2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
There's "very different" on paper, and then there is "very different" in reality.

The Irish weren't put in poverty pressure cookers known as ghettos in a way that is really even comparable to blacks. The Irish didn't face Jim Crow Laws. The Irish rose out of poverty before the rise of the prison-industrial complex and War on Drugs, or before suburbanization imploded major cities and school district, etc etc etc..

Just take an element of racism against the Irish and honestly ask yourself if blacks had it worse on average. The answer is yes almost every time.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
I actually thought it was an invention if the 1600s or so to sorta be paired with colonialism. I don't think Romans viewed people as races per se.

True, I should rephrase that, because how I have it now reads wrong. "Old as time" I meant "since the genesis of what we would loosely consider modern European states." Romans had tons of slaves but there wasn't a codified racial component to them mainly because of the diversity of the empire.

But going through European history, the English tried to draw "scientific" distinctions between them and other ethnicities. In the Iberian peninsula people drew very distinct lines between groups from different regions. Bavarian peoples... well, see Hitler and his Aryan master race stuff. Sweden has supremely racist past that includes forced sterilization of their own "undesirables" in the effort to cultivate a "perfect" gene pool. Basically, every nation that begot modern western society has some serious xenophobic, racist roots that all go back to nationalism/tribalism... that's what I was trying to say.

It's not unique to Europe, as we've seen lots of other places around the world express similar ideologies over time (whether it was the Japanese or ethnic groups in Africa committing genocide or whatever).

The very modern phenomena is blurring the old lines and grouping all "white" people together or all "yellow" people together for sake of classification/narrative.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
Perhaps it would be more constructive to separate the "how we got here" from the reality of where we are. The former inevitably leads to blame and distracts attention away from the from solving the problems that we face as a nation.

To me, race is little more than a complicating factor in all of this. (That is not to say that race is irrelevant). By complicating factor I mean is that black people cannot escape perceptions built over many generations of people in this country. Their own skin allows everyone who chooses to do so to identify black people as "them" in virtually every interaction in their lives that involves anyone who has a different color skin. Biases -- some conscious and some subconscious -- are applied to them more frequently than others because they are so instantly identifiable as "them." This makes their struggles more difficult than those of, say, the Irish.

I think this is a more constructive thought experiment than the blame game ... If we removed any children from the resources and examples of their family -- lets make in the Trump kids in their youth -- and begin a new cycle with them it would be interesting to see what happens. Put them in the worst housing in the worst crime ridden neighborhoods with the worst schools. Make only the lowest paying jobs available so they never really make enough to live on. Now surround them with people who are in the same dire circumstances. Let it play out for five or six generations. How do the decendents Trump end up? My guess is that they wouldn't do much better than the poorest people today are doing. An environment of despair has the same general affect on most everyone, I suspect.

The question is how do we fix the structural problems in our society that allow so many people to live in grim inescapable poverty? How do we make sure that skin color isn't a factor in criminal justice and that poor children get the same quality education that more affluent kids get so they have access to employment that can break the cycle? Doing this would reduce crime, stimulate the economy, reduce the staggering amount we pay for social programs, and reduce tensions across the country. It's a win for everyone! Blame gets us nowhere, and dividing groups into "us" and "them" only perpetuates the problems.

You've expressed my feelings better than I could have done myself. The Irish and other groups went through a similar ordeal. They were impoverished and living in the inner-city slums and if they could find a job it was doing what nobody else wanted to do. They had gangs, committed crimes at a greater rate than those living in less crowded conditions, filled the jails and prisons, etc. Their lot didn't improve until they left those conditions for something better. First they left the starvation and disease in their homeland for America. What they found were living conditions not much better than what they left. Next, they took advantage of booming industries that couldn't find enough employees to work the long hours (mines, railroads, factories, America's Civil War, etc.) Finally, they homesteaded land that that had been stolen from the Native population.

These opportunities either don't exist today or are very limited. The only opportunity that remains is the military, and no one can question Blacks having done their part in defending our country. But when they return home, they have no more opportunities than their neighbors. Industry has left for cheaper labor elsewhere. Black children are segregated into inner schools, which everyone agrees are not working. We have taken all the land the Native Americans had to give, so there is no more land on which to homestead and start a farm. Those Black Americans who did have similar opportunities are living in the suburbs with their white neighbors. Those without the opportunities or the means to leave remain in the large cities or on the poor subsistence farms where they compete (like all small farmers) with the corporate farmers of today.

The problem is one of poverty and lack of opportunity, not the inferiority of one race or the superiority of another. Like GoIrish 41 points out, if Trump's children had grown up in the slums and spent their youth on the streets without the benefit of their money and social status, they would be no better off than other impoverished children. They certainly wouldn't be on-stage with a father who's running for president. They would more likely be cleaning the hotel rooms and restrooms of some wealthy man's resort.
 
Last edited:

irish1958

Príomh comhairleoir
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
112
The Moynihan Report (1965) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed
The Irish had families and almost 0% illegitimate children. The black rate in 1965 was about 25% and today about 70%. How many live in families is unknown, but probably is less than 25%.
Until we fix this, all superficial solutions will fail and actually may make the problem worse. (Example: Aid to dependent children practically forces the male from the home, and pays more for additional children thereby surpassing any wage the "family" might earn.)
Read Senator Moynihan's report if you want to be depressed and discouraged.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Perhaps it would be more constructive to separate the "how we got here" from the reality of where we are. The former inevitably leads to blame and distracts attention away from the from solving the problems that we face as a nation.

