Could gang affiliaition qualify Chicago students to graduate, Mayor Emmanuel? ???

Chicago's Mayor Rham Emmanuel wants to require city high school students to submit a plan for future life backed by official documents (like college acceptance or promise for a job) -- or they cannot graduate! 

Given that 100,000 out of my guesstimate 200,000 Chicago minority, gang-age males are in street gangs -- because they wont commit to a long life of $10 an hour wage slavery in an economy where the same jobs could pay $20-$25 an hour -- but where there is no hope of wage betterment without a restoration of healthy union density that is nowhere in sight ...

 ... I'd like to ask the mayor if under present day dire labor market conditions, would street gang affiliation qualify?  :-O
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/

TO  RESTORE HEALTHY US LABOR MARKET:
http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2017/04/neither-rust-belt-americans-nor-chicago.html

 * * * * * *
 
For those who like to do eighth-grade math:
The bottom 45% of earners now take 10% of overall income instead of 20% like in 1968 -- but -- that is half of twice as much overall income: leaving the bottom 45% right back where they started in absolute terms (on average of course: less at the bottom/more at the top).

The next 54% up take the same 70% of overall income as they did 50 years ago -- but-- that is of double the overall income, therefore they have twice what they started with in absolute terms (on average of course: less at the bottom/more at the top).

If collective bargaining on the part of the bottom 45% can raise prices enough on the next 54% up to recoup their lost 10% of overall share -- meaning 14% of the middle 54%'s share -- then the 54% will still end up with 172% of what they started with in 1968 in absolute terms.

To get that absolute 28% back from the top 1% ...

... who now take 20% of overall income instead of 10% like before -- which means they doubled their share of doubling per capita income ...

 ... the 54% will not be able to rely on raising the price of burgers.  More direct means will be necessary -- more likely the tax ax -- like the death tax to use one currently operating example.

When I was a kid in the 50s, the top federal income tax rate was (technically) 92% on incomes over one million dollars (today's money -- close enough I think).  The president of the United States was a five star general Republican who was not in too huge a hurry to do anything about American Apartheid.  IOW, should be nothing too alien (if that scares) about confiscatory taxes in today's culture.

In an ideal world we could tax 10% of income share back from the top 1%, first, and in turn use that pay higher consumer prices to restore the share of the lowest 45% -- painlessly.  But we really have to restore union density first to accomplish any of this.

CEOs and quarterbacks now take home 10X more than is needed to get them to show up and work productively.  When enough union density is built up tax axing this should not be a problem.  In the 60s the top paid NFLer Joe Namath made $600,000 in today's money.  Double that for doubled productivity (or what have you) and you still get only one-tenth of what Chicago Bears' Jay Cutler gets.

In an ideal world we could tax 10% of income share back from the top 1%, first, and in turn use that pay higher consumer prices to restore the share of the lowest 45% -- painlessly.  But we really have to restore union density first to accomplish any of this.

 * * * * * *

Not to mention other ways -- multiple efficiencies -- to get multiple-10%s back:
 + squeezing out financialization;
 + sniffing out things like for-profit edus (unions providing the personnel quantity necessary to keep up with society's many schemers;
 + snuffing out $100,000 Hep C treatments that cost $150 to make (unions supplying the necessary volume of lobbying and political financing;
 + less (mostly gone) poverty = mostly gone crime and its criminal justice expenses.

IOW, labor unions = a normal country.

PS.  I'm quite sure that the mayor's idea qualifies as a Fourth Amendment privacy violation: government insisting on knowing your personal plans (documented -- not just some high school essay) or suffer severe penalty.