Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Racial UnemploymentFollow

#1 Aug 20 2013 at 2:07 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Screenshot


That's a graph showing the ratio of unemployment between white and black Americans since 1963. To make it easier on yourself, it essentially says that from 1963-today, there has been around 2-2.5 African Americans unemployed for every unemployed white person (note that data before 1979 includes Hispanics; data was divided between "white" and "non-white"). This has been the case if the president & Congress were controlled by Democrats, Republicans or mixed in whatever flavor. Through periods of welfare restrictions and periods of increased low-income aid. In economic recessions and economic booms. Through tax cuts and tax hikes. It seems largely unmovable.

So what can be done? What should be done? Can this be changed? Education? Work study? Repeal minimum wage so everyone can get $1.25/hr jobs? Any bright ideas?

Edited, Aug 20th 2013 3:08pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Aug 20 2013 at 2:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,337 posts
.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#3 Aug 20 2013 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
******
44,274 posts
Blame the democrats.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Aug 20 2013 at 2:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
Robots. Replace everyone with robots.

Silver colored robots. Or maybe orange ones. With stickers. The stickers make them go faster.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#5 Aug 20 2013 at 2:31 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Robots. Replace everyone with robots.

Silver colored robots. Or maybe orange ones. With stickers. The stickers make them go faster.
Paint them red, everyone knows red goes faster.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#6 Aug 20 2013 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,755 posts
I don't think there are any easy answers, or else the trend wouldn't have stayed the same for so long. Honestly I think the best and most effective thing that can be done starts at home with parents that raise their kids to be self-sufficient, work hard, and not expect things to be given to them. That can be said for any race or culture, but it seems particularly evident in black culture.

Bill Cosby tried to say something along those lines several years ago and was blasted for it by many in the black community, but I thought he made some excellent points and I agreed with pretty much everything he said. I guess you could say it's partially education, but a lot of it is learning life skills and realizing that "expressing yourself" takes a back seat to being able to communicate and conduct yourself in a manner that makes you employable. And if the parents aren't there (whether they be Mom and Dad, Grandma and Grandpa, Aunt and Uncle, whoever is raising the kid) and aren't holding the kid to a higher standard they will just go along doing what they will do and then wonder why they can't get a job. Why can't they get a job when they can't be understood by everyone, why can't they get a job when they don't finish High School let alone college, why can't they get a job because they have a criminal record, etc. etc.

So sayeth a middle-aged white guy who can't possibly understand what's going on. But I can tell you if I had a small business and was looking to hire some young help, you give me the choice between a black kid that maybe graduated high school (but almost as likely didn't, not statisticly) and talks like a gangster on the street with his pants down around his knees and anyone else that can dress, speak, and present themselves respectably and I know which person I'd hire.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#7gbaji, Posted: Aug 20 2013 at 2:54 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This. Definitely this. Smiley: grin
#8 Aug 20 2013 at 2:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Robots. Replace everyone with robots.

Silver colored robots. Or maybe orange ones. With stickers. The stickers make them go faster.
Paint them red, everyone knows red goes faster.



Can't, that triggers the robocommunist revolution, then they overthrow humanity and chop everyone up to make robot bearing grease. Also, you can't see the red blinky robopocalypse warning lights against a red chassis.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#9 Aug 20 2013 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
DA RED WUNZ GO FASTA!
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#10 Aug 20 2013 at 3:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,999 posts
Kakar wrote:
I don't think there are any easy answers, or else the trend wouldn't have stayed the same for so long. Honestly I think the best and most effective thing that can be done starts at home with parents that raise their kids to be self-sufficient, work hard, and not expect things to be given to them. That can be said for any race or culture, but it seems particularly evident in black culture.


I agree with the idea, but I'd make a note of caution of "the best and most effective thing that can be done starts at home." I don't know if Jophiel has a chart of, say, literacy among blacks, or high school graduations, or those attaining a degree in higher education. But IF the rates of education are increasing over time but the unemployment ratio remains relatively the same, it would seem to imply that there's a problem with society, not necessarily with blacks failing to better themselves (or at least gain the minimum requirements for decent employment ie education).

Of course if the opposite is true (education has stagnated or even declined), then it implies what you said.

That said, I fully agree that the most effective remedy is grassroots and starts with the life at home. It's pretty obvious that government cannot replace the benefit of having interested and encouraging parents.

Edit: Also, about the Bill Cosby thing: I love his speeches on this topic. Bill O'Reilly made one a month or so ago - old white men seemed to eat it up but go figure, I didn't see anyone else applauding his words. I guess one Bill has more appeal than the other Smiley: lol

Edited, Aug 20th 2013 5:51pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#11 Aug 20 2013 at 4:12 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Kakar wrote:
But I can tell you if I had a small business and was looking to hire some young help, you give me the choice between a black kid that maybe graduated high school (but almost as likely didn't, not statisticly) and talks like a gangster on the street with his pants down around his knees and anyone else that can dress, speak, and present themselves respectably and I know which person I'd hire.
What about another kid but white dressed the same and talkin' trash (we got them around these parts)?

Separate the black from the poor street kid.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#12 Aug 20 2013 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Jophiel wrote:


So what can be done? What should be done? Can this be changed? Education? Work study? Repeal minimum wage so everyone can get $1.25/hr jobs? Any bright ideas?


Integration, or perhaps immersion. Smiley: sly

All black police departments.

Umm, reverse tanning beds

I guess I'm not sufficiently convinced we're over the racism hump and until we are it won't really change. Our inmates are disproportionately black too. But I gotta believe we're making progress. Black unemployment, sure, education, family and education resources, stuff to get families out of the poverty it's all good whether or not it impacts the ratio (hopefully it helps the bottom line).

Edited, Aug 21st 2013 12:27am by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#13 Aug 20 2013 at 4:28 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,742 posts
Export them. You seem to have a steady supply.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#14gbaji, Posted: Aug 20 2013 at 4:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Or it could mean that the rate of employment among blacks without a certain amount of education has decreased over the same period of time. So perhaps back in 1963 70% didn't have a high school education, 29% did, and 1% had a college education, with unemployment rates of say 10%, 5%, and 1% respectively, but today, 35% have no high school education, 45% do, and 20% have a college education, but with unemployment rates of say 20%, 5%, and 1% respectively. This would mean that an African American with a high school or better education had the exact same chance of a job as before, and the rate of those with such educations has increased dramatically, but the resulting overall unemployment rate remains about the same (actually a little higher with my hypothetical numbers).
#15 Aug 20 2013 at 5:12 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
gbaji wrote:
We have neighborhoods with ridiculously high unemployment rates, largely because there physically aren't enough jobs for the number of people living in the area. This is a situation which can only happen after a few generations of social welfare is applied.

Granted right now, we're short on jobs, but as Joph mentioned, the economy (unemployment rates included) hasn't changed the ratios, so what I think you must mean is we don't have enough jobs for blacks.

How come?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#16 Aug 20 2013 at 5:16 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
I can't decide if this is the most out of touch with reality gbaji has ever been. I'm leaning heavily towards yes.

FYI, Black teenagers are FAR more likely to go to college than white teenagers are now. In 2010, 14% of college students in the US were Black (12% of the US population is Black). 61% of students are White (72% of the population is White).

Black students, however, typically end up going to worse schools, primarily due to lack of financial resources to go elsewhere. They're also vastly more likely to be unprepared for the coursework at better schools, due to receiving sub-standard education for most of their life and being almost completely separated from their own cultural groups - studies between similarly performing Black colleges and primarily White colleges, Black students were vastly more likely to drop out of the White schools than Black schools.

The severe lack of quality Black schools makes this difficult. Few schools have made the efforts to place a significant enough value on diversity to avoid this issue (and I'll admit I say this with a certain amount of pride in Rutgers, which does typically value diversity heavily).