I'm not looking at "how we got here". I'm saying that maybe we should study the "How did that group overcome it?". The situations may not be exactly the same, but no one can argue that SOMETHING might be gained from studying the Irish and/or Chinese, that can be applied to present day blacks.

To me, race is little more than a complicating factor in all of this. (That is not to say that race is irrelevant). By complicating factor I mean is that black people cannot escape perceptions built over many generations of people in this country. Their own skin allows everyone who chooses to do so to identify black people as "them" in virtually every interaction in their lives that involves anyone who has a different color skin. Biases -- some conscious and some subconscious -- are applied to them more frequently than others because they are so instantly identifiable as "them." This makes their struggles more difficult than those of, say, the Irish.

And it makes their struggles, in this sense, exactly the same as the Chinese. So, again............ explain why the Chinese aren't trapped by institutional racism and the physical obviousness of their ethnicity?

I think this is a more constructive thought experiment than the blame game ... If we removed any children from the resources and examples of their family -- lets make in the Trump kids in their youth -- and begin a new cycle with them it would be interesting to see what happens. Put them in the worst housing in the worst crime ridden neighborhoods with the worst schools. Make only the lowest paying jobs available so they never really make enough to live on. Now surround them with people who are in the same dire circumstances. Let it play out for five or six generations. How do the decendents Trump end up? My guess is that they wouldn't do much better than the poorest people today are doing. Even those who somehow find a way out are treated differently, and they are paraded out to shame all those who don't every time the debate reaches a certain point. But in the big picture, an environment of despair has the same general affect on most, I suspect.

The real question is how do we fix the structural problems in our society that allow so many people to live in grim inescapable poverty? How do we make sure that skin color isn't a factor in criminal justice and that poor children get the same quality education that more affluent kids get so they have access to employment that can break the cycle? Answering thes questions could lead to changes that would reduce crime, stimulate the economy, reduce the staggering amount we pay for social programs, and reduce tensions across the country. It's a win for everyone! Blame gets us nowhere, and dividing groups into "us" and "them" only perpetuates the problems.

That's a nice piece, but there are a few major holes in it, in relation to the discussion that has been taking place in this thread:

1. No one is playing the blame game. The idea was to study those who have been held down, but overcame it, to see what could be done to facilitate blacks overcoming it.

2. You act like America is a caste system, where people in poverty are legally bound to stay there. There are black rags to riches stories in almost every walk of life: sports, entertainment, business, law, etc. There ARE opportunities there.

3. Do you think that, when you blame "institutional racism" for the problems that black people face today, that you are not playing the blame game?
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
I'm not looking at "how we got here". I'm saying that maybe we should study the "How did that group overcome it?". The situations may not be exactly the same, but no one can argue that SOMETHING might be gained from studying the Irish and/or Chinese, that can be applied to present day blacks.



And it makes their struggles, in this sense, exactly the same as the Chinese. So, again............ explain why the Chinese aren't trapped by institutional racism and the physical obviousness of their ethnicity?



That's a nice piece, but there are a few major holes in it, in relation to the discussion that has been taking place in this thread:

1. No one is playing the blame game. The idea was to study those who have been held down, but overcame it, to see what could be done to facilitate blacks overcoming it.

2. You act like America is a caste system, where people in poverty are legally bound to stay there. There are black rags to riches stories in almost every walk of life: sports, entertainment, business, law, etc. There ARE opportunities there.

3. Do you think that, when you blame "institutional racism" for the problems that black people face today, that you are not playing the blame game?

1. When we talk about this problem and the history of how it came to be, we begin to take sides. Generally speaking, the discussion devolves to mistakes that one side or the other have made that led to the situation we face today. It doesn't matter how we got here ... we're here. What are we going to do about fixing the problems that exist?

2. America basically does have a caste system. Those who are borne rich remain rich and those who are born poor generally stay poor their whole lives. Poor people are trapped and the few who break the code become "I told you so" examples for others to point to in an attempt to invalidate the plight of the vast majority who remain trapped. Nobody is legally bound to remain in dire situations, but if there is no way out the vague idea of the Ameican Dream really is not much of a consolation.

3. What I believe is that ignoring what is plainly obvious gets us nowhere. Look no further than incarceration rates by race for proof of institutional racism. We must be honest about the world we live in. It's not some freak coincidence that most black people are among the poorest folks in this country and live in the worst conditions. That is just the way it is. Ignoring that basic fact means that we are not really prepared to do anything about it.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
1. When we talk about this problem and the history of how it came to be, we begin to take sides. Generally speaking, the discussion devolves to mistakes that one side or the other have made that led to the situation we face today. It doesn't matter how we got here ... we're here. What are we going to do about fixing the problems that exist?


How about instead of spending another 12+ decades discussing this, we actually try to IMPLEMENT some ideas that have already worked for other ethnicities? I don't understand why you seem to be so against that idea?

2. America basically does have a caste system. Those who are borne rich remain rich and those who are born poor generally stay poor their whole lives. Poor people are trapped and the few who break the code become "I told you so" examples for others to point to in an attempt to invalidate the plight of the vast majority who remain trapped. Nobody is legally bound to remain in dire situations, but if there is no way out the vague idea of the Ameican Dream really is not much of a consolation.

You seem to know very little about how a caste system works, if you think that we have a de facto caste system in the US. The few who break out and succeed are NOT "I told you so" examples to invalidate anything; they are evidence that directly refutes your REPEATED assertions that there is "no way out" for poor people.

3. What I believe is that ignoring what is plainly obvious gets us nowhere. Look no further than incarceration rates by race for proof of institutional racism. We must be honest about the world we live in. It's not some freak coincidence that most black people are among the poorest folks in this country and live in the worst conditions. That is just the way it is. Ignoring that basic fact means that we are not really prepared to do anything about it.

And yet you keep ignoring the plainly obvious fact that black gang control of the drug trade is probably the biggest factor in the disparity of incarceration rates, not some institutional racism. By the way, Native Americans and Alaska Natives are the poorest and live in the worst conditions in the US. And if they could figure out why Asians now are impoverished at a rate BELOW the national average, then they might begin to do something about it. That's not to say that the rest of us shouldn't help them, but shouldn't they have some responsibility as well?
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
How about instead of spending another 12+ decades discussing this, we actually try to IMPLEMENT some ideas that have already worked for other ethnicities? I don't understand why you seem to be so against that idea?



You seem to know very little about how a caste system works, if you think that we have a de facto caste system in the US. The few who break out and succeed are NOT "I told you so" examples to invalidate anything; they are evidence that directly refutes your REPEATED assertions that there is "no way out" for poor people.



And yet you keep ignoring the plainly obvious fact that black gang control of the drug trade is probably the biggest factor in the disparity of incarceration rates, not some institutional racism. By the way, Native Americans and Alaska Natives are the poorest and live in the worst conditions in the US. And if they could figure out why Asians now are impoverished at a rate BELOW the national average, then they might begin to do something about it. That's not to say that the rest of us shouldn't help them, but shouldn't they have some responsibility as well?

I'm all for implementing the ideas that worked for other ethnic groups. Let's start by restoring the good paying factory jobs that allowed poor whites to move into the middle class, buy homes in the suburbs, and send their children to college. Let's restore unions instead of attacking them. It was the strength of unions that improved working conditions and increased pay for working class whites. Let's allow the unions to do the same for blacks. Some blacks along with their white co-workers were able to benefit from good paying factory jobs, took advantage of the opportunity, and improved their lot. Others were left out and remain left out. Those jobs are overseas. We need them to return.

You can be the hardest working guy or gal in the world, but you aren't going anywhere if you're being paid $8.50 per hour for your labor. If you want the poor to act more middle class, they will have to be paid accordingly. When the money is going to CEO's and others at the top, it isn't going where it needs to go to allow the poor to work their way out of impoverishment and the social problems that go with it.
 
Last edited:

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
I'm all for implementing the ideas that worked for other ethnic groups. Let's start by restoring the good paying factory jobs that allowed poor whites to move into the middle class and buy homes in the suburbs. Let's restore unions instead of attacking them. It was the strength of unions that improved working conditions and increased pay for working class whites. Let's allow the unions to do the same for blacks. Some blacks along with their white co-workers were able to benefit from good paying factory jobs, took advantage of the opportunity, and improved their lot. Others were left out and remain left out. Those jobs are overseas. We need them to return.

What about the yellows? Were they the recipients of "yellow privilege" and union wages?
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
And yet you keep ignoring the plainly obvious fact that black gang control of the drug trade is probably the biggest factor in the disparity of incarceration rates, not some institutional racism. By the way, Native Americans and Alaska Natives are the poorest and live in the worst conditions in the US. And if they could figure out why Asians now are impoverished at a rate BELOW the national average, then they might begin to do something about it. That's not to say that the rest of us shouldn't help them, but shouldn't they have some responsibility as well?

Take a look at this for 40 reasons why a higher percentage of blacks populate our prisons.


40 Reasons Why Our Jails Are Full of Black and Poor People
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
1. When we talk about this problem and the history of how it came to be, we begin to take sides. Generally speaking, the discussion devolves to mistakes that one side or the other have made that led to the situation we face today. It doesn't matter how we got here ... we're here. What are we going to do about fixing the problems that exist?

2. America basically does have a caste system.
Those who are borne rich remain rich and those who are born poor generally stay poor their whole lives. Poor people are trapped and the few who break the code become "I told you so" examples for others to point to in an attempt to invalidate the plight of the vast majority who remain trapped. Nobody is legally bound to remain in dire situations, but if there is no way out the vague idea of the Ameican Dream really is not much of a consolation.

3. What I believe is that ignoring what is plainly obvious gets us nowhere. Look no further than incarceration rates by race for proof of institutional racism. We must be honest about the world we live in. It's not some freak coincidence that most black people are among the poorest folks in this country and live in the worst conditions. That is just the way it is. Ignoring that basic fact means that we are not really prepared to do anything about it.

Allow me to pull a Buster...

No.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
What about the yellows? Were they the recipients of "yellow privilege" and union wages?

That's the difference between you and I. I see a good paying job as a basic human right. You see good paying jobs as a privilege that some are entitled to and others are not. Paying a poor man or woman of any color decent wages for hard-work and long days is not a special privilege.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Take a look at this for 40 reasons why a higher percentage of blacks populate our prisons.


40 Reasons Why Our Jails Are Full of Black and Poor People

This is shoddy logic, at best. Take for example:

Three. Police traffic stops also racially target people in cars. Black drivers are 31 percent more likely to be pulled over than white drivers and Hispanic drivers are 23 percent more likely to be pulled over than white drivers. Connecticut, in an April 2015 report, on 620,000 traffic stops which revealed widespread racial profiling, particularly during daylight hours when the race of driver was more visible.

