GreekChat.com Forums
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   More Americans Die of Poverty than Terrorism (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=116430)

DrPhil 10-12-2010 01:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993429)
My discussion more relates to not any sort of "race-conscious" or anything as such
You think that highlighting race in such a topic isn't about race conciousness. How very white privilege of you to think that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993429)
but more to statistical averages being that Blacks are generally less educated, generally more unemployed, and generally disadvantaged in other senses which gives them a cost-advantage. Clearly not every Black person is underpaid and many are overpaid (see: the person in the White House), but speaking in generalities and statistical averages.
Did you just feel like explaining yourself to someone who had already explained you?

Elephant Walk 10-12-2010 02:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1993430)
You think that highlighting race in such a topic isn't about race conciousness. How very white privilege of you to think that.
Wrong word, but similar.

Meant race conscience, not conscious.

I don't really believe in race-conscience and I hope you don't either.

DrPhil 10-12-2010 02:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993431)
I don't really believe in race-conscience and I hope you don't either.
You obviously don't know what race-conscience is.

Elephant Walk 10-12-2010 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1993432)
You obviously don't know what race-conscience is.
Yeah, I do.

That's why I don't believe in it.

I also know that you're unbelievably obsessed with "race" and like to go on and on about the special trappings of "race".

But I frankly don't care. I was enjoying the economic discussion.

DrPhil 10-12-2010 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993429)
Yeah, I do.

That's why I don't believe in it.
I don't think you know what race conscience means but you clearly know what white privilege means. Hence, your randomness below....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993429)
I also know that you're unbelievably obsessed with "race" and like to go on and on about the special trappings of "race".
White privilege says that racial and ethnic minorities discuss race because they are unbelievably obsessed with it. Shut the fuck up.

Elephant Walk 10-12-2010 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1993435)
White privilege says that racial and ethnic minorities discuss race because they are unbelievably obsessed with it. Shut the fuck up.
Someone's a bit angry today. It's cute.

No one cares about your silly racial theories, go away.

DrPhil 10-12-2010 02:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993436)
Someone's a bit angry today. It's cute.
Yes, your words were so powerful that they have made me angry. Shame on you. I tell ya, being a Black woman makes me easily angered AND obsessed with race. Tsk tsk.

DrPhil 10-12-2010 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993436)
No one cares about your silly racial theories, go away.
Oh this was a fun edit. Thank God for white people to tell Black people to go away with our silly racial theories. That's why only white people should be doing theory construction and research in the first place.

(Let the record show that Elephant Walk was the main person expounding upon race in this thread. But, again, white privilege allows him to do that and pretend to be an objective, neutral, and racially unconscious speaker. We Blacks folkseses shant be so lucky!)

Elephant Walk 10-12-2010 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1993438)
Oh this was a fun edit. Thank God for white people to tell Black people to go away with our silly racial theories.
I don't think I said black people.

I said yours. While you might be a member of that group, that does not mean you embody that group. Obviously.

Quote:
That's why only white people should be doing theory construction and research in the first place.
I'm not sure I said anything in regards to who should be conducting these "studies". I frankly don't care. But if you feel that way more power to you.

Quote:
(Let the record show that Elephant Walk was the main person expounding upon race in this thread.
Upon request, yes. Not out of interest.

Quote:
But, again, white privilege allows him to do that and pretend to be an objective, neutral, and racially unconscious speaker.
I still have absolutely no interest in your race baiting.

AGDee 10-12-2010 06:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1993419)
It's insane to suggest that employers would slash everything across the board with no outcry or consequence - would you patronize such a place? I most likely wouldn't. It's the Whole Foods concept taken to a grander scale.

If it is, then it's part of the unemployment (and thus poverty) problem, and not part of the solution. Much like saying "employers always pay the least" (which is blatantly and demonstrably false), it sounds correct to say "minimum wages are good for workers" but that doesn't make it true.
In my experience, employers ALWAYS pay as little as they can get away with. This is why we've lost vacation days, pay more for benefits, have seen pay cuts or no raises in 2-3 years, cut tuition reimbursement, eliminated retirement matching, etc. In every non-union employment situation I've ever seen, it is common place to increase salary ranges for specific titles but not move the people who are working in that range until, eventually, people with 20 years experience are making 50 cents an hour more than new grads. And, all the while, they say "You're lucky we're not laying people off" and the companies are posting profits. It may be blatantly and demonstrably false for the upper executives who take care of their own, but it's blatantly and demonstrably TRUE for the rest of us.

