Tag Archives: Poverty

Monday’s Mtg: Pros and Cons of a Universal Basic Income (UBI)

The idea of replacing (or augmenting) some or all of America’s social safety net programs with a single, large cash payment has been around for a long time. Today, there are several different versions of the proposal, usually referred to as a Universal Basic Income (UBI). Some countries and a few U.S. cities have experimented with UBI on a small scale.

Part of the impetus for this is that UBI has been slowly growing more popular among the policy wonk crowd in recent years. Some progressive experts see it as the best solution for a future of mass unemployment and low wages caused by widespread adoption of artificial intelligence and other advanced means of automation. They also hope that adopting a single, universal to everybody income support program could finally drain some of the resentment many Americans feel towards welfare, especially in an increasingly diverse nation. Other liberals strongly object to a UBI. (FWIW, DavidG opposes a UBI, mainly because I don’t think it would ever be politically viable.)

Some conservatives are UBI converts, too. They usually argue that a UBI would consolidate the plethora of low-income programs, some of which they say are of dubious value, eliminate welfare’s perverse incentives, and be more administratively efficient. Other conservatives hate the idea.

Here are some background readings. I will open our meeting with a brief explanation of the ABCs of a UBI and the main arguments for and against it.


USA need a UBI –

No, UBI is a bad idea –

NEXT WEEK: How will longer lifespans change society?

Monday’s Mtg: Will America’s Death Penalty Fade Away? (inc. Props. 62 and 66)

On November 8, Californians may abolish the state’s death penalty. Proposition 62 would ban capital punishment outright, including retroactively by converting all 746 prisoners on death row to life in prison without the possibility of parole. If Prop. 62 passes, we would become the 21th state to ban capital punishment outright. Four other states have governor-issued moratoria on executions.

But, it’s not a done deal in CA. I have not checked how 62 is polling yet.  But, a similar proposition failed in 2012, although by just a 52-48 margin. Also, death penalty proponents thought of a clever tactic this time around. They qualified a rival proposition, Prop. 66, to address the worst procedural problems in our state’s death penalty process. By increasing the number of defense lawyers eligible to represent death row inmates and reducing the number of permissible appeals to help speed up the decades-long (and thus arguably cruel and unusual) process, Prop. 66’s backers hope to split the queasy-about-it-all vote and stop repeal.

How big a deal would death penalty abolition be in California? Yeah, it’s the Left Coast. But, some serious people are starting to argue that the USA is near a tipping point on the death penalty. The number of U.S. executions has been declining for years (only 28 in 2015). Botched ones keep making big news. The 2016 national Democratic Party platform called for outright abolition for the first time. Nebraska just became the first red state in modern times to end the death penalty. One major recent poll showed nationwide public support for the death penalty has fallen below 50% for the first time.

On the other hand, 51% does not magically change policy (okay, except on the ballot in CA). I’ve read that the Supreme Court has never had more than two justices willing to declare that capital punishment inherently violates the 8th Amendment’s cruel and unusual standard. Absent such a ruling, abolition will remain a state-by-state issue, guaranteeing the death penalty’s survival for a long, long time, at least in deep red states.

So, what will happen? Here are some questions we might want to get into on Monday evening, plus some background readings that focus on the chances of abolition. (We did a meeting on whether capital punishment should be abolished in 2014.)


  1. Props: Discuss merits of Propositions 62 and 66.
  2. Arguments: Why do people support death penalty (e.g., vengeance, deterrence, religious belief, inertia)?   Why oppose it (morality/religious, cruel/unusual, racial disparity, cost…)?  Is there a difference between the reasons people cite and their real reasons? What would it take to change people’s minds? Your mind?
  3. Public & politicians: Why has public opinion changed? Will it keep moving against the death penalty? What might it take to reverse or accelerate that trend? What incentives do lawmakers have to take risks versus avoid this issue?
  4. Courts: Will SCOTUS ever ban the death penalty outright? On what basis? Or, will it keep slowly restricting its use (minors, intellectually-disabled, murders only, etc.)?
  5. Alternatives: Can the “machinery of death” (Justice Blackman’s phrase) ever be reformed enough to eliminate its inequities? Regardless, would either side ever be satisfied?


Next Week (Oct 24): The other 15 ballot propositions, or maybe we’ll just read War and Peace instead.

Monday’s Mtg: Should We Raise the Minimum Wage?

