Jump to content

Black Lives Matter


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mikewof said:

The owner of the property ... unless he or she deducts the loss on the empty property from his or her taxable revenue. In which case, everyone pays the property tax.

And renters do in fact pay property tax without often receiving the benefits of being owners. Consider yourself educated to yet another aspect of institutional racism that you formerly convinced yourself doesn't actually exist.

So you think it's wrong for landlords to charge an amount that covers their costs?  They have to pay HOA fees (if applicable), property tax, mortgage interest if they have a loan, property maintenance and on and on.  So you're saying the landlord shouldn't attempt to recoup those fees by adding that into the rental price plus some additional amount to make a small profit?  What the fuck are you on?  

Ok, so the renter covers those fees including property tax.  So fucking what?  Welcome to capitalism.  If the renter doesn't want to pay that, they they can live in a van down by the river or buy their own fucking house.  But the fact is that the owner pays all of those fees and then some if the house sits empty for a month or two before it rents again.  

And now with the trump EO moratorium on evictions, renters that just decide not to pay or can't pay don't have to worry about the mortgage foreclosure, the property tax due, the utilities being unpaid, the HOA fees and such.  But the owner is definitely still on the hook for those costs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Please hold, we are currently experiencing a high volume of arrests and investigations of insurrectionists, Proud Boys, White Supremacists, 3%'ers, rednecks, Magats, Florida Congressmen, GOP lawyers,

Bingo !

Posted Images

2 hours ago, mikewof said:

And renters do in fact pay property tax without often receiving the benefits of being owners. Consider yourself educated to yet another aspect of institutional racism that you formerly convinced yourself doesn't actually exist.

Rent is now "institutional racism"?  Please preach about it, brother mikey!  And while you're at it, please explain how the system is racist to all those white renters who are also paying your "rental property tax" (aka "rent").   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

So you think it's wrong for landlords to charge an amount that covers their costs?  They have to pay HOA fees (if applicable), property tax, mortgage interest if they have a loan, property maintenance and on and on.  So you're saying the landlord shouldn't attempt to recoup those fees by adding that into the rental price plus some additional amount to make a small profit?  What the fuck are you on?  

Is anyone surprised that mr walk away thinks capitalism is guaranteed cost covering? JFC it’s so blatantly fucking obvious you’ve never been outside cost+ welfare bullshittery.
 

You charge what the market bears. If that don’t cover costs, tough shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Rent is now "institutional racism"?

Almost a 90 percentile match between white gun nuts and white supremacy.

Jeffy is a great example.

42d9249225776fa8bd2ab692add8e8de.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

The owner of the property ... unless he or she deducts the loss on the empty property from his or her taxable revenue. In which case, everyone pays the property tax.

And renters do in fact pay property tax without often receiving the benefits of being owners. Consider yourself educated to yet another aspect of institutional racism that you formerly convinced yourself doesn't actually exist.

How is this racism? The circumstances are constant regardless of race.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Rent is now "institutional racism"?  Please preach about it, brother mikey!  And while you're at it, please explain how the system is racist to all those white renters who are also paying your "rental property tax" (aka "rent").   

There's nothing wrong with rent. And I didn't claim that rent is institutional racism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mikewof said:

It's not racism. It's institutional racism.

Would you like to discuss why it's institutional racism?

Yes, please.... explain how a set of circumstances that apply regardless of race can be racist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burning Man said:

So you think it's wrong for landlords to charge an amount that covers their costs?  They have to pay HOA fees (if applicable), property tax, mortgage interest if they have a loan, property maintenance and on and on.  So you're saying the landlord shouldn't attempt to recoup those fees by adding that into the rental price plus some additional amount to make a small profit?  What the fuck are you on?  

Ok, so the renter covers those fees including property tax.  So fucking what?  Welcome to capitalism.  If the renter doesn't want to pay that, they they can live in a van down by the river or buy their own fucking house.  But the fact is that the owner pays all of those fees and then some if the house sits empty for a month or two before it rents again.  

And now with the trump EO moratorium on evictions, renters that just decide not to pay or can't pay don't have to worry about the mortgage foreclosure, the property tax due, the utilities being unpaid, the HOA fees and such.  But the owner is definitely still on the hook for those costs.  

I didn't claim that there is anything wrong with property owners covering their costs. They should charge what the market will bear. Capitalism works fine in the rental market.

And no, I didn't write what you claimed up there. You made that up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Yes, please.... explain how a set of circumstances that apply regardless of race can be racist.

We can discuss the problem of property tax if you like.

A typical city has areas that are predominately rented and predominately owned by the inhabitants. Can you make any conclusions to those areas wrt income?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikewof said:

We can discuss the problem of property tax if you like.

A typical city has areas that are predominately rented and predominately owned. Can you make any conclusions to those areas wrt income?

The owners are likely to be more wealthy than the renters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Dog said:

The owners are likely to be more wealthy than the renters.

Yes. Owners are generally more wealthy than renters. And both pay property tax, as we've now established. The renter even pays a proportionately higher property tax, because they don't get the primary residence deduction.

Next ...

In many counties, my county, probably your county, the sheriff's offices and the city police are primarily funded through the property tax. The sheriff's office and police departments ostensibly protect the lives and property of everyone, but most notably, they protect the lives and property of those individuals who fund them. I've seen the results of this many times ... tenants who can't get the police to manage nuisances like drug use in an RV parked next to their rental, but the police jumped for the property owner, they had the RV out of there within hours. Or that community meeting where the city official asked a member of the audience if she owns or rents. Those are both kind of obvious examples, but the unspoken subtext here is that the police (and to a lesser degree the sheriff, who is typically elected) are beholden to those to pay their salaries.

The perception here -- as you've seen from JBSF, who up until a day or two ago, was convinced that renters don't pay property taxes -- is that renters don't pay property taxes ... or more specifically, that more wealthy people pay property taxes and poorer renters do not pay property taxes, that more wealthy people fund the police and sheriff, but that poorer people do not. But it's obviously not just JBSF, this perception saturates our country. It's common in my "purple" area.

And now we get to the problem of institutional racism ... Black home ownership is now as low as when housing discrimination was perfectly legal: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2018/04/05/black-homeownership-is-as-low-as-it-was-when-housing-discrimination-was-legal/

So in cities and counties around the country, we have a long term problem, that people of color don't own homes, but the more immediate problem that the rent they pay is not perceived as supporting the local fuzz. Police serve and protect the people who pay them, and renters (disproportionately people of color) are not perceived as paying for them.

This is a fixable problem. This form of institutional racism can be addressed by extending the primary residence property tax deduction to renters, or removing the primary residence deduction to property owners. Either way, it should be a fair, color-blind taxation. That would be the first step to address this discrepancy. The next step is to correct this rampant disinformation that property owners are funding police departments but renters are not. In reality, renters currently fund MORE of the police than the property owners, per unit revenue and per unit area of the property.

