Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It’s said that if you give a person a fish that person can eat for a day but if you teach a person to fish the person can eat for a lifetime. This, however, assumes an infinite supply of fish in the area. When scarcity exists teaching others to fish, while you yourself are dependent upon fish, would likely threaten one’s own ability to eat. Hence, for those who know how to fish would it not be better to give people fish instead of teaching them how to fish? That way the supply could be rationed to those who do not know how to fish and those who know how to fish can keep their wealthy allocation, thus preserving their status.
In our economy, there is not an infinite demand for educated people. There is not an infinite demand for doctors, lawyers, chemist, engineers, lawyers, etc. The fact is that only about 26% of the jobs in the economy require a college degree and many of those jobs don’t care what the degree is in, which means that the degree is not really needed, but rather, simply a filtering criteria. If the vast majority of the labor force became educated, there would not be enough educated jobs for them, just like there would not be enough fish in a lake if too many people started catching them faster than they can reproduce.
When society tells people that they can have the same status and wealth as others if they simply work hard and follows the rules, it’s not really true. It’s only true to the degree that there is a supply demand gap where supply falls short of demand and certainly the demand for educated skills sets in the economy is much smaller than the available labor pool in the economy. Secondly, we all cannot have high status because status is a relative construct. Thirdly, when we accept the lies then we also accept that if people don’t “make it’ that it’s their own fault for not working hard and following the rules like those who have “made it” did, which makes it easy to rationalize not helping people.
In light of that, I submit to you the proposition that classism and racism are conscious or subconscious efforts to preserve status and rank. In other words, classism and racism goal is to prevent others from learning and hence competing for scarce resources that create rank and wealth. Racism and classism are really all about economics and the allocation of scarce resources. Hence, as the general rule racism seeks to keep a certain race in control of scarce resources, while classism, on the other hand, seeks to keep their disproportionate allocation of scarce resources from the lower classes. Racism and Classism are overlapping because one of the impacts of racism on the oppressed race is that it disproportionately places them in the lower classes resulting in their race being the disproportionate victims of classism as well.
How does politics in America facilitate racism, classism and the allocation of scarce resources? If one wanted to keep blacks from rising what party would one vote for or against? If one wanted to keep poor people from rising what party would one vote for or against? It does not appear really that any political party is trying to teach the lower class to fish. The democrats promote giving people fish while the republicans are against giving fish but offer no teaching, just preaching of personal responsibility. In either case, neither approach is an efficient means of making the lower class or racial groups more competitive. In other words, simply giving people fish or simply preaching to people that they should be more personally responsible, is not very effective and maybe purposely so.
National politics in America is a rich white man’s occupation for the most part, regardless if they are democrat or republicans, liberal or conservative. The fact is the minorities and the poor are underrepresented in the body politics, relative to their numbers in the general population. More than anything else, the interest of the rich are being represented and protected via our political system because money buys influence. Even if minorities due rise in the process, they are beholden to white voter and the dollars of the rich and hence that is who they must represent policy wise to be electable. Hence, scarce resources are not really threatened by redistribution as is embellished.
If the poor and some minorities are liabilities for working people, then teaching them how to fish seems to be the most logical means of turning these liabilities into assets, unless people really fear that teaching them to fish will cost them more than keeping them ignorant does. Would not the reduction of welfare rolls, inmate incarceration cost, indigent care, Medicaid put money back into the pockets of tax payers? Would not the increased incomes put extra revenues on the balance sheets of small and large businesses? I fail to see the downside in investing in the poor, if opportunity is available for all who are willing to work hard and follow the rules. Either people recognizing that there gains may very well mean their loss or people don’t believe that the poor and minorities have the innate capacities to do any better than they are. Hence, any aid is simply a waist and permanent subsidy.
It’s said that if you give a person a fish that person can eat for a day but if you teach a person to fish the person can eat for a lifetime. This, however, assumes an infinite supply of fish in the area. When scarcity exists teaching others to fish, while you yourself are dependent upon fish, would likely threaten one’s own ability to eat. Hence, for those who know how to fish would it not be better to give people fish instead of teaching them how to fish? That way the supply could be rationed to those who do not know how to fish and those who know how to fish can keep their wealthy allocation, thus preserving their status.
