StupidNation Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Has anyone read this report? I just started to, and it's point is that subsidizing the workforce with diversity mandates has reduced productivity because of inefficiency and job security because of race. I know it might shock someone, but if you subsidize something you get less productivity because the cream cannot rise to the top. You tell a company they have to hire so many of X race and they have to, they will inevitably have to hire less qualified people and keep them on staff because of quotas. Tell someone they can get hired because of their race and not merit and there is reverse discrimination. Discrimination is supposed to be looking beyond color and to the person, yet affirmative action is inherently racist and discriminatory because we are supposed to mandate race and look at color to make decisions. The next point was the cost of illegals using subsidizing health care and welfare and living off of others further decreasing productivity. Well, that's a fact. If you take from producing people and create a class of non-producing people by mandating subsidies then you will get more of it because humans are many times lazy. You are rewarding bad behavior. He does talk of "importing poverty" which I have no problem if someone wants to come here, work hard, and live poor as long as their condition is better and they are not a drain on the nation and others economically or culturally. Sorry, I shouldn't be forced to speak Spanish in supermarkets across the south, it's a violation of the culture. Can you imagine a bunch of Americans forcing others to speak English in Mexico? How long would that last until pitchforks come out. Still, this chapter is ridiculous. America was built on a nation of immigrants working hard, and it's not like Ol' Whitey is having children in this country. He does, in fairness, tie the poverty to welfare assistance as a drain, which it is. He brings up natives losing jobs to illegals and exporting currency and productivity. That is a fact. He brings up lack of trust with multi-culturalism and again, where is he wrong? Or do you think Whitey feels safe in the hood, or that German immigrants trust Germans and Mexicans with other Mexicans? Those are cultural facts. Cites a Harvard study, which is also adduced by fact and observation. Adduces that multi-cultural environments which have lack of trust which inhibits productivity. Cites studies, but it's pretty obvious as well. Brings up lack of communication in language as a barrier to make contracts. To even bring up what group he is in, without examining facts, is an intellectual sign of weakness against facts and arguments. His arguments by and large are sound. What made this country great was never diversity, but the freedom to conduct your life in freedom. Mandating diversity is a true sign of a lack of liberty. If Jews want to hire Jews no one raises a finger, if blacks hire other blacks so be it, but the mandates are on whites. That's not poor Ol' Whitey, that's the government forcing only whites to hire those not white. That's discrimination. That's a lose of freedom, and yes, it does hurt the productivity.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Yes, I remember it, I never saw a scientific refutation of his statement. It took his statement of fact and turned it into a racist diatribe. Amazing how no one attacked the study, but the person, which is not an argument, it's demagoguery and the argument of weak minded individuals when confronted with facts. You sure like the word demagoguery. Just an observation.
StupidNation Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 You sure like the word demagoguery. Just an observation. Because people use it here all the time. Most contrary arguments usually run like this: X politician is in X party, therefore they suck without argument to substance The guy who writes this belongs to this group, therefore he's wrong You are a XXXXist or XXXXXXphobe when I disagree with you It's a term for refers to "a political strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public".
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Because people use it here all the time. Most contrary arguments usually run like this: X politician is in X party, therefore they suck without argument to substance The guy who writes this belongs to this group, therefore he's wrong You are a XXXXist or XXXXXXphobe when I disagree with you It's a term for refers to "a political strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public". I'm aware of what it means, I was just making an observation.
Fingon Posted March 1, 2009 Posted March 1, 2009 No sh--. Racial quotas naturally make something less productive, as lesser talent must be promoted to meet diversity standards.
Booster4324 Posted March 1, 2009 Posted March 1, 2009 Because people use it here all the time. Most contrary arguments usually run like this: X politician is in X party, therefore they suck without argument to substance The guy who writes this belongs to this group, therefore he's wrong You are a XXXXist or XXXXXXphobe when I disagree with you It's a term for refers to "a political strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public". Surely you would never be guilty of this...
Typical TBD Guy Posted March 1, 2009 Posted March 1, 2009 Has anyone read this report? I just started to, and it's point is that subsidizing the workforce with diversity mandates has reduced productivity because of inefficiency and job security because of race. I know it might shock someone, but if you subsidize something you get less productivity because the cream cannot rise to the top. You tell a company they have to hire so many of X race and they have to, they will inevitably have to hire less qualified people and keep them on staff because of quotas. Tell someone they can get hired because of their race and not merit and there is reverse discrimination. Discrimination is supposed to be looking beyond color and to the person, yet affirmative action is inherently racist and discriminatory because we are supposed to mandate race and look at color to make decisions. The next point was the cost of illegals using subsidizing health care and welfare and living off of others further decreasing productivity. Well, that's a fact. If you take from producing people and create a class of non-producing people by mandating subsidies then you will get more of it because humans are many times lazy. You are rewarding bad behavior. He does talk of "importing poverty" which I have no problem if someone wants to come here, work hard, and live poor as long as their condition is better and they are not a drain on the nation and others economically or culturally. Sorry, I shouldn't be forced to speak Spanish in supermarkets across the south, it's a violation of the culture. Can you imagine a bunch of Americans forcing others to speak English in Mexico? How long would that last until pitchforks come out. Still, this chapter is ridiculous. America was built on a nation of immigrants working hard, and it's not like Ol' Whitey is having children in this country. He does, in fairness, tie the poverty to welfare assistance as a drain, which it is. He brings up natives losing jobs to illegals and exporting currency and productivity. That is a fact. He brings up lack of trust with multi-culturalism and again, where is he wrong? Or do you think Whitey feels safe in the hood, or that German immigrants trust Germans and Mexicans with other Mexicans? Those are cultural facts. Cites a Harvard study, which is also adduced by fact and observation. Adduces that multi-cultural environments which have lack of trust which inhibits productivity. Cites studies, but it's pretty obvious as well. Brings up lack of communication in language as a barrier to make contracts. To even bring up what group he is in, without examining facts, is an intellectual sign of weakness against facts and arguments. His arguments by and large are sound. What made this country great was never diversity, but the freedom to conduct your life in freedom. Mandating diversity is a true sign of a lack of liberty. If Jews want to hire Jews no one raises a finger, if blacks hire other blacks so be it, but the mandates are on whites. That's not poor Ol' Whitey, that's the government forcing only whites to hire those not white. That's discrimination. That's a lose of freedom, and yes, it does hurt the productivity. Bingo. Specifically economic freedom. It's how a tiny agrarian society turned into a world economic superpower in a relatively short period of time. Quality of living arose for everyone, including the poor.
blzrul Posted March 1, 2009 Posted March 1, 2009 Bingo. Specifically economic freedom. It's how a tiny agrarian society turned into a world economic superpower in a relatively short period of time. Quality of living arose for everyone, including the poor. Well, not so much for the slaves whose labor helped build this country.
Wacka Posted March 1, 2009 Posted March 1, 2009 Remember who supported slavery and then Jim Crow laws? It was the DEMOCRATS.
blzrul Posted March 1, 2009 Posted March 1, 2009 Remember who supported slavery and then Jim Crow laws? It was the DEMOCRATS. Slavery began in America in 1607. The Democratic party was actually split on the issue of slavery, like the rest of the country. The parties in America today have pretty much swapped positions. The Republican party actually used to be quite liberal. What's interesting is to see the decline and extinguishment of parties like the Whigs and Federalists...those who failed to understand and deal with the changes in the world around them. Maybe we'll see it again.
Helmet_hair Posted March 1, 2009 Posted March 1, 2009 Well, not so much for the slaves whose labor helped build this country. Wow, I did not know that the masses of emigrants who came to this country legally in the 1800’s and 1900’s to fuel the Industrial Revolution and who truly built this country were slaves! Oh…. That’s right they don’t count in Revisionist History because most of them were evil white Europeans.
blzrul Posted March 1, 2009 Posted March 1, 2009 Wow, I did not know that the masses of emigrants who came to this country legally in the 1800’s and 1900’s to fuel the Industrial Revolution and who truly built this country were slaves! Oh…. That’s right they don’t count in Revisionist History because most of them were evil white Europeans. that's about 200 years after slaves got here. and by the way, there were white slaves too. american indians were enslaved. and there were indentured servants and whatnot. but overall it was the african slaves that outnumbered them all. if you want to deny that slaves 1) did the hard labor 2) sadly, were an industry itself which impacted local / regional / national economies 3) were fundamental contributors to the growth of America's agriculture, which paved the way for our ability to take advantage and eventual leadership after the Industrial Revolution then go right ahead. talk about revisionist. dumbass.
Recommended Posts