 

Our institutions are jammed with discrepancies like this, many of them far more subtle than this. But they need correction. In the schools, PDs, government agencies, healthcare. We can fix these little things, one at a time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Yes. Owners are generally more wealthy than renters. And both pay property tax, as we've now established. The renter even pays a proportionately higher property tax, because they don't get the primary residence deduction.

Next ...

In many counties, my county, probably your county, the sheriff's offices and the city police are primarily funded through the property tax. The sheriff's office and police departments ostensibly protect the lives and property of everyone, but most notably, they protect the lives and property of those individuals who fund them. I've seen the results of this many times ... tenants who can't get the police to manage nuisances like drug use in an RV parked next to their rental, but the police jumped for the property owner, they had the RV out of there within hours. Or that community meeting where the city official asked a member of the audience if she owns or rents. Those are both kind of obvious examples, but the unspoken subtext here is that the police (and to a lesser degree the sheriff, who is typically elected) are beholden to those to pay their salaries.

The perception here -- as you've seen from JBSF, who up until a day or two ago, was convinced that renters don't pay property taxes -- is that renters don't pay property taxes ... or more specifically, that more wealthy people pay property taxes and poorer renters do not pay property taxes, that more wealthy people fund the police and sheriff, but that poorer people do not. But it's obviously not just JBSF, this perception saturates our country. It's common in my "purple" area.

And now we get to the problem of institutional racism ... Black home ownership is now as low as when housing discrimination was perfectly legal: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2018/04/05/black-homeownership-is-as-low-as-it-was-when-housing-discrimination-was-legal/

So in cities and counties around the country, we have a long term problem, that people of color don't own homes, but the more immediate problem that the rent they pay is not perceived as supporting the local fuzz. Police serve and protect the people who pay them, and renters (disproportionately people of color) are not perceived as paying for them.

This is a fixable problem. This form of institutional racism can be addressed by extending the primary residence property tax deduction to renters, or removing the primary residence deduction to property owners. Either way, it should be a fair, color-blind taxation. That would be the first step to address this discrepancy. The next step is to correct this rampant disinformation that property owners are funding police departments but renters are not. In reality, renters currently fund MORE of the police than the property owners, per unit revenue and per unit area of the property.

 

Our institutions are jammed with discrepancies like this, many of them far more subtle than this. But they need correction. In the schools, PDs, government agencies, healthcare. We can fix these little things, one at a time.

How is this institutional racism?  

You have illustrated a correlation.  What is the causation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mikewof said:

This is a fixable problem. This form of institutional racism can be addressed by extending the primary residence property tax deduction to renters, or removing the primary residence deduction to property owners. Either way, it should be a fair, color-blind taxation. That would be the first step to address this discrepancy. The next step is to correct this rampant disinformation that property owners are funding police departments but renters are not. In reality, renters currently fund MORE of the police than the property owners, per unit revenue and per unit area of the property.

Or start by abolishing property taxes altogether so these folks can afford to own their own homes! Keep the capital gains taxes if you must but property taxes are the equivalent to renting your home from government, miss a rental/tax payment and grandma is fucked! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:

How is this institutional racism?  

You have illustrated a correlation.  What is the causation?

The perception of PDs and sheriffs offices is that they are funded from the property owners, not the renters. People are color are disproportionately renters.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikewof said:

The perception of PDs and sheriffs offices is that they are funded from the property owners, not the renters. People are color are disproportionately renters.

 

That is a correlation.  How is race the cause?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Venom said:

Or start by abolishing property taxes altogether so these folks can afford to own their own homes! Keep the capital gains taxes if you must but property taxes are the equivalent to renting your home from government, miss a rental/tax payment and grandma is fucked! 

It'll never happen. Death and taxes.

Yes, property ownership is an illusion, we rent from the government. C'est la vie, life is short.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mikewof said:

If you want to shitfight over a clear and obvious problem, feel free.

I think it makes more sense to address clear and obvious problems than shitfight about them.

Why is asking for you to show the institutional racism a "shitfight?"

It would seem that we have a poverty problem rather than a race problem. 

The question then becomes: "how do poor people get rich?"

Sounds like your answer is that we have to change government laws.

My answer would be "do what rich people do."

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jzk said:

Why is asking for you to show the institutional racism a "shitfight?"

It would seem that we have a poverty problem rather than a race problem. 

The question then becomes: "how do poor people get rich?"

Sounds like your answer is that we have to change government laws.

My answer would be "do what rich people do."

 

People who rent their homes are not necessarily in poverty. They do, however, deserve representation and service independent of their income.

Once again -- and you seemed to ignore this bit -- renters pay MORE for their police and sheriffs than do their wealthier, property-owning counterparts. That's not a poverty problem, that's a problem of institutional racism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikewof said:

 

People who rent their homes are not necessarily in poverty. They do, however, deserve representation and service independent of their income.

Once again -- and you seemed to ignore this bit -- renters pay MORE for their police and sheriffs than do their wealthier, property-owning counterparts.

If you don't like paying more for your police, do what people do that pay less.  That being said, I have no problem eliminating the real estate deduction.  Why is the government trying to influence your buying decisions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Convolving poverty and racism is always messy.

But I'll defend Mikey for a sec.  Below is the home ownership rate for the last 20  years.

If its not 'systemic racism', what other factors explain the persistent gap in home ownership between Non-hispanic whites and blacks over time?  The other ethnic groups go up and down relative to non-hispanic whites.  In fact, Hispanics, for example, have been closing the gap in the last 5 years.  Why the close correlation?  What IS the cause if not systemic racism?  I have my own personal views but to steel man for a minute, do 42 million blacks just 'choose' not to buy homes at the same rate as their white counterparts?  25 million black people just go through their lives NEVER realizing that home ownership is a cornerstone of wealth accumulation?  There ARE no systemic barriers that they face that can explain some or all of the gap?

 

image.png.e8e1b05d221ac24edd3c574da2ea17e8.png

 

Personally, I think if you want to decrease wealth disparity, the #1 lever is a national property tax - 4% per year, across the board.  That'll generate 1.2 Trillion dollars - half goes directly to the military, half goes directly to fund medicare.  What is a nation if not its people and its land?

FWIW, I HOPE Rocket Mortgage is going to reduce transaction costs, which is another of my major bugaboos.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mikewof said:

 

People who rent their homes are not necessarily in poverty. They do, however, deserve representation and service independent of their income.

Once again -- and you seemed to ignore this bit -- renters pay MORE for their police and sheriffs than do their wealthier, property-owning counterparts. That's not a poverty problem, that's a problem of institutional racism.