In our economy, there is not an infinite demand for educated people. There is not an infinite demand for doctors, lawyers, chemist, engineers, lawyers, etc. The fact is that only about 26% of the jobs in the economy require a college degree and many of those jobs don’t care what the degree is in, which means that the degree is not really needed, but rather, simply a filtering criteria. If the vast majority of the labor force became educated, there would not be enough educated jobs for them, just like there would not be enough fish in a lake if too many people started catching them faster than they can reproduce.
When society tells people that they can have the same status and wealth as others if they simply work hard and follows the rules, it’s not really true. It’s only true to the degree that there is a supply demand gap where supply falls short of demand and certainly the demand for educated skills sets in the economy is much smaller than the available labor pool in the economy. Secondly, we all cannot have high status because status is a relative construct. Thirdly, when we accept the lies then we also accept that if people don’t “make it’ that it’s their own fault for not working hard and following the rules like those who have “made it” did, which makes it easy to rationalize not helping people.
In light of that, I submit to you the proposition that classism and racism are conscious or subconscious efforts to preserve status and rank. In other words, classism and racism goal is to prevent others from learning and hence competing for scarce resources that create rank and wealth. Racism and classism are really all about economics and the allocation of scarce resources. Hence, as the general rule racism seeks to keep a certain race in control of scarce resources, while classism, on the other hand, seeks to keep their disproportionate allocation of scarce resources from the lower classes. Racism and Classism are overlapping because one of the impacts of racism on the oppressed race is that it disproportionately places them in the lower classes resulting in their race being the disproportionate victims of classism as well.
How does politics in America facilitate racism, classism and the allocation of scarce resources? If one wanted to keep blacks from rising what party would one vote for or against? If one wanted to keep poor people from rising what party would one vote for or against? It does not appear really that any political party is trying to teach the lower class to fish. The democrats promote giving people fish while the republicans are against giving fish but offer no teaching, just preaching of personal responsibility. In either case, neither approach is an efficient means of making the lower class or racial groups more competitive. In other words, simply giving people fish or simply preaching to people that they should be more personally responsible, is not very effective and maybe purposely so.
National politics in America is a rich white man’s occupation for the most part, regardless if they are democrat or republicans, liberal or conservative. The fact is the minorities and the poor are underrepresented in the body politics, relative to their numbers in the general population. More than anything else, the interest of the rich are being represented and protected via our political system because money buys influence. Even if minorities due rise in the process, they are beholden to white voter and the dollars of the rich and hence that is who they must represent policy wise to be electable. Hence, scarce resources are not really threatened by redistribution as is embellished.
If the poor and some minorities are liabilities for working people, then teaching them how to fish seems to be the most logical means of turning these liabilities into assets, unless people really fear that teaching them to fish will cost them more than keeping them ignorant does. Would not the reduction of welfare rolls, inmate incarceration cost, indigent care, Medicaid put money back into the pockets of tax payers? Would not the increased incomes put extra revenues on the balance sheets of small and large businesses? I fail to see the downside in investing in the poor, if opportunity is available for all who are willing to work hard and follow the rules. Either people recognizing that there gains may very well mean their loss or people don’t believe that the poor and minorities have the innate capacities to do any better than they are. Hence, any aid is simply a waist and permanent subsidy.
If the public high school drop-out rate were not so high for some minorities you might have a point. However, the failure to stay in school reflects an unwilliness to "learn to fish", IMO. YMMV
There are educated fools. Being educated doesn't mean the common sense part of the brain is connected. Also did someone graduate with a C- average from a state college versus an A+ from USC?
It’s said that if you give a person a fish that person can eat for a day but if you teach a person to fish the person can eat for a lifetime. This, however, assumes an infinite supply of fish in the area. When scarcity exists teaching others to fish, while you yourself are dependent upon fish, would likely threaten one’s own ability to eat. Hence, for those who know how to fish would it not be better to give people fish instead of teaching them how to fish? That way the supply could be rationed to those who do not know how to fish and those who know how to fish can keep their wealthy allocation, thus preserving their status.
In our economy, there is not an infinite demand for educated people. There is not an infinite demand for doctors, lawyers, chemist, engineers, lawyers, etc. The fact is that only about 26% of the jobs in the economy require a college degree and many of those jobs don’t care what the degree is in, which means that the degree is not really needed, but rather, simply a filtering criteria. If the vast majority of the labor force became educated, there would not be enough educated jobs for them, just like there would not be enough fish in a lake if too many people started catching them faster than they can reproduce.
When society tells people that they can have the same status and wealth as others if they simply work hard and follows the rules, it’s not really true. It’s only true to the degree that there is a supply demand gap where supply falls short of demand and certainly the demand for educated skills sets in the economy is much smaller than the available labor pool in the economy. Secondly, we all cannot have high status because status is a relative construct. Thirdly, when we accept the lies then we also accept that if people don’t “make it’ that it’s their own fault for not working hard and following the rules like those who have “made it” did, which makes it easy to rationalize not helping people.
In light of that, I submit to you the proposition that classism and racism are conscious or subconscious efforts to preserve status and rank. In other words, classism and racism goal is to prevent others from learning and hence competing for scarce resources that create rank and wealth. Racism and classism are really all about economics and the allocation of scarce resources. Hence, as the general rule racism seeks to keep a certain race in control of scarce resources, while classism, on the other hand, seeks to keep their disproportionate allocation of scarce resources from the lower classes. Racism and Classism are overlapping because one of the impacts of racism on the oppressed race is that it disproportionately places them in the lower classes resulting in their race being the disproportionate victims of classism as well.
How does politics in America facilitate racism, classism and the allocation of scarce resources? If one wanted to keep blacks from rising what party would one vote for or against? If one wanted to keep poor people from rising what party would one vote for or against? It does not appear really that any political party is trying to teach the lower class to fish. The democrats promote giving people fish while the republicans are against giving fish but offer no teaching, just preaching of personal responsibility. In either case, neither approach is an efficient means of making the lower class or racial groups more competitive. In other words, simply giving people fish or simply preaching to people that they should be more personally responsible, is not very effective and maybe purposely so.
National politics in America is a rich white man’s occupation for the most part, regardless if they are democrat or republicans, liberal or conservative. The fact is the minorities and the poor are underrepresented in the body politics, relative to their numbers in the general population. More than anything else, the interest of the rich are being represented and protected via our political system because money buys influence. Even if minorities due rise in the process, they are beholden to white voter and the dollars of the rich and hence that is who they must represent policy wise to be electable. Hence, scarce resources are not really threatened by redistribution as is embellished.
If the poor and some minorities are liabilities for working people, then teaching them how to fish seems to be the most logical means of turning these liabilities into assets, unless people really fear that teaching them to fish will cost them more than keeping them ignorant does. Would not the reduction of welfare rolls, inmate incarceration cost, indigent care, Medicaid put money back into the pockets of tax payers? Would not the increased incomes put extra revenues on the balance sheets of small and large businesses? I fail to see the downside in investing in the poor, if opportunity is available for all who are willing to work hard and follow the rules. Either people recognizing that there gains may very well mean their loss or people don’t believe that the poor and minorities have the innate capacities to do any better than they are. Hence, any aid is simply a waist and permanent subsidy.
I can't be bothered to read that entire diatribe but wanted to add that "teaching someone to fish" isn't meant to be a literal translation. It's meant to teach people how to become self sufficient and fend and provide for themselves, not be reliant on some other entity to provide for them.
Yep. The top dogs of the Democrats are white elitists who do not want minorities anywhere near their manicured suburbs so they continue to give them fish lest they wander away from the inner cities.
Republicans (actual republicans, not neo-cons) do not offer fish nor do they offer fishing instruction. That's up to the individual. The republican, while not out to help the minorities, doesn't purposely bar their way.
Yep. The top dogs of the Democrats are white elitists who do not want minorities anywhere near their manicured suburbs so they continue to give them fish lest they wander away from the inner cities.
Republicans (actual republicans, not neo-cons) do not offer fish nor do they offer fishing instruction. That's up to the individual. The republican, while not out to help the minorities, doesn't purposely bar their way.
A conservative doesn't give a damn one way another about your race. You do your best and rise on your own merit.
A conservative would encourage you to do well and maybe find someone a mentor or job, but they would not believe in special opportunities for Asians, Blacks, Whites or whatever. If we do that we bar the best person from their job. That is bad for the country.
A conservative doesn't give a damn one way another about your race. You do your best and rise on your own merit.
A conservative would encourage you to do well and maybe find someone a mentor or job, but they would not believe in special opportunities for Asians, Blacks, Whites or whatever. If we do that we bar the best person from their job. That is bad for the country.
Oh snap, that doesn't leave any varible for victimhood.
People might not know this but the Democratic Party has historically been the party choice of Southern whites, most of which were racist. Lincoln was a Republican and his freeing the slaves bolstered the popularity of the Democratic Party even more.
During the civil rights movement, a greater percentage of Republicans supported civil rights legislation than Democrats. However, many southern whites were upset with the Democratic Party for its supported of civil rights legislation, because most southern whites were democrats but also racist at that time.
In opposition to the support the Democratic Party gave to civil rights, many southern politicians defected and formed the Dixicrat Party. The Dixicrat Party was formed for racist reason. It wanted to uphold segregation and deny black people rights and the pursuit of equality. In other words, it wanted to deny black people scarce resources and thus preserve white privilege and status.
The Dixicrat Party proved not able to get enough vote to win national election for Presidency, and the party eventually became defunct. However, its member and followers did not fold back into the Democratic ranks, but rather, became Republicans. In other words, the “movement” (of political racism) shifted to the Republican Party and a Southern strategy was born for Republican presidential candidates boosted by an infusion of southern racist who wanted to keep black people down.
Anyone who knows history knows that racism always has had a political conduit or manifestation. There have always been people who wanted to keep black people down and who picked the political party that seemed to best represent that interest. Over time the political conduit of racism interest has shifted from Democrats to Republicans.
This is not to suggest that there are not racist liberals. There are people who are racist that are also liberal, but they are not “one issue voters” who will cut off their nose to spite their face. They may have labor interest and find the democrats best represent their labor interest, even though they are racist and hence chose to vote not to keep blacks down, but to keep themselves up.
In conclusion, politics has always been conduits for racist interest and the most passionate racist have always gravitated to the party that best represented their interest to keep blacks down. That party used to be the Democratic Party but since the civil rights movement that party has become the Republican Party. It really does not take rocket science to figure out why the US is the only majority white Western nation that does not have socialist type policies. Its primarily because many people do not want to see people who do not look like them as the disproportionate benefactors of such liberalism.
Indeed, based on their 2001 study—which they say is still applicable today—the three researchers concluded that race is a major factor in the generosity or lack thereof built into American social assistance programs.
With unabashed bluntness, the study—completed by Harvard economics professors Alesina and Edward Gleaser, and Bruce Sacerdote of Dartmouth—stated: “Race is the single most important predictor of support for welfare. America’s troubled race relations are clearly a major reason for the absence of an American welfare state.”
The study goes on to conclude that, “A natural generalization of race-based theory is that Americans think of the poor as members of some different group other than themselves, whereas Europeans think of the poor as members of their own group.”
Note that I am not basing my thesis on "personal experience", as I never do, but rather, documented history and contemporary studies done at major research universities. I want to post another excerpt from a Harvard and Dartmoth study titled “Why Doesn’t the U.S. Have a European-Style Welfare State?”
Quote:
the researchers indicate that White Americans have no problem giving to programs that are seen as supportive of Whites, but some oppose programs which seem to support Blacks.
“People have a negative, hostile reaction when they see welfare recipients of a different race, and a sympathetic reaction when they see welfare recipients of their own race,” the study states.
And, at least two of the researchers contacted recently said they believed their study was as relevant now as it was a decade ago. Indeed, today, as an urgency to cut the deficit ramps up, entitlement programs—which typically help Blacks and other minorities—are on the chopping block.
I think these are the type of studies that many people do not want to hear. I would bet anything that such studies upsets a lot of people for no other reason than exposing a truth. Its not unlike a women asking if the jeans make her look fat and the man answering the question with "you are fat". Many, if not most people want to be told what makes them feel good and not what makes them feel bad. However, telling people what they want to hear does not incentivize getting better. Sometimes feeling bad inspires people to change but if you only tell them what they want to hear or nothing at all, then it slows the process of change, if not stops it. This is why I reject those people who say talking about race and racism is counter productive. Talking about race and racism exposes truths that can inspire positive change....unless one is too racist to change and instead lashes out.
“Race is the single most important predictor of support for welfare. America’s troubled race relations are clearly a major reason for the absence of an American welfare state.” [/color][/b][/i]
America's troubled race relations? The biggest trouble in race relations are left wing politicians who use race as a form of power. They will separate everyone based on race and class as much as they can so that they can say to the people they want under their power "Look at what I have done for you and look at how you have been oppressed. We will give you money and food so vote for me." The bottom line is that it is not abou thelp but it is about power.
It really does show the how the "free ice cream" mentality pervades everything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
