Thread by @briebriejoy

Ok, I've been putting this off, but I'd also like to draw a distinction between "universal programs won't close the racial wealth gap" and "universal programs wont *entirely* close the racial wealth gap."

Folks are leaning into the former, and it's not quite right.

The frustration with the "rising tide lifts all ships" approach is two fold.

1) That some boats have holes in them -- e.g. universal programs excluded certain groups; and
2) That even if we bring up the floor, there will still be a gap between the new floor and the top.

Both these concerns are legitimate. The response to the first should be to be hyper vigilant about making sure universal programs are truly intersectional in a way they haven't been in the past. See @rgunns quoted here: theintercept.com/2018/08/26/bew…

The 2nd, of course, is true as well. But even though a radicalized gap will remain if we bring up the floor, it's also true that if we bring up the floor (and also bring down the ceiling of hyper rich folks), the size of the gap will shrink. It's not enough, but it ain't nothin'.

Currently, black Americans have a nickel for every dollar of white wealth. Median whites have more than blacks, but the small group of extremely rich white folks at the very top -- the 6 that hold 50% of our wealth -- play a huge role in the gap as well.

It seems to me that any serious conversation about closing the wealth gap would have to include a progressive taxation plan, in addition to universal social safety net programs, in addition to programs which address racial disparities. Just another reason why it's "both."

One other point is that I find the dismissiveness "anti rising boat" folks often have for the people who currently occupy the "floor" level troubling. I would argue that this is a triage situation, and that the rising the floor is a pretty exigent concern.