Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racial UnemploymentFollow

#27 Aug 20 2013 at 8:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 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
****
7,564 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
******
35,568 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? Hell. 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
******
35,568 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
******
20,643 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 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.
#33 Aug 20 2013 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 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:
Hell. 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.
#36 Aug 20 2013 at 11:12 PM Rating: Good
****
6,760 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 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?
#38 Aug 21 2013 at 12:04 AM Rating: Excellent
****
4,134 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
******
35,474 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.


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
******
30,086 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? Gay. 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
*****
16,781 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:
I lost my post
#42 Aug 21 2013 at 6:21 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 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:
I lost my post
#43 Aug 21 2013 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 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
*******
50,767 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
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 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
****
4,134 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
*****
13,666 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
*******
50,767 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
*****
13,666 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
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 168 All times are in CST
stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (167)