I had this idea for us to do a series of meetings in the run-up to November that highlighted the starkest policy differences between the two presidential candidates. Oops. Donald Trump’s candidacy and Media’s obsession with horserace trivia make that pretty hard to do. Trump’s policy platform involves him basically riffing a stream of consciousness on whatever topic an interviewer brings up, hoping to run out the clock before anyone notices he has no policy ideas at all nor a rudimentary grasp of the issue.  No one seems to know exactly what Trump’s position on the minimum wage is, much less what it might be tomorrow or in a face-to-face debate with Clinton.

But, I’m not sure it really matters. As I keep hammering away at week after week, we are electing a political party to govern us more than an individual. And, the Dems and GOP at all levels hold irreconcilably-opposite views on the minimum wage. The Republican Party is wholly opposed to raising the minimum wage at all. Period. Many conservatives would prefer it be abolished or reduced, although I doubt they would take the political risk of trying it at the federal level. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz oppose any federal minimum wage.

In stark contrast, Democrats really, really want to raise the minimum wage, either nationally or in as many states as possible. Hillary Clinton campaigned on raising it by 60%, from $7.25 to $12 per hour, to be phased in over several years. This would be the largest such increase in history. Under pressure from Bernie Sanders, Clinton stated she would sign a $15 minimum wage bill if a Democratic Congress sent one to her. This would double it.  This November 8, minimum wage increases are on the ballot in five states.  Democrats want to make this a wedge issue – one that motivates base voters to turn out – like Republicans did with same sex marriage bans in 2004.

Luckily for us, the debate over what would happen if the minimum wage were raised significantly is not all theoretical. The current federal minimum wage is just $7.25 per hour, one-third lower in inflation-adjusted terms than it was in the late 1960s. However, 29 states have a higher minimum wage, 12 of which are over $9.00 per hour. California’s is $10 – the nation’s second-highest –and Brown just signed a law to raise it to $15 in 2022. This means that lots of studies have been done comparing places that have raised the minimum wage to those that have not raised it. The results are generally encouraging to the liberal economic case for raising the wage. Yet, as I will explain, it’s not quite that simple.

On Monday I will open with a brief tutorial on the minimum wage and the types of questions we should be asking about what might happen if we raised it to various levels. I don’t think lowering the minimum wage is really on the table right now as a viable policy option, although if Trump wins, all bets are off.


  1. Current policy:
    1. How high are U.S. minimum wages now and how high are they due to rise in some states?
    2. What else does govt do to support working poor? How important a policy tool is the minimum wage in comparison?
  2. Arguments: What arguments are used to support and oppose raising/lowering/ending the minimum wage
  3. Evidence: Based on history what affects would raising min. wage have on:
    1. Helping people: Raising incomes of the working poor, reducing poverty and reliance on govt transfer programs.
    2. Hurting business: Killing jobs, raising prices, other business decisions (like replacing workers with machines).
    3. Would more spending on other govt programs (EITC, etc.) do more to help the working poor than raising the min. wage?
    4. Can we predict what would happen if we abolished the min. wage?
  4. Fairness:
    1. Will raising min. wage really put a dent in inequality?
    2. Will it make low-wage pay more “fair?” What’s fair?
    3. Does the minimum wage subsidize big corporations more than it helps the poor (they can keep paying low wages)?
  5. Politics: Is this a winning issue for Democrats or Republicans? How big a winning issue?


Next Week (Sept 26):  Progressives’ Constitutional Philosophy.

Monday’s Mtg: Do Government Anti-Poverty Programs Work?

This month marks the 20th anniversary of federal welfare reform. The 1996 law drastically limited assistance under the U.S. govt’s largest welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Since then, a lot of other changes have been made to our anti-poverty safety net. Yes, TANF was gutted, but other programs have been created or expanded to make up the slack, and the whole system is now better targeted to incentive work and to reach the truly needy.

Still, perhaps welfare reform’s main accomplishment was political. It de-weaponized welfare as a high-profile, partisan issue in American politics. Rising poverty and inequality levels may bring it back, but it hasn’t yet. And if it ever does, most Americans will be just as easy to manipulate as before because few of us know anything at all about this part of government. For example, did you know that

  • The biggest and most effective ant-poverty programs by far are Social Security and Medicare?
  • Govt spending per poor American has gone up in recent years – not down as most progressives think?
  • Benefit levels are pretty paltry, and the biggest poverty programs do incentive work – contrary to what most conservatives think?