What a crock of shit!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

Convolving poverty and racism is always messy.

But I'll defend Mikey for a sec.  Below is the home ownership rate for the last 20  years.

If its not 'systemic racism', what other factors explain the persistent gap in home ownership between Non-hispanic whites and blacks over time?  The other ethnic groups go up and down relative to non-hispanic whites.  In fact, Hispanics, for example, have been closing the gap in the last 5 years.  Why the close correlation?  What IS the cause if not systemic racism?  I have my own personal views but to steel man for a minute, do 42 million blacks just 'choose' not to buy homes at the same rate as their white counterparts?  25 million black people just go through their lives NEVER realizing that home ownership is a cornerstone of wealth accumulation?  There ARE no systemic barriers that they face that can explain some or all of the gap?

 

image.png.e8e1b05d221ac24edd3c574da2ea17e8.png

 

Personally, I think if you want to decrease wealth disparity, the #1 lever is a national property tax - 4% per year, across the board.  That'll generate 1.2 Trillion dollars - half goes directly to the military, half goes directly to fund medicare.  What is a nation if not its people and its land?

FWIW, I HOPE Rocket Mortgage is going to reduce transaction costs, which is another of my major bugaboos.

 

The welfare state, poor government schools, minimum wage, licensing requirements, prevailing wage.  How about those for starters?

Taking money from people that create wealth and giving it to people that don't isn't going to cure poverty.  Exposing poor people to the wealth generation capitalism machine is what cures poverty.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jzk said:

The welfare state, poor government schools, minimum wage, licensing requirements, prevailing wage.  How about those for starters?

Taking money from people that create wealth and giving it to people that don't isn't going to cure poverty.  Exposing poor people to the wealth generation capitalism machine is what cures poverty.  

Those are buzzwords and, by the way, those are 'systems of oppression' in the context in which you're applying them.  You're supporting Mikey's hypothesis and refuting agency - the system is systemically racist and blacks are 'victims of  cures' - but still not autonomous beings.

A more internally consistent argument is the system IS systemically racist but the cures we've attempted to employ haven't worked.  Which actually gets you dangerously close to the liberal perspective - just saying.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cmilliken said:

Those are buzzwords and, by the way, those are 'systems of oppression' in the context in which you're applying them.  You're supporting Mikey's hypothesis and refuting agency - the system is systemically racist and blacks are 'victims of  cures' - but still not autonomous beings.

A more internally consistent argument is the system IS systemically racist but the cures we've attempted to employ haven't worked.

 

Those are systems of oppressing poor people.  A few of them were originally created to oppress black people, such as the prevailing wage.  But they really oppress all poor people equally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

Those are systems of oppressing poor people.  A few of them were originally created to oppress black people, such as the prevailing wage.  But they really oppress all poor people equally.

So then those are really tools to maintain the status quo?

Because Blacks started off behind the curve, they're held back in an equivalent way to whites in the same situation?  Race has little do to with it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cmilliken said:

So then those are really tools to maintain the status quo?

Because Blacks started off behind the curve, they're held back in an equivalent way to whites in the same situation?  Race has little do to with it?

Well lets do a little test.  Do you support removing the minimum wage?  

Are you racist?

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jzk said:

Well lets do a little test.  Do you support removing the minimum wage?  

Are you racist?

You answered two questions with two questions.

In the spirit of dialog, I'll go first.  My personal feeling on the minimum wage is (historically) a lagging indicator of wage growth.   The minimum wage keeps honest businesses honest and creates a tension that causes bad/obsolete businesses to eventually fade away  A company that can't afford to pay someone $7.25 / hour should not hire that person, with all that that means.  If the job doesn't exist, then so be it.  If the company can't survive without paying people $7.25 then, the business should close as well.  No, I don't support removing the minimum wage.  I think it's a useful metric.

Just to head off the inevitable 'infinite spiral' argument, no I don't believe the minimum wage is an effective tool for societal change.  Minimum wage is a blunt law meant for the purpose I described above so no, I don't believe that it should be used as a surrogate for creating a 'living wage'.  I do think the minimum wage should be set at the level wherein an individual working minimum wage, 40 hours / week, would be ineligible for other government assistance.  it's stupid and redundant to have multiple tools do the same thing.

Am I a racist?  Objectively, I can't tell.  Metaphysically, I act as if I might be so I try to keep that lens in place when I evaluate situations and solutions.

Now, will you reciprocate and answer my questions?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Well lets do a little test.  Do you support removing the minimum wage?  

Are you racist?

The poster above makes his money on a system that systematically oppresses the poor in The PRC. Negative real rates to penalize savers & the poor and that enrich the elite and people like him. All he wants are more people in chains.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jzk said:

If you don't like paying more for your police, do what people do that pay less.  That being said, I have no problem eliminating the real estate deduction.  Why is the government trying to influence your buying decisions?

It's not about paying more for the police.

It's about the police riding with the perception of that people in rentals (i.e. almost entire neighborhoods) don't pay their salaries, don't support the police. And it's that people in rentals often see the police as adversaries, rather than their employees, which they are.

Again, renters pay more for their police services than owners, because they don't get the deduction, and they don't get the primary residence discount that many counties offer. Working class people in rental units need to get comfortable with the idea that they pay the police salaries, that they have a tremendous amount of public oversight.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

What a crock of shit!

I get your resistance. But look around you ... 

Back before WWII, the U.S. economic output was bigger than the COMBINED output of Germany, Italy and Japan!

Now in 2020, we are in a de facto economic war with China. Their population is about three times larger than our own. We cannot win this economic war on "good ol' American gumption." We need every American to get on board and for the win. The alternative is drifting into a client state economy of China and Europe.

We can't afford to disincentivize Black people. We can't afford to criminalize Mexicans. We can't afford institutional racism. We have to equalize and equitablize our economy. We can't afford a nation of waiters and waitresses, we need those fast food employees in production, building things for export like machines and commodities. 

We have to fix this problem, or the problem will fix us. And then we're fucked. We have what China doesn't have ... we have the proven ability to thrive in a multicultural society. While China imprisons their Muslims, and executes their Falun Gong, and goes to urban war with Hong Kong, we have the proven efficacy of our melting pot. 

This is our strength, why would anyone want to turn it into a weakness?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I get your resistance. But look around you ... 

Back before WWII, the U.S. economic output was bigger than the COMBINED output of Germany, Italy and Japan!

Now in 2020, we are in a de facto economic war with China. Their population is about three times larger than our own. We cannot win this economic war on "good ol' American gumption." We need every American to get on board and for the win. The alternative is drifting into a client state economy of China and Europe.

