White Male Privileged Working Class

[The Wiseman]

I'm basing this thread off of a discussion with Jihad and myself in the chat tonight.

Now we know that the white male workers in the West are privileged and have attained many of their privileges through the white male capitalist "ultra-exploitation" of people of color here and in the Third World. However, in the end I believe the white male workers of the West lose out far more in the end from the extreme exploitation of people of color. The pool of cheap labor created by institutional racism serves to undermine white wages and unionization, ultimately eroding many of their economic privileges. Not to mention the gains that could be made through white/colored worker solidarity (unionization) that's lost through individual racial prejudice indoctrinated by the ruling class. Essentially the narrower the gap between black and white workers in an American state, the higher the wage earnings for white workers compared to white workers elsewhere. So basically white workers benefit from a lack of economic discrimination both in earnings and equality amongst whites. The opposite is true as well, the more economic discrimination the greater the inequality among whites. Basically individual racial prejudice and the institutional racism that puts people of color into a subservient and desperate position drives the entire working class into a "race to the bottom" for wage competition. The black-white wage gap has expanded over the past 30 years and white wages have generally stagnated.

My point is that yes, white male workers are privileged and have inherent power based on their skin color only because they are backed by the institutions of society. However, they have no real decision-making or control power on a systematic basis. The white power structure is maintained solely by the white elite who single out white workers for privileges and indoctrinated racial prejudice to divide the working class, taking focus off of their actual oppressors. Property relations that define class have existed prior to the white power structure which was designed to justify slavery and the primitive accumulation of capital by the rising capitalist class. Capitalism is essentially a system of private property but property relations precede it for several thousand years. So the domination of property owner over non-owner precedes capitalism and white domination over colored. Our main focus must be on elimination of capitalism and state, while highly oppressed groups like women, people of color, and homosexuals challenge hiearchal social relationships that specifically affect them.

[Bob]

However, in the end I believe the white male workers of the West lose out far more in the end from the extreme exploitation of people of color. The pool of cheap labor created by institutional racism serves to undermine white wages and unionization, ultimately eroding many of their economic privileges.

If we're going to include cost-benefit then factor in the third world: the source of primary resources for the third world. Take that into factor and you'll see a gross subsidization of white male workers, and not just by American people of colour and women. Introduce real Capitalism and toward the white male would not be the case.

Not to mention the gains that could be made through white/colored worker solidarity (unionization) that's lost through individual racial prejudice indoctrinated by the ruling class. Essentially the narrower the gap between black and white workers in an American state, the higher the wage earnings for white workers compared to white workers elsewhere.

But Wiseman, have you done a comparison between household wages in highly diverse nations like our own, and those that are primarily white, ala Australia, Luxembourg, etc?

2006 figures:

Canada - $44,000 (Assuming 2006 currency of $1:$0.83 CDN

US - $48,000

Australia - $48,950

Ireland - $55,379 (2007, inflation: 3.9%, x rate growth through unionization)

* Note: I used nominal figures to determine the median income, which is inflated on the non-American side. PPP does a far better job at presenting an income that takes in account cost-of-living. In that case, American PPP median incomes would be greater.

There are very specific studies available in our nations suggesting the true picture of racial poverty. If we disqualified people of colour from the average, whites in America would resemble those elsewhere. Unless we're dealing with nations like South Africa, where, interestingly, whites are more mobile.

Let's take a look at productivity index:

In 2002, the latest data available, seven OECD countries had higher productivity than
the US: Norway (131% of the US level); Belgium (111%); Netherlands (106%); Italy
(105%); Ireland and France (both at 103 %); and Germany (101%). France exceeded
US productivity, even as it lowered the standard workweek to 35 hours.

Excluding France, all these nations are 37.5-40 hours FTE for workload. Productivity is tied to output per worker, and yet, we're seeing anywhere from 1-31% difference, and yet household income is similar.

The growth of average real compensation (wages plus benefits) in the US from 2000-
03 was 0.3%, below the OECD average of 0.5%; 13 countries fared better than the US.
Norway’s growth rate, 4.3%, was the fastest.