Given these and many more public misconceptions, I thought it might behoove us to devote an evening to taking a big picture look at how the government combats poverty in America and how effective it is.

I am a bit pressed for time this week (inc. finding you good, analytical links). Here are some discussion questions I will use to guide our meeting on Monday, and some background readings on anti-poverty programs and their effectiveness. My opening remarks will describe the largest federal and state govt anti-poverty programs and make a few points on the issue of effectiveness.


  1. What are the main federal/state anti-poverty programs? How much do they spend and who gets benefits?
  2. What is their purpose? How is aid targeted and conditioned? Temporary v. permanent help? Cash v. non-cash benefits?   “Making work pay” v. helping non-working poor?
  3. (BTW: Why are there so many poor Americans, anyway?)
  4. Effectiveness at…
    1. Reducing poverty and helping the helpless?
    2. Targeting the “right” people.
    3. Incentivizing work?
    4. Keeping social cohesion.
  5. Problems with…
    1. High program costs.
    2. Dis-incentivizing work.
    3. Subsidizing low-wage employers, like Wal-Mart.
    4. Minimizing fraud and abuse.
  6. Past and future:
    1. Did welfare reform “work?” For whom?
    2. Future alternatives to / expansions of poverty programs.


How much do we actually spend reducing poverty?

  • It depends what you count as “welfare” and exaggeration is common. Recommended.
  • A conservative group counts up the total.
  • [Update: Is entitlement spending for lazy people growing out of control?  No, it is not: 91% of entitlement spending goes to the elderly (50%), the disabled (20%), or the working poor (20%).  Only 9% goes to non-working, non-disabled adults.]

Impact of anti-poverty programs –

Conservative POV –

20 years after welfare reform:

Worldwide Poverty –

Next Week (Sept 5):  Will President Obama’s Achievements Endure?


Monday’s Mtg: Is Obamacare Working? What’s Next?

We last talked about the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare in July 2013 (great links!), as parts of it were still being rolled out.  Three years later all of its major provisions have begun to operate and experts are starting to get an idea of where the law has been successful at achieving its goals and where results have been disappointing and why.

Non-experts like us have a hard time getting any sense of it at all. Obamacare is only dimly-understood by most Americans. The law had to be grafted onto the existing, highly-complex American health care system, so it is very complex. The law’s affects also are nearly invisible to most Americans, largely by design. Complexity and invisibility left a huge opening for clever propagandists to trash the law and attribute every negative development as the beginning of Obamacare’s imminent collapse.

This is a bummer for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is it makes it hard for us to see through the complexity and opacity to draw our own conclusions about the law’s good parts and bad parts (both exist). To help us out a bit, I will start our meeting on Monday evening by reviewing two key contextual points:

  1. The major problems/shortcomings of the status quo ante health care system that Obamacare was designed to fix; and
  2. How the ACA was supposed to do that.

Then, we can go one of several ways. We could discuss each major part of Obamacare in turn, such as the state insurance exchanges, the law’s many new consumer protections, and Medicaid expansion. As we talk I can sketch out some of the latest good news/bad news in each area. Or, we could go big picture and explore whether the ACA has succeeded so far at its three big, broad goals: Achieving near-universal health insurance coverage, controlling health care costs, and improving the quality of medical care. Very ambitious goals.

As we talk, I think it is very important for us to do two things that news stories on Obamacare implementation almost never do.

  • Look at the entire law – not just some piece of it that has experienced recent good or bad developments; and
  • Compare its results to a realistic alternative – either one based on where our health care system was heading before Obamacare or to Republican alternatives (to the extent they even exist – see links).

If you want we can get into GOP alternatives and Hillary’s plans to protect Obamacare’s gains and fix its flaws or expand it. And, yes, there is yet another lawsuit probably heading to the Supreme Court that is aimed at one of the ACA’s major provisions and bringing the whole thing crashing down.

There’s one more thing. The ACA’s shortcomings are particularly tragic, and not just because health care matters so much. Unlike other laws Obamacare cannot be amended at all because Republican lawmakers will not allow it. They want the ACA to collapse so they can “repeal and replace it.” To my knowledge, no major law has ever been held to this standard, expected to work perfectly in its first iteration. Major laws are amended all the time to correct mistakes and adapt to new conditions and unanticipated or even unanticipatable problems. For example, Medicare’s basic fee structure was completely overhauled less than 10 years after its 1965 passage because it wasn’t controlling costs very well, and the program has been modified thousands of times since then.

