Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
Yes, it has been for generations. At least in a legal sense, which is the only thing that matters.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Robots Aren't Destroying Enough Jobs
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
What you said is such a perfect analogy to how both sides view the situation. You say if the kid in the hole is too stupid to get out and stand on the crate, then that's on him. Got it. Which crate in the reality slide is he too stupid to stand on exactly?
Last edited:
There is no 'kid' in that cartoon. That's three adults, one happens to be taller than average and another shorter.
How the economic system is (and has been really throughout the last three hundred years save 1950 to about 1980) it doesn't matter how hard any one person works, it's more than likely how wealthy a person's parents were that determined how wealthy they would be.
Here's a video to help you understand this problem better and it's on topic
-For those who do not know, Robert Reich was the Labor Secretary for President Clinton and served in the Ford and Carter administrations.
Less on topic, but covers where wealth inequality comes from and how 1950-1980 was a unique time (and should not but used to base economic policies off of)
Last edited:
Because I'm anticipating the whole forum dogpiling on your comment, it DOES matter how hard you work. Someone working twice the hours is always going to have more money than somebody in the exact same situation who isn't. But it matters MUCH MORE on average what class you were born into.
NeoNemesis
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,466
Laws (especially laws like this) are easily circumvented or ignored so saying that 'the legal sense' is all that matters demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how society works, and has worked throughout all of human history.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
Care to cite your sources?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So you're telling me that a single mother working 80 hours a week at minimum wage jobs will earn MORE than Trump golfing with a few business friends. Hell, the woman probably won't even make as much in her ENTIRE LIFE than Trump could make in one golf outing.
-$15,080 is a yearly income (before tax) of someone working minimum wage. Working for 40 years that's $603,200. Even doubled to $1,206,400 it's still the equivalent to toilet paper to Trump.
No
Those who have wealth - land, patents, companies (with employees making them more money), stocks, cash, etc - which were more than likely inherited - will continue to grow wealthier without doing anything.
Those who do not come from wealth can work and struggle. Some will move to up - based much larger on luck than anything else, no matter what you argue, sry - and most, no matter how driven, will not
This is not based off of being lazy. This is not based off of equality, This is just how it is. The entire system is made to make the rich richer. As money becomes more scarce - and it is - the rungs on the social ladder become further and further apart.
Last edited:
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
This is just plain obvious right? In what other country would this situation not be the same exact as your describing?
Someone who's poor making min wage more than likely does not have a skilled job and does not have education. It doesn't matter how much they work, they'll never make as much as someone with a decent paying job.
However if they work hard to provide for their kids and their kids graduate highschool, right there their kids can make more than them. If their kids go on to college, they're almost guaranteed a better life.
In what world or what system would it be that the min wage worker would earn as much as some rich person?
Even if you said, you know what, this is unfair, we're going to take 90% of the rich guy's money and distribute it to everyone else. That Rich guy will still be able to be wealthier than the poor person because it's assumed they have education and connections so that in a few years when they move to a country that doesn't steal their wealth, they'll be back to where they were.
So then whats your solution or is this just some obvious statement?
You know that rich guy's kids have the chance of ending up in the middle class or lower class depending how much money they live outside of their means.
NeoNemesis
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,466
I need to cite sources that blacks are marginalized in the US?
The rich already use tax havens. Nothing new.
UBI is really the best solution. Give everyone a leg, or box, to start from. It's even more vital as nearly half the jobs in the world will be automated (no longer there) in the next 5-10 years - i have other posts explaining this point so if you want sources look through my posts.
I'll note that I do have a net-positive wealth (positive after two mortgages, cash, and stocks) and I am willing to be taxed more to make a better society as the US, as it is now, is shit for many people and it doesn't have to be that way.
So your view, from your post, is: "If you're poor, tough shit. Work hard and your kids might have a chance to succeed."
To that statement: EVERYONE should listen to this program to better understand just how stacked our society is against the success of the poor, even at 4th grade
http://www.apmreports.org/story/2017/01/25/the-view-from-room-205
Last edited:
It's sad isn't it? Here's a source just for those <censored> enough to think there's no marginalization in the US. http://www.apmreports.org/story/2017/01/25/the-view-from-room-205
Yes sorry, i just hate that argument as it's simply ignorant saying "work harder and you'll succeed". It worked between 1950 to 1980, not so much any more. Even if someone works twice as hard as another in the same situation doesn't guarantee that. Sure some will make it, most will not. (For sources, see previous posts)
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
yes
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
If there exists racism in america today, then how is it possible that Nigerian Americans make more than whites?
How is it that Asians make more than everyone else?
