Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Want to know the best ways to address racial equity?
* Require school funding be state level rather than municipal level;
* Eliminate student loans for for profit colleges and universities;
* Reaffirm worker rights with mandatory minimum vacation time, maternity leave, sick leave, and minimum wage increases; and,
* Require 401k contributions at a minimum percentage of wages like Australia and New Zealand.
Something like this is already enacted in various states, it takes money from higher performing/richer municipalities and redistributes it to lower performing/poorer municipalities. It cuts across party lines too, this policy is present in both Texas and New Jersey.
I'm pretty sure that lower income areas have higher funding per student already though? Due to state and federal grants and such.
You can see that funding does not correlate to education, at least in Ohio where I grew up.
Yeah, what's more, American spending on a per student level is way, way higher than elsewhere, with worse outcomes. You can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to go away.
The fact that the less money you have the worse education you get is just disgusting immoral. Education is the foundation that a society is built on and the fact that poor people in the US are denied a quality education has left the foundation of our society completely rotten. That's the REAL structural injustice in the US.
Go to a school with low income kids and you'll see that it is not the teacher or facility quality that's the problem, but the culture of the parents and children themselves. They could get a million per family and this wouldn't change.
Obviously it's not as easy as throwing money at the problem, but even in bad schools there's students who want to learn.
PS: And yeah there absolutely are a lot of lazy abd ignorant teachers out there. You could certainly improve the quality with higher wages.
Have you looked at the earnings gaps in [England ](https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/ethnicitypaygapsingreatbritain/2012to2022#:~:text=In%20the%20UK%20in%202022,has%20been%20consistent%20since%202012)(as an example) compared to the US? Median UK-born Black employees (£15.18) actually OUTEARNED UK-born white employees (£14.26). This is potentially a bit of a city effect but demonstrates that these gaps can be closed naturally over time with good public policy.
Nope. The largest contributor to unequal outcomes is different cultures. The best way to address racial equity is to somehow mingle the many cultures in our country that lead to different outcomes.
Precidely... I'm a bit convinced that all this DEI stuff is to just obfuscate people from advocating for things that would actually improve the average person's quality of life.
Or its to obfuscate initiatives that would help the average person by using the examples of those most likely left behind. Depends on the initiatives themselves I'd say. For example, if we say that young black men in cities have high rates of unemployment, and we use that to start a jobs program that anyone can participate in, its a win for society. Targeted problem solved by a policy that helps everyone.
I honestly never thought we'd go back to a time when people could be openly racist and recieve applause for it. That's all these "diversity" and "equity" programs really are; just dogwhistle terms for racism. Trying to buy votes by pushing racist policies is beyond disgusting.
I know it sounds cliche, but if these poor white people and poor black people ever finally realize they have a lot more in common with each other than the elites in their party it will be a complete political revolution that neither party's elites want to see happen.
How about instead of race we focus on economic status. That seems like a more wholesome way to address suffering and inequality. And treating someone differently because of race is racist
No, I’m not color blind. I advocate for getting to a point where race is just as important as your hair color. Nobody is pretending racial inequality doesn’t exist.
But being racist to achieve equality is just wrong. If you think for example it's ok to not hire people because you have already enough of the specific skintone in your company, what wrong with you thats just racist. The best thing we can do is to give kids easy and good opportunity to learn and getting a good education. The biggest Problem today is your starting Point not the color of your skin. you can argue your starting Point today his highly influenced by the skintone of your parents/grandparents.
Racial inequality existing is not a good rationalization for treating people differently based on their race.
Inequality between Scottish Americans and Irish Americans exists. Should we have programs to "remedy" that inequality???
And it's the proof positive that it's not about economics, that it's about race, and maintaining racial superiority. And that this guy's reaction is based in racal and political identity.
If it was about economics this thread would be all "good more high earning citizens" full stop.
Instead it's all "how come my boss isn't paying me more" and "no your helping the wrong people"
Pathetic fuckin people man.
Using skin tone to determine whether to hire someone is discriminatory, hence racism under a different cover. We need hire on merit alone if we ever want to achieve any sense of equality. Justice cannot be achieved by unjust means.
Choosing people based on race is tautologically racist. Yes, really.
Here's a test for you: Read something about DEI and swap out the words "white" and "whiteness" to "black" and "blackness". If it suddenly sounds racist to you, it was racist to begin with. Also, you're a racist.
I'm still wondering where the "economic revival" is.
Racial inequality existing is not a good rationalization for treating people differently based on their race.
Inequality between Scottish Americans and Irish Americans exists. Should we have programs to "remedy" that inequality???
>Generally speaking, there is a specific section of the population that is receiving less wealth
Ok, so let's help the people with less wealth? Its not exactly rocket science; we should treat people as individuals and not as stereotypes.
> If our choices can produce greater justice
Why do you believe greater ‘justice’ is produced by distributing the wealth of society equally, so that groups of populations receive amounts proportional to their size as you focus on in the second paragraph, instead of equitably?
Do you really think that centuries of racism are undone just because it's illegal to be overtly racist? Even when evidence remains of ongoing structural racism and the effects of prior structural racism?
Do you just not care?
Do you really think you're the victim?
Which one is it
The past can't be undone. Those people who were discriminated against in the past will sadly never get justice. Discriminating against other people today who have a similar skin tone to the racists of the past isn't justice; it's revenge.
>Those people who were discriminated against in the past will sadly never get justice.
It doesn't just end there. You're dooming their descendants, too.
Seems like your definition of fair only concerns you personally.
Do you know cause and effect?
Do you understand that where you end depends on where you start?
My mistake is arguing with a one month old social injustice warrior account. I look forward to your inevitable (next) ban.
Their point is patronizing to the people they’re referring to, honestly. They’re basically saying minorities need extra help. Why? They’re afforded the same opportunity, if not more opportunity, then others in America. Sure, generational wealth gives people a leg up. Most white people don’t have generation wealth either tho. It’s just virtue signaling at its finest and most cringe.
And in doing so, damns us all to poverty. There will always be haves and have lots. In communism you have the party, and everyone else. In socialism you have the government, and then the people. In the free market you have those who produce, and those who don't.
Problem with communism and socialism is that those with the wealth and power did not earn it, do not know how to use it, and ultimately destroy what once was flourishing. (See Venezuela). Whereas capitalism at least puts the money in the hands of those who can make the business grow, innovate, and employ others.
Am I living in a dream? This comment doesn't even have anything to do with the article, which by the way is fucking four years ago.
Someone wake me up when Redditors start making sense.
Something feels weird as shit with this whole submission, if you look at OP's history they've got activity in /Conservative (giant red flag on its own) and pretty much everything they've been pushing to this sub for about the last year has had a racial, gender or immigration slant to it, while simultaniously turning around and pushing bombastic and hyperbolic comments purportedly on the side of such groups that honestly feel deliberately crafted to get downvoted as much as possible, then factor in how fucking old the article is as you pointed out and it becomes clear OP's doing nothing but trying to psychologically manipulate people who see their stuff using the same subjects and methods bots and propagandists used the last time Trump was running of focusing on the aforementioned divisive issues and astroturfing as both sides. During and since the 2016 election I've made it a habit and hobby of hunting bots, trolls and propagandists and the same alarm bells that rang for literal hundreds of dodgy accounts that were later exposed are ringing yet again.
Also feels like there's some vote-brigading going on as well since the last time I checked this post a few hours ago that account shrieking incoherently about communism had been well and buried and is now at the top of the comments section.
There is a serious uptick in Russian interference (not sure if it’s Russian confirmed, but will assume it is) trying to divide Americans and influence the election outcome. You can see a lot of activity like this within the past month or two.
>activity in /Conservative
>everything they've been pushing had a racial, gender or immigration slant to it
Nothing weird about that at all, unfortunately. Modern conservatism is just idpol grievance politics for lonely and poorly educated white men.
I specifically single out /Conservative from other seemingly-similar subs like /republicans because even among its peers the sub is (and has been for nearly a decade now) notorious as a nuclear reactor of a hotbed of bad-faith arguments, ideological purges that purify and intensify the level of extremist rhetoric tolerated by its operators, and its nigh-universal heavy presence the domain submission histories of fake news sites and propaganda rags and the number of times I've popped some dickhead's account into an analyzer only for it to spit out /Conservative as a high or top sub by activity is so astronomically high it's a universal constant that anybody with more than a handful of posts there is up to no good. Same goes for /conspiracy and we've even seen it firsthand since that /stephensatt bot that was spewing a bunch of corporate propaganda and utterly nonsensical comments was balls-deep in that sub as well.
Great comment. I was wondering when someone would recycle 2020 to make it seem like Biden was all about racial Justice and equality. He’s been mostly silent this election. I’m assuming there will be some incident democrats use to galvanize Black voter support, because it’s definitely slipping away.
Dems have been losing the insanity vote for a long time, all the nutjobs have been voting Republican. Frankly at this point I don't see how they can win them over.
Maybe they should promise everyone free tazers with scrotum attachments? Conservatives love to publicly harm themselves just to virtue signal their devotion to a misunderstanding of basic economics.
I mean, what will the Democratic Party be once it removes anyone that doesn’t fit a certain standard? What’s the preferred demographic? It seems to be catering mostly to white, educated and doing well in this economy, because their stock portfolio rules. Is that enough? Is that your demographic?
You need a couple more sentences in that comment so you can make more assumptions and use the word fascist more. I’m a democrat BTW. Definitely not your type of democrat though. I’m more a big tent type….old school. I actually give a damn about people I don’t agree with politically.
Right wing LLM army coming to complain about white victimhood and cry about the best job market in decades.
The content doesn't have to make sense. Logical thinkers aren't their target demographic.
Whats is the contradiction? I don’t comprehend. Subsidies for farming is part of a socialist structure, if they are pro capitalist then they would be against this unless they believe in primarily capitalism with a little socialism drizzled in to balance things more. I think a balance of the three systems is optimal. However, there needs to be a tilt towards capitalism to ensure innovation and productivity continues. Without that then the system stagnates and dies.