We can't afford to disincentivize Black people. We can't afford to criminalize Mexicans. We can't afford institutional racism. We have to equalize and equitablize our economy. We can't afford a nation of waiters and waitresses, we need those fast food employees in production, building things for export like machines and commodities. 

We have to fix this problem, or the problem will fix us good. And when we're fucked.

No one has done either! We can not have open borders! We need to bring in who we need and when we need immigrants. Do not even try to co mingle controlled immigration with racism!  Blacks have been given all sorts of helping hands since the 60’s and as a general statement failed miserably to mainstream into the overall society, Hispanics and many other ethnicities have arrived on our shores at a much greater disadvantage and made the American Dream work for themselves! It takes Hard work and sacrifice but it is there for the making.. no one is going to give you nor are you entitled to anything other than opportunity! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Burning Man said:

So you think it's wrong for landlords to charge an amount that covers their costs?  They have to pay HOA fees (if applicable), property tax, mortgage interest if they have a loan, property maintenance and on and on.  So you're saying the landlord shouldn't attempt to recoup those fees by adding that into the rental price plus some additional amount to make a small profit?  What the fuck are you on?  

Ok, so the renter covers those fees including property tax.  So fucking what?  Welcome to capitalism.  If the renter doesn't want to pay that, they they can live in a van down by the river or buy their own fucking house.  But the fact is that the owner pays all of those fees and then some if the house sits empty for a month or two before it rents again.  

And now with the trump EO moratorium on evictions, renters that just decide not to pay or can't pay don't have to worry about the mortgage foreclosure, the property tax due, the utilities being unpaid, the HOA fees and such.  But the owner is definitely still on the hook for those costs.  

It’s almost like walking out on a mortgage! The shame!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

No one has done either! We can not have open borders! We need to bring in who we need and when we need immigrants. Do not even try to co mingle controlled immigration with racism!  Blacks have been given all sorts of helping hands since the 60’s and as a general statement failed miserably to mainstream into the overall society, Hispanics and many other ethnicities have arrived on our shores at a much greater disadvantage and made the American Dream work for themselves! It takes Hard work and sacrifice but it is there for the making.. no one is going to give you nor are you entitled to anything other than opportunity! 

We can have open borders. We have had open borders in the past. Europe has open borders. We already have commercially open borders with NAFTA. There may soon come a time when we will have to compete with Mexico for their labor, given that Mexico's economy is on fire, growing at about 5 times the rate that our economy is growing.

You seem oblivious that we're actively suppressing the economic advancement of people of color. And it's not even because we're all that racist anymore, it's because the racism of the last hundred-some years has been built into the foundation of our economy. This is the institutional racism we need to manage, like pulling nits from a showdog.

You may not realize it, but you're echoing institutional racism in what you write above ... you claim that the "Blacks ... have failed miserably." And yet you ignore that they are Americans who have built this country, literally built the roads, the buildings, the economy. There are concrete reasons why they are still in poverty, and it's not due to their own deficiencies, it's due to institutions that have been designed to exploit them.

These things are invisible to you, because they were designed to be invisible to you. That's why this form of racism is so effective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cmilliken said:

You answered two questions with two questions.

In the spirit of dialog, I'll go first.  My personal feeling on the minimum wage is (historically) a lagging indicator of wage growth.   The minimum wage keeps honest businesses honest and creates a tension that causes bad/obsolete businesses to eventually fade away  A company that can't afford to pay someone $7.25 / hour should not hire that person, with all that that means.  If the job doesn't exist, then so be it.  If the company can't survive without paying people $7.25 then, the business should close as well.  No, I don't support removing the minimum wage.  I think it's a useful metric.

Just to head off the inevitable 'infinite spiral' argument, no I don't believe the minimum wage is an effective tool for societal change.  Minimum wage is a blunt law meant for the purpose I described above so no, I don't believe that it should be used as a surrogate for creating a 'living wage'.  I do think the minimum wage should be set at the level wherein an individual working minimum wage, 40 hours / week, would be ineligible for other government assistance.  it's stupid and redundant to have multiple tools do the same thing.

Am I a racist?  Objectively, I can't tell.  Metaphysically, I act as if I might be so I try to keep that lens in place when I evaluate situations and solutions.

Now, will you reciprocate and answer my questions?

 

Those are tools to keep small groups privileged.  And I don't think they relate to race any longer.  The privileged groups want to remain privileged regardless of race.

Minimum wage keeps unskilled workers out of the jobforce and prevents them from getting on the job training whereby they can learn the skills to earn that wage.

Have you ever hired anyone?  When I hire a new person, they are not really worth that much.  It takes them time to learn what we do, and what we need them to do.  But then they become valuable.  As their value increases, there is pressure on me to move them up such that they remain productive and don't go elsewhere.  I can't afford to lose people that have learned the job simply because I am underpaying them.  If they leave, I have to start all over again with someone that doesn't know anything.  And, I will have trained that person to go work at my competitor.  

If there is no minimum wage, I can go get a job anywhere.  I decide where I want to work.  If I want to work at Google, I can.  It is just a matter of price.  Then, once I am working there, it is up to me to make myself valuable.  Once I do, they almost have no choice but to move me up in accordance with the value I provide.  Or, some other company gets the benefit of what I learned at Google.  

Removing the minimum wage doesn't hold anyone down.  It let's everyone have an opportunity to move up.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

We can have open borders. We have had open borders in the past. Europe has open borders. We already have commercially open borders with NAFTA. There may soon come a time when we will have to compete with Mexico for their labor, given that Mexico's economy is on fire, growing at about 5 times the rate that our economy is growing.

You seem oblivious that we're actively suppressing the economic advancement of people of color. And it's not even because we're all that racist anymore, it's because the racism of the last hundred-some years has been built into the foundation of our economy. This is the institutional racism we need to manage, like pulling nits from a showdog.

You may not realize it, but you're echoing institutional racism in what you write above ... you claim that the "Blacks ... have failed miserably." And yet you ignore that they are Americans who have built this country, literally built the roads, the buildings, the economy. There are concrete reasons why they are still in poverty, and it's not due to their own deficiencies, it's due to institutions that have been designed to exploit them.

These things are invisible to you, because they were designed to be invisible to you. That's why this form of racism is so effective.

I fully support open borders, while screening for criminals and disease.  If we opened our borders, we could double our GDP in a relatively short amount of time.  As you said, we used to have open borders.  Open borders allows a person that wants to be productive to move to a place where they can be more productive.  

We get cheaper labor.  Win.  They make more money than they ever could and have the opportunity to increase their skills that didn't exist where they were from.  Win.  And they become consumers benefiting everyone.  It is a triple win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jzk said:

Have you ever hired anyone?  When I hire a new person, they are not really worth that much. 

