3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2015 Author Share Posted May 28, 2015 Here's a thought: Are Black people stuck in the ghetto? or is it a ghetto because of black people? There are a lot of programs designed to get minorities out of a bad neighborhood. But when they finally move to a good neighborhood, it eventually becomes another bad neighborhood. Do you live in Elma? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2015 Author Share Posted May 28, 2015 Totally agree, but the Conservatives have a point that things have deteriorated in poorer sections of the country. Its gotten so bad that some people have no clue what its like to have a job, how to act on the job, what it means to be employable and how to work hard. Its sad. I brought up the drop out rate because its pretty easy to get a high school diploma but millions each year just can't do it. Twenty years ago we were talking about how children were having children, now, those children and grand parents. Jobs are the answer. But how we get from her to more people working is a mystery to me Ok I'm out! As a compassionate conservative it pains me to say this but I think that the answer is staring us in the face. Take away the safety net from the people that are physically and mentally able to work. Hunger is a motivator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 and the intimate connection between the $15 minimum wage and the welfare state seems to have escaped evryone here for 3 pages...the new slavery, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 and the intimate connection between the $15 minimum wage and the welfare state seems to have escaped evryone here for 3 pages...the new slavery, indeed. So you think an arbitrary number for how much someone should be paid for an hour's worth of work is miraculously going to get people out of poverty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 As a compassionate conservative it pains me to say this but I think that the answer is staring us in the face. Take away the safety net from the people that are physically and mentally able to work. Hunger is a motivator. There is not enough jobs though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 So you think an arbitrary number for how much someone should be paid for an hour's worth of work is miraculously going to get people out of poverty? i think it would certainly help. and the absurdity of subsidizing companies that pay ridiculously low wages through food stamps and rent subsidies etc to their employees could also cease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 There is not enough jobs though. There are plenty of jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 There are plenty of jobs. There's a hell of a lot of them here in Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Don't give up on them as you have... that could be a start. BOOM! Great answer. and the intimate connection between the $15 minimum wage and the welfare state seems to have escaped evryone here for 3 pages...the new slavery, indeed. If $15/hr is the minimum anyone should work for why do you pay your employees so much less? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Hmmm ... Well ... Hmmm ... Look, Sowell makes a good point. I've been reading the guy since grad school (incidentally he didn't reply to a request for a quote to buttress my thesis in a my Constitutional Law seminar paper so I shouldn't agree with **** the man has to say). But with that said, he misses some critical points and draws some false conclusions - namely, "'welfare' is bad." I've discussed ad infinitum on this site why I think that is a wrong-headed thesis. Welfare shouldn't be a lifestyle, nor should it be an income stream or a retirement option; but it is well placed as a bridge between unemployment and employment and it assuages what would naturally be the tendency of some to commit acts of criminal conduct in order to have basic resource needs for them or their families in the instances where society abandons any concern or interest in their survival or well being. Those states which restrict the length of time that public assistance is available, and mandate some recompense after the individual is gainfully employed, I agree with. Those states that allow competent and able-bodied citizens unfettered access to public assistance resources - money, housing, food - in omne tempus, I don't agree with. But the institution needs to exist in some capacity for temporary sustenance and rejuvination. Sowell's "all or nothing" postulation misses that. He also seems to forget that "black-on-black" crime pre-1960 was largely do to statistically greater "white-on-black" crime. The majority of black folks were galvanized in some effort against that; and the inner cities were bastionsof social thought centers and community organizations. It was when black folks accomplished their "cause" and the collective "cause" was replaced with an individualized need to survive by clawing for the few opportunities that they were qualified for (due to a meritocratic infrastructure that set a goal post that was the "same" for everyone [read: driven by academic achievement] though there was a massive disparity with regard to the availability and quality of academic resources that was ostensibly the leveling paradigm upon which to judge everyone equally) that you see this "ghettoism" and community crime circumscribed by poverty. Think of it like this, you're in a race that you've never been allowed to run. Some smart people get together and say, "we are going to put the finish line in the same place for everyone." It's just that some people start the race 200 meters further ahead always. The equality of the "finish line" doesn't matter then. Sowell misses that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share Posted May 29, 2015 Hmmm ... Well ... Hmmm ... Look, Sowell makes a good point. I've been reading the guy since grad school (incidentally he didn't reply to a request for a quote to buttress my thesis in a my Constitutional Law seminar paper so I shouldn't agree with **** the man has to say). But with that said, he misses some critical points and draws some false conclusions - namely, "'welfare' is bad." I've discussed ad infinitum on this site why I think that is a wrong-headed thesis. Welfare shouldn't be a lifestyle, nor should