Did Asians secretly rig the US's laws and economic system to favor themselves?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income
Ummm IDK, because Asians were never slaves? It's really pathetic how unsympathetic some people can be to not understand what hundreds of years of oppression - even after slavery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States) - can do to a group of people.
As for how Asians make more i'll make a guess (this is a hypothesis on my part, no sources). The majority of Asians are on the west coast - due to where they first landed from crossing the Pacific Ocean. Many, new and established, went into technology which is thriving on the west coast and there's tons of money in the field; I know as I'm a software engineer.
An added benefit is segregation is not nearly as institutionalized on the west coast as it is in the south/south-east and even the north-eastern US. You'll know this the instant you walk off the plane after going from Ca, Wa, or even Co to Georgia.
-Let me be clear, there's still marginalization/segregation on the west coast - even to Asians though mostly Hispanics and blacks
Last edited:
Jamison Collins
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 70
Go on record that that is what you got from my link and I will answer your question.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
I like how you focus on the asians and ignore the Nigerian Americans making more than whites.
Your segregation theory is nuts.
Let me theorize, maybe it's culture. Maybe asians have the lowest rate of single motherhood out of all the nationalities. https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...be1688d7d84_story.html?utm_term=.63877f5d5a7c
Maybe Asians get good test scores because they have a strong family unit and are focused on scholastic achievement.
Asians were never slaves? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Asia https://www.quora.com/Were-there-Asian-slaves-in-America
I guess when there weren't brought over in mass to build railroads and interned in WWII and all their property and good stolen from them, it doesn't count as injustice done to them.
And yet, must be technology jobs in which they excel at, because they're good at math right?
Also, there are technology jobs everywhere. I'm a software engineer myself and i've never lived in the west coast and never had a problem finding a job in the east coast for technology.
Notice i never said you can't find technology jobs elsewhere? Just that that's where it started.
Asians were never slaves in the US. (Note: It's silly to argue about slavery in Asia when we're talking about slavery and it's ramifications in the US) i didn't add that since we were in the context of the US. Were three some? Probably, and while horrible, not enough to change social patterns. As i said, it was simple a guess about Asian non-segregation. Doesn't disprove black segregation in the least.
Yes, most Japaneses (not all Asians), were put in camps in WWII. It was not and not even close to slavery - it was horrible though. To think they're even remotely the same and use it as a counter is truly idiotic on your part.
Nigerian Americans? No idea. To leave Nigeria you'd have to have money and connections. I'm guessing these are aristocrats as we don't know how many there are that account for the income in the wiki article (notice the number of Nigerians is not spelled out). 100 rich Nigerians counter the hundred million rich/middle/poor whites.
Last edited:
NeoNemesis
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,466
So what we can glean from all this is that people who came here willingly and were not slaves do better than the people who were slaves.........
You're attempting to compare immigrants -who by their very nature are more industrious and resourceful than the average person, to slaves, and it absolutely makes no sense.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
No one in their lifetimes were ever a slave in the US.
By going by that logic, whites who were slaves via the barbary coast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade should still suffer from post slavery effects.
Slavery ended more than 150 years ago. Civil rights started and ended in 1965 which is more than 50 years ago.
There were many groups that were marginalized, but no one uses that as an excuse to why they haven't recovered.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1261
NeoNemesis
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,466
There are people alive today whose grandparents and great-grandparents were slaves. Are you arguing that these individuals have/had the same advantage as people who came from wealth immigrant families?
What you need to remember is that poverty is cyclical - or in this case generational. Once you're poor it's incredibly difficult to break out of the cycle.
The average American colonist in the early 17th century was wretchedly poor. Within 150 years, the same time period from emancipation until today, right before the start of the American Revolutionary War, the average citizen enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world. Keep in mind indentured servitude expanded greatly in the early 18th century in the colonies. That distinction is why I don't also use later immigration periods as evidence because I realize slavery is a unique situation, but indentured servitude is a closer match. The whole concept of the American Dream is to break that cycle, though, which is why successful immigration especially in the 19th century is revealing on that context.
I don't necessarily disagree with you but I want to point out that simply hand-waving continued poverty away by suggesting an inevitable, nigh-unbreakable process is a bit of a disingenuous argument.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
Generational. If you're poor, you have about a 50% chance to work your way out of it and provide a better starting point for your family. You have these chances because of compulsory education and literacy.
No one's grandparent was a slave. The math doesn't add up.
As for wealthy immigrant families, that's not a concept centered in reality. The US imports tons of immigrants with little to no educational background. 30% of adults have no high school equivalent diploma. The US doesn't care if you have an education, and it doesn't even care if you speak english. 49% of immigrants are classified as "Limited english proficiency".
(Legal) Immigration is mostly done by lottery. It's not like a wealthy family gets a pass on that.
NeoNemesis
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,466
Where did you get that figure, and, given that black people were marginalized as recently as 50 years ago, wouldn't that still technically mean that 50% of black people were poor?
If you need to drop out of school and get a part time job to help support your family then you are not getting the same education as someone who can stay in school.
Also, there is a fundamental difference in quality between your standard inner city school and something you'd find in the suburbs. Let's not even get into private schooling and the various advantages that gets you (networking, access to universities, etc).
???
http://newhopepublishers.com/2011/02/my-grandfather-was-a-slave-by-joyce-dinkins/
Pretty much any black person over 75 could have had a grandparent who was a slave. It was only 150 years ago, your average grandparent is somewhere between 50-75 when their grand kids are born.
First, an immigrant doesn't need to speak English to be well educated and rich. It's far easier for a rich person to immigrate than a poor person. That's not even up for debate. You should also consider that it takes a certain mindset to immigrate to a new country.
Add to that the fact that when most of our ancestors migrated here from Western Europe (in my case) they came to what was essentially virgin land and just lay down roots wherever suited them best.
NeoNemesis
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,466
When our ancestors came to this land (in my case around the 1650s on my father's side) the land was pretty much up for grabs. People were poor, but they worked hard and took what they needed to survive and thrive with very few rules and regulations and virtually no competition.
Even if African American's had gained absolute equality 150 years ago they still would have been at a disadvantage because by that point, 90% of the land was already owned by private individuals or government. You couldn't just take what you wanted anymore.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States
"But long-term income statistics show this isn't happening. Mobility opportunities are different for poor and wealthy children in the US. Parental incomes and parental choices of home locations while raising children appear to be major factors in that difference. According to a 2012 Pew Economic Mobility Project study[18] 43% of children born into the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) remain in that bottom quintile as adults."
This means that 57% of children born into the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) won't remain in that bottom quintile as adults.
the other part of your reasoning assumes that 100% of blacks back in the 1950s were poor.
the number is around 30% that drop out of high school leave for economics reasons to help out with families. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eres-how-to-help-them/?utm_term=.7da8243008ae)
"the average high school graduation rate in the nation’s 50 largest cities was 53 percent, compared with 71 percent in the suburbs." (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/education/22dropout.html)
It's 18% difference does account for a bit statistically. It's not like the 29% dropout rate nationwide for suburban schools is awesome.
ok. Your right on the math. But so what? Lets say my great grand father came from ireland because of the potato famine without a penny. Should i use that as a reason why i never succeed in life? What exactly is the cut off here? 3? 4? 5 generations?
My mom's and her family immigrated here and they were dirt poor. They still are for the most part. Some don't even speak english, and yes, it really does help even getting a job if you speak the language.
How many immigrants that are well educated are poor? No one said they had to be rich, but the chances of a well educated immigrant being poor is pretty rare.
A certain mindset? there's no need. America in their minds is a place of opportunity and wealth.
America also imports in non skilled immigrants for cheap labor: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/11/the-new-economics-of-immigration/376705/
"The relative skills of successive immigrant waves have declined over much of the postwar period. In 1970, for example, the latest immigrant arrivals on average had 0.4 fewer years of schooling and earned 17 percent less than natives. By 1990 the most recently arrived immigrants had 1.3 fewer years of schooling and earned 32 percent less than native
Because the newest immigrant waves start out at such an economic disadvantage, and because the rate of economic assimilation is not very rapid, the earnings of the newest arrivals may never reach parity with the earnings of natives. Recent arrivals will probably earn 20 percent less than natives throughout much of their working lives.The large-scale migration of less-skilled workers has done harm to the economic opportunities of less-skilled natives. Immigration may account for perhaps a third of the recent decline in the relative wages of less-educated native workers
The new immigrants are more likely to receive welfare assistance than earlier immigrants, and also more likely to do so than natives: 21 percent of immigrant households participate in some means-tested social-assistance program (such as cash benefits, Medicaid, or food stamps), as compared with 14 percent of native households.
The increasing welfare dependency in the immigrant population suggests that immigration may create a substantial fiscal burden on the most-affected localities and states."
Everyone should read Eric Foner's Reconstruction as it's most relevant to this subject. Among other things, it shows that African-Americans squandered their post-war political capital by voting quid pro quo and in some areas (e.g., Louisiana) the Creoles looked down on their full-black constituents. Obviously Reconstruction ended up a failure by any reckoning (in no small part due to Johnson) but, again, a significant amount of political power was abused for short-term gain with long-term racial repercussions. This is all in light of the fact that there remained stark differences between northern and southern states for a full century after the war despite a larger African-American population in the latter. Yet, success or lack of it is often discussed in a universal way. He discusses land redistribution to African-Americans, too, which was mostly a failure due to the reasons I mentioned above.
Second, a reading of the Oxford History of the United States series will show that there was land well into the 20th century. Even if there wasn't, you had significant immigration until the inter-war (WWI/WWII) period where many people ended up quite successful in few generations. Even with our current "crisis" (a la Mexican border) we see that Hispanics have generally assimilated better. While I won't agree with Trump that they simply "send us their worst," suggesting that descendants of slaves were inherently inferior in some way (thus locking them into a poverty feedback loop) really only feeds into the Southern mantra of racism that remained virile even fifty-some years ago. I'm not saying that you are stating that - merely that by implying an inability to break free of poverty you are borderline "lost cause."
All that being said, books like Lowe's Savage Continent (which deals with the great migrations following the end of WWII in Europe) show that people with nothing but the clothing on their back, displaced from their ancestral homes, are capable of building up wealth in a few generations when united as a community. African-Americans are known for their communal strength post-Civil War, especially around religion (a la Martin Luther King, Jr.), a pattern seen in most immigration/migratory movements of people in history, and yet this tends towards adversity rather than unity in the modern landscape. So while I agree it can be difficult to escape these situations I think you're underestimating the impact of culture on this problem. African-Americans have very high single-parent (especially mother) homes including being raised by their grandparents (e.g., Barack Obama) and that is objectively linked to economic hardship - these and similar restraints are more significant than a century and a half tie to slavery. Likewise, culturally things like education and being "white" (or an "Uncle Tom") are frowned on by the African-American community as a whole, which exacerbates the problem.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,039
Equality only works if everyone starts with the same advantage.
Equity is inherently unfair. It suggests that everyone should get the same, regardless of their talents, and efforts. If we have equity in something that means something is very wrong, because the different life choices of people should prevent that from happening.
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
When education becomes a cost factor, and jobs pays very little. You end up with a class based society where you more or less are born into your class. And the class mobility tends to go down. Lets be honest, the American dream is based on luck, not skill or effort.
NeoNemesis
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,466
Equity is only unfair when people start on a level playing field (or as level as possible).
You can't beat down a group of people for a few centuries then turn around and say equity is a bad thing, like somehow we aren't responsible as a society that this situation turned out the way it has.
dangerouseddy
Gawd
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 639
I see the threads been derailed, personally if I was ill I wouldn't want to be treated by a robot. what if it breaks down or has faulty programming? plus id think you'd want some social interaction and soothing chat if your dying of cancer or are ill.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,039
Equity should not be the goal, the goal should be equality. To remain at the example everyone should get one box regardless of what they themselves bring to the table. If you're 4 foot don't expect to compete for a place on the basketball court.
NeoNemesis
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,466
Humans are a hell of a lot more fallible than robots.
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
In terms of education, healthcare etc they should. Its first when you pass over to the more luxury oriented parts you apply a difference.
Here in Denmark it doesn't matter if you are a billionaire or a unemployed poor person. You get treated the same in a hospital, school, university, courtroom etc.
dangerouseddy
Gawd
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 639
id take a slightly fallible human over a robot with the conversation skills of a brick if I was ill and bed ridden or ill and house bound.
Sorry but you cannot say definitively that the graphic pictures three adults. It looks like an adult and his two children. You are stating your opinion as a fact.There is no 'kid' in that cartoon. That's three adults, one happens to be taller than average and another shorter.
How the economic system is (and has been really throughout the last three hundred years save 1950 to about 1980) it doesn't matter how hard any one person works, it's more than likely how wealthy a person's parents were that determined how wealthy they would be.
Here's a video to help you understand this problem better and it's on topic
-For those who do not know, Robert Reich was the Labor Secretary for President Clinton and served in the Ford and Carter administrations.
Less on topic, but covers where wealth inequality comes from and how 1950-1980 was a unique time (and should not but used to base economic policies off of)
Shahid Khan came to America from Pakistan in 1967 with little more than the clothes on his back. 50 years later he is a billionaire and an NFL owner. Classic rags to riches in America story. I'm sure he is glad that he did not listen to people like you.
Likewise I know very well who Robert Reich is and it would be very difficult for you to provide a less persuasive person than a Clinton Stooge like Reich...
You do realize that "fallible" humans program the robots? Garbage in, Garbage out. Human's are capable of intuitive "leaps" while robots descend into a cybernetic loops. "We" are the masters of the machines not vice versa.