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.
By reading to the kids, maybe they'll learn to speak proper understandable English (without the Ebonics). For a start.
And how about giving them some lists of other options on naming their kids? At some places where I worked (particularly my former law firm), an application or resume with a name starting in a Ka or K' (i.e. K'Neisha) went right in File 13. A smart qualified African American candidate with the name Diane would have gotten notice, an interview, and probably the job.
I had a black co-worker who was forbidden from answering the phone because her jargon was impossible to understand by customers.
Punishing the child for the sins of the parent, right there. And while maybe not strictly illegal, it's a bit disappointing to see a law firm doing it. Pretty good example of not getting a fair shake.
By reading to the kids, maybe they'll learn to speak proper understandable English (without the Ebonics). For a start.
And how about giving them some lists of other options on naming their kids? At some places where I worked (particularly my former law firm), an application or resume with a name starting in a Ka or K' (i.e. K'Neisha) went right in File 13. A smart qualified African American candidate with the name Diane would have gotten notice, an interview, and probably the job.
This isn't a proposal for reparations or for producing precisely equal outcomes. This is a series of proposals that would go a long way to narrowing the persistent wealth gap that exists between Black & White Americans.
These proposals are mostly not race specific or targeted. Rather they are targeted or means tested to all U.S. citizens based on income which would disproportionately help Blacks but it would also help low income households from all backgrounds build wealth.
The median household wealth in the U.S. for Whites is roughly $170,000 vs. $17,000 for Blacks (2016 dollars).
That has to change. We can't look at ourselves as Americans and think that is ok. This isn't about tearing down one group to build up another. This is about building wealth for Black households (and others) which will not only helps Black households but makes our overall economy more productive.
1. Baby Bonds: The U.S. government would give all children below a certain income born in the U.S. with a $1,000 savings account. Each year, the government would automatically deposit up to another $2,000 into that account, depending on family income. People would not be able to dig into the funds until they hit 18, and the uses of the money would generally be limited to paying for college, vocational training, buying a house and saving for retirement. The U.S. Treasury Department would manage the accounts.
2. Expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): The EITC is a program is an existing refundable tax credit for low- to moderate-income working individuals and couples that boosts the paychecks for working people. This should be expanded/increased so their is more take home pay for those working at or near the bottom.
3. Increase Black Homeownership: There remains a large gap in homeownership rates between Blacks and Whites. Homeownership (and equity) is the ticket to the American middle class. The Urban Institute has a five point plan for increasing black homeownership.
4. Pass significant Health Care Reform based on the "Healthy Americans Act" which was legislation co-sponsored in 2009 by Ron Wyden (D) and Robert Bennett (R).
The Healthy Americans Act would transition away from employer-provided health insurance to having individuals/households choose their health care plan from state-approved private insurers. The act provides every American citizen (and legal resident) with a voucher to purchase a health plan providing a minimum set of care. The voucher or plan would be paid for on a sliding scale basis based on income. There would be no pre-existing conditions. Last but not least, by guaranteeing health insurance to all Americans the act would prevent households from having to go into bankruptcy due to a health crisis.
Ok so I can agree with the baby bonds, it's a good idea in my opinion.
Expanded earned income tax credits goes directly towards a higher amount of scratch-off tickets and car audio systems, so that's a no go.
I agree that home ownership is one of the single most important way that a person can start to build equity and rise themselves out of a lower class situation and into the middle class. Allowing them a larger amount of their income to go towards home payment is not the way to do it, as this will almost always lead to foreclosure. Teaching the Dave Ramsey system of becoming debt free would be a much better option of education that allows people to be less of a slave to debtors.
I'm ok with a voucher based health care system. I am a realtor and I don't buy health insurance simply because I'm fairly healthy and to me the 700 bucks a month is like money down the drain.
One thing I feel we already have in this country is a basic level of emergency health care available to everyone, even illegals. I don't feel that this basic level of service should be tied to collection agencies and ruin your credit. If you go get a hospital procedure, can't pay it back immediately, it shouldn't ruin your credit.
Nope, taxation is foundational to a functional society and market economy. It is fantasy land to imagine a world in which everyone received their “pre-tax†income.
The government is critical to the existence of the economy: Property rights are enforced by courts, money is issued by the government, the military “protects†us. There is no world in which “pre-tax†income could ever meaningfully belong to its recipients alone, because without taxes, there is no government, and government is necessary to create the roads, sewers, streetlights, courts, etc. that make obtaining the income possible.
Disproportionately on a percentage basis yes, it would benefit African-Americans but when viewed in absolute numbers it would help more whites.
Taxation and spending for the benefit of all is one thing but directing the taxes to benefit one target group is not. It would be like telling the military to only protect northern states or only installing streetlights and sewers in the barrios.
Why are you looking at wealth rather than income? Maybe the problem is spending choices. How many times have you seen poor people driving a $50k pimped out truck that will end up worthless meanwhile renting a place to live?
Taxation and spending for the benefit of all is one thing but directing the taxes to benefit one target group is not. It would be like telling the military to only protect northern states or only installing streetlights and sewers in the barrios.
You forgot to subtract the number it would hurt.
The government has numerous means tested programs which is exactly what these programs are (means tested by income not race).
Based on your logic, I guess we should end Medicare (limited to seniors), K - 12 education, farm subsidies and any programs targeted to disabled Americans, etc.
By reading to the kids, maybe they'll learn to speak proper understandable English (without the Ebonics). For a start.
And how about giving them some lists of other options on naming their kids? At some places where I worked (particularly my former law firm), an application or resume with a name starting in a Ka or K' (i.e. K'Neisha) went right in File 13. A smart qualified African American candidate with the name Diane would have gotten notice, an interview, and probably the job.
I had a black co-worker who was forbidden from answering the phone because her jargon was impossible to understand by customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seguinite
Punishing the child for the sins of the parent, right there. And while maybe not strictly illegal, it's a bit disappointing to see a law firm doing it. Pretty good example of not getting a fair shake.
There are many studies done on this form of discrimination. People with black sounding names have their resumes rejected way more often, even if they meet the criteria for the position. This poster said if they got a resume with the name Diane and she was a smart black woman, then she would've gotten the job. The thing is the name Diane can be a white lady's name. Throwing out the resume of a K'Neisha, that is highly likely to be a black person and it is an easy identifier.
I like how they said a smart qualified African American candidate named Diane would have gotten notice, as if someone who was named K'Neisha isn't smart and should be punished for the name their parents gave them. It seems like at her law firm, they would extrapolate a lot of things based off of the person's name, completely disregarding any qualifications that they do have. Diane could be white, so we can call her in for an interview, if we are pleasantly surprised then so be it. K'Neisha is definitely black, she may not be a good fit here, so we can discard her resume, regardless of her skills and qualifications.
Who says the disparity in household wealth is an injustice we need to redress?
It is diversity, pure and simple. Some are rich, some are poor - some are ambitious, some are bums. Chips falling appropriately.
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.