So what happens is that Black students, despite being more likely to attend college, are either forced to attend sub-par colleges due to financial restraints, sub-par colleges due to cultural bias, or deal with the stress of cultural severance and attend schools they don't fit into. They're also, regardless, far less likely to gain employment than a white applicant of lesser skill and experience. And they face lower pay and a reduced rate of promotions, stagnating their potential for continuing development and influence.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#17 Aug 20 2013 at 5:18 PM Rating: Good
******
21,718 posts
The obvious answer is to reinstate the mandatory work programs of the pre-civil war era.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#18 Aug 20 2013 at 5:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
True. Very little black unemployment around 1859 or so.. especially in the agribusiness sector of Virginia, N./S. Carolina, Georgia, etc.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Aug 20 2013 at 5:28 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,742 posts
That will just lead to unemployed machines. You're just creating the same issue with a different demographic.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#20 Aug 20 2013 at 5:31 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
And take all the jobs away from the good, upstanding white folk.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#21gbaji, Posted: Aug 20 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Um... Because blacks are disproportionately likely to grow up in a poor neighborhood with not enough jobs for the number of people in them. And that is because when we implemented our social welfare system, blacks were disproportionately poor due to direct racist government policies, and that welfare system serves to maintain the social ratios at the time it was implemented rather than fix inequities between groups. I could have sworn that I just explained this.
#22 Aug 20 2013 at 6:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
FYI, Black teenagers are FAR more likely to go to college than white teenagers are now. In 2010, 14% of college students in the US were Black (12% of the US population is Black). 61% of students are White (72% of the population is White).


That's wonderful. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the point I just made. I was talking about how blacks who don't get a high school diploma or college degree are less likely to be employed today than in 1963. Thus, even though the overall education level among blacks (compared to whites even) has increased in the US, the relative level of unemployment has not changed.

Quote:
Black students, however, typically end up going to worse schools, primarily due to lack of financial resources to go elsewhere. They're also vastly more likely to be unprepared for the coursework at better schools, due to receiving sub-standard education for most of their life and being almost completely separated from their own cultural groups - studies between similarly performing Black colleges and primarily White colleges, Black students were vastly more likely to drop out of the White schools than Black schools.

The severe lack of quality Black schools makes this difficult. Few schools have made the efforts to place a significant enough value on diversity to avoid this issue (and I'll admit I say this with a certain amount of pride in Rutgers, which does typically value diversity heavily).

So what happens is that Black students, despite being more likely to attend college, are either forced to attend sub-par colleges due to financial restraints, sub-par colleges due to cultural bias, or deal with the stress of cultural severance and attend schools they don't fit into. They're also, regardless, far less likely to gain employment than a white applicant of lesser skill and experience. And they face lower pay and a reduced rate of promotions, stagnating their potential for continuing development and influence.


That's great and all, but still has zero relevance to what I was talking about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Aug 20 2013 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Why is this explanation so hard to believe?

Because you're not really supporting it. The ratio of unemployment hasn't changed since before Johnson and the Great Society programs. As noted, it hasn't changed based on what other administrations have done since. It wasn't affected by Reagan's 1982 welfare cuts. It wasn't affected by welfare reform in the 1990's (in fact it became worse following both periods but I don't posit the two are related). It hasn't changed based on wedlock rates. It hasn't changed based on abortion rates. It hasn't been affected by any number of things.

So, yeah, when you basically say "It's just obvious" about a vague thing like "It's social programs", no one believes you. You haven't given them any reason to.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Aug 20 2013 at 7:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why is this explanation so hard to believe?

Because you're not really supporting it. The ratio of unemployment hasn't changed since before Johnson and the Great Society programs.


Except that right around the same time period that we actively worked to eliminate numerous civil rights violating laws in the south, we were busily implementing those programs. The Civil Rights Act was signed into law in 1964. So was the Economic Opportunity Act. Education, Medicare, Medicaid, and HUD acts were all signed in 1965. Put in perspective, we were still fighting against unfair civil rights violating laws in the US through the late 60s, with the Civil Rights Act of 1968 covering housing rights.

As one phased out, the other phased in. There was simply not enough time to see what sort of socio-economic changes would have occurred among blacks in the US by simply removing the unfair obstacles placed upon them by existing laws. We nearly immediately replaced those laws with a huge system of welfare designed at least in part to help offset the existing imbalances. I think that was a grave mistake that has been the primary cause of entrenched poverty among blacks for the past 40 years.

