Mnementh said:
Maybe. But going into details you will find examples that point in many different directions. Because real politics is messy and there are many different people with many different backgrounds, that are affected in different ways by policies. What the Gini-index demonstrates is, that neither democrats nor republicans are willing to do substantial changes, only superficial ones. That is since Reagan/Bush, because they clearly enabled policies that redistributed wealth towards the rich and increased inequalities. What we can see, that Clinton accepted that change and the democrats after as well. Only superficial changes were enacted. If something would've cut deeper, that would've impacted the Gini-index. Nothing did. That is because the democrats are also a neoliberal party that is afraid to anger big corporations. Rolling back the changes Reagan did would anger some companies, because what the Gini-index expresses, that wealth floats towards big global corporations (and the people owning them). The democrats will not piss off Google. To bring it back to racism: minorities are often on the lower side of the wealth inequality. Sure there are rich non-white people, but the distribution is that the curve for non-whites will trend more towards the lower wealth than for whites. So reforms that fix general inequality expressed by the Gini-index would proportionally help more people in minority population, but not exclusively. So: affordable health care for everyone, proper workers rights for everyone, better free public education, free or affordable and good public transport - all that would help the working class and minorities. But as the Gini-index showed it didn't happen. Even under democrats. |
Affordable health care: Dem policy
Expanded worker rights/union rights: Dem policy
Better public education: Dem policy
Expanded public transit: Dem policy







