|
Ytlaya posted:Just going to point out that any sort of statement along the lines of "the wealthy are successful because (insert way that they are better)" is literally equivalent to "white men are superior to minorities/women." You can't imply the existence of a meritocracy (with respect to wealth) without also implying that some demographics are superior to others. Of course you can. You just recognize it's not a perfect meritocracy.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Of course you can. You just recognize it's not a perfect meritocracy. That's a nice committal statement to make. "It's not 100% meritocratic"
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Of course you can. You just recognize it's not a perfect meritocracy. How meritocratic is it? Piketty included some statistics about it in his book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Lets also overlook the fact that people don't get rich to begin with if people aren't handing them money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Of course it's a meritocracy, the rich people were just that much better at being born to parents with money
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Lets also overlook the fact that people don't get rich to begin with if people aren't handing them money. The time period some wealthy families got most of their money is before the founding of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Of course you can. You just recognize it's not a perfect meritocracy. If you think that it's enough of a meritocracy to not be totally meaningless, the exact same thing applies. The difference in wealth between, say, white and black Americans is so dramatic that believing our society is anything remotely approaching a meritocracy implies a bunch of really nasty things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The time period some wealthy families got most of their money is before the founding of the United States. So should we just invalidate the holdings of anyone with blue blood?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:If you think that it's enough of a meritocracy to not be totally meaningless, the exact same thing applies. The difference in wealth between, say, white and black Americans is so dramatic that believing our society is anything remotely approaching a meritocracy implies a bunch of really nasty things.  I mean come it's not perfect but life's not fair guys. One of those hard truths you'd learn about life if you'd get off the internet and just  up your life, like me. I'm sane, tough, and deserve my rewards. The rest of you are on the internet typing words. Unlike me, who is somehow both not on the internet and on it, at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:If you think that it's enough of a meritocracy to not be totally meaningless, the exact same thing applies. The difference in wealth between, say, white and black Americans is so dramatic that believing our society is anything remotely approaching a meritocracy implies a bunch of really nasty things. You've only got about 50 years of real equal legality between races which is barely 1 generation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
menino posted:
Do you think there might be some irregularities in the hispanic bar considering there are many 1st generation immigrants that could skew it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:So should we just invalidate the holdings of anyone with blue blood? No we should make society actually meritocratic, and if that requires invalidating some or all of the holdings of people with blue blood then do that
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Heh, we should weigh the importance of posts here by the income of the said poster. Above 200k makes you immune to moderation and gives you the ability to ban lower income posters. Below 50k gives you forum cancer. I'm ready for this onerous responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
The mode of incomes by race would be a much more convincing argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
^^^ Wealth is a more meaningful indicator than income (though you'd probably see something similar if you looked at the latter)ColoradoCleric posted:You've only got about 50 years of real equal legality between races which is barely 1 generation. There is no sign of things improving. As just one example, schools have become even more segregated in recent years; a huge portion of black students go to schools that have a student population that is almost entirely black (if not 100%). There isn't really any positive trend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:^^^ Wealth is a more meaningful indicator than income (though you'd probably see something similar if you looked at the latter) That's self segregation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
White flight sure is self segregation e: I mean for the white people that is
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
rscott posted:White flight sure is self segregation Black colleges aren't. Using the median isn't a really good measure since it just shows the difference between the highest and the lowest. This is probably used in a graph to make a very large bar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Black colleges aren't. Hint: when people talk about schools becoming resegregated, they aren't talking about HBCUs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:^^^ Wealth is a more meaningful indicator than income (though you'd probably see something similar if you looked at the latter) No it's not. Income tells you how much economic power somone has been given, wealth just tells you how much they saved. In regards to meritocracy it's obvious we could debate how society currently compares to where we want it to be. All of us would like it to be better. But note that historically speaking the idea that we even should select based on merit is somewhat recent, and class mobility in modern capitalist societies is historically high. So can we please ground our critisms to at least some sort of reasonable standard. I'm open to almost anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Hint: when people talk about schools becoming resegregated, they aren't talking about HBCUs. Blacks specifically going to black colleges with a majority of a black population is not indicative of self segregation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Heh, we should weigh the importance of posts here by the income of the said poster. Above 200k makes you immune to moderation and gives you the ability to ban lower income posters. Below 50k gives you forum cancer. Hasn't your shtick run its course already?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No it's not. Income tells you how much economic power somone has been given, wealth just tells you how much they saved. Pretty much, this is why the mode (showing what the majority of a segment makes) is a much better indicator. If you're just talking about saved wealth for whites who have been here for the majority of the history of the united states and haven't been slaves or had massive amounts of immigration recently then you're being disingenuous with your graph.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Pretty much, this is why the mode (showing what the majority of a segment makes) is a much better indicator. If you're just talking about saved wealth for whites who have been here for the majority of the history of the united states and haven't been slaves or had massive amounts of immigration recently then you're being disingenuous with your graph. Not the case at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Blacks specifically going to black colleges with a majority of a black population is not indicative of self segregation? It's an indication of blacks being rejected from white society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Snoggle posted:It's an indication of blacks being rejected from white society. How many blacks are being denied from white majority schools again?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
menino posted:Not the case at all. Explain yourself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:How many blacks are being denied from white majority schools again? Historically? A shitload.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Snoggle posted:Historically? A shitload. Blacks selecting predominantly black dominated schools is indicative of blacks rejecting white society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:34
|
|
asdf32 posted:No it's not. Income tells you how much economic power somone has been given, wealth just tells you how much they saved. Can you explain why you think income is a more important metric than wealth in measuring blacks' place relative to whites' in the American economy. It should probably take more than one sentence.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:Can you explain why you think income is a more important metric than wealth in measuring blacks' place relative to whites' in the American economy. Can you explain why income wouldn't be a more important metric if you're trying to argue there's a racial aristocracy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Blacks selecting predominantly black dominated schools is indicative of blacks rejecting white society. They aren't "selecting" to avoid whites, they are making due after being told to gently caress off by white bigots for centuries. Black folks came to the conclusion that the only way for them get anything done in an America run by white racists was to get together and do it themselves. It's the reason why things like the United Negro College Fund were created and it's the reason why they still exist. It's also the reason why BET exists.  Even if "racism is over" were true, there is a hell of a lot of inertia in society. The idea that historical institutions like black colleges would just disappear overnight is absurd, and trying to point to them as say "see? blacks are the real racists!" makes you look like a loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Snoggle posted:They aren't "selecting" to avoid whites, they are making due after being told to gently caress off by white bigots for centuries. Black folks came to the conclusion that the only way for them get anything done in an America run by white racists was to get together and do it themselves. It's the reason why things like the United Negro College Fund were created and it's the reason why they still exist. Ok so how is all of this not indicative of blacks rejecting white society.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Ok so how is all of this not indicative of blacks rejecting white society. They aren't rejecting white society. They have been rejected by white society.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Can you explain why income wouldn't be a more important metric if you're trying to argue there's a racial aristocracy? Because inherited capital is an important explanatory factor for the relative socioeconomic positions of whites and blacks. With barely 50 years of less severe institutional racism, blacks have not had an opportunity to benefit from the effects capital accumulation. Obviously institutional racism is still alive and well. Redlining policies in mortgage lending are still around, there is growing segregation in cities and suburbs, the voting rights act and affirmative action have been gutted by the supreme court, and so on. When the rate of return to capital (r) exceeds the growth rate of the economy (g), then the K/I ratio grows, capital takes a greater share of national income, value accrues to the capital holding classes (largely the top 10%, which owns 70% of all Capital in America), and inherited capital becomes more important than earned income. This is the basic calculus of Piketty's book. Wealth matters more in countries with slowing demographic and economic growth, which has categorized Europe for several decades and is beginning to categorize America. As a personal example: My parents owned their house when I was young, and when they sold it a bunch of the money went to my education. My sister was given a substantial sum of money to cover the down payment on her own house. We will both inherit a huge sum of money when my parents die. I'll use that money to pay for my kids' educations, and probably help them finance their houses etc, they'll get a massive inheritance from me and so on for infinity. As long as my kids and their kids aren't born completely disabled they will have an enormous head start on nearly everyone, just because they have a big pot of money pushing them forward.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Because inherited capital is an important explanatory factor for the relative socioeconomic positions of whites and blacks. With barely 50 years of less severe institutional racism, blacks have not had an opportunity to benefit from the effects capital accumulation. Obviously institutional racism is still alive and well. Redlining policies in mortgage lending are still around, there is growing segregation in cities and suburbs, the voting rights act and affirmative action have been gutted by the supreme court, and so on. I'm saying wealth is the symptom not the cause, if you're trying to measure the ability of racial classes to be able to actually save generational wealth its going to be important to note the disparities in income. Whites have historically had a lot of policies influencing them to save much more generational wealth.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Snoggle posted:They aren't rejecting white society. They have been rejected by white society. Since being discriminated against by white society blacks have been inclined to reject it by self segregating into black dominated universities.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:I'm saying wealth is the symptom not the cause, if you're trying to measure the ability of racial classes to be able to actually save generational wealth its going to be important to note the disparities in income. Whites have historically had a lot of policies influencing them to save much more generational wealth. I agree that inequality of income is important, but the inequality of capital ownership is not explainable simply by referring to inequality of income from labor. Inherited capital plays a significant role in the inequality of capital ownership. The inequality of income from both capital and labor is even more egregious than the inequality of income from labor. And if by "influencing them to save more wealth" you mean "black people aren't permitted to get educations or own property" then yes, they were influenced to save more than blacks. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 00:22 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:I agree that inequality of income is important, but the inequality of capital ownership is not explainable by the inequality of income from labor. And if by "influencing them to save more wealth" you mean "black people aren't permitted to get educations or own property" then yes, they were influenced to save more than blacks. If you're a slave you're not making any income.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
I must have gone ceazy and hallucinated a different thread because it looks like people are arguing, in 2014, that racial inequalities exist because blacks are too racist to allow themselves to benefit from a white-controlled society 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:35
|
|
