By: Amoka Mele
The Democrats are turning Hawaii into Fiji where there are distinct groups of have’s and have’s not. Fiji has long been a country with two dominant races: indigenous natives and people of Indian origin. As a small island nation in the South Pacific, Fiji once enjoyed the reputation of a model democracy based on pluralism and ethnic harmony. Today that reputation is marred by racial tension, economic uncertainty, and political instability all of which were on full display in four coups – two in 1987, 2000, and 2006. The Fijian military stated that they acted to prevent racial violence and to maintain law and order, but the coups instead exacerbated the simmering ethnic conflict between indigenous Fijians and people of Indian origin living in Fiji. Indigenous Fijians were becoming jealous of the wealth and political power being amassed by their Indian origin countrymen.
Like Hawaii, the government and the traditional power structure within Fiji have always favored the indigenous population with respect to land ownership and control. The British-dominated colonial government traditionally guaranteed Indians secure and sufficient leaseholds, but the colonial government kept the Indian and Fijian communities institutionally and physically separate. Because many countries’ constitutions provide special measures or privileges for certain groups, few Indian descendants seriously questioned these measures in Fiji. As a result, indigenous Fijians today own eighty-five percent of the land; Indians own only 1.7 percent.
Hawaii is becoming like Fiji. Since statehood, the Democrats have predominantly held political power and wealth in the state. Through these entitlements, the leadership elite have silenced and controlled the indigenous population’s destiny while increasing the leadership’s own wealth and political control.
Every time there is a mass shooting, or police involved shooting, or any kind of social media outrage, Democrats are quick to point the racial finger to multiculturalism and polarize the issue. This deliberate societal fracturing is done to divide voting blocs by having them focus on an external threat to that bloc. Threats most often are portrayed to be another race or another wealth class. Agitated blocs are much more difficult if not impossible to unify for political gain. Without unified opposition, political control remains largely in the hands of those who already have it.
Wealth and property ownership are often synonymous with political power. Democrats in this state have historically raised their own political power and wealth by taking it from their opponents and then distributing the wealth to their base. At election time, the money returns in the form of political donations or returns in the form of consulting fees and salaries for family members.
Here in Hawaii, the five largest ethnic groups in are:
- Asian (non-Hispanic) (36.7%)
- White (non-Hispanic) (21.7%)
- Two+ races (non-Hispanic) (19.3%)
- Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander (Non-Hispanic) (9.5%)
- Two+ (Hispanic) (5.03%).
When you look at all the Hawaii governors since 1959, only one of them has been a Hawaiian of indigenous origin. The rest are either Asian or white. Democrats have predominantly controlled state government since 1959 and have consistently promised to equally distribute wealth. Why then are the homeownership rates in Hawaii some of the lowest in the nation? Only an estimated 56.9% of people in Hawaii own their homes. In the rest of the United States, 65.8% of people own their own homes. This is a 9 percent drop. 129,000 people in Hawaii should own homes, but do not. Only two race groups in Hawaii had homeownership rates greater than 70%: both were Asians. The lowest homeownership group unsurprisingly is Native Hawaiian.
The median household income in Hawaii is roughly of $80,212. Of the five largest race groups in Hawaii, Asians had the highest household income while Native Hawaiians, unsurprisingly again had the lowest.
Unfortunately, recent research on wealth inequality in the United States and various Northern European countries suggests that greater inequality of wealth in the present leads to reduced intergenerational mobility to move into higher wealth classes in the future. A child raised in Honolulu today, whose family income is in the bottom 20% of wealth has only a 10.1% chance of reaching the top 20% of family income in adulthood. This is because the amount of money distributed to Native Hawaiians, the amount of money given by the Democrats to the lowest wealth brackets in the state does not change the wealth paradigms at all. It never has. Democrats have tricked Native Hawaiians to create contentment amongst them and to reduce their defiance at the polls. It is a trick to sustain Democrat political power and it has worked. Native Hawaiians own far less property and have less wealth than their mainland peers.
Surprisingly, the share of income going to the top 1% in Hawaii is lower than in the remainder of the United States. Also, surprisingly, the share of wealth going to the bottom 50% is higher in Hawaii than in the rest of the United States. There are a couple of things to explain here. The highest 1% in the state have not increased the width of their slice of the wealth pie but they have increased the height of the pie. They are wealthier.
Higher levels of unionization in Hawaii also protect wages in the bottom of the wealth distribution in some cases. Even when business is bad or non-existent, union workers must be retained. The business loses profit, the owners become poorer, eventually the business cannot afford union workers and all the jobs are lost. The relief that unions provide is temporary. They do not change the wealth paradigm.
China’s entry into the World Trade Organization severely hit wages of low skilled workers in the United States making the bottom 50% in the mainland go down. Hawaii is unique though. In Hawaii there is an absence of a large manufacturing sector where historically low wealth classes reside. Hawaii is unaffected when low skilled labor wealth goes down because there are not a lot of such workers here. Hawaii’s economy has many uncompetitive industries which also keeps wealth at the lower end relatively stable.
Another explanation is that the industrial composition of Hawaii excludes much of finance, technology, and biotech where higher income wealth distribution occurs on the mainland. Inflation and rising energy prices also require Hawaii employers to consistently raise wages to keep pace with rising expenses – taxes, inflation, and rising energy costs. A relative lack of highly specialized professionals at the top, the lack of low skilled workers at the bottom, rising inflation and costs of living, and the high presence of unions explain Hawaii’s wealth distribution.
In Hawaii, the rich are not getting more plentiful, but they are getting wealthier. This is great for established Democrats. They have fewer rising competitors. They will be in power longer. The poor in the state are seeing their wages stay the same or rise, but unfortunately this is a mirage. Their purchasing power trends downward due to rising taxes and cost of living. They are poorer. This will continue to lead to a decline in numbers, wealth, and property ownership of Native Hawaiians and the consolidation and preservation of the elite Democrats in the top 1%.