Non-negligible in other words.

So basically white workers benefit from a lack of economic discrimination both in earnings and equality amongst whites. The opposite is true as well, the more economic discrimination the greater the inequality among whites.

Do you have specific GINI coefficient suggesting that? As far as I know, the poverty rate amongst whites is ~4%. The poverty cut-off is clearly distorted due to lower cost of living vs. white Americans. For that reason, we should compare health indexes between whites in US elsewhere in order to understand the real standings of white Americans:

Infant mortality:

13 per 1,000 (Black) vs. ~5 per 1,000 (non-Hispanic white, 2004 figures). Keep in mind that the infant mortality of Australia: 4.63 (2006), Canada: 4.88 (2003), Ireland: 4, and Luxembourg: 4.68.

Life Expectancy (overall)

US Whites: 78 years ( 2003)

Australia: 80 years (2005)

Ireland: 79.95 (2005)

Poverty rate (overall):

White American: 4.3% (2003)

Australia: 14.3% (2002)

Italy (12.7%)

Ireland (12.3%)

Note: The poverty rate amongst people of colour is generally at least 2x greater (blacks), and higher for other groups. In fact, the figure is distorted, because these groups are predominantly urban, where cost of living is much higher than rural or suburban US (predominantly white).

That said, the differences amongst whites versus those in other European nations are negligible. In fact, I urge you to take a look at medical studies which stressed on racialized disparity in health care. The problem with US health care system that covers all groups is the higher cost to maintain per GDP vs. other OECD nations.

Basically individual racial prejudice and the institutional racism that puts people of color into a subservient and desperate position drives the entire working class into a "race to the bottom" for wage competition. The black-white wage gap has expanded over the past 30 years and white wages have generally stagnated.

Wise, that's not how you study growth rate. Use this equation:

Total Growth rate [or in income]: 0.51 (growth rate - female) * [median income] + 0.49 (growth rate - male) * [median income] [Age of majority: 18 to 55*]

* Intentionally skewed to confound error due to reduced work output.
** Square bracket is for income growth calculation. 

I use this figure, because I've supplied studies suggesting that there is a general divergence amongst genders in all lines. Yes, white women benefit more than people of colour, but even they are digressing:

In 2005, the most recent year for which we have figures, women working full-time for the full year earned an average of $39,200, or 70.5% as much as comparable men who earned an average of $55,700. In the mid 1990s, such women earned 72% as much as men. The pay gap is even greater for university-educated women, who earned just 68% as much as men in 2005, down from 75% a decade ago. The gender pay gap in Canada is the fifth greatest in the advanced industrial (OECD) countries and even bigger than in the US. Link[

I haven't seen anything in the US suggesting convergence in incomes between gender. In fact, it's probably the reverse ala Canada, which suggests would skew growth rates. Here take a look at this:

  Among the racial groups, non-Hispanic White households were the only
group to experience statistically significant growth in real median
household income between 1997 and 1998, increasing 3.0 percent, from
$41,209 to $42,439. As a result, the median income of non-Hispanic White
households is the highest recorded since 1972, the first year data by
Hispanic or non-Hispanic origin were collected. Link

Yes, non-Hispanic white households increase statistically significant growth rate even though the gender is increasing. What does that mean? Correct, white males are reaping great benefits.

Look out for Census 2010. The trend will only continue with fucks like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, et al talking as if whites are getting deported and lynched.

However, they have no real decision-making or control power on a systematic basis. The white power structure is maintained solely by the white elite who single out white workers for privileges and indoctrinated racial prejudice to divide the working class, taking focus off of their actual oppressors.

To suggest that ordinary white people are connected in a network with 256-bit encryption plotting to oppress people belongs in the annals of tinfoil idiocy. The same could be said about arguments suggested such high level of centralization amongst the elites. As I've highlighted, white men are benefiting greatly, but, I must stress, white corporations including their elites are just specialized components of white power.

They are not separate from the white masses, but rather play a role in maximizing their hold on resources. It is for that reason, the disparity between whites and those of colour is so great. Our standing is falling tremendously, and as I said early, gender gap is increase to prepare for a rise in white fertility rate which would be required to sustain the gap.