So, however brilliant or dumb the Affordable Care Act is, we are stuck with it as is. Any insufficiencies in the law (or unexpected adaptation by consumes and businesses) must either be addressed administratively or left to fester, or, if a GOP-controlled Congress is elected, solved or ignored their way.


  1. Review: How was Obamacare supposed to solve the major problems in our health care system?
  2. The Parts: How has implementation of each major moving part of Obamacare gone? What caused any failures and how was implementation of the law adjusted to compensate?
  3. The Whole: Can we declare overall success or failure (or making good/bad progress) on the 3 major goals of ACA: Helping the uninsured, making HC more affordable, improving quality of care?
  4. The Divide: Do liberals and conservatives define “success” differently?
  5. The Future: What’s next in U.S. HC reform?
    • Latest GOP lawsuit.
    • Dem/HRC plans to fix/expand?
    • GOP plans to repeal/replace?


It’s succeeding:

It’s a mixed bag or it’s failing:

The Future –


NEXT WEEK:   Does the “historical Jesus” matter?

Monday’s Mtg: Why Do So Many Americans Draw Disability Benefits?

Did you know that October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month and that 2015 is the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act? Me neither, when I chose this topic. I picked it, with its specific focus on government spending on the disabled, because the rapid rise in the number of Americans on disability in the last 25 years has made the disabled into another political football to be kicked around. Conservatives point to the increase in spending as evidence of widespread fraud and/or some sort of runaway “entitlement society” mentality. As Paul Krugman said, the disabled have become the new welfare queens. Progressives are outraged, etc.

Yet, it’s a complicated issues. The sharp rise in the number of Americans on federal disability income supports is mostly explainable by benign demographic factors, like an aging population. A lot of the money state and local governments spending on the disabled is intended specifically to reduce society’s burden of caring for them by helping them get an education and a place to live so they can find work and stay employed. But, when you add up all of these costs it is fairly expensive for our society to provide the full range of services that allows disabled Americans to survive and thrive. There may be legitimate issues here.

Which ones should we discuss Monday night? Like last week’s meeting on the transgendered, my first goal is a little education. I’d like us to learn some basic facts on who in America is disabled, why, and what is done for them at public expense. We could then get into how well these programs work and whether more should be done or less. Also, last week’s big budget deal that prevents national debt default (but not, BTW, a govt shutdown, which is still likely) included some reforms to Social Security Disability Insurance. I will briefly explain those changes in my opening.

As always, I expect (and encourage!) us to debate the core philosophical concern at issue: What is our moral responsibility to act as a community to care for the least fortunate among us.

Discussion Questions –

  1. WHAT: What does it mean to be “disabled?” How do the govt and others define the term? How many Americans are disabled and how and why? What are the trends here?
  2. GOVT: What assistance with living do disabled Americans need? What government programs exist to provide it? How much does it all cost and who pays for it?
  3. EFFECTIVENESS: Do these programs/services “work?” Big gaps, wrong focus, vary by state, etc.?
  4. TOO MUCH? Why have the disabled rolls grown sharply in the last 25 years? Are the reasons innocuous or have these programs turned into a de facto safety net?
  5. TOO LITTLE? Alternatively, do we spend too little helping the disabled and/or should more be done to support their ability to work?
  6. ADA: How effective has the Americans with Disabilities Act been? At what cost?


Next Week: Do we need more or less government regulation of business?

Monday’s Mtg at NEW LOCATION: Why Are So Many Rhetorically-Valued Jobs So Low-Paying?

This will be a meeting of transitions for Civilized Conversation. We start a new life at a new location – The Village Café, 10415-B Mission San Diego Road. (Coco’s closed suddenly, as have dozens of their locations around the country.) Also, this will be Zelekha’s last CivCon meeting! She’s off to NYC to seek her fortune and/or get involved in some of the issues that we just sit around talking about. Good luck, Z. Thanks for the venue, Filip.

It is Z.’s topic idea on Monday, too. We have discussed the problem of low wages in the United States several times. See here, for example. We’ll do so again on May 18, when we ponder the effects technological change might have on the future world of work (I’m calling it our robots meeting).

Zelekha wants us to focus Monday on a specific type of poorly-paid work and its seeming paradox. Why do so many of our society’s most rhetorically-valued jobs pay so little? For example, a lot of jobs that involve taking care of the sick or the very old or the very young pay dirt wages: Home health care workers, nursing home staff, day care center and in-home child care workers. (Of course, some such jobs pay better, like police officer, firefighter, and soldier.  But, why)  Some other jobs may not exactly be respected, but we all recognize their importance to the public good: Food handlers, cyber security types, security guards, etc., and some of them certainly pay poorly. Why is this, Zelekha asks?

The usual answers get at a part of the truth, in my opinion, but are not the whole answer. Based on my experience, conservatives tend to cite these three factors:

  1. Low productivity: Low wage jobs – even some we admire – add little monetary value to an employer so they pay little;
  2. Supply and demand: Wage rates are determined by employers’ demand for labor and the number of qualified applicants, and by nothing more; and
  3. Immigration: Allowing in so many low-skill immigrants puts downward pressure on wages in those jobs. (not all conservatives cite immigration)

Liberals, IMO, tend to cite these three:

  1. Power disparities: Many low-wage workers are worth more than they get paid but lack the bargaining power to demand what they deserve; and
  2. Power similarities: Low-wage workers often are employed by other people of modest means, especially in child and elder care;
  3. Social value:  there is a lot of social value-added in rhetorically-high-valued jobs which is not captured by labor markets, and it should be (or at least, government should compensate the workers for that social benefit if businesse can’t/won’t).

I’m no expert, but I know a bit about such things, especially the ways that people over simplify the above arguments. So, I will open with a brief overview of these points-of-view. Then, the usual: We’ll have a nice 2-hour debate and then trash the place. (Kidding, Filip.)


  1. Which jobs are “rhetorically-valued but low-paid?” Jobs helping the elderly or children? Jobs protecting the public? Dangerous/unpleasant but someone’s got to do them jobs? What do these jobs pay? Do some pay reasonably well (e.g., police/firefighters)?
  2. In general, what factors determine how well jobs pay? In theory? In real life? Are the factors different for the low-wage jobs we’re talking about here?
  3. Do some of these jobs have social value beyond their market value? How do we know that and who should determine the value-added?
  4. What do governments in the USA currently do to assist low-paid workers; e.g., minimum wage, earned income tax credit?
  5. Could/should more be done to either (a) raise these wages or (2) support these people’s incomes? In general v. sector-specific? Pros v. cons.

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING – (I went a little crazy. So prioritize.)

In general –

Specific jobs that we rhetorically value –

Causes and Solutions –

Solutions (?)

Next Week: How Did the Founding Fathers Envision Government’s Powers?  (Bruce’s idea)

Monday’s Mtg: Homelessness in San Diego and Beyond – What Should Be Done?

I’m surprised we’ve never done this topic before. Thanks to Linda for suggesting it. Homelessness has become a big issue in San Diego recently (see links). Nationally, it’s part of that constellation of problems that our political system tends to ignore, along with most anything else connected to poverty.  Our stunted national debate pretty much starts and stops with debating whether homeless people are entirely at fault for their own misery or merely almost entirely. Public policy in many cities tries to “manage” the homeless problem so it’s less visible, and often leaves it to non-profit and private do-gooders to cope as best they can – even in deep recessions, when the need is greatest and the funding (public and private) dries up.

Yet, I don’t mean to imply that homelessness is not a complicated problem or would be fixable with simple solutions. In fact, it’s a really, really, tough issue because homelessness often lies at the intersection of many of our social ills (like joblessness, poverty, lack of affordable housing, over-incarceration) and people’s personal tragedies (such as mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, child abuse). I hope to learn more about all this at the meeting and from the links, below. Linda will run the show, but I’ll be there in my usual capacity to call on speakers in as arbitrary a manner as I can. The background readings focus on San Diego’s homelessness problem, which was Linda’s intent, but I linked toy much more information about the homelessness issue, provided by two organizations devoted to eradicating it.


  1. Who is homeless in San Diego and why? What about nationally? What role do personal factors play versus structural/economic factors? What does this tell us about solutions?
  2. What is San Diego doing about homelessness? How’s that going: what’s working and what is not working?
  3. What do other cities generally do – and not do – to combat homelessness?
  4. What would a more effective strategy against homelessness look like? What role would be played by our national government, state/local governments, and the non-profit sector and charities?
  5. How can we make people care more and judge less?


Next Week:  Causes and Lessons of the Great Depression.

Monday’s Mtg: Racial Profiling and Stop and Frisk.

Racial profiling is one of those issues that most members of our discussion group probably have very little feel for. Most of us, I’ll bet, have never lived in a neighborhood where young people are routinely stopped and scrutinized by the police, or in one with the crime levels that are used to justify the practice. Racial profiling has been illegal since 1968, when SCOTUS ruled that police cannot legally search someone solely on the grounds that their race or ethnicity makes them “suspicious.” But, the police still have enormous discretion in who they can stop and search and how, and young men/women in many poor communities of color are subject to interrogation and search by law enforcement whenever they leave the house.

Allegations of racial profiling and debates about its effectiveness have been in the news a lot the past few years. In 2013, a court struck down NYC’s controversial “stop and frisk” program, wherein law enforcement made it a deliberate practice to stop lots and lots of people on the street and search them for weapons and contraband. Mayor Giuliani and others argued that it lowered crime in the city and that the inconvenience to law-abiding citizens was worth it. Opponents said stop and frisk violated the rights of tens of thousands of innocent people, did not cause NYC’s drop in crime, and amounted to a kind of tax on poor people of color. Racial profiling also has been a huge issue in immigration, via Arizona’s A.B. 1070 “papers please” law, and in the anti- terrorism realm since 9/11.

We have a special guest Monday night, via Carl, who will talk about another topic and answer questions for the first 20 minutes. Then, I’ll give a very brief issue intro on our main topic and open it up. Let’s all stretch ourselves a little on this one and try to imagine how other people’s experiences might lead them to see the world differently than we do.

Discussion Questions

  1. What is “racial profiling?” Why is it outlawed and what discretion do the police still have to search someone based partially on their appearance?
  2. Stop and frisk: Does it work? How high are the costs to poor communities of color and how do they compare to the benefits of falling crime (if it does that)? Also, who should get to decide what to do?
  3. Read the articles below on what it feels like to be racially profiled. Does this move you to think differently about our topic?
  4. Immigration: Any unique issues that make racial profiling more or less permissible?
  5. Terrorism: Same question.

Links —

Next Week:  How to handle territorial disputes in the 21st century.  (Iraq and Israel/Palestinians, anybody?)

Monday’s Mtg: Why Is America Still So Segregated?

Yes, Virginia, 6 years into the first black presidency and 50 years after the Civil Rights Act America still is a pretty segregated place. It’s not nearly as bad as in decades past, of course A lot of progress has been made in integrating our society, some of it by federal government fiat and some by a changing society. Still, while “segregation forever!” is no longer the battle cry that George Wallace and millions of white Americans once made it, hyper-segregated neighborhoods and school districts live on, well, seemingly forever. There has even been some backsliding, especially in the South where hundreds of federal court orders requiring integration have been lifted in the last decade (see article below and here.).

How can this be? Wasn’t segregation supposed to gradually disappear thanks to declining levels of racism, rising opportunity for people of color, and federal court orders that have been in place for decades?  Where’s the color blind society conservatives say we live in?

Well, that’s our topic. I will explain what I know in a brief opening. But basically, it turns out that some racial segregation persists even when it’s not enforceable by Jim Crow-like legal structures. It just sort of happens, a result of thousands of small decisions made by individuals, families, businesses, and governments. And this is the problem since, in case it’s not obvious, hyper-segregated housing and neighborhoods have devastating effects on the people that live in them.

Please try to read a few of the recommended articles before the meeting if you don’t know much about this issue – or, maybe also if you think you do

Discussion Questions –

  1. What does “segregation” mean (residential versus educational versus employment, etc.) and who is segregated (Whites, Blacks, Latinos, the poor)?
  2. How segregated is the United States today?
  3. Why has some segregation persisted despite decades of efforts to stop it? Did we really make much of an effort to stop it?
  4. So what? What are the ill effects of segregation?
  5. What can be done, given White resistance and the inherent complexity of the solutions? Does the answer lie outside of integration – improving the opportunities of isolated poor people where they already live (e.g., improving their educational and job opportunities)?

Links –


NEXT WEEK: San Diego’s June 3 Primary Election.