If we had just removed the legal obstacles to success for blacks and then let things run their course, I suspect that we would not see the same kind of discrepancies we see today.

Quote:
As noted, it hasn't changed based on what other administrations have done since. It wasn't affected by Reagan's 1982 welfare cuts. It wasn't affected by welfare reform in the 1990's (in fact it became worse following both periods but I don't posit the two are related). It hasn't changed based on wedlock rates. It hasn't changed based on abortion rates. It hasn't been affected by any number of things.


Um... It's a relative number we're looking at though. Welfare programs don't directly target one skin color or another. They target economic need. The effects are different on different groups within the US only because of differences in economic need within those groups. So changing the welfare criteria a little bit doesn't change the relative effect welfare has on those groups. Or at least, it isn't going to change it much. You also have to realize that these programs don't only exist at the federal level. States each engage in their own programs and use federal funding to cover the parts of their programs which overlap the federal guidelines. It's far too complex to simply look at a couple of federal level changes and say nothing happened, so therefore "welfare" isn't a factor in the outcome.

Quote:
You haven't given them any reason to.


I've given a pretty clear explanation of why and how welfare programs cause harm to the populations who receive them. Instead of addressing that with something like "Oh no! You're completely wrong because people who grow up in households funded by welfare are no more likely to be on welfare themselves as adults", you just point off in another direction.

Am I wrong to say that welfare tends to trap people? Am I wrong to point out that this affect is amplified in communities where a large percentage of the people are welfare recipients? And am I wrong to point out that African Americans are disproportionately likely to live in those communities? I don't think so. So why is it so unreasonable to point at this as a possible (probable even) explanation for the disproportionately higher unemployment among blacks over that period of time?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Aug 20 2013 at 7:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um... It's a relative number we're looking at though. Welfare programs don't directly target one skin color or another. They target economic need. The effects are different on different groups within the US only because of differences in economic need within those groups. So changing the welfare criteria a little bit doesn't change the relative effect welfare has on those groups. Or at least, it isn't going to change it much. You also have to realize that these programs don't only exist at the federal level. States each engage in their own programs and use federal funding to cover the parts of their programs which overlap the federal guidelines. It's far too complex to simply look at a couple of federal level changes and say nothing happened, so therefore "welfare" isn't a factor in the outcome.

Ok, so show me any effects on black unemployment that you can actually correlate to a change in a the social welfare system.

Quote:
I've given a pretty clear explanation of why and how welfare programs cause harm to the populations who receive them. Instead of addressing that with something like "Oh no! You're completely wrong because people who grow up in households funded by welfare are no more likely to be on welfare themselves as adults", you just point off in another direction.

Asking for some sort of support for your arguments? Shame on me...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Aug 20 2013 at 7:56 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
gbaji wrote:
What's happened is that the prospects for blacks who've dropped out of school are vastly worse today than they were 50 years ago. And IMO, this seems to match the reality around us a bit better. And this ties into the problem I wrote about earlier. We have neighborhoods with ridiculously high unemployment rates, largely because there physically aren't enough jobs for the number of people living in the area. This is a situation which can only happen after a few generations of social welfare is applied.

Wait...so the jobs dry up and go away because blacks have been on welfare?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#27 Aug 20 2013 at 8:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
I spilled red paint on my roomba just now, and it tried to knife me until i cleaned it off. My ankles will never be the same.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#28 Aug 20 2013 at 8:18 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Put them to work in the fields to replace the illegal immigrants, you can set up little farming communities for them. Let them live in the homes for free, providing they show up and work everyday.Supply them food for their service as well. Some might run off so put ankle bracelets with electroshock destabilizes to prevent them from leaving the commune and becoming a threat to society.

This gives them jobs, homes, food and a peaceful community and solves the illegal immigrant problem as well.

Edited, Aug 20th 2013 10:19pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#29 Aug 20 2013 at 8:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... It's a relative number we're looking at though. Welfare programs don't directly target one skin color or another. They target economic need. The effects are different on different groups within the US only because of differences in economic need within those groups. So changing the welfare criteria a little bit doesn't change the relative effect welfare has on those groups. Or at least, it isn't going to change it much. You also have to realize that these programs don't only exist at the federal level. States each engage in their own programs and use federal funding to cover the parts of their programs which overlap the federal guidelines. It's far too complex to simply look at a couple of federal level changes and say nothing happened, so therefore "welfare" isn't a factor in the outcome.