Property relations that define class have existed prior to the white power structure which was designed to justify slavery and the primitive accumulation of capital by the rising capitalist class. Capitalism is essentially a system of private property but property relations precede it for several thousand years. So the domination of property owner over non-owner precedes capitalism and white domination over colored. Our main focus must be on elimination of capitalism and state, while highly oppressed groups like women, people of color, and homosexuals challenge hiearchal social relationships that specifically affect them.

Of course. Property itself is attained through oppression and in today's case, suburbs are highly subsidized by cheap oil that is pressed downwards by European Imperialists who hijack oil producing nations. However to ignore the high efficiency of Capitalism amongst White men would only produce hurdles if our aim is to eliminated institutions.

Race, itself, is an institution: it has no biological validity. I cannot force my people to not be race conscious, because we're oppression by white power. That pressure is not on you, due to white power. There is no need to talk for white people, as it only promotes racist liberals views that suggest that growth of whites should be overemphasized.

The most elementary of health and social science suggests an increase amongst white males in general. In fact this is not US centric, but present in mainly white nations. Rather in those scenarios, white women face more intense pressures as they see the gender gap increase despite over representation in universities.

That said, does that mean we ought to move toward Capitalism? Of course not. The system can only sustain itself subsidized, in other words, the blood of the majority of colour. The statist model is not sustainable, and if we look at the overall system, people belong to all socio-economic levels suffer. The mental foot print required for the privileged class is great, and the specialized capitalist class (i.e. "elites") are at an extremely warped pathological state of mind. Humans are not going to evolve, eliminate all forms of disparity and maximize human standings if we live under such a regressive setup.

[monstrmac1]

I'm white, I don't feel like the black white wage gap is necessarily caused by racism on a widespread level, but on the need for the elite to maintain the status quo, racism being only a part of this.  People think its strange that I identify with rappers like Immortal Technique, but my family has always been low income.  My great grand parents were poor, my grandparents were poor, my parents are poor, I am poor, I have a son who I hope will not be poor, but who the elite in this country would love to be poor.  The black-white wage gap, I believe, comes from the fact all the elite, right-wing, george bush types are white, while all the people they crap on are a mix of colors, white, latino, asian, and black.  Its just that blacks have been crapped on by the feds for hundreds of years.  Equality was supposedly gained through the civil rights movement, what wasn't told is that the priveleges granted were only equal to poor whites who were also being crapped on by america.  A new civil rights movement needs to take place, one that every color can get behind and promote TRUE equality.

[Bob]

I'm white, I don't feel like the black white wage gap is necessarily caused by racism on a widespread level,

Why do you think so?

but on the need for the elite to maintain the status quo, racism being only a part of this.

What elite? The elites are just a specialized capitalist statist class who are tasked to maximize capital power. They are not the result of divine intervention, but rather due to a needs of a collective population.

The origin of the state is generally tied with people who are able to identify with each other. That can include culture or phenotype, and in the case of US: white Europeans. States are designed to bond common people, and that collective power, if mismanaged, can become a highly destructive force. Today, Europeans monopolize power and that is why such states are inherently oppressive to people of colour, because it attempts to further maximize power.

People think its strange that I identify with rappers like Immortal Technique, but my family has always been low income.  My great grand parents were poor, my grandparents were poor, my parents are poor, I am poor, I have a son who I hope will not be poor, but who the elite in this country would love to be poor.

This may sound odd, but elites do not want you poor. Rather they aim to maximize economic power. For most part, it works rather effectively w.r.t. whites throughout the world. Standard of living amongst white men and women far exceeds people of colour in general.

The black-white wage gap, I believe, comes from the fact all the elite, right-wing, george bush types are white, while all the people they crap on are a mix of colors, white, latino, asian, and black.

What about in nations like Jamaica where the elites happen to be primarily black? What about Saudi Arabia where it's mainly Arab? Why do these states promote white power, by widening poverty in order to decrease cost of goods and services that benefit white nation.

The answer: white power.

Its just that blacks have been crapped on by the feds for hundreds of years.

