Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 4 of 66 pages
You could have saved yourself a lot of keystrokes just by typing out your two-letter answer: "No." No, you don't think American society offers everyone (who is able-bodied and of sound mind) a sense that their lives can improve with honest effort.
You want a return to the good old days of low-skilled, manufacturing jobs making up a larger part of the work force? A combination of technology and government policies have made that unrealistic, even if it were desirable.
You can't consign 50% of the population to permanent lower class status.
Ray, half, or more, of the freakin population is completely unsuited to college. You can't consign 50% of the population to permanent lower class status.
Congratulations. You have all discovered that it is necessary to get a college education in order to have a good chance at making a middle class income.
Chicken and egg. Give people welfare and a minimum standard of living that is quite comfortable, all things considered, and it's not a shock that they'll decide to be content with their lot in life rather than trying to move up.
Why would it not be desirable?
We've got less than 5% of the world's population and nearly 25% of the world's prisoners, and though most people realize that that's nuts, we don't seem to be able to do much about it.
Snapper, there are so damn many times that your heart is hovering in the vicinity of the right place, but not much else. It'd also be cheaper to invest real money into early childhood education than it is to house and feed two and a half million prisoners at a cost of over $31,000 a prisoner. We've got less than 5% of the world's population and nearly 25% of the world's prisoners, and though most people realize that that's nuts, we don't seem to be able to do much about it.
It will only continue to grow as long as prisons are under corporate control. This is point is very simple.
Heh... you assume prison isn't a growth industry in and of itself!
So, no again.
But at least it only took you 500 key strokes to answer no this time.
Nuance is for pussies.
I don't get how this relates to America's social mobility relative to Canada, Norway, Finland and Denmark which was what the linked page argued.
Forget it, he's rolling.
YMMV. My mother-in-law, who is still working in elementary school education, doesn't want anything to do with computers.
There is zero evidence that doubling the real per-student expenditure on K-12 education (as has happened in the past 30 years, has improved results one iota.
But they didn't end up in prison, b/c they had parents who worked hard, and taught them right from wrong.
These kids aren't going to prison because their schools sucked. They go to prison b/c they grow up in disfunctional households with no fathers...
Snapper, there are so damn many times that your heart is hovering in the vicinity of the right place, but not much else. It'd also be cheaper to invest real money into early childhood education
than it is to house and feed two and a half million prisoners at a cost of over $31,000 a prisoner. We've got less than 5% of the world's population and nearly 25% of the world's prisoners, and though most people realize that that's nuts, we don't seem to be able to do much about it.
Look back in time. Your parents and my grandparents had nothing. They lived in cold water flats with a coal stove as the only source of heat and hot water. They had one pair of shoes. They were hungry. Actual hunger, not I missed my afternoon cookies. They went to schools with fifty freakin kids in a class, and many didn't speak a word of English before entering 1st grade.
But they didn't end up in prison, b/c they had parents who worked hard, and taught them right from wrong.
Because their fathers are in prison for possession of small amounts of personal use drugs, while similar criminals from suburban neighborhoods are slapped on the wrists. It's not like the "fatherless" dysfunctional homes appear by magic. Those households are fatherless because of power and politics have combined for the last 50 years to throw fathers from those homes into prison for no damned good reason at all.
And were white. Which really helped.
Sam, I'll meet you halfway on this one. I agree with the thrust of your comments above, but that only explains half of the problem. The other half is a culture aided by government assistance programs that combine to make the father irrelevant. Not all of these fathers are in prison.
Sam, you know very well that in the troubled neighborhoods the large majority of fathers are absentee, and not working long before they go to prison.
Most of them are low level drug dealers themselves
Andy, there is zero evidence, zero, that early childhood education does any good. There is zero evidence that doubling the real per-student expenditure on K-12 education (as has happened in the past 30 years, has improved results one iota.
Every college professor I talk to says the kids are getting less well prepared every year.
I'll ask again - were those against interracial marriage only labelled bigots, or actually bigots?
Actually, you could afford more than that. You could afford a house bigger than "small," you could afford a replacement-level motorboat, and you could afford a summer cottage -- though maybe not own one, certainly for a week or two every summer.
I grew up around factory workers and middle-management types, with a few state and local political types sprinkled in, and that was their lives. Factory workers in mid-and Southeast Michigan spent their summer weekends driving "up north" with their boats hitched to the back of their cars. The highways were clogged with them. Those weren't rich people and people who'd worked to build their "human capital" and their "personal brand" -- they were people who went to work, got paid, and got on with life.
The only response to that reality, unavoidable to anyone with eyes, is that that state of affairs was not "sustainable." Well, yeah, if you set out to intentionally destroy it so you can line the pockets of CEOs and financial manipulators with money that used to go to the middle class then, no, it's not sustainable. If politics in the US would have set as its primary goal sustaining it, it would have been sustainable.
The black family survived slavery, Jim Crow, and mass discrimination, but it crumbled in the 1960's because....?
I nearly spewed all over my monitor.
(402) You are feigning your shock to score a cheap rhetorical point.
There is no fair way to read my comment except as condemnation of slavery and Jim Crow.
I'm very honestly shocked that you would think black families were some sort stable, safe, solid nucleus through slavery and Jim Crow. It's as if you purposely ignored any factors other than those liberal policies you hate when placing blame for issues that are extremely complex. It's like with Ray. Nuance is for pussies. It's enough for you to blame the left.
I suppose this is the ultimate example of "there's no difference between the parties" reasoning: 13% of Obama voters either think he is the Antichrist or aren't sure, but voted for him anyway.
Because the exact same thing is being denied.
An accountant is someone who doesn't have enough charisma to be an economist.
Are you claiming the illegitimacy and/or crime rates in the black community in the 1930s, '40s, and '50s were even remotely comparable to those rates in the black community in 2013?
Through the worst of Jim Crow and state-sanctioned discrimination Black remained a family stability rate no worse than other poor groups. Black men were employed at higher rates than whites. Black neighborhoods were cohesive and safe.
Absent here are obvious issues. Black men may or may not have been employed at higher rates, but nobody can claim they were being paid anything approaching a fair wage. Black people remained in black neighborhoods because individuals couldn't stretch into white ones. Backbreaking poverty among rural blacks was the norm.
When people are trapped in cages, sure, they stay together and they're peaceful because they were huddled together in fear. That still doesn't make the cage a good thing. Snapper and others are turning a blind eye towards the cage, and saying, "Look, they used to be so peaceful right there."
Ah, Joe, what fabulously passive-aggressive half-assed support you've been so proud of all year, I now see.
If one was to graph racism and discrimination in America over the last 100 years and then superimpose a graph of the various social pathologies of the black community (crime, illegitimacy, etc.) on top of it, one would find an almost inverse relationship between the former and the latter. It's odd how liberals, for whom facts and logic are allegedly their religion of choice, can not only be so blind to obvious realities but argue so strenuously against them.
Throughout the period of horrible treatment and discrimination, the black family and communities held together.
Oh? It's passive-aggressive because your support quotes one of the main arguments against gay marriage, the "changing the definition of marriage" thing, and it's half-assed because you deride any supporter other than you, mostly everyone, as dishonest.
Umm. There's dumb. Then there's really dumb. Then there's off-the-wall retarded.
This is worse than the latter.
Is there some huge class of employees that i am leaving out?
You can call it what you will, but it's actually true.
So, Andy, a direct question: do you think American society offers everyone (who is able-bodied and of sound mind) a sense that their lives can improve with honest effort?
Give people welfare and a minimum standard of living that is quite comfortable, all things considered, and it's not a shock that they'll decide to be content with their lot in life rather than trying to move up.
As SdeB has already noted, the US ranks worse than nations which have much more generous social welfare.
So, we should go back to Jim Crow then. Is that your point? That seems to be Kehoskie's.
Only a moron or a racist would argue that blacks aren't better off now than they were under Jim Crow.
It makes your support nothing but half-assed, but nice try there changing what I said. As well as adding passive-aggressive to something I didn't say, instead of addressing what I did refer to those words with. Because you couldn't.
I didn't argue they weren't better off, of course they are on most dimensions.
My sole point is that in the era of segregation and Jim Crow the vast majority of black families were intact, and the vast majority of black children lived with both parents, and suffered from far lower rates of social pathologies (crime, drug use, teen pregnancy, etc.) than they do today.
Those are facts.
And since Moynihan's findings & suggestions stirred all sorts of anger from the left,...
I don't claim to be a sociologist of any sort... but it seems to me that even if the numbers bear this out extraordinarily and anomalously within the AA community, we still haven't quite gotten past the issue of correlation not necessarily meaning causality (i.e., not necessarily that Jim Crow/segregation KEPT black families together but that 'welfare' destroyed them).
Why was that? Because it portrayed blacks in a bad light?
gef--is there a summary handy of the Moynihan Report?
I specifically referred to the fact that your "support" of gay marriage uses one of the most popular arguments AGAINST gay marriage, the "they are changing the whole definition of marriage!" argument. That is the absolute definition of passive-aggressive, whatever the hell you think it means.
And this should not be confused with the separate issue of you calling all supporters who don't hold your view dishonest. Which isn't half-assed support. Because saying that the main thrust of the movement is full of liars isn't half-assed support. Okey dokey.
do you have any alternate theories that might explain the rising rates of various pathologies in the black community despite decreasing amounts of racism and discrimination in American society?
The 'Great Society' is a close chronological sibling to the start of the "war on drugs" -- increased criminalization (and incarceration) for drug use... There's been a significant increase in rates of incarceration across the racial spectrum because of this -- black males were incarcerated at a much higher rates before the WoD began, but both black and white incarceration rates have basically doubled since then. Incarceration and entry into the criminal justice system for such crimes would seem to be a logical, additional cause for the instability of families.
Equally hilarious, Joe, is that no supporter of gay marriage is going around using "We aren't changing the definition of marriage" as a talking point. It's a response to the talking point you're parroting of nearly everyone against gay marriage.
A tremendous achievement by black families and communities, through 400 years of terrible treatment,
If working class men have trouble earning a living, and welfare provides a better economic livelihood than marriage, women will choose welfare.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 3.6105 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed