More Americans Die of Poverty than Terrorism

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Abuse and exploitation are not 'choice' they're abuse and exploitation, period.

This is the only thing that wasn't irrelevant.

They are choices. You enter into a working relationship with a job orr you don't. What happens at that job is your choice to either put up with or not put up with.

In the 1920's, the gap between the rich and poor was quite low. (lower than the USSR post-revolution..actually) It's a wonder what an economic mess the statists have created to push that gap.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

So you're saying that it's ok to pay black people less money because they're used to it?

At what point did I say anything like that?

And you don't think the fact that construction companies pay cash under the table to illegal immigrants without having to pay payroll taxes is part of the freaking problem?

That certainly happens. But many construction companies pay legal immigrants as well. Due to their cost advantage, which even recent immigrants have over the African-American populace. To be honest, I like illegal immigrants working here because they're circumventing this ridiculous minimum wage law for both their and their employers benefit. Win-Win.

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

If the employer is really racist, why would he tarnish his "pure" business by hiring a "colored" man?

How is a business pure?

And if black man knows that the employer is an "out" racist, why would he still pursue said job?

To gain employment, I imagine.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

In the 1920's, the gap between the rich and poor was quite low. (lower than the USSR post-revolution..actually) It's a wonder what an economic mess the statists have created to push that gap.

And things were awesome in the 20s for everyone. You're right.

I give up. The idea that one can only choose to be exploited when there are power dynamics and one's livelihood involved, when there is not an alternative out there... it ridiculous. Starvation is the other option, so that's obviously equally viable.

Really it's just shy of "she stayed in the relationship so she deserved it/wanted it/let it happen/it's her fault."

Fuck that.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And things were awesome in the 20s for everyone. You're right.

Awesome for everyone that wasn't oppressed by the federal or state government, yep. (also, I'm not really sure what you're getting at...do you prefer the gap between the rich and the poor today)

The idea that one can only choose to be exploited when there are power dynamics and one's livelihood involved, when there is not an alternative out there.

Assuming there is not an alternative out there...which is a poor assumption. Only in monopsonistic competition is there not an alternative...which is quite rare.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

How is a business pure?

You're waaaay too smart for that. I know you know what I meant.

To gain employment, I imagine.

Even at my lowest point (professionally), answering to someone like that would not have been in the cards. I am pretty sure the same can be said for those who have less opportunities than I do.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

You're waaaay too smart for that. I know you know what I meant.

Yeah, but it doesn't make alot of sense.

I may have given this example before... but here's a little of what I'm talking of. I think everyone is aware of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang. Bad dudes. Serious guys. Usually decked out in swastikas, four leaf clovers and SS tattoos. They're a business of sorts. An illegal one, but a business all about race...about keeping things "pure" if you will.

Anyways, they were profiling them on Gangland. I suppose the question was asked "Why do you pair with the Mexican Mafia for selling drugs...when they're Mexican?" (along those lines) And this man who is in the Aryan Brotherhood says something like "Yes, we fight for our white brothers...but the only real color we see is green." That's why I posted that song lyric about "to the fucking rich man all poor people look the same".

Even at my lowest point (professionally), answering to someone like that would not have been in the cards. I am pretty sure the same can be said for those who have less opportunities than I do.

You are assuming that you know that he is racist...which is probably not too well known these days anyways. But that's your perogative.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Yeah, but it doesn't make alot of sense.

I may have given this example before... but here's a little of what I'm talking of. I think everyone is aware of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang. Bad dudes. Serious guys. Usually decked out in swastikas, four leaf clovers and SS tattoos. They're a business of sorts. An illegal one, but a business all about race...about keeping things "pure" if you will.

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"

You are assuming that you know that he is racist...which is probably not too well known these days anyways. But that's your perogative.

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

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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"

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.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

they are usually able to get a Black employee who works hard and with fewer other options for employment.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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.

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.

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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**.

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

[DrPhil]

[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.]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I may have given this example before... but here's a little of what I'm talking of. I think everyone is aware of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang. Bad dudes. Serious guys. Usually decked out in swastikas, four leaf clovers and SS tattoos. They're a business of sorts. An illegal one, but a business all about race...about keeping things "pure" if you will.

Anyways, they were profiling them on Gangland. I suppose the question was asked "Why do you pair with the Mexican Mafia for selling drugs...when they're Mexican?" (along those lines) And this man who is in the Aryan Brotherhood says something like "Yes, we fight for our white brothers...but the only real color we see is green." That's why I posted that song lyric about "to the fucking rich man all poor people look the same".

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.