This isn't just an issue with blacks, but Asians, Hispanics and Native Americans. In the US, as I have stated, poverty rate amongst whites are falling and we're even seeing a statistically significant increase in income growth.

PS: Ultimately the real issue is statism. Such high concentration of power is why humans with different certain racial traits and sex characteristics employs a hierarchy against those who differ. However diverging from that power structure will not just require unity, but the redistribution of power.

That seems to be ill-discussed, imo. Kind of odd, considering I'm beginning to find myself in opposite vs. white people as much as the power structure they hoist. In other words, unity amongst races can only occur if whites surrender their monopoly over power, and if not, we'll have to take it forcefully.

[The Wiseman]

If we're going to include cost-benefit then factor in the third world: the source of primary resources for the third world. Take that into factor and you'll see a gross subsidization of white male workers, and not just by American people of colour and women. Introduce real Capitalism and toward the white male would not be the case.

Are you suggesting that white male workers in the West benefit substantially from imperialism? Don't the low costs of primary resources heavily benefit the capitalist more so than the workers? Although white workers benefit from relatively high wages, that are currently stagnant or declining, most of the benefits of low priced resources skew to the top. The social welfare state is essentially dead though, capitalists do not want to pay for benefits or high wages anymore and nor will they tolerate unionization. Increasing competition amongst white and colored workers is essential for the "race to the bottom" that destroys labor gains and unions. The large possible gain of colored/white solidarity in unionization is a far more drastic result of increasing "labor market flexibility".

Not to mention the large amount of working class income that goes to fund imperial military ventures. Yet I haven't to see a good study on cost/benefit analysis to Western white male workers for neocolonial siphoning of Third World wealth. It would be an interesting read.

But Wiseman, have you done a comparison between household wages in highly diverse nations like our own, and those that are primarily white, ala Australia, Luxembourg, etc?

2006 figures:
Canada - $44,000 (Assuming 2006 currency of $1:$0.83 CDN
US - $48,000
Australia - $48,950
Ireland - $55,379 (2007, inflation: 3.9%, x rate growth through unionization)

* Note: I used nominal figures to determine the median income, which is inflated on the non-American side. PPP does a far better job at presenting an income that takes in account cost-of-living. In that case, American PPP median incomes would be greater.

There are very specific studies available in our nations suggesting the true picture of racial poverty. If we disqualified people of colour from the average, whites in America would resemble those elsewhere. Unless we're dealing with nations like South Africa, where, interestingly, whites are more mobile.
Let's take a look at productivity index:

 Excluding France, all these nations are 37.5-40 hours FTE for workload. Productivity is tied to output per worker, and yet, we're seeing anywhere from 1-31% difference, and yet household income is similar.

 Non-negligible in other words.

Do you have specific GINI coefficient suggesting that? As far as I know, the poverty rate amongst whites is ~4%. The poverty cut-off is clearly distorted due to lower cost of living vs. white Americans. For that reason, we should compare health indexes between whites in US elsewhere in order to understand the real standings of white Americans:

Infant mortality:
13 per 1,000 (Black) vs. ~5 per 1,000 (non-Hispanic white, 2004 figures). Keep in mind that the infant mortality of Australia: 4.63 (2006), Canada: 4.88 (2003), Ireland: 4, and Luxembourg: 4.68.
Life Expectancy (overall)
US Whites: 78 years ( 2003)
Australia: 80 years (2005)
Ireland: 79.95 (2005)
Poverty rate (overall):
White American: 4.3% (2003)
Australia: 14.3% (2002)
Italy (12.7%)
Ireland (12.3%)

Note: The poverty rate amongst people of colour is generally at least 2x greater (blacks), and higher for other groups. In fact, the figure is distorted, because these groups are predominantly urban, where cost of living is much higher than rural or suburban US (predominantly white).

That said, the differences amongst whites versus those in other European nations are negligible. In fact, I urge you to take a look at medical studies which stressed on racialized disparity in health care. The problem with US health care system that covers all groups is the higher cost to maintain per GDP vs. other OECD nations.