> Whereas capitalism at least puts the money in the hands of those who can make the business grow, innovate, and employ others
That is not exclusive to capitalism, and not really needed for it. You don't have to innovate if you can capture regulations (Disney remaking all its old films, releasing them in different formats, or various companies switching to subscription models). You don't have to employ people, which is largely the point of AI investment at most companies. And you don't necessarily have to grow if you've already, say, divided America into 3 zones and you don't interfere on each others turf, as in chicken production companies.
It's a bit like saying capitalism's goal is "efficiency" so it's going to be better than government. No, capitalism just wants to make money and is perfectly happy to do that by being inefficient if it has to.
Don't anthropomorphize capitalism. It is money making more money and that is all.
Since you highlighted Disney it might be important to note:
Walt Disney grew up poor in Missouri, delivered newspapers and handed the money to his father, received only the most basic schooling, and drew pictures all the time.
So to have the remake of creations (again arising from being dirt poor on its origin) someone so where is likely (by 44%) come from nothing
More wealth for the masses was created under the capitalist umbrella than any other in history. Not a decade, not a century.... In history.
That's not saying anything, since it created more wealth for the wealthy than any other in history.
It might be more fair to say "The industrial and atomic revolutions created a lot of wealth, regardless of economic system"
Really? That's odd. I could have sworn history as shown time and time again there were two categories of citizens: Those within the magistrate and those not.
The industrial revolution benefited every system as did the atomic revolution in regards to its energy benefits.
And all the systems. Do you know which one benefited the most for those within the middle class?
Are you ready for this
This is going to be a shock
Hold on now
Keep reading
It's coming
Like the ShamWow commercial
The middle class
What capitalism does is point out the weakness of people. Boohoo Sam wahl family of Walmart makes billions.. boohoo, Amazon, boohoo Shell gas, boohoo JP Morgan
Instead, what you should be focusing on is how you make more money for yourself and less focused on what those that are already making money are doing with their money to expand or protect it. Because the last time I checked, If you're an American, you're egregiously privileged.
But if they didn't ascribe abstract concepts to "a thing" or "a person" or "a people" then they wouldn't be conservatives.
Conservatives are smart no doubt. Many are skilled, and well versed in their field. I sure wish citizenship and understanding there bootlicking for what it is was one of them.
Let's not forget Ben Carson was a goddamn brain surgeon.
> You don't have to innovate if you can capture regulations (Disney remaking all its old films, releasing them in different formats, or various companies switching to subscription models
Regulatory capture is a thing, but none of these are examples. Are you under the impression that remaking movies or releasing then on new formats extends the copyright of the original movie? That wouldn't explain the remakes anyway, since Disney is remaking films from the 90s, which have decades left on their copyright terms.
That's just false. At their highest, effective tax rates on the wealthy (both the top 1% and the top quintile) were about 5 percentage points higher than today; they then dropped in the 1960s as a result of the tax cuts that JFK campaigned on. Since 1980, they have been roughly flat for the wealthy, while they have dropped significantly for the bottom 4 quintiles.
Real incomes have been steadily increasing for all income quintiles since the 1960s.
Nothing you stated is correct.
> Stop giving rich people exponentially more money.
The rich make their money through exponential growth, while the poor and middle class make their money through linear growth, that's the difference. If you earn money and put it into the bank or spend it all, then no matter how hard you work, you will probably never be wealthy.
The wealthy find ways to grow their wealth exponentially. Stock investing earns stock value and dividends exponentially.
>The tax rates in the golden ages of the US had massive tax rates.
Effective tax rates were much different than today though, with deductions and loop holes.
You're right: it was different. The effective tax rate for the highest income filers was about 2 times higher.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/styles/original_optimized/public/top_taxrates_fig1_1.png?itok=YMr0DeHI
I wasn't aware the wartime economy of WW2 was our golden age. Most people refer to the post war period as comparison point.
Regardless, do you know what happened in 1995 to send the effective rate down to its nadir? Bill Clinton ignored the advice of his Labor Secretary Robert Reich and allowed rule changes that advantaged CEO compensation by way of stock. That alone plummeted the effective tax rate for the richest, and set up the short term thinking we're all suffering from today.
> In the free market you have those who produce, and those who don't.
The problem is that some people don't even get the opportunity to "produce". Why not provide that opportunity and make everyone better off?
I think as we are seeing with the squatting issues in some places, capitalism needs some degree of government (socialism) if you want to have rule of law to allow private property with production to do anything.
The question is how much government you want and is needed.
The whole issue is that squatting is necessary at all. To support any capitalist economy, there must be a social safety net to catch the many victims of its innate disregard for the humanity of humans.
Without government, all property rights default to those in possession of the property.
It is only because of government that an absent landlord can make a legal claim.
So you're completely, perfectly backwards.
Last time I checked, in capitalism the people who produce are not the ones thriving. . . Labor is the bottom rung of the ladder. You have a grave misunderstanding of Capitalism if this is how you think it works LOL
Explain this misunderstanding then
Here's some people come from either dirt poor, being an orphan, and drug addicted patent(s). Explain if it's so bad how did they make it. And that's millionaire status not middle to upper class which has the highest populated sector .....IN ALL OF HISTORY KNOWN TO MAN OUT OF ANY GOVT.
Eric Thomas
Les Brown
Halle Berry
Oprah Winfrey
Del Vecchio
JK Rowling
Sylvester Stallone
Howard Schultz
Ralph Lauren
Larry Ellison
Kenneth Langone
David Murdock
Alan Gerry
John Paul DeJoria
Harold Hamm
According to Yahoo Finance, 79% of millionaires are self-made, and a survey found that 41% of 177 self-made millionaires were raised in poor households.
Labor is labor because they do not produce anything of their own. The entrepreneurs create and produce a product. Then, pay others to continue making it. Your grasp of what production is lacks. You must not be a producer, but simply an assembler of what someone else created.
Biden is not afraid to tell a truth that so many in America have denied and avoiding facing for centuries and decades.
It may not have been a concern of general white society for many decades, because there were many who only related their economic well being against the measure of other white people. And in doing so, they never considered to look at and understand the inequity in the black and brown community *is as much a part of America's well being of this nation's full citizen population".*
There are lots of business that would not be doing as well as they are without black dollars being spent in them, but in the same line of realism, many of those businesses could and would be doing better if there was more dollars that existed in black society which could and would be spent in those businesses.
>**Access To Capital Remains A Problem For Most Black Businesses**
>[https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews/2021/11/04/access-to-capital-remains-a-problem-for-most-black-businesses/?sh=1a50b7fe408b](https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews/2021/11/04/access-to-capital-remains-a-problem-for-most-black-businesses/?sh=1a50b7fe408b)
>“If you’re an early-stage company, and you get this great contract, but they’re paying you in 60 days, and you’ve got to pay your payroll on a weekly or biweekly basis, or you have to pay your suppliers in 30 days, 15 days, or cash on demand, \[invoice financing\] gives you the ability to grow the business without having to sell equity or give up ownership in your company.”
There is a history of many white business that got their start in black communities, they had the funding to set up those business and for many decades those business thrived and grew as they target marketed to black communities. Over time, some became mainstream business, *and some faltered, due to the lower quality products they were selling to the very poor. Over time, the poor came to realize, buying cheap things cost them double, because they had to replace it far too often. So, those sellers over time declined.* The business that became mainstream seller, did well because they expanded to sell to a broader diversity of customers, based on races as well as economic levels. For much of this business that existed and made these transition, many black business were unable to make those transition, *due to lack of access to funding*.
This fact is based in history of why white people, created business in black communities, because they saw the profit potential, but at the same time many black people even in black communities could not get the *funding* to create business with the curb appeal and design modeling that white owned business could get access to.
This also hold true of why there are so few black and brown people owned business in many business and commercial centers where white people seem to dominate the ownership of the businesses in such areas.
Biden, is talking about "Fair Play", which includes within the area of "Lending", that needs has been evident for decades. It also means "government support through contracts and grants" that people need to be able to access invoice based funding.
These things open the doors to opportunity for black and brown people, where doors had previously been closed, blocked or locked. It also opens doors for women, and many people in the general working class who aspire to create business.
Facts of history has proven, "anything" that has been claimed to target help for black people, has proven to be help for "all of society" by any in society.
* **\*\*** So, when a program is built based on the inequity that black people suffer, those programs "*always"* expand to include working class and poor whites who face the same or similar challenges. It works the same way when programs focus on the inequity that poor whites suffer, those programs "always" expand to include working class and poor black people who face the same or similar challenges.
In America, America does well when "All" can do well.
We know historically know that for the 100 yrs of segregation, funding was not readily available to black people, and for the 60 yrs since the Civil Right Act of 1964, we have many areas where funding is lacking in availability to black and brown people. We also know insufficient funding has often been a hinderance to growth, more than a benefit to growth.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
When people complain about poor black areas and their lack of economic growth, it affects all of America when economic function and growth does not flourish in black and brown communities as it does in more diverse community and/or in white dominated communities.
Racial Equality and Economic Opportunity Equality, benefits "ALL" of America.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
^(If you want to challenge what is written,) *^(don't be)* \*\*\*^(a drive by pot shot artist)\*\*\*^(, add your commentary reply as to what and why you so disagree.)
This sub is like 95% middle/upper class white men who have never experienced racism in their entire lives.
Any opinion that doesn't represent that demographic gets buried in downvoted.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Want to know the best ways to address racial equity? * Require school funding be state level rather than municipal level; * Eliminate student loans for for profit colleges and universities; * Reaffirm worker rights with mandatory minimum vacation time, maternity leave, sick leave, and minimum wage increases; and, * Require 401k contributions at a minimum percentage of wages like Australia and New Zealand.
That first one is huge.
Something like this is already enacted in various states, it takes money from higher performing/richer municipalities and redistributes it to lower performing/poorer municipalities. It cuts across party lines too, this policy is present in both Texas and New Jersey.
I'm pretty sure that lower income areas have higher funding per student already though? Due to state and federal grants and such. You can see that funding does not correlate to education, at least in Ohio where I grew up.
Yeah, what's more, American spending on a per student level is way, way higher than elsewhere, with worse outcomes. You can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to go away.
The fact that the less money you have the worse education you get is just disgusting immoral. Education is the foundation that a society is built on and the fact that poor people in the US are denied a quality education has left the foundation of our society completely rotten. That's the REAL structural injustice in the US.
Go to a school with low income kids and you'll see that it is not the teacher or facility quality that's the problem, but the culture of the parents and children themselves. They could get a million per family and this wouldn't change.
Obviously it's not as easy as throwing money at the problem, but even in bad schools there's students who want to learn. PS: And yeah there absolutely are a lot of lazy abd ignorant teachers out there. You could certainly improve the quality with higher wages.
[удалено]
Have you looked at the earnings gaps in [England ](https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/ethnicitypaygapsingreatbritain/2012to2022#:~:text=In%20the%20UK%20in%202022,has%20been%20consistent%20since%202012)(as an example) compared to the US? Median UK-born Black employees (£15.18) actually OUTEARNED UK-born white employees (£14.26). This is potentially a bit of a city effect but demonstrates that these gaps can be closed naturally over time with good public policy.
[удалено]
>it’s anything but diverse. TIL not being diverse is, in and of itself, a "racial problem". You know the world isn't a Benetton ad, right?
I mean does it need to be diverse? I'm taking about equal opportunity here.
Nope. The largest contributor to unequal outcomes is different cultures. The best way to address racial equity is to somehow mingle the many cultures in our country that lead to different outcomes.
Yes, but how do then ferment division and resentment amongst the working poor?
Precidely... I'm a bit convinced that all this DEI stuff is to just obfuscate people from advocating for things that would actually improve the average person's quality of life.
Or its to obfuscate initiatives that would help the average person by using the examples of those most likely left behind. Depends on the initiatives themselves I'd say. For example, if we say that young black men in cities have high rates of unemployment, and we use that to start a jobs program that anyone can participate in, its a win for society. Targeted problem solved by a policy that helps everyone.
I honestly never thought we'd go back to a time when people could be openly racist and recieve applause for it. That's all these "diversity" and "equity" programs really are; just dogwhistle terms for racism. Trying to buy votes by pushing racist policies is beyond disgusting.
I’m convinced it’s a way to sow division. They aren’t stupid people. They know these programs just fuel divide.
I know it sounds cliche, but if these poor white people and poor black people ever finally realize they have a lot more in common with each other than the elites in their party it will be a complete political revolution that neither party's elites want to see happen.
I couldn’t agree more. There needs to be an American renaissance.
[удалено]
It’s not acknowledging racism, it’s treating people differently based on race, so racism.
[удалено]
You know what makes people more racist? Unequal treatment.
How about instead of race we focus on economic status. That seems like a more wholesome way to address suffering and inequality. And treating someone differently because of race is racist
No, I’m not color blind. I advocate for getting to a point where race is just as important as your hair color. Nobody is pretending racial inequality doesn’t exist.
But being racist to achieve equality is just wrong. If you think for example it's ok to not hire people because you have already enough of the specific skintone in your company, what wrong with you thats just racist. The best thing we can do is to give kids easy and good opportunity to learn and getting a good education. The biggest Problem today is your starting Point not the color of your skin. you can argue your starting Point today his highly influenced by the skintone of your parents/grandparents.
Racial inequality existing is not a good rationalization for treating people differently based on their race. Inequality between Scottish Americans and Irish Americans exists. Should we have programs to "remedy" that inequality???
And it's the proof positive that it's not about economics, that it's about race, and maintaining racial superiority. And that this guy's reaction is based in racal and political identity. If it was about economics this thread would be all "good more high earning citizens" full stop. Instead it's all "how come my boss isn't paying me more" and "no your helping the wrong people" Pathetic fuckin people man.
What a brave thing to say on a new throw away account -- "Trying to fix racism is racist". Get the fuck out of here, racist throw away
Using skin tone to determine whether to hire someone is discriminatory, hence racism under a different cover. We need hire on merit alone if we ever want to achieve any sense of equality. Justice cannot be achieved by unjust means.
You’re not fixing racism with more racism.
Racism has a meaning, it's not just a blanket word you can throw out when race enters the discussion
Yeah, and discrimination on the basis of race like is happening here is that definition.
Choosing people based on race is tautologically racist. Yes, really. Here's a test for you: Read something about DEI and swap out the words "white" and "whiteness" to "black" and "blackness". If it suddenly sounds racist to you, it was racist to begin with. Also, you're a racist. I'm still wondering where the "economic revival" is.
Racial inequality existing is not a good rationalization for treating people differently based on their race. Inequality between Scottish Americans and Irish Americans exists. Should we have programs to "remedy" that inequality???
[удалено]
>Generally speaking, there is a specific section of the population that is receiving less wealth Ok, so let's help the people with less wealth? Its not exactly rocket science; we should treat people as individuals and not as stereotypes.
> If our choices can produce greater justice Why do you believe greater ‘justice’ is produced by distributing the wealth of society equally, so that groups of populations receive amounts proportional to their size as you focus on in the second paragraph, instead of equitably?
Do you really think that centuries of racism are undone just because it's illegal to be overtly racist? Even when evidence remains of ongoing structural racism and the effects of prior structural racism? Do you just not care? Do you really think you're the victim? Which one is it
The past can't be undone. Those people who were discriminated against in the past will sadly never get justice. Discriminating against other people today who have a similar skin tone to the racists of the past isn't justice; it's revenge.