Ok, so show me any effects on black unemployment that you can actually correlate to a change in a the social welfare system.


That's the wrong question. My premise is that the implementation of a social welfare system tends to lock the percentage of populations in need. Evidence for this will not be seen in a change, but in the absence of one. The fact that despite removing massive and direct legal obstacles to black economic success in this country, we saw no change in the relative rate of unemployment over the subsequent 50 years. Assuming we agree that segregation restrictions, and housing restrictions, and education restrictions, and over hiring discrimination was having a negative effect on black economic outcomes, shouldn't we expect that removing those should have produced a measurable change in overall unemployment at the very least?

The data you presented in your OP is the evidence of what I'm saying. We should have seen a change in relative unemployment rates as a result of the civil rights movement. We didn't. We still haven't 50 years later. When casting about for an explanation for that, one might look to see what else we did in the 60s that might have an effect on this, and which has continued to be present from that time period until today. And when we do this, the very very obvious rise of the direct social welfare system in the US kinda leaps out at us, doesn't it?

And then if we start asking "how could something like welfare cause black unemployment to not improve as it should have", we might arrive at the same theory that I did. That because social welfare programs disproportionately target those in need when the systems were put in place, if those systems have a secondary effect of retarding the ability of recipients to become independent of the programs themselves, this could easily explain the deviation from the expected outcome. As I said earlier, it would "lock in" the economic condition based on the level it was at when the programs were first implemented.

It's just a theory, but it does explain the data.

Quote:
Asking for some sort of support for your arguments? Shame on me...


They're logical arguments Joph. If you disagree, you need to point out the flaws in those arguments and/or present a counter argument. Demanding "proof" or "support" (not even sure what that means) is a pointless thing to do. Do you honestly disagree that children raised in households dependent on welfare are more likely to end out on welfare themselves when they grow up? Do you disagree that children raised in communities with a high percentage of welfare recipients are more likely to end out on welfare when they grow up? ****. We can also ask about likelihood of having a criminal record, or being a drug addict, or any of a number of other negative socio-economic outcomes that can be correlated to the conditions one grows up in.

Assuming you don't disagree with those things, then don't we have a situation where poverty leads to poverty, but welfare institutionalizes that poverty in specific communities and among specific groups? Is that really so much of a stretch? Absent some form of government assistance, poverty can only reach a certain level in any specific geographical location (assuming an unequal distribution of poverty within a national structure and freedom of movement of the population within that structure). Poverty normally is a function of job availability. As jobs disappear from an area, people move from that area. There's a natural feedback system that prevents overwhelming quantities of poverty, and thus limits the degree to which the deck can be stacked against someone's economic success based on where they were born.

You introduce social welfare systems to that and now you can allow poverty to grow in relatively small geographical areas. People can choose not to move out when the jobs leave. They just go on welfare. As a result, each successive generation within that community faces an increasingly difficult task to become self sufficient. That's how welfare traps people. It's not so much an individual thing (cause each individual *can* escape it), but a statistical outcome over a population in a given area. We then end out with pockets of incredible poverty within a sea of an otherwise wealthy nation. This should not happen, and cannot happen, unless you have welfare systems in place.


And guess what? We'd expect that factor to afflict populations based on the ratio of need at the time the systems were put in place. This doesn't require "support" so much as a bit of simple logic.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Aug 20 2013 at 8:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What's happened is that the prospects for blacks who've dropped out of school are vastly worse today than they were 50 years ago. And IMO, this seems to match the reality around us a bit better. And this ties into the problem I wrote about earlier. We have neighborhoods with ridiculously high unemployment rates, largely because there physically aren't enough jobs for the number of people living in the area. This is a situation which can only happen after a few generations of social welfare is applied.

Wait...so the jobs dry up and go away because blacks have been on welfare?