 Wise, that's not how you study growth rate. Use this equation:
Total Growth rate [or in income]: 0.51 (growth rate - female) * [median income] + 0.49 (growth rate - male) * [median income] [Age of majority: 18 to 55*]
* Intentionally skewed to confound error due to reduced work output.
** Square bracket is for income growth calculation. 

I use this figure, because I've supplied studies suggesting that there is a general divergence amongst genders in all lines. Yes, white women benefit more than people of colour, but even they are digressing:

 I haven't seen anything in the US suggesting convergence in incomes between gender. In fact, it's probably the reverse ala Canada, which suggests would skew growth rates. Here take a look at this:

 Yes, non-Hispanic white households increase statistically significant growth rate even though the gender is increasing. What does that mean? Correct, white males are reaping great benefits.

Look out for Census 2010. The trend will only continue with fucks like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, et al talking as if whites are getting deported and lynched.

Bob, I'm almost sure that I provided you with that source in the chatroom lol. But take a look at what I said again, I think you misunderstood from my wording:

Essentially the narrower the gap between black and white workers in an American state, the higher the wage earnings for white workers compared to white workers elsewhere.

My source:

(1) the narrower the gap between white and black wages in an American state, the higher white earnings were relative to white earnings elsewhere. This means that "whites do not benefit economically by economic discrimination. White workers especially appear to benefit economically from the absence of economic discrimination. . . both in the absolute level of their earnings and in relative equality among whites." [p. 413] In other words, the less wage discrimination there was against black workers, the better were the wages that white workers received.

(2) the more "non-white" people in the population of a given American State, the more inequality there was between whites. In other words, the existence of a poor, oppressed group of workers reduced the wages of white workers, although it did not affect the earnings of non-working class whites very much ("the greater the discrimination against [non-white] people, the greater the inequality among whites" [p. 410]). So white workers clearly lost economically from this discrimination.

(3) He also found that "the more intense racial discrimination is, the lower are the white earnings because of . . . [its effect on] working-class solidarity." [p. 412] In other words, racism economically disadvantages white workers because it undermines the solidarity between black and white workers and weakens trade union organisation. ["Racial Discrimination and White Gain", in American Sociological Review, vol. 41, no. 3, June 1976, pp. 403-414].

The paper can be purchased here if you wish to look it over.

Economic discrimination  increases competition in the labor market, a "race to the bottom" in other terms. All workers are universally brought down in this process from wages and benefits to unionization. The free movement of capital on a global basis is equivalent, meaning white workers do not benefit from Western-based multinational control of Third World economies. Productive, high paying labor is destroyed by increased corporate profit that thrives off of low, pay labor in the Third World. The low costs of resources and materials for capital do benefit white workers in the view that it frees up more costs for wages, but the benefits are primarily scewed to the top. Even if low wages for colored workers did provide benefits for white workers, it would be a long-term loss because labor market competition successfully holds back workers from uniting to reclaim their labor as a whole.

This is not to say that white workers have no privileges, that would be incorrect. But economic discrimination on the labor market serves to bring all workers down in the long-term.

Of course. Property itself is attained through oppression and in today's case, suburbs are highly subsidized by cheap oil that is pressed downwards by European Imperialists who hijack oil producing nations. However to ignore the high efficiency of Capitalism amongst White men would only produce hurdles if our aim is to eliminated institutions.

The middle class suburbs were artificially developed through white exclusive affirmative action like the Homesteading Act of the 1800s and the GI Bill of 1944. These programs amongst many New Deal programs were able to distribute enough wealth to the white masses to establish a comfortable cushion between the ruling class, impoverished white workers, and the black underclass. However, with the past thirty years of neoliberalism the white middle class is at its most unstable level ever; it essentially survives on indebtedness for a little bit of property while the real financial wealth has essentially scewed to the top. The ruling class did subsidize the white working class for quite some time but now that workers power is down the drain with the destruction of unions, they feel no need to keep the white middle class afloat.

Race, itself, is an institution: it has no biological validity. I cannot force my people to not be race conscious, because we're oppression by white power. That pressure is not on you, due to white power. There is no need to talk for white people, as it only promotes racist liberals views that suggest that growth of whites should be overemphasized.

The most elementary of health and social science suggests an increase amongst white males in general. In fact this is not US centric, but present in mainly white nations. Rather in those scenarios, white women face more intense pressures as they see the gender gap increase despite over representation in universities.

That said, does that mean we ought to move toward Capitalism? Of course not. The system can only sustain itself subsidized, in other words, the blood of the majority of colour. The statist model is not sustainable, and if we look at the overall system, people belong to all socio-economic levels suffer. The mental foot print required for the privileged class is great, and the specialized capitalist class (i.e. "elites") are at an extremely warped pathological state of mind. Humans are not going to evolve, eliminate all forms of disparity and maximize human standings if we live under such a regressive setup. 

No disagreements here.

[fLow]

Critique to your source Wise:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m113110513838m24/fulltext.pdf

[The Wiseman]

Critique to your source Wise:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m113110513838m24/fulltext.pdf

I've read critique of it before, mostly a lot stronger than this. It admit that whites do not gain from economic discrimination against people of color.

In any attempt to evaluate Szymanski's findings and causal inferences,
it is important to note that although it is true that his results show "'no
evidence for the white gain hypothesis," the evidence for the "white loss
hypothesis" is not overwhelmingly strong. Szymanski himself applies
cautious language when evaluating the obtained major correlations.
Terms like "'slight tendency," "'very slight negative relationship," and
"whites neither gain nor lose significantly from the presence of third
world people" are indicative of the weakness of the findings.

I have a better critique I found myself earlier today:

Race, Class, and Labor Markets: The White Working Class and Racial Composition of U.S. Metropolitan Areas

White men in the non-working-class group reap the greatest rewards from
larger local Black population size. As a result, relative Black population size is
positively associated with class inequality among White men and gender inequality
among higher class Whites. However, for men and women—in the working
class or not—relative Black population size is also positively associated with
inequality between Black and White workers. These findings contradict Tienda
and Lii’s (1987, p. 162) conclusion that “only college-educated [male] whites
gained from the presence of minorities, while whites with less education did not.”
Tienda and Lii also found that Black men with less education had the greatest
negative percentage minority effect, which is not supported by these results.19
The conclusion is equivocal for what is sometimes called the “radical” view of
racism (Beck, 1980b; Tigges and Tootle, 1993), which predicts that the presence
of Black workers increases the capacity for management to drive a wedge into the
working class, resulting in lower earnings for both Black and White workers. On
the one hand, working-class White men (but not women) do fall further behind
their non-working-class counterparts as a function of population proportion
Black. On the other hand, the relative advantage of all White workers over Black
workers is heightened as proportion Black increases. All groups of Whites benefit
from larger relative Black population size, but White men outside the working
class benefit most. Although the mechanisms remain opaque, at the most general
level the “racial structure of society,” which represents the aggregate of the
“social relations and practices based on racial distinctions [that] develop at all
social levels” (Bonilla-Silva, 1997, p. 474), is apparently conditioned by the
relative size of the Black population.

The fact that White men and women at both class levels gain relative to Black
workers lends credence to those who have questioned the “false consciousness”
aspect of White motivations for fostering racial divisions. These results do not
prove that the White working class has the desire or ability to increase Black–
White inequality in the labor market. Employers may simply take advantage of
increased racial animosity in higher proportion Black labor markets in order to
further divide White and Black workers, against the will of both.20 But if that is
the case, these results suggest that the wages of White workers come out higher,
not lower, as a result (at least in the short run). Paying White workers more and
Black workers less may be a means of dividing workers, but it is not done at an
equal cost to Black and White workers. These results are thus consistent with a
contradictory position for the White working class. The White working class may
be able to improve its class position by uniting with Black workers, but those
who would promote such efforts should recognize that in so doing they threaten
their racial advantage.

At the moment I still think that the white power structure came about as a result of the private property system: racism was necessary to justify the primitive accumulation of capital for the rising capitalist class. Domination of property owner over non-owner is the main relationship of society. Actually the inequality in wealth began with patriarchal arranged marriages between tribes that would transfer wealth from one to the other. What resulted was a pocket of wealthy tribes and impoverished tribes. This suggests that women may have a stronger stance that feminism is the main source of oppression in society. Anyways, the white male working class does have privileges above the rest but considering the class aspect is the basic social relationship to result from private property and wage slavery, they have more in common and more to gain from uniting on a class basis (whether they get short-term material gain or not).

[Bob]

Are you suggesting that white male workers in the West benefit substantially from imperialism? Don't the low costs of primary resources heavily benefit the capitalist more so than the workers? Although white workers benefit from relatively high wages, that are currently stagnant or declining, most of the benefits of low priced resources skew to the top. The social welfare state is essentially dead though, capitalists do not want to pay for benefits or high wages anymore and nor will they tolerate unionization. Increasing competition amongst white and colored workers is essential for the "race to the bottom" that destroys labor gains and unions. The large possible gain of colored/white solidarity in unionization is a far more drastic result of increasing "labor market flexibility".

That is correct. If we're going to compare between the Capitalist and working class in the West, we'll obviously see a higher income on the former. However keep in mind that the white male working class is part of the white state. White men would have to disassociate from white power and surrender their privileges if they want revolution.

Not to mention the large amount of working class income that goes ]to fund imperial military ventures. Yet I haven't to see a good study on cost/benefit analysis to Western white male workers for neocolonial siphoning of Third World wealth. It would be an interesting read.

Now ask yourself, how much of that working class income comes from the third world? Even the suburban way of life, to the land white American exploits, all of it does not belong to them. To do a cost-benefit analysis would be difficult to find,

Bob, I'm almost sure that I provided you with that source in the chatroom lol. But take a look at what I said again, I think you misunderstood from my wording:

My source:

The paper can be purchased here if you wish to look it over.

I was never sent this report. Maybe it was Jihad. Let's continue on.

Note that the study is a cross sectional study, vs. a historical comparison. There is no way to understand structural changes that have taken place over time, including income, market demographics, and what not.

That is why I suggest you to use raw census figures suggesting that there is a growth of US  median income. Take a look this excerpt on Szymanski's study. This would be a cross section comparison versus people of colour of American nationality, who would be gathered from the same pool.

Some more criticism of that study from fLow's study:

Instead of some unspecified
process narrowing the earnings gap---which in turn will provide for the
working-class solidarity required to improve the earnings of the
whites we have a structural condition in which white-dominated unions
manage to provide for their members superior benefits when compared to
weaker unions or the unorganized. As indicated earlier, this condition is
likely to vary from state to state, and is reflected in the earnings data
Szymanski is using. It is suggested here, then, that the data may well be
structurally skewed and that the cross-sectional method is unable to detect
the skew. If this is the case, working-class solidarity could not be consid-
ered an intermediary, secondary variable. On the contrary, it would be
working-class solidarity (as expressed in the fact that labor is organized)
which would primarily be responsible for Szymanski's findings that as the
gap in earnings between Blacks and whites narrows, whites manage to
increase their earnings. The basis of this working-class solidarity, as has
already been suggested, is likely to vary from state to state, depending on
the prevalence and degree of noncompetitive market practices. 7

Economic discrimination  increases competition in the labor market, a "race to the bottom" in other terms. All workers are universally brought down in this process from wages and benefits to unionization. The free movement of capital on a global basis is equivalent, meaning white workers do not benefit from Western-based multinational control of Third World economies. Productive, high paying labor is destroyed by increased corporate profit that thrives off of low, pay labor in the Third World. The low costs of resources and materials for capital do benefit white workers in the view that it frees up more costs for wages, but the benefits are primarily scewed to the top. Even if low wages for colored workers did provide benefits for white workers, it would be a long-term loss because labor market competition successfully holds back workers from uniting to reclaim their labor as a whole.

That is true. Long-term, rate of return to whites significant decreases as the overall market becomes less unionized. We're even seeing this now, where professional IT sector jobs are being outsources to East and South Asia.

This is not to say that white workers have no privileges, that would be incorrect. But economic discrimination on the labor market serves to bring all workers down in the long-term.

If that's the argument, I don't know how to continue.

The middle class suburbs were artificially developed through white exclusive affirmative action like the Homesteading Act of the 1800s and the GI Bill of 1944. These programs amongst many New Deal programs were able to distribute enough wealth to the white masses to establish a comfortable cushion between the ruling class, impoverished white workers, and the black underclass. However, with the past thirty years of neoliberalism the white middle class is at its most unstable level ever; it essentially survives on indebtedness for a little bit of property while the real financial wealth has essentially scewed to the top. The ruling class did subsidize the white working class for quite some time but now that workers power is down the drain with the destruction of unions, they feel no need to keep the white middle class afloat.

Correct.

[The Wiseman]

Now ask yourself, how much of that working class income comes from the third world? Even the suburban way of life, to the land white American exploits, all of it does not belong to them. To do a cost-benefit analysis would be difficult to find,

The problem is that the suburban way of life stands on extremely shaky grounds right now. Most of it is based on debt for superficial property ownership, which is currently being eliminated on a largescale by the subprime lending crisis (moreso the black and Latino middle class). The white middle class could easily become an underclass with a full-out economic collapse overnight simply because they live beyond their actual means. My point is that they do not really own anything, the past 30 years of neoliberalism have siphoned the little financial wealth they had to the upper echelons of the tax bracket. The well-paid, high benefit manufacturing jobs once prevalent in the U.S. have all but wiped off the surface to a check-by-check standard of life in the service sector.

By A Thread: The New Experience of America's Middle Class

Overall Economic Security

* Only 31 percent of middle-income families match our profile for being securely middle class. That is, despite falling into the broad range that defines middle-class “income,” fewer than one in three families has the necessary combination of other factors to ensure middle-class security.
* Our Index results vary by race. Thirty-four percent of white middle-income families are securely in the middle class, as compared to 26 percent of African-American middle-income families and only 18 percent of Latino middle-income families.
* One in four middle-class families matches our profile for being at high risk of slipping out of the middle class altogether.
* One in five (21 percent) white families is at high risk for slipping out of the middle class, as compared to one in three (33 percent) African-American headed households and an alarming two in five (41 percent) Latino families.

Lack of Assets

* More than half of middle-class families have no net financial assets whatsoever-that is, no financial assets or debt levels that exceed their assets.
* Only 13 percent of middle-class families have sufficient assets to meet three-quarters of their essential living expenses for nine months, should their source of income disappear.
* About four out of five middle-class families do not have sufficient assets to cover three quarters of essential living expenses for even three months should their source of income disappear. We defined essential living expenses as food, housing, clothing, transportation, health care, personal care, education, personal insurance and pensions.
* Middle-class families have a median debt of $3,500 and median net assets of $0.

Insufficient Income to Meet Living Expenses, Cover Housing Costs, and Buy Healthcare

* Twenty-one percent of middle-class families have less than $100 per week ($5,000 per year) remaining after meeting essential living expenses. These families are living from paycheck to paycheck with very little margin of security.
* In nearly one out of four middle-class families (23 percent), at least one family member lacks health insurance of any kind.
* Twenty-eight percent of middle-class families spend 30 percent or more of their income on housing expenses, putting them above federal guidelines for housing affordability.

White men would have to disassociate from white power and surrender their privileges if they want revolution.

No doubt and if white workers understood their long-term benefits they probably would.

[monstrmac1]

PS: Ultimately the real issue is statism.  Such high concentration of power is why humans with different certain racial traits and sex characteristics employs a hierarchy against those who differ.  However diverging from that power structure will not just require unity, but the redistribution of power. 

I think we're saying the same thing. . . . at least I'm trying to say that.  All i am saying is that sometimes I feel like minorities wouldn't want me involved in, or supporting their struggle against economic and political suppression because I'm white, though a relief and reform of that suppression would greatly help my family as well because I am part of the same socio-econmic, or at least economic background.  Also, anything I've said in my previous post was only meant in reference to the US.  I know that there are plenty of countries where the roles are switched but the oppression is the same.