Yes, but they're worth more than zero, otherwise I wouldn't have hired them.  I've never run into a situation where the difference between $7.25 an hour and $10-$12 / hour mattered to me but I know it mattered to them.  I've never done 'unpaid internships' and no business I ran was that close to the margin that such a hire mattered.

It takes them time to learn what we do, and what we need them to do.  But then they become valuable.  As their value increases, there is pressure on me to move them up such that they remain productive and don't go elsewhere.  I can't afford to lose people that have learned the job simply because I am underpaying them.  If they leave, I have to start all over again with someone that doesn't know anything.  And, I will have trained that person to go work at my competitor 

I hired people that had been trained by other people and some of the people I trained moved on.  Workers should find their best fit, whether its at my company or another company.  Hell, I've opened my Rolodex - there's an old term - and helped people move on if it was time to leave.  I always found that I was able to get good utility out of the individual in training before they moved on and the salary they were paid was a small line item on the overall program budget.

If there is no minimum wage, I can go get a job anywhere.  I decide where I want to work.  If I want to work at Google, I can.  You can only work where someone wants to hire you.  

I understand the arguments but I think we're no where near that paradigm.  A minimum wage employee is such a minor part of any program budget that the cost of that employee alone is rarely the 'deciding' factor.  In my world, having a job for them to do is what actually matters the most and if you don't have a job for them to do, it doesn't matter that they want to work for free or not.

For me, the practical minimum wage is the 'Sheetz' cashier in Bumfuck, Ohio.  If they can earn $11 / hour starting with no experience, that's the minimum wage.

The truth is that we're facing DEFLATIONARY pressures in most businesses.  We don't need the employees we have so you have a larger group of newly trained workers chasing a smaller and smaller number of jobs being held by older folks who can't afford or don't want to leave the workforce.

There are some professions facing shortages.  Personally, I don't believe the minimum wage right now is an impediment - at all - to employment in those industries.  Even if minimum wage was made zero today, Google wouldn't let you on their campus.  They don't need you.  They have a bunch of people like you.

Here's the top 10 jobs that employers are having a hard time filling(I should have linked ref - my bad):

1. Skilled trade workers (especially chefs/bakers/butchers, mechanics and electricians)
2. Drivers (especially truck/heavy goods, delivery/courier and construction drivers)
3. Teachers
4. Sales representatives
5. Secretaries, personal assistants, administrative assistants, and office support staff
6. Management (executive management/corporate)
7. Nurses
8. Technicians
9. Accounting and finance staff (especially financial analysts, certified accountants, and bookkeepers)
10. Engineers (especially mechanical, electrical, and civil engineering)

The only one that's even close to 'minimum wage' - is Sales Rep.

Wiping out the minimum wage doesn't create any new accountants or engineers or drivers or plumbers.  They all get paid more than that minimum wage now and every one of those businesses have overheads that can accommodate apprentices if they wanted too.  They don't need too.. for all complaints, those jobs are still all getting done.

Hence my belief - Minimum wage is a trailing indicator of wage pressure and has no practical impact on hiring for most businesses.

So no, I don't believe that minimum wage is a tool of the Oligarchy.

I believe LICENSING requirements can be a tool of the Oligarchy, depending on the profession.  I think Higher ED is right now a tool of the Oligarchy. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

I understand the arguments but I think we're no where near that paradigm.  A minimum wage employee is such a minor part of any program budget that the cost of that employee alone is rarely the 'deciding' factor.  It's almost always having a job for them to do that matters and if you don't have a job for them to do, it doesn't matter that they want to work for free or not.

For me, the practical minimum wage is the 'Sheetz' cashier in Bumfuck, Ohio.  If they can ear $11 / hour, that's the minimum wage.

The truth is that we're facing DEFLATIONARY pressures in most businesses.  We don't need the employees we have so you have a larger group chasing a smaller and smaller number of jobs. 

There are some professions facing shortages.  Personally, I don't believe the minimum wage right now is an impediment - at all - to employment in those industries.  Even if minimum wage was made zero today, Google wouldn't let you on their campus.  They don't need you.  They have a bunch of people like you.

Here's the top 10 jobs that employers are having a hard time filling:

1. Skilled trade workers (especially chefs/bakers/butchers, mechanics and electricians)
2. Drivers (especially truck/heavy goods, delivery/courier and construction drivers)
3. Teachers
4. Sales representatives
5. Secretaries, personal assistants, administrative assistants, and office support staff
6. Management (executive management/corporate)
7. Nurses
8. Technicians
9. Accounting and finance staff (especially financial analysts, certified accountants, and bookkeepers)
10. Engineers (especially mechanical, electrical, and civil engineering)

The only one that's even close to 'minimum wage' - is Sales Rep.

Wiping out the minimum wage doesn't create any new accountants or engineers or drivers or plumbers.  They all get paid more than that minimum wage now and every one of those businesses have overheads that can accommodate apprentices if they wanted too.

Hence my belief - Minimum wage is a trailing indicator of wage pressure and has no practical impact on hiring for most businesses.

So no, I don't believe that minimum wage is a tool of the Oligarchy.

I believe LICENSING requirements can be a tool of the Oligarchy, depending on the profession.  I think Higher ED is right now a tool of the Oligarchy. 

 

 

Wiping out minimum wage can most certainly create plumbers or press operators or all sorts of things.  Maybe the printing company can't hire you because it can't afford to pay you minimum wage, but it would hire you to sweep the floor in the press room.   Everyone has to start somewhere.  Sub minimum wages jobs are not meant to be a life long career, just a starting place.  

My hot water heater started leaking, and I was pretty busy.  So I called Home Depot to see what they would charge to install the cheapest 50 gallon gas that they had.  $1500.  I went to Home Depot, got all the tools like the torch, solder, etc., the hot water heater, and rented the truck all for $550.  It took me three hours.  I would have gladly paid $350.  But I am not going to pay $950.  

So that guy that can't get a job can offer to work as an apprentice for a plumber for sub minimum wage.  They can hand the plumber tools, help carry the hot water heater, etc. and they can actually learn plumbing.  Then they can go out, put an add on craigslist and make $350 for two hours work all day long.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

Wiping out minimum wage can most certainly create plumbers or press operators or all sorts of things.  Maybe the printing company can't hire you because it can't afford to pay you minimum wage, but it would hire you to sweep the floor in the press room.   Everyone has to start somewhere.  Sub minimum wages jobs are not meant to be a life long career, just a starting place.  

My hot water heater started leaking, and I was pretty busy.  So I called Home Depot to see what they would charge to install the cheapest 50 gallon gas that they had.  $1500.  I went to Home Depot, got all the tools like the torch, solder, etc., the hot water heater, and rented the truck all for $550.  It took me three hours.  I would have gladly paid $350.  But I am not going to pay $950.  

So that guy that can't get a job can offer to work as an apprentice for a plumber for sub minimum wage.  They can hand the plumber tools, help carry the hot water heater, etc. and they can actually learn plumbing.  Then they can go out, put an add on craigslist and make $350 for two hours work all day long.

:lol: this cunt knows nothing about the work force. Yeah, they are going to promote the floor sweeper :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

Wiping out minimum wage can most certainly create plumbers or press operators or all sorts of things.  Maybe the printing company can't hire you because it can't afford to pay you minimum wage, but it would hire you to sweep the floor in the press room.   Everyone has to start somewhere.  Sub minimum wages jobs are not meant to be a life long career, just a starting place.  

My hot water heater started leaking, and I was pretty busy.  So I called Home Depot to see what they would charge to install the cheapest 50 gallon gas that they had.  $1500.  I went to Home Depot, got all the tools like the torch, solder, etc., the hot water heater, and rented the truck all for $550.  It took me three hours.  I would have gladly paid $350.  But I am not going to pay $950.  

So that guy that can't get a job can offer to work as an apprentice for a plumber for sub minimum wage.  They can hand the plumber tools, help carry the hot water heater, etc. and they can actually learn plumbing.  Then they can go out, put an add on craigslist and make $350 for two hours work all day long.

Did you check Craigslist or other sources?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jzk said:

Wiping out minimum wage can most certainly create plumbers or press operators or all sorts of things.  Maybe the printing company can't hire you because it can't afford to pay you minimum wage, but it would hire you to sweep the floor in the press room.   Everyone has to start somewhere.  Sub minimum wages jobs are not meant to be a life long career, just a starting place.  

My hot water heater started leaking, and I was pretty busy.  So I called Home Depot to see what they would charge to install the cheapest 50 gallon gas that they had.  $1500.  I went to Home Depot, got all the tools like the torch, solder, etc., the hot water heater, and rented the truck all for $550.  It took me three hours.  I would have gladly paid $350.  But I am not going to pay $950.  

So that guy that can't get a job can offer to work as an apprentice for a plumber for sub minimum wage.  They can hand the plumber tools, help carry the hot water heater, etc. and they can actually learn plumbing.  Then they can go out, put an add on craigslist and make $350 for two hours work all day long.

Yep and you did not pay insurance, nor bond, nor SocSec.... you think you can go out and moonlight as a plumber for big bucks, wait until you fuck up somebody's house, and/or get killed (easier to do as an electrician than a plumber, but can still happen), and/or get nailed for various inspection violations, and/or have the tax boys find out.

I have worked in trades, always everything the best way possible and followed all rules as carefully as possible.... one reason why I'm not only still alive, still got all fingers... and low-bid fuck heads like you always run the cost up for people that you bullshit into hiring you because then they have to hire somebody like me to fix it.

Your plumbing knowledge is slightly better than your economics and business knowledge

So you got that going for you

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yep and you did not pay insurance, nor bond, nor SocSec.... you think you can go out and moonlight as a plumber for big bucks, wait until you fuck up somebody's house, and/or get killed (easier to do as an electrician than a plumber, but can still happen), and/or get nailed for various inspection violations, and/or have the tax boys find out.

I have worked in trades, always everything the best way possible and followed all rules as carefully as possible.... one reason why I'm not only still alive, still got all fingers... and low-bid fuck heads like you always run the cost up for people that you bullshit into hiring you because then they have to hire somebody like me to fix it.

Your plumbing knowledge is slightly better than your economics and business knowledge

So you got that going for you

- DSK

Yeah, it is shocking that you are still alive.  Very impressive.  Very few thought you could do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yeah, it is shocking that you are still alive.  Very impressive.  Very few thought you could do it.

No it's because I avoided shock

Did you test the relief AND the relief valve piping, when you installed this water heater? I don't care if you blow yourself up, but your family has probably suffered enough already

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No it's because I avoided shock

Did you test the relief AND the relief valve piping, when you installed this water heater? I don't care if you blow yourself up, but your family has probably suffered enough already

- DSK

Like I said.  Shocking you are still alive.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No it's because I avoided shock

Did you test the relief AND the relief valve piping, when you installed this water heater? I don't care if you blow yourself up, but your family has probably suffered enough already

- DSK

Are you saying that poor black people that can't find a minimum wage job are incapable of learning how to test the relief valve?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mikewof said:

Europe has open borders.

Yeah, and look how fucked up they are with uncontrolled immigration and refugees swamping them.  Europe will look back on this period in a couple of hundred years and despair at the entire nature of what "europe" is and was has totally changed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the clown show is over, we can circle back to the minimum wage.

The point about the hot water heater is that there is, apparently, a thriving hot water heater install market out there if Home Depot can charge $950 for an install.  

And, we know that if Steam can install a hot water heater, then ANYONE can do it.

So this is where an unskilled, out of work person has the opportunity to approach licensed plumbers and offer to work below minimum wage for the chance to get real world plumbing instruction and experience.  Then, once the person's skills increase, that person becomes more valuable to that plumber or other plumbers.

Minimum wage just prevents that first opportunity.  It doesn't keep long term employees down because anyone that tries just a little bit can make themselves worth more than minimum wage eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Yeah, and look how fucked up they are with uncontrolled immigration and refugees swamping them.  Europe will look back on this period in a couple of hundred years and despair at the entire nature of what "europe" is and was has totally changed.  

That's a very... Breivik-ist sort of view. 

Just saying.

23 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Likely tannerite.

No, it's just what happens if you fuck up the relief valve plumbing, and then something goes wrong with the thermostat.

 

etc, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, frenchie said:

That's a very... Breivik-ist sort of view. 

Just saying.

No, it's just what happens if you fuck up the relief valve plumbing, and then something goes wrong with the thermostat.

 

etc, etc.

Given that it was out in the middle of the desert and not hooked up to water or electricity - I'm betting that's not why it blew.  I'm not disputing that they don't go kaboom at home, just that your NV desert video previously was likely not a relief valve kaboom but rather some rednecks shooting at it filled with tannerite or something for shiggles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Yeah, and look how fucked up they are with uncontrolled immigration and refugees swamping them.  Europe will look back on this period in a couple of hundred years and despair at the entire nature of what "europe" is and was has totally changed.  

Maybe. Maybe not.

As it stands, the European countries with the most immigration are the ones with the fastest growing economies.

You want closed borders in the USA, okay. But don't blow smoke up my ass with your ideas of a "despair." In our current era of near 1% population growth, productive economies increasingly have to compete for immigrants, and that's likely to accelerate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

I fully support open borders, while screening for criminals and disease.  If we opened our borders, we could double our GDP in a relatively short amount of time.  As you said, we used to have open borders.  Open borders allows a person that wants to be productive to move to a place where they can be more productive.  

We get cheaper labor.  Win.  They make more money than they ever could and have the opportunity to increase their skills that didn't exist where they were from.  Win.  And they become consumers benefiting everyone.  It is a triple win.

But there is an loss that keeps the borders closed.

The Prisons industry is gradually losing their bread & butter nonviolent offenders as the War on Drugs pisses itself into legalization and decriminalization. So they need a new source of fresh meat, and they seem to have their sights set on undocumented immigrants. 

It's their wet dream ... a fully funded ICE budget, lots of brown people who want to get back to their families, and a willing, Spanish-speaking workforce to exploit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Given that it was out in the middle of the desert and not hooked up to water or electricity - I'm betting that's not why it blew.  I'm not disputing that they don't go kaboom at home, just that your NV desert video previously was likely not a relief valve kaboom but rather some rednecks shooting at it filled with tannerite or something for shiggles.

A reason why they sometimes blow is when someone drains the heater, and doesn't turn off the gas. If the interlock is cooked, it heats up the liner to cherry red, then the cold water tap is opened again ... boom.

That same screw up blew up a nursery in Denver some decades ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Yeah, and look how fucked up they are with uncontrolled immigration and refugees swamping them.  Europe will look back on this period in a couple of hundred years and despair at the entire nature of what "europe" is and was has totally changed.  

:lol: that’s my moronic racist welfare queen!

 

germanys doing pretty well with the migrants right now, ya dumb cunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mikewof said:

I didn't claim that there is anything wrong with property owners covering their costs. They should charge what the market will bear. Capitalism works fine in the rental market.

And no, I didn't write what you claimed up there. You made that up.

BS. You said that renters pay property taxes, just laundered through the owner. How is that any different to owners covering their costs??  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2020 at 8:36 PM, mikewof said:

The owner of the property ... unless he or she deducts the loss on the empty property from his or her taxable revenue. In which case, everyone pays the property tax.

And renters do in fact pay property tax without often receiving the benefits of being owners. Consider yourself educated to yet another aspect of institutional racism that you formerly convinced yourself doesn't actually exist.

Yes, the renter covers the cost of the owners mortgage, property tax and other costs. And all without receiving the benefit of owning the home. So fucking what?  There is a reason why owning a home is usually better than renting. How is that racist?  Last I checked lots of blacks own homes and lots of poor white folks rent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burning Man said:

Yes, the renter covers the cost of the owners mortgage, property tax and other costs. And all without receiving the benefit of owning the home. So fucking what?  There is a reason why owning a home is usually better than renting. How is that racist?  Last I checked lots of blacks own homes and lots of poor white folks rent. 

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Yes, the renter covers the cost of the owners mortgage, property tax and other costs. And all without receiving the benefit of owning the home. So fucking what?  There is a reason why owning a home is usually better than renting. How is that racist?  Last I checked lots of blacks own homes and lots of poor white folks rent. 

Rents are competitive, like anything else.  There's no guarantee those expenses will be covered and some landlords are left holding quite a bag of poop every now and then.

The big cities have distorted a lot of the rent profile, particularly in the last two decades.  Its easy to be a landlord if rents are increasing 5-10% / year and your mortgage is a fixed 30 at 3%.  It's a lot harder when the rents are falling.

That's why any move to increase supply are so vigorously opposed from multiple stakeholders. Free money to subsidize increasing rent payments to landlords?  What's not to like!?!?!?   BOOYAH!   Increasing supply to reduce the cost of housing in the first place?  Now that's just crazy talk. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Yes, the renter covers the cost of the owners mortgage, property tax and other costs. And all without receiving the benefit of owning the home. So fucking what?  There is a reason why owning a home is usually better than renting. How is that racist?  Last I checked lots of blacks own homes and lots of poor white folks rent. 

Many fewer black Americans own their home, proportionally.

Home ownership is dropping, the last few years, and it's dropping more steeply for black Americans.

Surely it's just economics

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Many fewer black Americans own their home, proportionally.

Home ownership is dropping, the last few years, and it's dropping more steeply for black Americans.

Surely it's just economics

- DSK

Gotta work for it... color has nothing to do with it other than convenient paring of unrelated facts drawing a invalid conclusion 

 

3ECEF0BE-275D-4E55-8769-8452E2BC00FE.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mikewof said:
18 hours ago, Dog said:

How is this racism? The circumstances are constant regardless of race.

It's not racism. It's institutional racism.

 Would you like to discuss why it's institutional racism?

Yes I would. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Many fewer black Americans own their home, proportionally.

Home ownership is dropping, the last few years, and it's dropping more steeply for black Americans.

Surely it's just economics

- DSK

What do you attribute it to then?  Do you imagine a group of white bankers cackling gleefully behind closed doors while smoking a cigar with their whiskey while inventing ways to fuck Black people over?  
 

No sorry, the one thing both black and white folk have in common is their money is the same shade of green and they both spend equally well. What bank in their right mind in 2020 would turn down free money by a black family who qualifies for a mortgage?  Yes, redlining existed once a long time ago. But last I checked, this is not 1958. 
 

So yes, it’s the economics, stupid.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burning Man said:
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Many fewer black Americans own their home, proportionally.

Home ownership is dropping, the last few years, and it's dropping more steeply for black Americans.

Surely it's just economics

 

What do you attribute it to then?  Do you imagine a group of white bankers cackling gleefully behind closed doors while smoking a cigar with their whiskey while inventing ways to fuck Black people over?  
 

No sorry, the one thing both black and white folk have in common is their money is the same shade of green and they both spend equally well. What bank in their right mind in 2020 would turn down free money by a black family who qualifies for a mortgage?  Yes, redlining existed once a long time ago. But last I checked, this is not 1958. 
 

So yes, it’s the economics, stupid.  

I imagine very little  gleeful cackling; OTOH here are the facts.

If black peoples' money and white peoples' money are equally good, then how do you explain the fact that home ownership rate is lower? And is dropping faster?

If opportunities are in fact equal, are black people somehow unaware of, or unwilling to take, these opportunities?

"It's the economics, stupid" pretty much confirms that there is something in "the economic system" harming black people. What could it be?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

What do you attribute it to then?  Do you imagine a group of white bankers cackling gleefully behind closed doors while smoking a cigar with their whiskey while inventing ways to fuck Black people over?  
 

No sorry, the one thing both black and white folk have in common is their money is the same shade of green and they both spend equally well. What bank in their right mind in 2020 would turn down free money by a black family who qualifies for a mortgage?  Yes, redlining existed once a long time ago. But last I checked, this is not 1958. 
 