it be an income stream or a retirement option; but it is well placed as a bridge between unemployment and employment and it assuages what would naturally be the tendency of some to commit acts of criminal conduct in order to have basic resource needs for them or their families in the instances where society abandons any concern or interest in their survival or well being. Those states which restrict the length of time that public assistance is available, and mandate some recompense after the individual is gainfully employed, I agree with. Those states that allow competent and able-bodied citizens unfettered access to public assistance resources - money, housing, food - in omne tempus, I don't agree with. But the institution needs to exist in some capacity for temporary sustenance and rejuvination. Sowell's "all or nothing" postulation misses that. He also seems to forget that "black-on-black" crime pre-1960 was largely do to statistically greater "white-on-black" crime. The majority of black folks were galvanized in some effort against that; and the inner cities were bastionsof social thought centers and community organizations. It was when black folks accomplished their "cause" and the collective "cause" was replaced with an individualized need to survive by clawing for the few opportunities that they were qualified for (due to a meritocratic infrastructure that set a goal post that was the "same" for everyone [read: driven by academic achievement] though there was a massive disparity with regard to the availability and quality of academic resources that was ostensibly the leveling paradigm upon which to judge everyone equally) that you see this "ghettoism" and community crime circumscribed by poverty. Think of it like this, you're in a race that you've never been allowed to run. Some smart people get together and say, "we are going to put the finish line in the same place for everyone." It's just that some people start the race 200 meters further ahead always. The equality of the "finish line" doesn't matter then. Sowell misses that too. I agree with a lot of what you say here and will put some thought into the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Think of it like this, you're in a race that you've never been allowed to run. Some smart people get together and say, "we are going to put the finish line in the same place for everyone." It's just that some people start the race 200 meters further ahead always. The equality of the "finish line" doesn't matter then. Sowell misses that too. I agree with the analogy for the problem, what the debate boils down to, is the solution. The Liberal solution is to hamstring the faster runners with boulders. The Conservative solution is to move the finish line closer to the start. If "equality" is your only goal, then the choice is obvious.... Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 There are plenty of jobs. There certainly are plenty of jobs. The rub is that you may have to take one you really don't want; nevertheless, having a job means receiving a pay check, plus there is no better place from which to find an even better job than the job you already have. It's important to keep in mind that your first job in any job cycle need not be the ultimate job you are seeking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 As a compassionate conservative it pains me to say this but I think that the answer is staring us in the face. Take away the safety net from the people that are physically and mentally able to work. Hunger is a motivator. Wouldn't work. We'd end up paying more for criminal justice There are plenty of jobs. Why aren't people taking those jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Why aren't people taking those jobs? I don't know. Why don't you ask them? They're the ones not taking them. But let me ask you a question. (oh the horror) If they have enough subsidies to have a roof over their head food in the fridge and a six pack and smokes on the coffee table where's the incentive to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Think of it like this, you're in a race that you've never been allowed to run. Some smart people get together and say, "we are going to put the finish line in the same place for everyone." It's just that some people start the race 200 meters further ahead always. The equality of the "finish line" doesn't matter then. Sowell misses that too. This does bring us back to the legacy of slavery, IMO, where slaves were not allowed to read I don't know. Why don't you ask them? They're the ones not taking them. But let me ask you a question. (oh the horror) If they have enough subsidies to have a roof over their head food in the fridge and a six pack and smokes on the coffee table where's the incentive to work? Maybe you are right, they don't mind being poor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Maybe you are right, they don't mind being poor Maybe in their mind they're not poor. They see the guy living on the street pushing the shopping cart and that's poor the them. It's all relative. They look at me driving by everyday in my suit and tie and think "sucker!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Maybe in their mind they're not poor. They see the guy living on the street pushing the shopping cart and that's poor the them. It's all relative. They look at me driving by everyday in my suit and tie and think "sucker!!" Could be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I remember reading years ago (I think it was in Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Annointed) That the poor spend something like $2 for every $1 they take in. Let that sink in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I remember reading years ago (I think it was in Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Annointed) That the poor spend something like $2 for every $1 they take in. Let that sink in. Supporters of federal food benefits programs including President George W. Bush understood this, and proved the economic value of SNAP by sanctioning a USDA study that found that $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in gross domestic product (GDP). Maybe that's what you're thinking of. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-economic-case-for-food-stamps/260015/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts