I see what you're saying, but if the choices are "hire black man at $3/hr" or "hire white man at $4.50/hr," someone that's racist is likely going to go with the latter. The only time I can see the owner being blinded by race is if the choices are "hire black man at $3/hr" or "hire white man at $25,000/yr"

Believe me -- even though it's more subtle, it's not hard to pick up on.

[I haven't read this thread and don't know what this thread is about, but I saw the mention of the AB prison gang.]

The Aryan Brotherhood (the original AB and not the many knockoffs) is a prison gang that was created to protect white inmates and then became focused primarily on making money. Their business isn't all about race and keeping things pure. One of their founders/leaders is half Jewish (he bears a swastika on one arm and Star of David on the other arm) and they have nonwhite affiliates as you mentioned with the Mexican Mafia.

As with the structure of racism in general, the AB has members who could otherwise not be considered prejudiced on the basis of race but they join the AB (or seek AB protection in some other way) for protection. Thus, racism in general isn't about bigotry and prejudice, it is about opportunity, incentive, and power.

It depends on how much he values his ignorance.

If he is frugal and good with money, ultimately his ignorance will probably dissipate. It's really a matter of how much he values his ignorance over his money, but any good businessman worth his salt will value money over prejudices.

But the current system allows no weighing of it and instead allows the racist to make a simple decision, with zero opportunity cost.

It isn't so obvious and cut and dry.

The trend is for capitalists who are prejudiced to go with the former. The trend is also for capitalists who are racist to go with the former. They are able to not only keep an extra $1.50/hr but they are usually able to get a Black employee who works hard and with fewer other options for employment. Fewer options means fewer complaints on the part of the employee.

Based on these trends, the general pattern is that the only way someone who is prejudiced and/or racist will choose the latter is when their white customers won't patron them because they have Black employees (or a similar incentive to allow their prejudice to manifest into racism and discrimination). Then, the capitalist would pay the extra money for the white employees because more money and a better reputation will be made in the end.

Both of you have valid points.

I still think the "black folks will work for less" argument isn't going to fly, though, especially in 2010. Also, I don't think that a lot of non-whites* are going to put up with a racist employer (subtle or not). Maybe I'm headstrong about it because "my circle" wouldn't, but even when I've come in contact with folks that aren't in my circle and who are in lower-paying jobs, the sentiment has been the same**.

*I can see it with day-laborers, etc though.

**I also realize that my folks represent a small cross section. I'm just speaking based on experience.

It is flying like a hawk in 2010. Absolute and relative deprivation have increased drastically in the past 20 years. Meaning, the actual and perceived gap between the haves and have nots is greater than it has ever been in this country. Blacks are disproportionately have nots. There goes that hawk again.

People express all kinds of sentiments that they won't back up in their actions. People like to talk shit to/with those who don't have the power to punish them. In reality, nonwhites put up with racist employers everyday.

Like you said, your folks represent a small cross section. My family, friends, and I all have MBAs, J.Ds., and PhDs. I would never use my personal experiences with myself, my friends and family for such a discussion because we represent a tiny percentage of the Black population. Our education and professional networks are able to buffer some of the effects of racism and discrimination. Only some.

However, even some of my family and friends have had points in their lives where they had to tolerate racially charged bullshit from white people in order to achieve a goal. That includes those who were hosed as college students in the 1960s and those who had to use white people's business networks in the 1990s and 2000s.

Even still, we don't represent the majority of Blacks who don't have much to fall back on. They can't say "fuck you, I didn't go to law school for this shit." Guess where being obviously pissed off at a racist employer lands you? The unemployment line. Awesome and guess what most of these people hear in the unemployment line? "You should've counted your blessings, taken the paycheck, and just ignored the racist motherfucker."**


**A successful EEOC claim is rare even for the companies that provide that option

I see this more as a socio-economic issue than as a pure race issue. Yes, I know that there are correlates, but I still think "someone who is used to receiving lower pay" would have been a better argument than "blacks who are used to getting low pay."

Ex. If Deshaun Smith lost his $25,000 job and had to find something quickly to support himself, I don't believe that he would flock to a lower-than-minimum-wage job "because he's black and is used to it." I don't think that his being black means that he'll flock to something as soon as it opens and get exploited because society told him he can't do better.

I try to be careful where I draw examples from when I'm having discussions because a large group of my friends are college+. I do have a lot of contact with "have nots," if you will, because of places I used to frequent and because of friends-of-friends. Even these folks have shared my sentiments because 1) it makes the work environment unacceptable and 2) they don't want to "help a person like that" make money.

There's no such thing as a pure race issue. Race and socioeconomic status are highly correlated.