So yes, it’s the economics, stupid.  

Wow. No wonder we have a racial problem. Oh yes I love this place.

Edit.

  • Cooing Chicago is gleeful cackling.
  • Hoping that gansta wars will ease the situation is gleeful cackling, too.
  • Presenting MLK as a cause for must issue is ________.
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

What do you attribute it to then?  Do you imagine a group of white bankers cackling gleefully behind closed doors while smoking a cigar with their whiskey while inventing ways to fuck Black people over?  
 

No sorry, the one thing both black and white folk have in common is their money is the same shade of green and they both spend equally well. What bank in their right mind in 2020 would turn down free money by a black family who qualifies for a mortgage?  Yes, redlining existed once a long time ago. But last I checked, this is not 1958. 
 

So yes, it’s the economics, stupid.  

:lol: the dumbest fucker.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I imagine very little  gleeful cackling; OTOH here are the facts.

If black peoples' money and white peoples' money are equally good, then how do you explain the fact that home ownership rate is lower? And is dropping faster?

If opportunities are in fact equal, are black people somehow unaware of, or unwilling to take, these opportunities?

"It's the economics, stupid" pretty much confirms that there is something in "the economic system" harming black people. What could it be?

- DSK

It could be that decades of failed social welfare policies that condemned inner city black folk to be stuck in generational poverty and dependency has most everything to do with why they are being left out of the economic system. It could also be that the War on Drugs has had a huge detrimental economic effect on those most closely tied to and involved in said drug business. And finally, it could be that decades of libbyrul policies that have attacked and weakened the American concept of a Traditional nuclear family has disproportionally disadvantaged black families as black men are commonly absent in their children’s lives through either choice or incarceration. 
 

Your turn now. What do YOU think is causing the economic system to deliberately harm blacks?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

It could be that decades of failed social welfare policies that condemned inner city black folk to be stuck in generational poverty and dependency has most everything to do with why they are being left out of the economic system. It could also be that the War on Drugs has had a huge detrimental economic effect on those most closely tied to and involved in said drug business. And finally, it could be that decades of libbyrul policies that have attacked and weakened the American concept of a Traditional nuclear family has disproportionally disadvantaged black families as black men are commonly absent in their children’s lives through either choice or incarceration. 
 

Your turn now. What do YOU think is causing the economic system to deliberately harm blacks?  

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

It could be that decades of failed social welfare policies that condemned inner city black folk to be stuck in generational poverty and dependency has most everything to do with why they are being left out of the economic system. It could also be that the War on Drugs has had a huge detrimental economic effect on those most closely tied to and involved in said drug business. And finally, it could be that decades of libbyrul policies that have attacked and weakened the American concept of a Traditional nuclear family has disproportionally disadvantaged black families as black men are commonly absent in their children’s lives through either choice or incarceration. 
 

Your turn now. What do YOU think is causing the economic system to deliberately harm blacks?  

(the bolded part) Yeah.... umm, sure. It could be that square wheels have been rolling better all along and that round wheels are a conspiracy by the goddam liberal elites! Makes just as much sense. But yours is a standard far-right answer and I'm sure it satisfies you. Because those goddam n*** on welfare!

It's more likely that if welfare has anything to do with it, there is some degree of collusion between owners of rental property and gov't, to keep black people stuck in places that are profitable to the renters. Every good capitalist (ahem) loves them some captive market and assured cash flow. And if you deliberately fuck up the schools, then they'll never learn better, either.

FWIW I agree that the War On Drugs has had a lot of undesired side effects. But I don't agree with your 2nd racist statement of your post above, that black people are necessarily more closely tied to illegal drugs. Law enforcement probably agrees with you though.... hmm what does that mean about law enforcement......

Good job showing that "it's the economics, stupid." And showing your opinion of black people, coincidentally.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Your turn now. What do YOU think is causing the economic system to deliberately harm blacks?  

FWIW, I think the breakdown of the nuclear family is the #1 source of ethnic disparity in wealth.  It's just math.  It's a lot cheaper for four people to live in 1 house than 1 + 1 with two children trading back and forth who live in two houses.  Over 20 years, that's a lot of 'wealth' that has disappeared into rent or interest payments.

There's also a convolution of race with class.  In truth, I think it's a bit of a distinction without a difference, but it's there, nonetheless.

----------------------

But, relative to the question, most of the direct harm is induced though regional segregation combined with lack of competition.  For example, a lot of it is tied up in 'transactional fees' that impact mobility.  For example - https://www.zillow.com/research/upfront-cost-of-renting-2020-26425/

Regions of low mobility become areas where additional fees that feed off of that lack of mobility.  The same is true of groceries.  Of health care.  Of car insurance rates.  Its death by a 1000 cuts, all in the name of 'risk' management.

So, predominantly black areas become areas where fees are charged disproportionately to black applicants.  Why can't they move to areas where they AREN'T charged as much for the transaction?  That's where you do end up with things like criminal records and credit history mattering.  And you DO run into cases where landlords simply don't want to rent to black sounding names.  Is it 100%?  Of course not.  But is it 5-10%?  That becomes 5-10% that cannot escape the 'fee jungle'.  There's a pool of underclass that cannot get out.  Its not always the same person.  But maybe it takes them 2 years longer to get out, and during that two years, the fees keep adding.

These strategies are deliberate.  Again, they tend not to be 'racists' so much as 'classist'.   I've told the story of the 'alternative energy' REIT that wanted to put solar/wind into trailer parks - not because they wanted to save the planet, but because they KNEW they could charge the park more per kwh than if they sold it to traditional residential because the people who live in trailer parks can't afford to move and local housing restrictions prevent them from actually moving the trailer.  This was 100% cold blooded by intent, SUBSIDIZED because your tax dollars because it was a 'green program'.

And who supports those REITS?  Investors in 401k's, Institutional investors putting in in their teacher's union funds, really anyone that needs returns.

Why doesn't capitalism fix this problem?  The same reason there isn't much competition in physical Cable TV.  It becomes a race to the bottom.  The ONLY reason that the fees make sense is because there's no other options.  If you tried to get in and charge a 'lower' fee - something that capitalism says you should do right? - you immediately start a death spiral with the incumbent.  Only THEY have already paid their startup costs - they can go lower / faster than you can and for what purpose?  "Winning' means destroying the market for the thing you're trying to sell.  There is no moat, other than first mover and if you're not the first mover, there's no reason to play at all.  Capitalism CANNOT fix that problem because it doesn't WANT to fix that problem.  And unlike cable, there will never be a 'wireless alternative' to things like housing.

Its PROFITABLE to deliberately harm blacks.  Its profitable to deliberately harm ANYONE who isn't lucky or skillful or wicked enough to get a seat on the bus. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites