(Premise: nobody is up for dialogue, so the affluent simply leave a tip on the table for all the social service/education providers and their clients, and then call it a day.)

Years back, when I got hooked on demographics, I began assuring anxious Hispanic students with whom I was interacting that the diversity trend was in their favor. Overall, the United States would be a country of multiple minorities sometime before 2050. (P.S. At birth, it already is.)

I then added with a wry smile, “the only question is whether power transfers peacefully.”

We both agreed that was a huge, and incredibly challenging, question.

Note that when I make reference to demographic change that statistically shows minority population growth and white stagnation or decline, this is a numerical observation, not to be construed as somehow philosophically connected to those who regard this as “white displacement.” In fact, the United States has the opportunity through education and entrepreneurial flexibility to be not only the first nation of multiple minorities, but one which could facilitate their upward mobility –if it can get its act together and if racial antagonism does not prove to be an irreversible cancer.

Today, the demographic diversity pyramid in colleges, businesses, and a lengthy list of organizations has the greatest percentage dispersion of ethnicities at the lowest level. This percentage declines at the middle level and dwindles to a small number at the executive level. Change in the composition of this pyramid is practically inevitable given fertility rates and the composition of women of child-bearing age.

This expectation has nothing to do with the current surge in immigration, nor with any future fluctuations in its numbers. It is a here-and-now extrapolation.

Maybe the Big Agreement to be described below is not directly related to these comments on demographics, but indirectly it is: income and ethnic strata overlap. I confess up front that I have taken a bit of creative license, conflating and combining stereotypes and data skews and documentable assertions. (Isn’t writing fun when you control the Send button!)

Time-out for a trigger warning which maybe explains everything. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Gouverneur Morris, who represented Pennsylvania, rendered this opinion, “The Rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did and they always will.”

More calmly put, at times it can seem like there is a Big Agreement between affluent America (AA; no distinctions made for luck, inheritance, or intelligence) and non-affluent America (NA, includes the welfare system, those serving it, and tax-avoidance foundations; no connotation or connection intended to bad luck, poverty at birth, or intelligence).

AA has the luxury of choosing: personal, direct involvement in the hard work of developing policies that structurally would address the widening fissures within our country – or – the equivalent of leaving a tip, money for NA to do with what they wish – which on the record is to fund an elaborate potpourri of social service programs which typically defy evidence-based analysis using mutually agreed upon tools.

If AA desires a policy dialogue and raises for discussion issues like family formation, work ethic, deferred consumption, or education reform, the AA messenger is immediately attacked.  NA shouts out, “what about reforming – the police, drug policy, prisons!” And then comes the conversation ender: “AA is white, male, racist. Therefore AA has no standing in our fight for social justice.”

The voice of AA becomes difficult to hear; it is only the sound of money (now soundless in the age of TechnoWorld) which resonates in the Big Agreement, the gratuity left to NA.

Contrary to what is often alleged, AA is aware of history, when white males with hypocritical (at best) views “confused” this country by combining a cogent governance structure with two incredible blemishes: acceptance of both slavery and second-class status for women.

All these years later, anything that AA suggests about certain components of moving from NA to AA is rendered useless by those two stupendous errors. Relatives of those mistakes have continued to plague the country to this day, even as significant change has occurred. Neither racial minorities nor women are remotely proportionally represented in AA.

While AA is not credible – in the popular view – they do have, uh, that asset called money. In its frustration – or maybe glee in being able to opt out of what you might call regular life — AA signs off on a Big Agreement. When it checks out, It is willing to click on the 20% box instead of 15% but it will not whip out its platinum card and convey a serious chunk of its net worth to a collective NA which overall has little interest in discussing a different way of living. The 20% tip itself has no negative impact on the lifestyle of AA. Ironically, sadly, the tip seemingly does little to move the needle for NA.

The AA-NA relationship holds regardless of unfolding demographic change or the continuing evolution of  TechnoWorld or the comings and goings in other countries. In fact, none of the trends elsewhere – Europe with problems; Russia and China gaining in influence, despite the former’s invasion of Ukraine and the faltering Chinese economy; Japan aging out; and India trying to balance economic growth with religious divisiveness — send a message to AA or NA, a communication that might read – ‘you need to take care of your internal issues if you are to have any chance of peacefully maintaining a leading voice in world politics.’ The USA being a beacon for those seeking jobs is insufficient; if anything, the AA-NA equation is exacerbated.

Okay, there is inherent cynicism in describing anything like a Big Agreement. Maybe it’s the refuge of a scoundrel writer. But with President Biden’s son, Presidential candidate Trump, and New Jersey Senator Menendez all under indictment, how could anybody be cynical!

Amusing? Addendum

Imagine if Trump had a speechwriting assistant who wrote the following: “everybody knows China’s credibility with numbers and contracts is sub-optimal; most realize that NATO countries are not putting in their fair share of funding; immigration is in need of an overhaul, inclusive of a border strategy; despite its intentions, the UN has done little to prevent aggression throughout the world.”

In each case, Trump’s personal choice of verbiage on the issue buried fundamentally accurate observations with so much stylistic negativity that no serious two-party discussion was feasible. On racial matters and those of diversity, both his substance and his style were so off-putting that even a skilled speechwriter could not make it acceptable to more than a percentage of people, alas, a percentage that was greater than most would wish.

Meanwhile, a bit of analysis by Trump supporters would disclose that they are no more immune to the AA-NA imagery than anybody else. Fundamentally his disciples do not know where they are, or why, to which one unarticulated response is an increased suicide rate among older white men.

(This blog was written before Hamas attacked Israel and the latter responded.)

Everyone will agree that people should be treated equally, regardless of their circumstances. Hence each of these color-blind policy dictates and requirements is to be applied across the board, no exceptions.

 

*In order to help save the planet, all people shall either own an electric vehicle or use public transportation. Approximately 80% of Green and 20% of Gold are able to buy a vehicle.

 

*In the belief that owning a house is correlated with a more stable society and that reducing the debt load is conducive to maintaining that ownership, all buyers must put down 10% cash when they purchase a house. About 70% of Green and 10% of Gold are able to buy a house.

 

*Clothing stores at the nation’s malls have instituted a policy of random searches in order to combat shoplifting. Some 50% of those searched are Green and 50% are Gold.

 

*All school systems within a given state shall receive the same per-pupil funding allotment. Allowable non-school spending for educational add-ons: private lessons, trips, summer camps, etc. shall be capped at 25% of the school allotment. 50% of Green and 10% of Gold are able to use some or all of this benefit.

 

*In order to most economically deploy local police department personnel in combatting street drug traffic, they will focus entirely on urban areas; 15% of Green and 75% of Gold will be affected.

 

*Mental health is an issue of growing concern, with well-known personalities going public with their situations. Studies have indicated that interaction with a psychologist of their own ethnicity is favorable for a patient. Green connects on 95% and Gold on 5%.

 

*The state police have cracked down on speeders on interstate highways: the issuance of tickets has been 50% Green and 50% Gold.

 

*Creating the most cost-effective route for the urban portion of an interstate highway requires the relocation of some people. Around 15% of Green and 50% of Gold are affected by the route.

 

At what point is it reasonable for Gold to think the deck is stacked against them, perhaps even reflecting a bit of antagonism by Green toward Gold? Can a technically impartial policy or requirement be in fact a convenient, legally enforceable way for Green to keep Gold subservient?

 

P.S. Why are the 50%-50% outcomes above unfair?

 

 

 

 

 

Most people I know are either good communicators or at least have an understandable pattern in their response to an inquiry. Occasionally, an exemplary individual lapses into a mode of non-communication.

In trying to figure out the reason for this non-communication, below I have listed a baker’s dozen of possibilities in alphabetical order:

Embarrassment

Family problem

Friend situation

Health issue

 

Homework comes first

In jail

Making a Complete Change in one’s life and deferring communication until all the details are in place

 

No Internet available

Out of the Country

Phone and laptop both out of service

 

Saving Good News for another time

Self-description as being a disappointment to others

Taking a break to work and save money for the next phase of life

 

Question: which of these reasons make it impossible for person X to respond to an inquiry from person Y with a two sentence informative communication?

 

On Wall Street, I was a partner in a relatively small, but highly regarded, money management and institutional research firm. In December of 2022, the founder and managing partner passed away at the age of 96. My last lunch with him was shortly before the onset of the pandemic. We ate in his office; he was mentally sharp while struggling a bit physically. We had kept in touch over the thirty years since I left the firm to initiate my education foundation endeavors.

Back in the day, as we would pore over all the facets of a company and its top executives, it became evident that there was a personality and process profile worth noting. I put together the following succinct list. It should be apparent as to our preference.

Long studies                       Short memos

Fluff                                       Facts

Egotistical                            Self-deprecating

Spender                               Innovative capital expenditures

Average Health                  Physically fit

 

Spread out                          Concentrated

Gourmet                              Simple eater

Speechmaker                     Questioner

Long Answers                    Short

Imprecise                             Articulate

 

Conceptual                         Concrete

Earnings                               Cash Flow

Methodical                         Energetic

Serious                                 Engaging

Staff                                       Individual

 

Overhead Money             Product and marketing money

Calculus                                Simple math

Growth                                 Wealth creation

Manager                              Owner

Philosophical                      Numerical

 

Fuzzy Pay                             Big incentives

Small Talkers                       Business talk

Political                                 Direct

Flashy                                    Conservative

Reward                                 Risk

 

Even with the advent of social media and the centrality of TechnoWorld, the list above seems useful. As Warren (you know his last name) says, investing is not like baseball where three strikes and you are out. With investing, you can wait, sometimes for a lengthy period, until you find the people and company with whom you want to be associated as a long-term shareholder.