DrPhil 10-12-2010 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993444)
I don't think I said Black people.
You didn't have to.

The fact of the matter is that you made a cliche' white privilege statement that implies that you have the power to engage in a topic that references race without being accused of being interested in and perceivably obsessed with race.

You just happened to use me as an illustration because, although I don't give a shit about your username, you consistently care about mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993444)
Upon request, yes. Not out of interest.
Of course you would use that logic. See my above reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993444)
I still have absolutely no interest in your race baiting.
Oh praise Jesus for white people who say stupid things like "race baiting" and "race card." The most amusing part is that I was only responding to Elephant Walk's and knight_shadow's posts. I swear we'd all go to Race Hell if white people like Elephant Walk weren't here to announce when the race-correlated discussion is over. Time to pretend it was always only an economic discussion. I hope white people like Elephant Walk let me talk about race correlates again sometime soon on GC. Maybe even a GC Race War. Woohoo. Lord knows Black folks such as myself think about race 24/7. I promise not to scare the white people like Elephant Walk who are often forced into race discussions. In Black baby Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

Senusret I 10-12-2010 09:00 AM
http://mattstone.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8...2cb4970c-800wi

DrPhil 10-12-2010 09:02 AM
Hallelujerrrrrr!

He has that "is I gon be a low wage Black Jesus, mommy?" look in his eyes.

Senusret I 10-12-2010 09:05 AM
With the high-five and Eddie Long toupee. Praise be to black baby Jesus.

Drolefille 10-12-2010 10:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1993419)
I feel like you're exaggerating for effect here - the actors are assumed to act rationally within the context of the market.



Completely irrelevant. (Or, to oversimplify - it doesn't.)



This isn't the assumption at all. The assumption is that workers would necessarily benefit from a competitive, efficient market because they are necessary players and contribute directly to the employer's bottom line.

It's insane to suggest that employers would slash everything across the board with no outcry or consequence - would you patronize such a place? I most likely wouldn't. It's the Whole Foods concept taken to a grander scale.



I think you're confusing topics here, or you're possibly misusing "market" in this sense - this isn't about the stock market, or even one select type of business. Not at all.



You're creating a series of false dilemmas. The only two options aren't "no regulation" or "current levels of regulation" - and deregulation doesn't mean elimination of all fail-safes. Just like azgz pointed out, many types of market regulations cause market inefficiencies. Who pays for those inefficiencies? It's not rich people, in general.

It might seem counterintuitive for you to read these things, but that doesn't make them wrong - history is littered with well-meaning but ultimately counter-productive policies. It's all well and good to say that "minimum wages automatically protect workers" but that statement isn't simply correct on its face - we need to make sure it is actually true in all situations. EW is saying that minimum wage laws protect workers who already have jobs at the expense of those who don't - that could very well be literally more correct than the former.

If it is, then it's part of the unemployment (and thus poverty) problem, and not part of the solution. Much like saying "employers always pay the least" (which is blatantly and demonstrably false), it sounds correct to say "minimum wages are good for workers" but that doesn't make it true.
I'm not sure why you're explaining what EW says as I feel like not only do you totally misunderstand my point but I'm having no problems understanding what he is saying and disagreeing with it on my own. Nor did I ever say that all places would replace workers with sweat shops. Although you neglect to take into consideration whether people would have an option not to patronize such an imaginary place due to location or income.

He thinks minimum wages hurt workers, I think a lack of minimum wage would hurt them more.

Kevin 10-12-2010 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 1993453)
In my experience, employers ALWAYS pay as little as they can get away with. This is why we've lost vacation days, pay more for benefits, have seen pay cuts or no raises in 2-3 years, cut tuition reimbursement, eliminated retirement matching, etc. In every non-union employment situation I've ever seen, it is common place to increase salary ranges for specific titles but not move the people who are working in that range until, eventually, people with 20 years experience are making 50 cents an hour more than new grads. And, all the while, they say "You're lucky we're not laying people off" and the companies are posting profits. It may be blatantly and demonstrably false for the upper executives who take care of their own, but it's blatantly and demonstrably TRUE for the rest of us.
To be fair though, isn't your personal experience limited to an area which currently has ~14% unemployment? If labor follows supply vs. demand, it would seem that the prices employers were paying for labor would fall. Why is it not fair that wages would sink in a buyer's market for labor?

Companies are posting profits, but we still have massively high unemployment. Do companies exist to post profits or to pay employees?

That aside, we're talking about deaths due to poverty, particularly homelessness. I'm not sure that labor markets really enter into the conversation as much as the resources and care we give to people with mental health issues.