No, someone is generic and an attempt at political correctness and exaggerated inclusion. Whites who are used to lower pay are at an advantage to Blacks who are used to lower pay. Socioeconomic status does not have an equal effect on Blacks and whites. That's why Blacks are disproportionately of the lower socioeconomic status. That's why Blacks of the higher socioeconomic status are still racially profiled in lending and so forth. That's why whites have a higher level of social mobility than Blacks. While most people who were raised poor will remain poor, whites are more likely than Blacks to move up the social ladder as they age and if they acquire human capital and social capital. White privilege is one reason for that.


Has their rhetoric ever translated into action? Ask them that next time. It sounds good in theory but theory without practice means nothing.

And1 let's think of minorities who have family responsibilities. If you have mouths to feed, a racist motherfucker is something you would rather deal with than having to deal with not being able to provide for your family.

And2 capitalists are capitalists. Most employees will never meet the Head Capitalist in Charge so they don't know WHO they are helping to make money. They may be blessed with a really nice manager (although there are plenty of nice racists) but unbeknownst to you the CEO is a complete racist asshole. His/Her board room antics, for example, aren't common knowledge among those on the lower end of the totem pole.

*Please note that $25,000 is not a high income. Deshaun is generally considered living paycheck-to-paycheck (or poor). This is especially the case if he isn't the only person in his household*

He might and being named "Deshaun" isn't much help. He may do this if he has been socialized to believe that he will never be able to access higher paying means to achieve his goals. It happens all of the time and it's the same thing that happens with Black males who commit crimes to make money. They often do this because they believe that this is the only viable option. I'd rather someone make lower pay legally than higher pay illegally. And, yes, those two are considered to be the only options for many Black males. Hence, educated and successful Black males are considered an exception that has temporarily put a dent in the pattern.

But, I don't think that's what Elephant Walk was saying.

I know all about white privilege and how it's impacted us (I assume this was informational for those who are lurking). I had an issue, though, because of this post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993340) Because a black person would work for less due to being traditionally disadvantaged, thus giving them a cost advantage.

I interpreted it as "blacks [in general] are used to lower wages." Even though I have worked for low wages, I wouldn't say I'm "used" to them. 1) I know I'm more valuable than that, 2) I know how working in an environment like that would negatively affect me, and 3) I have resources to pull myself up so that I don't have to "settle" into low wages. I'm sure the same could be said for several people in my position, black, white, or otherwise.

I don't believe it has. And after all of my talk about not living in a vacuum :o

These points make sense.

Oh, I know that $25,000 isn't a lot, but compared to $3/hr (~$6,000 /yr working 40 hours), it's a substantial difference.

No, it wasn't just informational for those who are lurking.

Elephant Walk was correct. Blacks are generally used to lower wages. As I always tell people, we can't have it both ways. We can't highlight disadvantage and then not want people to mention the disadvantage that we just highlighted. It's awesome if it doesn't apply to you because generalizations and trends aren't meant to apply 100%.

The bolded is really the point. And those resources aren't just "you" pulling yourself up. As for 1) and 2), a large percentage of the population is underpaid and miserable. Yet, many of them believe they are worth more and know how it negatively affects them. Unfortunately, most of those people will live the rest of their lives underpaid and miserable.

This is what I was getting at. Some blacks, some minorities, many non-whites, some people -- any of these would have been better than just plain blacks. I refuse to believe that the mere fact that someone is black causes him/her to "expect" to work for pennies.

I don't see "underpaid but comfortable" as equal to "being underpaid and not being able to buy the necessities." I know that I could get more than my current salary, but I'm still able to support myself comfortably so I deal with it. Removing the wage floor and expecting me work when I can't afford shelter, food, and clothing is different.

Dudes, the market still exists, and it's still a powerful force - and it's kind of ironic to attack EW's points as unsympathetic and pie-in-the-sky, then basically deny peoples' abilities to act rationally in their own best interests out of hand.

Guess what guys? If we stop making decisions for people, they might just do the right thing themselves (or, more correctly, they'll be forced to)! Now, not all - of course not. But when you're not forced to act rationally, more will tend to act irrationally because they can.

It's not dispassionate, it's a fundamental belief in the ability of man and market to act rationally.

Why does the market act rationally? Or more importantly, for whom does the market act? Why is there an assumption that the market acts for the benefit of the workers?
"The market" freaks the fuck out when someone makes a typo in a computer program and "the market" panics when Steve jobs sneezes. "The market" isn't a rational actor.

If people have a choice between no jobs and working for unfair wages, we know they'll work for unfair wages, that's historical fact. That's not a free and noble choice, that's an act of desperation. Particularly when they could work 80 hours a week at those wages and not make enough to live on. When employers have the option to pay wages that low, they pay them, that's also a historical fact. And it is in their benefit to do so.

The 'free market' without regulation causes a lot of problems. Until the people with the power decide they don't want it anymore, I don't really see the reason to give them more.