No. Jobs dry up when the wealth in a community decreases. Who wants to open a store in the ghetto? It's a feedback loop. Community is poor, with few jobs available. Normally, the population in the community will wax and wane with the available jobs, so this is somewhat self correcting. But when you introduce welfare, you break that balance. As poverty increases, the rate of welfare recipients in an area increases, and the availability of jobs will also decrease (because of the ghetto effect). This causes more poverty, which results in more welfare recipients, and more crime/gangs/etc, and fewer jobs, etc, etc, etc. It's a system that is designed for failure.

In a natural system, if poverty increases, people will move to where there is more opportunity (ie: jobs). This ensures that there's never too extreme a gap between the potential jobs available in an area and the number of people living in the area. At least, these trends will tend to be broader. What welfare does is focus the poor people in pockets. But because of this, it's incredibly difficult to darn near impossible for their children to escape that poverty. The deck quite literally is stacked against them, but not because of racism, but because the welfare system stacks it.

And that welfare system does not target based on race, but the effect on race over time is going to be reflective of the relative socio-economic status of different groups at the time the system was put in place. And at that time, blacks were at the bottom of the heap. Thus, it should not be a surprise that they're still at the bottom of the heap. And at least in terms of relative unemployment, their condition has not improved one bit over the last 50 years.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Aug 20 2013 at 8:33 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Put them to work in the fields to replace the illegal immigrants, you can set up little farming communities for them. Let them live in the homes for free, providing they show up and work everyday.Supply them food for their service as well. Some might run off so put ankle bracelets with electroshock destabilizes to prevent them from leaving the commune and becoming a threat to society.

This gives them jobs, homes, food and a peaceful community and solves the illegal immigrant problem as well.

And they can spend all day singing while they work!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#32 Aug 20 2013 at 8:56 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,045 posts
The problem is that when these types of topics are discussed, people talk past one another. There is a difference between self destruction and institutionalized favoritism and they are independent of each other. Each side tends to only argue one of the two, but both at the same time. while there are victims of self destruction, that doesn't negate the institutionalized favoritism.

Kakar wrote:
I don't think there are any easy answers, or else the trend wouldn't have stayed the same for so long. Honestly I think the best and most effective thing that can be done starts at home with parents that raise their kids to be self-sufficient, work hard, and not expect things to be given to them. That can be said for any race or culture, but it seems particularly evident in black culture.

Bill Cosby tried to say something along those lines several years ago and was blasted for it by many in the black community, but I thought he made some excellent points and I agreed with pretty much everything he said. I guess you could say it's partially education, but a lot of it is learning life skills and realizing that "expressing yourself" takes a back seat to being able to communicate and conduct yourself in a manner that makes you employable. And if the parents aren't there (whether they be Mom and Dad, Grandma and Grandpa, Aunt and Uncle, whoever is raising the kid) and aren't holding the kid to a higher standard they will just go along doing what they will do and then wonder why they can't get a job. Why can't they get a job when they can't be understood by everyone, why can't they get a job when they don't finish High School let alone college, why can't they get a job because they have a criminal record, etc. etc.

So sayeth a middle-aged white guy who can't possibly understand what's going on. But I can tell you if I had a small business and was looking to hire some young help, you give me the choice between a black kid that maybe graduated high school (but almost as likely didn't, not statisticly) and talks like a gangster on the street with his pants down around his knees and anyone else that can dress, speak, and present themselves respectably and I know which person I'd hire.


This is a great example of what I'm referring to. Bill Cosby is addressing Self Destruction, which is independent of economic success. Delinquents appear in court in suits and ties. While there are people who portray the aforesaid behavior when applying a job, to assert that is the norm is asinine. Just like you changed your attire when you appeared for a job interview, it's no different for everyone else.

Gbaji wrote:
I've long believed (and stated on this forum) that social assistance programs primarily tend to lock groups into whatever socio-economic status they had when those social programs were implemented. So African Americans, being at the bottom of the heap back in the 60s when these programs were initiated, are still at the bottom of the heap today. So this data is not only not surprising to me, but is entirely expected.

