>Whereas African American males have born the brunt of the trend toward
>greater incarceration rates in the US, the correlation between rising
>incarceration and rising incomes among those "participating" in the
>labor market is becoming fantastically overblown. The concern about the
>high proportion of the A-A population having experience with the
>criminal justice system is important for many reasons. After all,
>convicted felons, however trivial (i.e., marihuana possession) the
>felony classification, are unable to vote.
That's actually no longer true. After finishing parole a felon can vote. I
was convicted of felonous tresspassing for the Diablo Canyon power plant
occupation by those opposed to glowing in the dark and felonous misconduct
on the picket line during the Greyhound strike and I can still vote in
California and the Federal elections. Historically felons were required to
register to vote only at the courthouse (making it more unlikely) but now
we get to register just like everybody else.
If memory serves me
>correctly, IF current felony conviction rates are extended into the
>future, a whoppingly big IF, we could end up with between 20 and 25
>percent of A-A males who have had a felony conviction by the year 2010
>or so. The trend may be subsiding. First, because of an aging
>population. Second, the cost of incarceration is become ever more
>unsustainable.
>From your lips to God's ear.
>
>The household income connection is overblown for a number of reasons.
>First, A-A males have always been incarcerated several times more,
>proportionally, than whites.
Again it is higher now than ever. I may be wrong, I only suggest you
research the data, not make it up.
So, any change in income must be explained
>examined in the context of the incremental growth in A-A incarceration
>rates. Second, imprisonment also impoverishes perpetrators' families
>(appr. 60 percent have jobs immediately prior to imprisonment). The
>gender bias in relative wages is also found in the African American
>community. Third, the average prison term, excluding life or more
>sentences, is 2.6 years. Although A-A males may serve longer terms on
>average, the difference is not great enough to significantly impact
>employment and earnings data. In addition, since A-A males have always
>been subject to some sentencing bias, we would have to analyze the
>effects of any incremental changes in average time served on earnings
>and employment. Incarceration may have some effects on earnings, but my
>guess that any positive impact (through reduced measured
>participation(?) is trivial and is likely dwarfed by the adverse effects
>of income losses during the incarceration period. Fourth, if segmented
>labor markets are more reflective of reality, convicted felons would
>likely be further relegated to any peripheral, outsider, secondary,
>informal, etc.,etc. , job categories than their nonfelon counterparts. I
>could probably come up with more, but lack the time.
>
>I would suggest that we look toward sectoral changes in employment and
>hiring that correspond to preexisting race/gender employment biases,
>social spending cuts that force proportionally more African Americans
>into the labor market (earnings go up but so do household expenses like
>child care), or something else. Why are high income A-A families'
>earnings rising too? It could be that this segment of the community is
>taking advantage of the current national trend toward greater income
>inequality. So, whereas, the highest earnings quintile of the A-A
>community is gaining in comparison to all workers, just like high income
>earners overall, the lower four quintiles are also gaining (at least in
>appearances) because of increasing hiring trends toward occupational
>categories that are proportionally more represented by African
>Americans. However, the gains in the lower quintiles are likely to be
>over-shadowed by greater costs associated with work-related
>expenditures.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>The opinions expressed may not be those of the CDC.
>
> ----------
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [PEN-L] Re: income & race
>Date: Monday, November 03, 1997 6:31PM
>
>But has it not gotten dramatically worse in the last ten years due to so
>called drug crimes? My last read on the situation was an incredible 1
>out
>of 3 Afro American men are incarcerated, on parole or on probation.
>
>33% is a significant chunk of any population.
>
>I don't claim that I've researched this, we are all just spitting in the
>wind here, but the sentencing has gone up during the same time frame of
>Doug's inquiry and no other intervening factor of such breadth came to
>my
>mind. Industrial work is leaving the country, the last hired first fired
>rule of senority would not increase employment in a shrinking sector for
>the bottom of the senority list. I can't for the life of me believe that
>industrial jobs could be accountable for such a shift.
>
>If as I suggest these are the gents most likely to be unemployed
>clearing
>them from you stats would indeed paint a rosier picture of those who are
>left in your pool of consideration.
>
>>Yes, black males are imprisoned in much greater proportions than
>whites.
>>But this has always been the case. So, while imprisonment rates have
>>increased for both blacks and whites, and for blacks relative to
>whites,
>>I don't think the portion of the increase in the black incarceration
>>rate is large enough to make the labor scarcity argument work. In
>>addition, the average time served over all crimes, excluding life or
>>more sentences) is about 2.6 years.
>
>What is the date on that 2.6 year statistic? Mandatory sentencing is far
>longer than 2.6 for crack the cocaine style used in non-white
>communities.
>
>Not the type of statistics
>>population trends are built upon. Sectoral shifts in hiring, firing,
>and
>>wage payments, and social spending cutbacks, may express themselves
>>through changes in relative household incomes between and within
>>racial/ethnic categories much like an aging population would tend to
>>shift the homicide rate downward. Why all income quintiles are growing
>>among black households, as Doug noted, implies that blacks at the high
>>end of the income distribution may be benefitting from the larger
>trends
>>in the widening of income distribution (excluding existing wealth), and
>>the lower quintiles may also be rising because of sectoral shifts
>toward
>>industries and occupations that are more highly represented by blacks.
>>The declingin social safety nets may be pushing proportionally more
>>minorities into the paid labor market. Of course, increasing earnings
>>among former social support recipients doesn't mean they are monetarily
>>better off.
>
>And would not the social support gang, like the incarcerated not have
>shown
>up on Doug's BLS statistics in the first place?
>
>Its a puzzle to me. ellen
>
>>
>>Jeff Fellows
>>
>> ----------
>>From: Gerald Levy
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: [PEN-L] Re: income & race
>>Date: Sunday, November 02, 1997 4:52PM
>>
>>Ellen (anzalone/starbird) wrote:
>>
>>> Is it true that inmates incarcerated in prison are NOT counted as
>>> households in your data?
>>
>>To be counted as being employed or unemployed in the US data, one must
>>first be counted as being part of the labor force. But, the labor force
>>is
>>defined in such a way that if you are not "working for pay", then you
>>must
>>be "actively seeking paid employment." Since prisoners are not
>"actively
>>seeking paid employment", they are not counted as being part of the
>>labor
>>force or the unemployed. Aren't bourgeois statistics beautiful?
>>
>>> The white poor are still with us, but the Black poor are in the
>>slammer.
>>
>>Huh? You don't actually believe that a majority of "Black poor are in
>>the
>>slammer", do you?
>>
>>> , the (free) Blacks are (statistically) thriving
>>> economically under the Reagan-Bush-Clinton administrations.
>>
>>Huh? In what sense did "(free) Blacks" thrive since 1980?
>>
>>Jerry
