More Americans Die of Poverty than Terrorism

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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....

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.

(Let the record show that Elephant Walk was the main person expounding upon race in this thread.

Upon request, yes. Not out of interest.

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]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Upon request, yes. Not out of interest.

Of course you would use that logic. See my above reply.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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?

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.

Time to pretend it was always only an economic discussion.

It was. The entire conversation was about comparative advantage.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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.