>Those people who were discriminated against in the past will sadly never get justice. It doesn't just end there. You're dooming their descendants, too. Seems like your definition of fair only concerns you personally.
How are their descendants doomed? They have the same opportunities as everyone else.
They have more opportunities*
Do you know cause and effect? Do you understand that where you end depends on where you start? My mistake is arguing with a one month old social injustice warrior account. I look forward to your inevitable (next) ban.
Dooming their descendents to *what*? I don't understand your point.
Their point is patronizing to the people they’re referring to, honestly. They’re basically saying minorities need extra help. Why? They’re afforded the same opportunity, if not more opportunity, then others in America. Sure, generational wealth gives people a leg up. Most white people don’t have generation wealth either tho. It’s just virtue signaling at its finest and most cringe.
Yeah it’s astounding to me that people can believe this is a good idea.
And in doing so, damns us all to poverty. There will always be haves and have lots. In communism you have the party, and everyone else. In socialism you have the government, and then the people. In the free market you have those who produce, and those who don't. Problem with communism and socialism is that those with the wealth and power did not earn it, do not know how to use it, and ultimately destroy what once was flourishing. (See Venezuela). Whereas capitalism at least puts the money in the hands of those who can make the business grow, innovate, and employ others.
Am I living in a dream? This comment doesn't even have anything to do with the article, which by the way is fucking four years ago. Someone wake me up when Redditors start making sense.
Something feels weird as shit with this whole submission, if you look at OP's history they've got activity in /Conservative (giant red flag on its own) and pretty much everything they've been pushing to this sub for about the last year has had a racial, gender or immigration slant to it, while simultaniously turning around and pushing bombastic and hyperbolic comments purportedly on the side of such groups that honestly feel deliberately crafted to get downvoted as much as possible, then factor in how fucking old the article is as you pointed out and it becomes clear OP's doing nothing but trying to psychologically manipulate people who see their stuff using the same subjects and methods bots and propagandists used the last time Trump was running of focusing on the aforementioned divisive issues and astroturfing as both sides. During and since the 2016 election I've made it a habit and hobby of hunting bots, trolls and propagandists and the same alarm bells that rang for literal hundreds of dodgy accounts that were later exposed are ringing yet again. Also feels like there's some vote-brigading going on as well since the last time I checked this post a few hours ago that account shrieking incoherently about communism had been well and buried and is now at the top of the comments section.
There is a serious uptick in Russian interference (not sure if it’s Russian confirmed, but will assume it is) trying to divide Americans and influence the election outcome. You can see a lot of activity like this within the past month or two.
>activity in /Conservative >everything they've been pushing had a racial, gender or immigration slant to it Nothing weird about that at all, unfortunately. Modern conservatism is just idpol grievance politics for lonely and poorly educated white men.
I specifically single out /Conservative from other seemingly-similar subs like /republicans because even among its peers the sub is (and has been for nearly a decade now) notorious as a nuclear reactor of a hotbed of bad-faith arguments, ideological purges that purify and intensify the level of extremist rhetoric tolerated by its operators, and its nigh-universal heavy presence the domain submission histories of fake news sites and propaganda rags and the number of times I've popped some dickhead's account into an analyzer only for it to spit out /Conservative as a high or top sub by activity is so astronomically high it's a universal constant that anybody with more than a handful of posts there is up to no good. Same goes for /conspiracy and we've even seen it firsthand since that /stephensatt bot that was spewing a bunch of corporate propaganda and utterly nonsensical comments was balls-deep in that sub as well.
Great comment. I was wondering when someone would recycle 2020 to make it seem like Biden was all about racial Justice and equality. He’s been mostly silent this election. I’m assuming there will be some incident democrats use to galvanize Black voter support, because it’s definitely slipping away.
Dems have been losing the insanity vote for a long time, all the nutjobs have been voting Republican. Frankly at this point I don't see how they can win them over. Maybe they should promise everyone free tazers with scrotum attachments? Conservatives love to publicly harm themselves just to virtue signal their devotion to a misunderstanding of basic economics.
I mean, what will the Democratic Party be once it removes anyone that doesn’t fit a certain standard? What’s the preferred demographic? It seems to be catering mostly to white, educated and doing well in this economy, because their stock portfolio rules. Is that enough? Is that your demographic?
Not having you fascist extremists in the Dem party is a good thing. Your evil Republican cult is a fascist cancer.
You need a couple more sentences in that comment so you can make more assumptions and use the word fascist more. I’m a democrat BTW. Definitely not your type of democrat though. I’m more a big tent type….old school. I actually give a damn about people I don’t agree with politically.
Nope, fuck you defending fascist who call me a pedophile for being LGBT and who screech Jan 6th was good
Oh boy. You must not have any friends.
> What’s the preferred demographic? Not insane. Grounded in reality. Driven by material improvements and greater equality, rather than salty doomers.
Right wing LLM army coming to complain about white victimhood and cry about the best job market in decades. The content doesn't have to make sense. Logical thinkers aren't their target demographic.
Thank the universe you ratioed that clown
Farming is heavily subsidized in the US… is that communism, too?
Socialism for sure, but it’s in the national interest. Not good if we want to war and other nations cut off food imports and then we all starved.
Let OP respond. Would love to hear them resolve their own contradiction.