Four. Once stopped, Black and Hispanic motorists are more likely to be given tickets than white drivers stopped for the same offenses.


Five. Once stopped, Blacks and Latinos are also more likely to be searched. DOJ reports Black drivers at traffic stops were searched by police three times more often and Hispanic drivers two times more often than white drivers. A large research study in Kansas City found when police decided to pull over cars for investigatory stops, where officers look into the car’s interior, ask probing questions and even search the car, the race of the driver was a clear indicator of who was going to be stopped: 28 percent of young Black males twenty five or younger were stopped in a year’s time, versus white men who had 12 percent chance and white women only a seven percent chance. In fact, not until Black men reach 50 years old do their rate of police stops for this kind of treatment dip below those of white men twenty five and under.


Six. Traffic tickets are big business. And even if most people do not go directly to jail for traffic tickets, poor people are hit the worst by these ticket systems. As we saw with Ferguson where some of the towns in St. Louis receive 40 percent or more of their city revenues from traffic tickets, tickets are money makers for towns.


Seven. The consequences of traffic tickets are much more severe among poor people. People with means will just pay the fines. But for poor and working people fines are a real hardship. For example, over four million people in California do not have valid driver’s licenses because they have unpaid fines and fees for traffic tickets. And we know unpaid tickets can lead to jail.

In this case, #s 3, 4, 5, and 6 are absolutely immaterial. #7 is a valid argument, but affects ALL poor people equally, not just Black people. But the thing is....... they took ONE point and tried to make it into 4 by offering the statistics as separate points each. This is all opinion, by the way........ If ethnicity A represents only 10% of the population, but commits 90% of the crimes, of course they are going to be "over-represented" in prison.

Many of these points were about poor people, not Black people. There are approximately 10.175M Black people living in poverty in the US(27% of 37M people). There are almost 25M white people living in poverty in the US. (12% of 196M). So the factor of being poor affects white people even moreso than Blacks, in terms of raw numbers.

Ten. The War on Drugs targets Black people. Drug arrests are a big source of bodies and business for the criminal legal system. Half the arrests these days are for drugs and half of those are for marijuana. Despite the fact that Black and white people use marijuana at the same rates, the ACLU found a Black person is 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for possession of marijuana than a white person. The ACLU found that in some states Black people were six times more likely to be arrested for marijuana than whites. For all drug arrests between 1980 and 2000 the U.S. Black drug arrest rate rose dramatically from 6.5 to 29.1 per 1,000 persons; during the same period, the white drug arrest rate barely increased from 3.5 to 4.6 per 1,000 persons.

This is the biggest fallacy of why there are so many Black people in jail. The war on drugs targets drugs. If Black people are convicted more often and/or given longer sentences, it is probably because Black Gangs like the Crips and Bloods in Cali, the Vice Lords in Chicago, and 2Fly and BMB in New York City controlled drug distribution in many large urban areas.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
How about instead of spending another 12+ decades discussing this, we actually try to IMPLEMENT some ideas that have already worked for other ethnicities? I don't understand why you seem to be so against that idea?

On many fronts, the ship already sailed. Are we to expect the government to sell blacks cheap land in the Midwest so they can farm? No, they'd lose to corporate farming's efficiency today. What about the height of the manufacturing economy, with great pay and benefits? Nope, those jobs are gone.

You seem to know very little about how a caste system works, if you think that we have a de facto caste system in the US. The few who break out and succeed are NOT "I told you so" examples to invalidate anything; they are evidence that directly refutes your REPEATED assertions that there is "no way out" for poor people.

It was hyperbole, sure, but the US has a lower relative economic mobility rate than just about everyone in the West I believe. If you're born poor you're more likely to be poor as an adult, compared to the average European or elsewhere in the Anglosphere.

And yet you keep ignoring the plainly obvious fact that black gang control of the drug trade is probably the biggest factor in the disparity of incarceration rates, not some institutional racism. By the way, Native Americans and Alaska Natives are the poorest and live in the worst conditions in the US. And if they could figure out why Asians now are impoverished at a rate BELOW the national average, then they might begin to do something about it. That's not to say that the rest of us shouldn't help them, but shouldn't they have some responsibility as well?

Native Americans are probably the best comparison to blacks, as both are relegated to separate communities. Whether they're ghettos or reservations, they are poverty pressure cookers.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
That's the difference between you and I. I see a good paying job as a basic human right. You see good paying jobs as a privilege that some are entitled to and others are not. Paying a poor man or woman of any color decent wages for hard-work and long days is not a special privilege.

I have NEVER said that. And, quite frankly, I resent the inference that I am some kind of racist who thinks only white people should have middle class jobs. I believe that people who live in a free society have the obligation to make their best effort to provide for themselves first, and that society should pick them up, when their best effort fails. If they are unwilling to make their best effort, first, then I believe that they forfeit their right to demand help from the rest of society. Others may still choose to help them, and that's fine. But that is their choice. That may seem a little harsh to you and others, but you don't do anyone any favors by carrying them along, when they could clearly walk if they put more effort into it.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
That's the difference between you and I. I see a good paying job as a basic human right. You see good paying jobs as a privilege that some are entitled to and others are not. Paying a poor man or woman of any color decent wages for hard-work and long days is not a special privilege.

A good paying job is a basic human right? No. It's not. I don't see how anyone could even come to that conclusion.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
That's the difference between you and I. I see a good paying job as a basic human right. You see good paying jobs as a privilege that some are entitled to and others are not. Paying a poor man or woman of any color decent wages for hard-work and long days is not a special privilege.

