Non-Hispanic African-Americans and Non-Hispanic whites. However, from table 2.1, workers within the 80th percentile had their incomes increased by 23.9% to 2007 (Albelda, Drago and Shulman 21). b. Increasing family income and wealth gaps As incomes became more uneven, it was not surprising that relatives’ wages became even more disproportionate too. This is because wages consisted of a huge element of salary. Nevertheless, the increase in single-adult households, particularly amongst people with kids, combined with the increased contribution of women in the labor market (Albelda, Drago and Shulman 25). This trend implied that two-adult headed fail units have two income earners, leaving family units with one-breadwinner experiencing higher poverty rates. The ratio of the median wage for white family units to that of Hispanic family units has insignificantly changed with time, in spite of some increases in median incomes of black men and women. c. Unemployment and the business cycle Cyclic vicissitudes of financial activity on a national scale in market economies is known as business cycles. When the financial system expands, there is demand for employees greater than before. At such a point, salaries should rise since organizations are in need of workers, hence willing to pay more because employees are difficult to find. Such [periods were recorded between 1947 and 2008 in the United States. Nevertheless, small recession spikes between 1988 and 2000 were recorded and bigger impacts on Hispanic and minority ethnicities were experienced, in comparison with economy expansions (Albelda, Drago and Shulman 27). Part C Certain inequalities have been discovered to be beneficial for organizations concerning expenses and productive labor markets. The expansion of corporations’ returns and overall development of the financial system is the common objective of employers, irrespective of whether employees work hard or intelligently. It is noteworthy that some level of inequality is unavoidable in a global market where people have different preferences and skills. Employers never look forward to groups with similar, traditional and equal biological variations because they know the world population comprises of different races, biological and cultural communities. The data provided in this chapter have an unbiased perspective and natural outcome that should have been anticipated from the beginning (Albelda, Drago and Shulman 35). Opportunities and optimism have been vastly reduced amongst humanitarians and equal rights activists because of the figures presented in this chapter. Such a perspective creates enormous disappointment in the entire population. Such figures force people to change their view towards inequality and blame corporate employers for making discriminative and unequal employment decisions. Whilst groups will by no means become equal, it is disturbing that the current losers are the same groupings that lost in the past years (Albelda, Drago and Shulman 35). Racism and gender discrimination practices have run though American history and vanished from the face of government agencies and private institutions. People need to understand the fact that inequality does not come from the past or current prejudice (Albelda, Drago and Shulman 35). Inequality has been around institutions with the aim of adapting to the economical shifts and status, creating room for just maneuvers that unfortunately, appear to be suppressing minorities in the state. The presented figures in this chapter have clearly supported the truth, and the society has found it extremely difficult to accept it. Similar to Robert frank and Philip cook’s argument, our current and past society seems highly unreasonable accepting such trends to be adapted and implemented by corporate and government bodies, with consequences such as increased poverty rates. Works cited Albelda, Randy, Drago, Robert and Shulman, Steven. Unlevel Playing Fields: Understanding Wage Inequality and Discrimination. New York: Economic Affairs Bureau, 2004 Lane, Marie. Trends in poverty and welfare alleviation issues. Chicago: Nova Publishers, 2006 Shapner, Samuel. Demographics of the United States. Boston: Demographics of the United States Read More