KSig RC 10-12-2010 11:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1993485)
I'm not sure why you're explaining what EW says as I feel like not only do you totally misunderstand my point but I'm having no problems understanding what he is saying and disagreeing with it on my own. Nor did I ever say that all places would replace workers with sweat shops. Although you neglect to take into consideration whether people would have an option not to patronize such an imaginary place due to location or income.
Fair enough - but questions like "Who does the market favor?" or pointing out that the market shits its pants when Steve Jobs does something really seem like you're misapplying microecon theory, or confusing it with common usage of "market" and "rational" (which are massively different than the econ usages).

If you're not, that's my bad, and clearly a limit to the message board medium and my own idiocy.

Elephant Walk 10-12-2010 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1993463)
The fact of the matter is that you made a cliche' white privilege statement that implies that you have the power to engage in a topic that references race without being accused of being interested in and perceivably obsessed with race.
Yawn. I made no statements to suggest an obsession that and your logic (which includes stereotyping and generalizations) is faulty at best and at worst, racist.

Quote:
You just happened to use me as an illustration because, although I don't give a shit about your username, you consistently care about mine.
How do I care about your username?

Quote:
Oh praise Jesus for white people who say stupid things like "race baiting" and "race card." The most amusing part is that I was only responding to Elephant Walk's and knight_shadow's posts. I swear we'd all go to Race Hell if white people like Elephant Walk weren't here to announce when the race-correlated discussion is over.
I didn't announce it. Goodness you are quite dense. I personally have no interest in debating it, but you usually do due to your illogical backwards theories. If you have interest in it, go ahead. I have no interest in participating. Economics are interesting, your ridiculous conception of race is not.
Quote:
Time to pretend it was always only an economic discussion.
It was. The entire conversation was about comparative advantage.

DrPhil 10-12-2010 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993509)
Yawn. I made no statements to suggest an obsession that and your logic (which includes stereotyping and generalizations) is faulty at best and at worst, racist.

I didn't announce it. Goodness you are quite dense. I personally have no interest in debating it, but you usually do due to your illogical backwards theories. If you have interest in it, go ahead. I have no interest in participating. Economics are interesting, your ridiculous conception of race is not.

It was. The entire conversation was about comparative advantage.
This post is so dumb that it is baffling.

DrPhil 10-12-2010 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by da.most (Post 1993559)
Asians are the most qualified. Asian immigrants usually come here with nothing but at the end of the day the Asians have the highest per capita income. How do you explain that fact?
Le, C.N. 2010. "The Model Minority Image: Balancing Praise and Caution." Asian-Nation: The Landscape of Asian America.

http://www.asian-nation.org/headline...raise-caution/

DrPhil 10-12-2010 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by da.most (Post 1993635)
What is your point?
Le, C.N. 2010. "The Model Minority Image: Balancing Praise and Caution." Asian-Nation: The Landscape of Asian America.

http://www.asian-nation.org/headline...raise-caution/

knight_shadow 10-12-2010 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by da.most (Post 1993642)
You have atttended too many angry black men rallies.

Minimum wage does not deny anyone the opportunity to get an education. The real problem is your people don't care about education and they usually quit school.


If we did away with minimum wage do you think your opportunities will increase? If so then how?
*cue Alanis Morissette*

It's like raaaaaaain on your wedding day....

EW: Make sure you send in your Black People dues by next Thursday.

agzg 10-12-2010 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 1993643)
EW: Make sure you send in your Black People dues by next Thursday.
Dead.

DrPhil 10-12-2010 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 1993643)
*cue Alanis Morissette*

It's like raaaaaaain on your wedding day....

EW: Make sure you send in your Black People dues by next Thursday.
:eek: Elephant Walk was only talking about comparative advantage and the economy. How'd that sneaky race get in there? LOL.

PiKA2001 10-12-2010 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 1993643)
*cue Alanis Morissette*

It's like raaaaaaain on your wedding day....

EW: Make sure you send in your Black People dues by next Thursday.
HA!

Elephant Walk 10-12-2010 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by da.most (Post 1993642)
You have atttended too many angry black men rallies.

Minimum wage does not deny anyone the opportunity to get an education. The real problem is your people don't care about education and they usually quit school.


If we did away with minimum wage do you think your opportunities will increase? If so then how?
That's the definition of iroooooony.

DrPhil 10-12-2010 06:07 PM
It isn't just ironic on da.most's part.