This is wrong on both fronts. Kmoose never said that, and a "good paying job" is not a human right for any of us. The market determines the value of our skill set, labor, and compensation.

That's why a minority who is a cyber security IT architect makes more than a white plumber. Get it?
 
Last edited:

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
This is wrong on both fronts. Kmoose never said that, and a "good paying job" is not a human right for any of us. The market determines the value of our skill set, labor, and compensation.

That's why a minority who is a cyber security IT architect makes more than a white plumber. Get it?

You need to go back a few pages to see how this discussion all began. Someone suggested that poor black people should do the same thing Irish Americans and Asians did to rise above poverty. I suggested that the Irish benefited from good paying jobs in industry, free land for homesteading, and other opportunities that are no longer available to Blacks. I suggested that Blacks would follow the path of the Irish if they could have the same opportunities, including a good paying job. Someone else (Kmoose) responded to my post implying that Blacks were looking for some kind of privilege or favoritism, stating that there was no "Yellow Privilege" benefiting Asians. I responded that a good paying job was not some kind of a privilege, but that good pay was a human right earned by hard-work. I never suggested that all jobs should be paid the same amount, just that those at the bottom needed a livable wage if you expected them to rise above poverty in the same manner that the Irish and the Asians have done.

A look back in history will show that the Irish were treated horribly in the mines, on the railroads, and elsewhere. But they benefited by the rise of unions in the first half of the 20th century. It was no accident that factory workers were able to afford homes in the suburbs and leave the poverty of the inner city. The rise of unions secured good paying jobs and the poor rose to be middle class. They started sending their children to college and paid for it with the living wages they earned in their union jobs.

For a few years, Blacks benefited along with their white neighbors, and we now have a Black Supreme Court Justice, Black Lawyers, Black Surgeons, etc. Then the rug was pulled out from under American industry and the good-paying jobs left. Large numbers of minorities, Blacks and Hispanics included, no longer had the opportunity to improve their lot. The good paying jobs were gone and replaced by minimum wage service jobs. So the opportunity to earn their way out of poverty is no longer available to most inner-city Blacks.

I offered a solution, which was to pay them a good wage so they too could move to the suburbs where their children could attend better schools and rise above poverty, just as working-class whites were able to do following the depression. Kmoose implied that good pay would be some kind of privilege. He may have thought I was asking for more affirmative action programs. I was not. I was suggesting that given the same opportunities (good paying jobs, good schools, safe neighborhoods, etc.) Blacks would over time raise their standard of living in the same manner that poor whites had been able to do. And before I'm accused once again of giving Blacks some kind of special privilege, I'm suggesting that good paying jobs would benefit all impoverished groups: poor Whites, poor Blacks, poor Hispanics, poor Native Americans, etc.

Let's not single-out Black Americans by implying they would not improve their lot if given the opportunity. As others have pointed out, economic status is pretty stagnant, if not declining, for all Americans. If you're born poor, you are likely to remain poor. It's not about being lazy or having no initiative, it's about lack of opportunity. And lack of opportunity is inherent in poverty. Good paying jobs would be a step in the right direction.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
You need to go back a few pages to see how this discussion all began. Someone suggested that poor black people should do the same thing Irish Americans and Asians did to rise above poverty. I suggested that the Irish benefited from good paying jobs in industry, free land for homesteading, and other opportunities that are no longer available to Blacks. I suggested that Blacks would follow the path of the Irish if they could have the same opportunities, including a good paying job. Someone else (Kmoose) responded to my post implying that Blacks were looking for some kind of privilege or favoritism, stating that there was no "Yellow Privilege" benefiting Asians. I responded that a good paying job was not some kind of a privilege, but that good pay was a human right earned by hard-work. I never suggested that all jobs should be paid the same amount, just that those at the bottom needed a livable wage if you expected them to rise above poverty in the same manner that the Irish and the Asians have done.

A look back in history will show that the Irish were treated horribly in the mines, on the railroads, and elsewhere. But they benefited by the rise of unions in the first half of the 20th century. It was no accident that factory workers were able to afford homes in the suburbs and leave the poverty of the inner city. The rise of unions secured good paying jobs and the poor rose to be middle class. They started sending their children to college and paid for it with the living wages they earned in their union jobs.

For a few years, Blacks benefited along with their white neighbors, and we now have a Black Supreme Court Justice, Black Lawyers, Black Surgeons, etc. Then the rug was pulled out from under American industry and the good-paying jobs left. Large numbers of minorities, Blacks and Hispanics included, no longer had the opportunity to improve their lot. The good paying jobs were gone and replaced by minimum wage service jobs. So the opportunity to earn their way out of poverty is no longer available to most inner-city Blacks.

I offered a solution, which was to pay them a good wage so they too could move to the suburbs where their children could attend better schools and rise above poverty, just as working-class whites were able to do following the depression. Kmoose implied that good pay would be some kind of privilege. He may have thought I was asking for more affirmative action programs. I was not. I was suggesting that given the same opportunities (good paying jobs, good schools, safe neighborhoods, etc.) Blacks would over time raise their standard of living in the same manner that poor whites had been able to do. And before I'm accused once again of giving Blacks some kind of special privilege, I'm suggesting that good paying jobs would benefit all impoverished groups: poor Whites, poor Blacks, poor Hispanics, poor Native Americans, etc.