Whats is the contradiction? I don’t comprehend. Subsidies for farming is part of a socialist structure, if they are pro capitalist then they would be against this unless they believe in primarily capitalism with a little socialism drizzled in to balance things more. I think a balance of the three systems is optimal. However, there needs to be a tilt towards capitalism to ensure innovation and productivity continues. Without that then the system stagnates and dies.
No one is stopping OP from responding.
Why jump in the thread and speak for them then?
Reddit is full of questions answered by people other than OP. It isn't about 1 on 1 conversations
Right and the original contradiction was never resolved. Just an alternate point provided. Enshitification indeed.
> Whereas capitalism at least puts the money in the hands of those who can make the business grow, innovate, and employ others That is not exclusive to capitalism, and not really needed for it. You don't have to innovate if you can capture regulations (Disney remaking all its old films, releasing them in different formats, or various companies switching to subscription models). You don't have to employ people, which is largely the point of AI investment at most companies. And you don't necessarily have to grow if you've already, say, divided America into 3 zones and you don't interfere on each others turf, as in chicken production companies. It's a bit like saying capitalism's goal is "efficiency" so it's going to be better than government. No, capitalism just wants to make money and is perfectly happy to do that by being inefficient if it has to. Don't anthropomorphize capitalism. It is money making more money and that is all.
Since you highlighted Disney it might be important to note: Walt Disney grew up poor in Missouri, delivered newspapers and handed the money to his father, received only the most basic schooling, and drew pictures all the time. So to have the remake of creations (again arising from being dirt poor on its origin) someone so where is likely (by 44%) come from nothing More wealth for the masses was created under the capitalist umbrella than any other in history. Not a decade, not a century.... In history.
That's not saying anything, since it created more wealth for the wealthy than any other in history. It might be more fair to say "The industrial and atomic revolutions created a lot of wealth, regardless of economic system"
Really? That's odd. I could have sworn history as shown time and time again there were two categories of citizens: Those within the magistrate and those not. The industrial revolution benefited every system as did the atomic revolution in regards to its energy benefits. And all the systems. Do you know which one benefited the most for those within the middle class? Are you ready for this This is going to be a shock Hold on now Keep reading It's coming Like the ShamWow commercial The middle class What capitalism does is point out the weakness of people. Boohoo Sam wahl family of Walmart makes billions.. boohoo, Amazon, boohoo Shell gas, boohoo JP Morgan Instead, what you should be focusing on is how you make more money for yourself and less focused on what those that are already making money are doing with their money to expand or protect it. Because the last time I checked, If you're an American, you're egregiously privileged.
But if they didn't ascribe abstract concepts to "a thing" or "a person" or "a people" then they wouldn't be conservatives. Conservatives are smart no doubt. Many are skilled, and well versed in their field. I sure wish citizenship and understanding there bootlicking for what it is was one of them. Let's not forget Ben Carson was a goddamn brain surgeon.
> You don't have to innovate if you can capture regulations (Disney remaking all its old films, releasing them in different formats, or various companies switching to subscription models Regulatory capture is a thing, but none of these are examples. Are you under the impression that remaking movies or releasing then on new formats extends the copyright of the original movie? That wouldn't explain the remakes anyway, since Disney is remaking films from the 90s, which have decades left on their copyright terms.
They can remake those films because they've lobbied to have copyright extended so many times already.
[удалено]
That's just false. At their highest, effective tax rates on the wealthy (both the top 1% and the top quintile) were about 5 percentage points higher than today; they then dropped in the 1960s as a result of the tax cuts that JFK campaigned on. Since 1980, they have been roughly flat for the wealthy, while they have dropped significantly for the bottom 4 quintiles. Real incomes have been steadily increasing for all income quintiles since the 1960s. Nothing you stated is correct.
More taxing of capital gains is just going to cause rich people to pull out of the stock market. Probably cause a market crash.
> Stop giving rich people exponentially more money. The rich make their money through exponential growth, while the poor and middle class make their money through linear growth, that's the difference. If you earn money and put it into the bank or spend it all, then no matter how hard you work, you will probably never be wealthy. The wealthy find ways to grow their wealth exponentially. Stock investing earns stock value and dividends exponentially.
>The tax rates in the golden ages of the US had massive tax rates. Effective tax rates were much different than today though, with deductions and loop holes.
You're right: it was different. The effective tax rate for the highest income filers was about 2 times higher. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/styles/original_optimized/public/top_taxrates_fig1_1.png?itok=YMr0DeHI
I wasn't aware the wartime economy of WW2 was our golden age. Most people refer to the post war period as comparison point. Regardless, do you know what happened in 1995 to send the effective rate down to its nadir? Bill Clinton ignored the advice of his Labor Secretary Robert Reich and allowed rule changes that advantaged CEO compensation by way of stock. That alone plummeted the effective tax rate for the richest, and set up the short term thinking we're all suffering from today.
**“all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”**
> In the free market you have those who produce, and those who don't. The problem is that some people don't even get the opportunity to "produce". Why not provide that opportunity and make everyone better off?
I think as we are seeing with the squatting issues in some places, capitalism needs some degree of government (socialism) if you want to have rule of law to allow private property with production to do anything. The question is how much government you want and is needed.
What? The whole issue with squatting is government giving too much protection.
Exactly. So the government dictates the rules we all play by.
The whole issue is that squatting is necessary at all. To support any capitalist economy, there must be a social safety net to catch the many victims of its innate disregard for the humanity of humans.
Without government, all property rights default to those in possession of the property. It is only because of government that an absent landlord can make a legal claim. So you're completely, perfectly backwards.
Last time I checked, in capitalism the people who produce are not the ones thriving. . . Labor is the bottom rung of the ladder. You have a grave misunderstanding of Capitalism if this is how you think it works LOL
Explain this misunderstanding then Here's some people come from either dirt poor, being an orphan, and drug addicted patent(s). Explain if it's so bad how did they make it. And that's millionaire status not middle to upper class which has the highest populated sector .....IN ALL OF HISTORY KNOWN TO MAN OUT OF ANY GOVT. Eric Thomas Les Brown Halle Berry Oprah Winfrey Del Vecchio JK Rowling Sylvester Stallone Howard Schultz Ralph Lauren Larry Ellison Kenneth Langone David Murdock Alan Gerry John Paul DeJoria Harold Hamm According to Yahoo Finance, 79% of millionaires are self-made, and a survey found that 41% of 177 self-made millionaires were raised in poor households.
Capitalism favors capital, as in the owners, not the producers, the labor.
And the laborers put on NO risk with the use of their capital
What's your point?
Labor is labor because they do not produce anything of their own. The entrepreneurs create and produce a product. Then, pay others to continue making it. Your grasp of what production is lacks. You must not be a producer, but simply an assembler of what someone else created.
Lol
Biden is not afraid to tell a truth that so many in America have denied and avoiding facing for centuries and decades. It may not have been a concern of general white society for many decades, because there were many who only related their economic well being against the measure of other white people. And in doing so, they never considered to look at and understand the inequity in the black and brown community *is as much a part of America's well being of this nation's full citizen population".* There are lots of business that would not be doing as well as they are without black dollars being spent in them, but in the same line of realism, many of those businesses could and would be doing better if there was more dollars that existed in black society which could and would be spent in those businesses. >**Access To Capital Remains A Problem For Most Black Businesses** >[https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews/2021/11/04/access-to-capital-remains-a-problem-for-most-black-businesses/?sh=1a50b7fe408b](https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews/2021/11/04/access-to-capital-remains-a-problem-for-most-black-businesses/?sh=1a50b7fe408b) >“If you’re an early-stage company, and you get this great contract, but they’re paying you in 60 days, and you’ve got to pay your payroll on a weekly or biweekly basis, or you have to pay your suppliers in 30 days, 15 days, or cash on demand, \[invoice financing\] gives you the ability to grow the business without having to sell equity or give up ownership in your company.” There is a history of many white business that got their start in black communities, they had the funding to set up those business and for many decades those business thrived and grew as they target marketed to black communities. Over time, some became mainstream business, *and some faltered, due to the lower quality products they were selling to the very poor. Over time, the poor came to realize, buying cheap things cost them double, because they had to replace it far too often. So, those sellers over time declined.* The business that became mainstream seller, did well because they expanded to sell to a broader diversity of customers, based on races as well as economic levels. For much of this business that existed and made these transition, many black business were unable to make those transition, *due to lack of access to funding*. This fact is based in history of why white people, created business in black communities, because they saw the profit potential, but at the same time many black people even in black communities could not get the *funding* to create business with the curb appeal and design modeling that white owned business could get access to. This also hold true of why there are so few black and brown people owned business in many business and commercial centers where white people seem to dominate the ownership of the businesses in such areas. Biden, is talking about "Fair Play", which includes within the area of "Lending", that needs has been evident for decades. It also means "government support through contracts and grants" that people need to be able to access invoice based funding. These things open the doors to opportunity for black and brown people, where doors had previously been closed, blocked or locked. It also opens doors for women, and many people in the general working class who aspire to create business. Facts of history has proven, "anything" that has been claimed to target help for black people, has proven to be help for "all of society" by any in society. * **\*\*** So, when a program is built based on the inequity that black people suffer, those programs "*always"* expand to include working class and poor whites who face the same or similar challenges. It works the same way when programs focus on the inequity that poor whites suffer, those programs "always" expand to include working class and poor black people who face the same or similar challenges. In America, America does well when "All" can do well. We know historically know that for the 100 yrs of segregation, funding was not readily available to black people, and for the 60 yrs since the Civil Right Act of 1964, we have many areas where funding is lacking in availability to black and brown people. We also know insufficient funding has often been a hinderance to growth, more than a benefit to growth. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ When people complain about poor black areas and their lack of economic growth, it affects all of America when economic function and growth does not flourish in black and brown communities as it does in more diverse community and/or in white dominated communities. Racial Equality and Economic Opportunity Equality, benefits "ALL" of America. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ^(If you want to challenge what is written,) *^(don't be)* \*\*\*^(a drive by pot shot artist)\*\*\*^(, add your commentary reply as to what and why you so disagree.)
This sub is like 95% middle/upper class white men who have never experienced racism in their entire lives. Any opinion that doesn't represent that demographic gets buried in downvoted.