Psi U MC Vito 10-12-2010 06:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by da.most (Post 1993638)
Why would someone take a low paying job when they can collect more in welfare and sit home?
Um no shit? The truth is though, most jobs pay more then welfare does.

Tulip86 10-12-2010 06:54 PM
Isn't that the whole idea?
Welfare is supposed to be the absolute last option (although I know for some it's an easy out). That's is why minimun wage also works... at least (a lot of) people will take working over welfare because they can make more money

PiKA2001 10-12-2010 07:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1993676)
Um no shit? The truth is though, most jobs pay more then welfare does.
Thats why I disagree with the idea of (more) welfare as a solution to poverty. Jobs that pay a livable wage is the only real solution to poverty.

Psi U MC Vito 10-12-2010 07:39 PM
Exactly. If jobs were required to pay a true living wage, the economy would probably be in much better shape.

Elephant Walk 10-12-2010 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1993711)
Exactly. If jobs were required to pay a true living wage, the economy would probably be in much better shape.
How is this?

(and more importantly, of what moral standing do you have to tell someone what they should do with the produce of their labors?)

AGDee 10-12-2010 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1993711)
Exactly. If jobs were required to pay a true living wage, the economy would probably be in much better shape.
Honestly, the prices of everything would just skyrocket and the people being paid the lowest amount would still be relatively poor.

Elephant Walk 10-12-2010 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 1993763)
Honestly, the prices of everything would just skyrocket and the people being paid the lowest amount would still be relatively poor.
Yes.

There are essentially three options for a firm when wage floors are above market equilibrium.

1.) Raise prices on goods, thus negating most gains by minimum wage workers.
2.) Cut employees which may further marginalize the poor.
3.) Take a cut in profits.

While many will say that these corporations should simply cut profits (no matter how illogical it may be) this may be absolutely dangerous for small firms who operate on razor thin profits.

If they're small enough, it may be impossible to cut employees. If the marketplace is competitive enough, raising the prices will mean a lack of buyers for products thus destroying the business. And if profits are razor-thin, well it won't be too long till they're under.

KSig RC 10-13-2010 01:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993773)
Yes.

There are essentially three options for a firm when wage floors are above market equilibrium.

1.) Raise prices on goods, thus negating most gains by minimum wage workers.
2.) Cut employees which may further marginalize the poor.
3.) Take a cut in profits.

While many will say that these corporations should simply cut profits (no matter how illogical it may be) this may be absolutely dangerous for small firms who operate on razor thin profits.

If they're small enough, it may be impossible to cut employees. If the marketplace is competitive enough, raising the prices will mean a lack of buyers for products thus destroying the business. And if profits are razor-thin, well it won't be too long till they're under.
Just to add on before we pile onto corporate profits, CEO pay or whatever other irrelevant stuff comes out . . . cutting profits has other massive problems, including less incentive (or ability) to reinvest in the corporation or new/more efficient products, considerably less incentive to innovate or invent (since you won't make money), reduced market fluidity for employees (which restricts their power in the marketplace), and a markedly increased incentive to move operations overseas.

Profit drives the train - it's important to have restrictions on market-warping forces like monopoly, but other types of profit restrictions are generally very bad for everyone.

knight_shadow 10-14-2010 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by da.most (Post 1994359)
their care breaks down.

attidude
LMAO

Munchkin03 10-14-2010 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by da.most (Post 1994359)
No it would not. Many companies would go under.

It only works if the workers produce enough to actually merit the true living wage.

That is one of the reasons many companies do not hire blacks. They don't show up for work every Monday and Friday. Every Monday their kid is sick and every Friday their care breaks down.

The first Monday you hire them they don't show. On Tuesday they show up an hour late and spend half the day on the phone with one of their many baby mommas or baby daddies. On Wednesday they start asking or as they say AXing about getting paid. Thursday they leave early. Friday they don't show up. Saturday is their day off but they show up an hour early looking for their check. Typical.

The next Monday it starts all over. Tuesday you sit them down and tell them their performance needs to improve and they give you attidude like, "I aint yo slave." You are thinking, "no chit, slaves actually work and they don't get paid."
Don't you have some interracial porn to watch?

KSig RC 10-14-2010 03:32 PM
It's pretty exciting that every thread turns "Racist Douche" at the end. The Godwin's Law of Greekchat.

knight_shadow 10-14-2010 04:02 PM
Damn, MM. That's a terrible attidude to have.

Drolefille 10-14-2010 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1994373)
It's pretty exciting that every thread turns "Racist Douche" at the end. The Godwin's Law of Greekchat.
I'm surprised this incarnation is still around.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:00 AM.
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.