Let's not single-out Black Americans by implying they would not improve their lot if given the opportunity. As others have pointed out, economic status is pretty stagnant, if not declining, for all Americans. If you're born poor, you are likely to remain poor. It's not about being lazy or having no initiative, it's about lack of opportunity. And lack of opportunity is inherent in poverty. Good paying jobs would be a step in the right direction.

That's a pretty creative narrative you have written there. Too bad it is mostly fiction. I offered up the example of the Irish and Chinese, as a counterpoint to the idea that institutional racism has "fixed the system" against Black people. So I mentioned that the Irish and Chinese also suffered from discrimination and bias, but appeared to be able to overcome that bias and improve their economic standing........... so why were Blacks unable to do so?

People justly pointed out that the Irish are white, and so they probably did not experience as much discrimination as Blacks (based on the fact that a Black man's ethnicity showed outwardly and was obvious) So I asked why that didn't keep the Chinese down?

You did offer up the idea that good paying jobs for inner city Blacks would increase their opportunities to break the cycle of poverty. I agree. But where I disagree is when you take that one step further and assert that there are NO opportunities for inner city Blacks anymore. That's simply not true. And, by the way.............. Black poverty is not limited to inner-cities; Rural Blacks have just as a hard a time with being poor.

I'm curious about one particular point:
I was suggesting that given the same opportunities (good paying jobs, good schools, safe neighborhoods, etc.) Blacks would over time raise their standard of living in the same manner that poor whites had been able to do.

Are you saying that poor white people had safe neighborhoods and good schools?
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
That's a pretty creative narrative you have written there. Too bad it is mostly fiction. I offered up the example of the Irish and Chinese, as a counterpoint to the idea that institutional racism has "fixed the system" against Black people. So I mentioned that the Irish and Chinese also suffered from discrimination and bias, but appeared to be able to overcome that bias and improve their economic standing........... so why were Blacks unable to do so?

People justly pointed out that the Irish are white, and so they probably did not experience as much discrimination as Blacks (based on the fact that a Black man's ethnicity showed outwardly and was obvious) So I asked why that didn't keep the Chinese down?

You did offer up the idea that good paying jobs for inner city Blacks would increase their opportunities to break the cycle of poverty. I agree. But where I disagree is when you take that one step further and assert that there are NO opportunities for inner city Blacks anymore. That's simply not true. And, by the way.............. Black poverty is not limited to inner-cities; Rural Blacks have just as a hard a time with being poor.

I'm curious about one particular point:


Are you saying that poor white people had safe neighborhoods and good schools?

Actually, and I quote from one of my earlier posts, I asserted that all poor groups would benefit from better paying jobs, including poor whites:

"I'm suggesting that good paying jobs would benefit all impoverished groups: poor Whites, poor Blacks, poor Hispanics, poor Native Americans, etc."

I used inner-city Blacks as my examples, because some seemed to be suggesting that they weren't doing enough for themselves. I should have clarified my statements with the word "most" or "many". There are some opportunities, as you rightly point out, but not nearly as many as the Irish had following the Great Depression. It would be difficult for poor people today (of all races) to duplicate what happened from the 1940's thru the 1960's. There are fewer opportunities to earn a good wage and work your way out of poverty. My assertion was and it remains, that the majority of poor people of all races would gladly take high paying jobs and move to the suburbs, if those jobs were available.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Actually, and I quote from one of my earlier posts, I asserted that all poor groups would benefit from better paying jobs, including poor whites:

"I'm suggesting that good paying jobs would benefit all impoverished groups: poor Whites, poor Blacks, poor Hispanics, poor Native Americans, etc."

I never asked if you thought that only Blacks should be afforded these good paying jobs. You said,

I was suggesting that given the same opportunities (good paying jobs, good schools, safe neighborhoods, etc.) Blacks would over time raise their standard of living in the same manner that poor whites had been able to do.

Maybe I am reading it wrong, but it sure looks like you are asserting that poor whites had good schools and safe neighborhoods, which helped them raise their standard of living, and if only Black people had those, currently, they would do the same?
 

BobbyMac

Staff & Stuff
Staff member
Messages
33,950
Reaction score
9,294
Actually, and I quote from one of my earlier posts, I asserted that all poor groups would benefit from better paying jobs, including poor whites:

"I'm suggesting that good paying jobs would benefit all impoverished groups: poor Whites, poor Blacks, poor Hispanics, poor Native Americans, etc."

I used inner-city Blacks as my examples, because some seemed to be suggesting that they weren't doing enough for themselves. I should have clarified my statements with the word "most" or "many". There are some opportunities, as you rightly point out, but not nearly as many as the Irish had following the Great Depression. It would be difficult for poor people today (of all races) to duplicate what happened from the 1940's thru the 1960's. There are fewer opportunities to earn a good wage and work your way out of poverty. My assertion was and it remains, that the majority of poor people of all races would gladly take high paying jobs and move to the suburbs, if those jobs were available.

How does today's Progressive Democrat change that? By raising fast food workers hourly to $15 or by overturning trade policies like NAFTA and TPP which they signed? Since they are the patron saints of the American union worker, what are they doing to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US?
 
Last edited:

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
You need to go back a few pages to see how this discussion all began. Someone suggested that poor black people should do the same thing Irish Americans and Asians did to rise above poverty. I suggested that the Irish benefited from good paying jobs in industry, free land for homesteading, and other opportunities that are no longer available to Blacks. I suggested that Blacks would follow the path of the Irish if they could have the same opportunities, including a good paying job. Someone else (Kmoose) responded to my post implying that Blacks were looking for some kind of privilege or favoritism, stating that there was no "Yellow Privilege" benefiting Asians. I responded that a good paying job was not some kind of a privilege, but that good pay was a human right earned by hard-work. I never suggested that all jobs should be paid the same amount, just that those at the bottom needed a livable wage if you expected them to rise above poverty in the same manner that the Irish and the Asians have done.

A look back in history will show that the Irish were treated horribly in the mines, on the railroads, and elsewhere. But they benefited by the rise of unions in the first half of the 20th century. It was no accident that factory workers were able to afford homes in the suburbs and leave the poverty of the inner city. The rise of unions secured good paying jobs and the poor rose to be middle class. They started sending their children to college and paid for it with the living wages they earned in their union jobs.

For a few years, Blacks benefited along with their white neighbors, and we now have a Black Supreme Court Justice, Black Lawyers, Black Surgeons, etc. Then the rug was pulled out from under American industry and the good-paying jobs left. Large numbers of minorities, Blacks and Hispanics included, no longer had the opportunity to improve their lot. The good paying jobs were gone and replaced by minimum wage service jobs. So the opportunity to earn their way out of poverty is no longer available to most inner-city Blacks.

I offered a solution, which was to pay them a good wage so they too could move to the suburbs where their children could attend better schools and rise above poverty, just as working-class whites were able to do following the depression. Kmoose implied that good pay would be some kind of privilege. He may have thought I was asking for more affirmative action programs. I was not. I was suggesting that given the same opportunities (good paying jobs, good schools, safe neighborhoods, etc.) Blacks would over time raise their standard of living in the same manner that poor whites had been able to do. And before I'm accused once again of giving Blacks some kind of special privilege, I'm suggesting that good paying jobs would benefit all impoverished groups: poor Whites, poor Blacks, poor Hispanics, poor Native Americans, etc.

Let's not single-out Black Americans by implying they would not improve their lot if given the opportunity. As others have pointed out, economic status is pretty stagnant, if not declining, for all Americans. If you're born poor, you are likely to remain poor. It's not about being lazy or having no initiative, it's about lack of opportunity. And lack of opportunity is inherent in poverty. Good paying jobs would be a step in the right direction.

This conversation cannot continue until you come to grips with

1) the fact that the minority who is a cyber security architect holds more market value than the white plumber

2) no one (race, religion or color) is guaranteed a "good paying job."
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
This conversation cannot continue until you come to grips with

1) the fact that the minority who is a cyber security architect holds more market value than the white plumber

2) no one (race, religion or color) is guaranteed a "good paying job."

1) I never commented one way or the other on this statement, but I will now for your sake. I never said that all jobs warranted equal pay. Certainly the cyber security architect has more value than the plumber. By the way, at least in my geographic area plumbers are well-established in the middle class and would hardly qualify as poor. But both should be paid well for their labor. The race of each is irrelevant.
2) I also never suggested that everyone be guaranteed a good paying job. What I did say is that if you expected the poor (Black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, White, etc.) to rise above poverty like the Irish did, then they would have to be offered the same opportunities that the Irish had, namely good paying jobs, good schools for their children, a home in the suburbs, etc. In other words, all the things that follow a good paying job.

I do believe that everyone has a right to be paid a decent wage for their labor. I also stated that a good paying job is a basic human right. And I define good paying as enough to rent or own a place to live in a safe and secure neighborhood, enough to buy food and clothing for your family, enough to purchase or lease a reliable vehicle to get your self back and forth to work, etc. It's pretty hard to condemn a man or a race for not improving their relative economic status, when they have never been paid a wage that allows them to do so. Nowhere in anything I said is there a statement that highly skilled occupations and low-skilled labor should be paid identical wages. My main argument is that the poor are paid far too little to enable them to climb out of poverty. And until they are paid better, the vast majority of them are stuck there.
 
Last edited:

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
1)
2) I also never suggested that everyone be guaranteed a good paying job. What I did say is that if you expected the poor (Black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, White, etc.) to rise above poverty like the Irish did, then they would have to be offered the same opportunities that the Irish had, namely good paying jobs, good schools for their children, a home in the suburbs, etc. In other words, all the things that follow a good paying job.

What you seem to be missing here, is that the Irish and Chinese (as well as many other ethnic groups) didn't have those "opportunities" until they got out of poverty. They were poor....... they didn't have good paying jobs, or they would not be poor in the first place. They certainly didn't have good schools for their children because the tax base in poor neighborhoods doesn't really allow for it without a lot of outside help. And they couldn't afford a home in the suburbs until AFTER they escaped poverty.

I'm guessing that what they did was only spend money on necessities. Food, shelter, clothing, utilities, etc. They probably didn't spend their grocery money on expensive food labels. They probably worked hard, then came home and made sure that their children were doing their schoolwork. They probably didn't waste money on cigarettes and other "extras". They probably shared housing with other families, maybe even family members, to save on housing costs. They probably saved. They probably taught their children to save. They probably taught their children a lot of things that our generation can't be bothered to pass on to our kids. They probably maintained strong family ties, so that there was a "blood based safety net" out there for them. They patronized each other's businesses, and purchased services that they needed (plumbing, electrical, knife sharpening, whatever) from local providers. They cultivated and nurtured a sense of community amongst their neighbors. Therefore, neighbors took care of each other.

All of those things are things that can still be done, today, to help groups of people of any race, creed, or religion to eventually escape poverty.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
How does today's Progressive Democrat change that? By raising fast food workers hourly to $15 or by overturning trade policies like NAFTA and TPP which they signed? Since they are the patron saints of the American union worker, what are they doing to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US?

If Eddy doesn't want to answer that, will one of the other Progressive's please answer that for me. FYI, I'm a Classical Liberal so don't respond like I'm Ted Cruz trollin' you.

When I think of Progressive Democrats, I think of Bernie Sanders, not the Clintons. The Clintons sold out the Progressives in the 1990's with deals like NAFTA. The Clintons are actually more Republican in their thinking than some Republicans. I only support Hillary, because she is the best of two very bad options. I think the policies proposed by Bernie Sanders offer a good start. I know you don't like a $15.00 per hour minimum wage, but that is a step in the right direction. Low wage earners spend every dollar they earn. that in turn creates more jobs. I also favor his proposal for a free college education. That way the poor would have an opportunity to train for jobs that pay more, something they can't afford now. How about a business tax cut for those businesses paying $15.00 an hour to their hourly employees? Isn't it funny how Bush's tax cut for the rich never created the boom in jobs as intended? Instead of spending the money to create jobs, the rich just pocketed the money. There should have been no tax cut for the rich unless the money was used to create jobs.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
When I think of Progressive Democrats, I think of Bernie Sanders, not the Clintons. The Clintons sold out the Progressives in the 1990's with deals like NAFTA. The Clintons are actually more Republican in their thinking than some Republicans. I only support Hillary, because she is the best of two very bad options. I think the policies proposed by Bernie Sanders offer a good start. I know you don't like a $15.00 per hour minimum wage, but that is a step in the right direction. Low wage earners spend every dollar they earn. that in turn creates more jobs. I also favor his proposal for a free college education. That way the poor would have an opportunity to train for jobs that pay more, something they can't afford now. How about a business tax cut for those businesses paying $15.00 an hour to their hourly employees? Isn't it funny how Bush's tax cut for the rich never created the boom in jobs as intended? Instead of spending the money to create jobs, the rich just pocketed the money. There should have been no tax cut for the rich unless the money was used to create jobs.

Did you ever work a minimum wage job?

I worked at a Dairy Queen for minimum wage from March-August for a couple of years(off-season) in high school. It was not fun but it was certainly not worth $15 an hour.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
Did you ever work a minimum wage job?

I worked at a Dairy Queen for minimum wage from March-August for a couple of years(off-season) in high school. It was not fun but it was certainly not worth $15 an hour.

Yes, I worked several jobs at minimum wage. And I worked harder at some of those jobs than people who made far more money than I. I also understand that $15.00 per hour only adds up to about $30,000 per year before taxes. That's hardly an excessive amount for a full-time worker. If you were taking home approximately $20,000 per year after taxes, you'd still be living at home with mom and dad or you'd be making a lot of sacrifices to stay afloat.

As far as fast-food workers not being worth $15.00 per hour, there are plenty of people making money way beyond what you or I think their job is worth. Are you comfortable with the fact that even lousy professional athletes earn in excess of $1,000,000 per year or that executives who spend 2 to 3 hours on the golf course every day earn in excess of half a billion dollars?

Didn't Seattle raise the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour? Last I heard Seattle was doing fine. The local economy hasn't collapsed because people were being paid more. People spending money stimulates the economy. Who spends a larger portion of their wages, the minimum wage earner or the CEO? The minimum wage earner, out of necessity, spends pretty close to 100% of what they earn. That, in turn, creates jobs for someone else. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy prove that the wealthy save most of their money. They aren't out there creating new jobs. They can live pretty d*** well spending as little as 10% of their income. The rest of their money sits and accumulates interest making them even wealthier, but it does little to create more jobs.

What stimulates the economy about as well as anything? Spending on infrastructure. And those jobs pay far more than $15.00 per hour. The initial spending goes to those who work in construction, but the net effect is more spending and an increase in jobs that goes way beyond the construction industry. Henry Ford had the right idea. He said you have to pay your workers enough so that they, too, can afford to buy whatever it is you are selling.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
1) I never commented one way or the other on this statement, but I will now for your sake. I never said that all jobs warranted equal pay. Certainly the cyber security architect has more value than the plumber. By the way, at least in my geographic area plumbers are well-established in the middle class and would hardly qualify as poor. But both should be paid well for their labor. The race of each is irrelevant.
2) I also never suggested that everyone be guaranteed a good paying job. What I did say is that if you expected the poor (Black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, White, etc.) to rise above poverty like the Irish did, then they would have to be offered the same opportunities that the Irish had, namely good paying jobs, good schools for their children, a home in the suburbs, etc. In other words, all the things that follow a good paying job.

I do believe that everyone has a right to be paid a decent wage for their labor. I also stated that a good paying job is a basic human right. And I define good paying as enough to rent or own a place to live in a safe and secure neighborhood, enough to buy food and clothing for your family, enough to purchase or lease a reliable vehicle to get your self back and forth to work, etc. It's pretty hard to condemn a man or a race for not improving their relative economic status, when they have never been paid a wage that allows them to do so. Nowhere in anything I said is there a statement that highly skilled occupations and low-skilled labor should be paid identical wages. My main argument is that the poor are paid far too little to enable them to climb out of poverty. And until they are paid better, the vast majority of them are stuck there.

I think you have yourself confused. Not everyone is guaranteed a good paying job but a good paying job is a basic human right?
 
Top