At the risk of being cliche, when the government enacts a "give a man a fish" program, is it really that shocking that those who don't know how to fish when the program is started are less likely to ever learn? We can argue as to the motives of those who created these programs, but the end result is pretty clear (and should have been so prior to implementing them IMO). The solution is the problem.


There is no logical argument that can support the idea that social assistance does more harm than good. You can argue that the POOR implementation of the said programs lead to more harm than good, but at that point, it isn't the program's fault. Once people get past this notion that only poor people cheat the system, we can make progress. How many celebrities are caught in tax fraud? No matter what economic level you are, if you present a way to cheat the system, people will take advantage of it. Social assistance is no different.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#33 Aug 20 2013 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Debalic wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Put them to work in the fields to replace the illegal immigrants, you can set up little farming communities for them. Let them live in the homes for free, providing they show up and work everyday.Supply them food for their service as well. Some might run off so put ankle bracelets with electroshock destabilizes to prevent them from leaving the commune and becoming a threat to society.

This gives them jobs, homes, food and a peaceful community and solves the illegal immigrant problem as well.

And they can spend all day singing while they work!


A happy employee is a productive employee.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#34 Aug 20 2013 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's the wrong question.

It's the right question, you just don't have an answer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Aug 20 2013 at 9:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,045 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Do you honestly disagree that children raised in households dependent on welfare are more likely to end out on welfare themselves when they grow up?


From a social point of view, I would disagree. "I had so much fun being poor, I want to grow up and stay poor!". I would agree that the statistics are in their favor because they have nothing to start off with and have to work that much more. However, I wouldn't argue that they DESIRE to stay on wel-fare.

Gbaji wrote:
****. We can also ask about likelihood of having a criminal record, or being a drug addict, or any of a number of other negative socio-economic outcomes that can be correlated to the conditions one grows up in.


And all would apply to my statement above. People tend to give their youth what they didn't have and NOT want to continue whatever cycle they were in, regardless if it were drugs, alcohol, physical abuse, etc.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#36 Aug 20 2013 at 11:12 PM Rating: Good
****
6,755 posts
Elinda wrote:
Kakar wrote:
But I can tell you if I had a small business and was looking to hire some young help, you give me the choice between a black kid that maybe graduated high school (but almost as likely didn't, not statisticly) and talks like a gangster on the street with his pants down around his knees and anyone else that can dress, speak, and present themselves respectably and I know which person I'd hire.
What about another kid but white dressed the same and talkin' trash (we got them around these parts)?

Separate the black from the poor street kid.


I could, but the topic at hand is talking about the unemployment rate for blacks.

But to answer your question, yeah, whitey wouldn't get the job either.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#37 Aug 21 2013 at 12:02 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,045 posts
Kakar wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Kakar wrote:
But I can tell you if I had a small business and was looking to hire some young help, you give me the choice between a black kid that maybe graduated high school (but almost as likely didn't, not statisticly) and talks like a gangster on the street with his pants down around his knees and anyone else that can dress, speak, and present themselves respectably and I know which person I'd hire.
What about another kid but white dressed the same and talkin' trash (we got them around these parts)?

Separate the black from the poor street kid.


I could, but the topic at hand is talking about the unemployment rate for blacks.

But to answer your question, yeah, whitey wouldn't get the job either.


The real question is why do you think that behavior is a factor in economic growth?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#38 Aug 21 2013 at 12:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,601 posts
gbaji wrote:
Do you honestly disagree that children raised in households dependent on welfare are more likely to end out on welfare themselves when they grow up? Shame on me...


I honestly disagree. My mother was on welfare. I moved out of her house at 14. For 14 years we got state assistance and food stamps. I have, since reaching adulthood, never been on welfare or food stamps. I now work in the commercial film industry after having worked my way up from restaurant worker. Where, by the way, a HUGE number of people are working through college/gradschool. Who, in my experience, came from poor/welfare families.

Also, I was raised in a household where my mother was abused by the men she dated/fathered my brothers with. Guess what....I have never beat my girlfriends/wife/child.

/Shame on you

PS: It is "end up" not "end out".

You savage.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#39 Aug 21 2013 at 5:59 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,742 posts
Good for you!

Although, I'd wager you're the exception, not the rule. How many of your friends from when you were 13-14 are in the same position as you now?


By the way, I have a lot of experience in restaurants as well and your experience does not match mine. Yes, most were students, but no, most were not from poor/welfare families. Predominantly blue collar middle class.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#40 Aug 21 2013 at 6:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
Do you honestly disagree that children raised in households dependent on welfare are more likely to end out on welfare themselves when they grow up?

Of course they are. There is virtually no class mobility in the US. The idea that welfare is the cause of that is absolutely moronic. What's the cause of wealthy children ending up wealthy? Hard work and talent, right? Black unemployment and poverty can really only be caused by one of two things: Institutional racism on a national scale or a genetic predisposition towards criminality and laziness. We know you don't believe racism exists to any significant degree in modern America, so.....
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#41 Aug 21 2013 at 6:17 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Poverty can be addressed at the family level with outreach and education. But is educating black people really the answer to wiping out discrimination in hiring? When they all have state-funded PhD's will we stop profiling black men in the street and shuffling them off to prison.

I think this is a white person problem as much as a black person problem.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#42 Aug 21 2013 at 6:21 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
We have neighborhoods with ridiculously high unemployment rates, largely because there physically aren't enough jobs for the number of people living in the area. This is a situation which can only happen after a few generations of social welfare is applied.

Granted right now, we're short on jobs, but as Joph mentioned, the economy (unemployment rates included) hasn't changed the ratios, so what I think you must mean is we don't have enough jobs for blacks.

How come?


Um... Because blacks are disproportionately likely to grow up in a poor neighborhood with not enough jobs for the number of people in them.
So we should spread them out?

What does that mean - neighborhoods without enough jobs?

Are blacks not allowed to bus on into town and work at the whitey factory?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#43 Aug 21 2013 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
Quote:
That's wonderful. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the point I just made. I was talking about how blacks who don't get a high school diploma or college degree are less likely to be employed today than in 1963. Thus, even though the overall education level among blacks (compared to whites even) has increased in the US, the relative level of unemployment has not changed.


You were citing a random fact without offering supporting statistics and then making a conclusion that doesn't logically follow. You were also failing to address the fact that we don't live in a world where black education rates have changed, while whites have stayed the same.

With the percentage of white students without high school diplomas changing over time, independently from the trend black students graduate (White graduation rates are falling where black rates are increasing, for instance), you cannot use a basic linear model to explain this dataset.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#44 Aug 21 2013 at 7:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... Because blacks are disproportionately likely to grow up in a poor neighborhood with not enough jobs for the number of people in them.
So we should spread them out?

What does that mean - neighborhoods without enough jobs?

Are blacks not allowed to bus on into town and work at the whitey factory?

They should each buy a used Lexus so they can drive to where the jobs are.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Aug 21 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good
******
44,274 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You were citing a random fact without offering supporting statistics and then making a conclusion that doesn't logically follow.
You were expecting something else?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#46 Aug 21 2013 at 7:32 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You were citing a random fact without offering supporting statistics and then making a conclusion that doesn't logically follow.
You were expecting something else?


A blog post at least, if we couldn't an op-ed out of him.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#47 Aug 21 2013 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,601 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
How many of your friends from when you were 13-14 are in the same position as you now?


Well, none of my cousins, or siblings are on welfare. And only one of them is in prison. Three of them have had problems with drugs and / or alcohol and have since cleaned up. And most of my friends from when I was 13~14 were not poor and on welfare, like my family. We moved off the rez when I was in the 5th grade.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#48 Aug 21 2013 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Although, I'd wager you're the exception, not the rule. How many of your friends from when you were 13-14 are in the same position as you now?
How many of us have kept in touch with precisely nobody we were friends with at 13-14?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#49 Aug 21 2013 at 9:44 AM Rating: Good
******
44,274 posts
I know where some of the bodies are. Does that count?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#50 Aug 21 2013 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
Only if they're large, gotta have a big body count.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#51 Aug 21 2013 at 9:59 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,950 posts
Well, I'm only 23. I still have about 2 friends from when I was 14.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 51 All times are in CST
Bijou, rdmcandie, Technogeek, Turin, Anonymous Guests (47)