On American Appeasement

[wellwisher]

The income inequality between men and women is due to free market forces and not some type of male conspiracy. The fact of the matter is women work fewer hours, on average than men. Women also have a more flexible work schedule than men, due to family concerns, which men understand and cut them slack. The latter is a benefit that women have, that has free market value. Paid maternity leave, for example, costs the employer money beyond the working wage that is making profit. It all adds up as a hidden wage that make it even. Someone else has to pick up that slack at work, which means more work for the same pay. Or the employer increases their wage to account for the difference.

The longer hours worked by men has a free market connection to the concept of seniority. If you had two people working the same assembly line, one has been there 10 years and other is new, do they get equal pay for the same job? The answer is no. The person with more seniority, will usually make more money and vacation benefit, than the rookie, for the same job. The unions do this all the time. The longer hours of men allows the men to gain seniority. The flexible work hours women get to enjoy, is a benefit, but it has an opportunity cost.

In terms of the free market, an employer will hire more people if an additional person is able to make them profit. The work value of the new employee has to cover their own expenses; wage and benefits, plus some extra for profit. Seniority reflects employees who have not only earned you profits for very many years, but their efficiency on the job, has improved with time, allowing that profit margin to increase with time. This extra profit margin is often shared. If you work more hours, you make the employer more profit, he shares this, making your wage higher as incentive to continue to evolve.

The current liberal scam uses emotional manipulation instead of math and common sense logic. This scam is all based on the dynamics of a baby or infant, which is hard to ignore. It is time to let the babies cry, and not pick them up and give them a treat to shut them up. Babies and infants are good at scamming their parents to get special attention. It works easier on women, but men also fall prey.

 

[Tiassa]

The income inequality between men and women ....

While you're out just randomly making shit up, you should probably aim to not recite a bunch of debunked conservative myths.

 

[ElectricFetus]

The income inequality between men and women is due to free market forces and not some type of male conspiracy. The fact of the matter is women work fewer hours, on average than men. Women also have a more flexible work schedule than men, due to family concerns, which men understand and cut them slack. The latter is a benefit that women have, that has free market value. Paid maternity leave, for example, costs the employer money beyond the working wage that is making profit. It all adds up as a hidden wage that make it even. Someone else has to pick up that slack at work, which means more work for the same pay. Or the employer increases their wage to account for the difference.

By all means, cite evidence for these claims for Tiassa. Here I can cite how single childless women of their 20-30's age bracket now make more then their male peers.
http://archive.is/p72Aj
http://archive.is/T2gSM
http://archive.is/TXCiS
(I used archives because the fucking ads on top of ads!)

"Wood said, "Young women today in metropolitan areas, for example, who are childless, single young women are actually outperforming males in that same category all over the country."
The statement tracks back to a credible analysis of 2008 Census Bureau data that looks at median incomes in metropolitan areas -- a fact that Wood ignores.
But she gets most of the other details correct, and while the information is now six years old, we were unable to track down more recent research to confirm or disprove the point.
Finally, we should note that this comparison holds true because childless, single young women tend to have more education and qualify for higher paying jobs.
Wood’s statement is accurate but needs clarification. We rate it Mostly True."

So despite women now graduating from college more than men and getting better jobs and incomes, once they drop womb turds their income goes down, I wonder why? perhaps we need maternity leave, or better yet paternity leave so there is no preferences for male employees, perhaps women can get a house husband to take care of the children while she works, or best of all perhaps people can stop breeding and adding more human plague to this planet.

An interesting problem but not the most important one, for which Trumps solution is to build a wall to stop illegals "take our jobs" and stop outsourcing somehow by reducing taxes on the rich, oh and mine more coal, despite it no longer being competitive against solar and wing anymore, let alone natural gas, as well as most of the jobs were lost to automation.

 

[Randwolf]

The income inequality between men and women is due to free market forces ...

By all means, cite evidence for these claims for Tiassa. Here I can cite how single childless women of their 20-30's age bracket now make more then their male peers.

Oh perfect - EF teams up with wellwisher - a match made in heaven...

 

[ElectricFetus]

He might "deserve" economic justice, but, traditionally speaking, that makes you an elitist.

Then again, as you pretend to be a practiced liberal, you already knew that. You just didn't account for it because ... why? I mean, that's kind of an important factor to account for in your pretense of economic justice, and here you are, blithely pretending around the challenges of history as if you don't actually know your history.

That "old ignorant moron who should be retired"? Who "deserves economic justice"? Yeah, you know, people have been trying for a long, long time, and maybe at some point he should have voted for them, instead of making excuses like pretending the rich can't be corrupt.

Do you know how many of those workers who deserve economic justice voted against themselves?

Yeah I do, INTIMATELY, that is the point. Tell me what Hillary's agenda was, "stronger together", "I'm with her"? Trump came in and hammered at the issues most Americans care about: economics. He in simple language (because he is a simpleton) explain that they were suffering economically, he blamed it on illegal immigrants, outsourcing, globalized trade deals, regulation, and swore a hukster's swear to fix these things and have American's winning again, win win winnny win. While democrats were proclaiming everything is great and stay the course and how dare you question her you must be a sexist. Democrats provided no economic solutions, in fact we primaried out the only candidate we had that was presenting economic solutions of taxing the rich to provide free healthcare, free education, debt relief for the lower classes. Hillary was hated and untrusted by the majority of the population because they are sick and tired of one politician after another promising to fix their economic problems and not doing so, thus they all must be corrupt liars, with her as the quintesenstal political machiaveli. Then comes in a pig boar who has no political experience what so ever and a blatant inability to not put his hoafs in a mouth, this is fresh, this boar must be candid the masses think because he clearly can't shut the fuck up when he should, and he speaks like them, like a idiot, he must be one of them. That pig boar mounts and rapes all the other republican candidates sometimes by spotting truths like that Bush was a failure, Iraq was a failure, Big Banks need to be broken up, other times by proclaiming his penis is not as small as his tiny hoafs would suggest.

Now you want the blame the masses for their stupidity, that not going to fix the problem, that not going to get us to win next time, the morons still can vote. Next time we must press the issues they care about: economics, with a candidate they can believe and respect. But alas you don't want to do that, you rather blame them for being stupid, white and male.

And your "plan" requires that we leave people out.

How does providing EVERYONE with medicare, free education ,debt releif, basic income, leave people out?

My plan is we tell people what they want to hear: That they have been economically stagnate, then tell them the cause and solution in as simple of language as possible. The rich are at fault, we tax the rich to provide what you need. Heck Obama did not ever need that, he needed only single words "Hope" and "Change", coming after a near economic collapse. Once we win it is imperative we improve the economy for the lower classes, or else we will lose again.

And that, too, lends to this weird right-wing narrative by which mere equality is both radical identity politic and genocidal spectre. There is a reason why the "alt-right" demonstrates lexical and behavioral overlap with MRAs, GamerGaters, mgtow, and other psychologically indisposed supremacists. Why do you think they need words like "snowflake"↗ and "sjw"↗?

Nothing equal about the fact women are graduate college more then men. Men are hurting in this country, straight cis white men even by millions, and your response is that they are privileged and that it is you and your ilk that has problems and they should shut up... so then they turn around and vote trump. SJW, snowflakes, regressives, ctrl-left like your self is the reason trump won, because you believe a specific demographic, a very large one at that, that represents the majority of voters, can not only be ignored but vilified, meanwhile the rich keep getting richer and the rest get poor.

Talk about smaller groups. These are among those you satisfy by excluding women from your "plan". And you can't buy them off with "economic justice".

How are women excluded? Don't women not need better wages, free healthcare, free education, debt relief? No you want to deal with women specific issues like mansplaining, by point it out over and over again and providing no political solution and worse by openly excluding large segments of the population.

Of course it is not all money, but by pressing money as the primary agenda we can win, by dealing with money in big ways we can stay in power, by dealing with mansplaining first (how? By shaming all me?) we get nothing.

 

[Tiassa]

How are women excluded? Don't women not need better wages, free healthcare, free education, debt relief? No you want to deal with women specific issues like mansplaining, by point it out over and over again and providing no political solution and worse by openly excluding large segments of the population.

Start with this: How will you institute and enforce wage equality? How will you end systemic wage discrimination?

And remember, you are in this to win elections.

And, you know, like you said: No "identity politics".

Probably would have helped you to actually make a point about what you mean sometime along the way, but, sure, I can imagine how vendetta can take priority.

Still, though: Wage equality. You're on. Showtime. Lights. Roll. Five, four, three―

 

[pjdude1219]

The income inequality between men and women is due to free market forces and not some type of male conspiracy. The fact of the matter is women work fewer hours, on average than men. Women also have a more flexible work schedule than men, due to family concerns, which men understand and cut them slack. The latter is a benefit that women have, that has free market value. Paid maternity leave, for example, costs the employer money beyond the working wage that is making profit. It all adds up as a hidden wage that make it even. Someone else has to pick up that slack at work, which means more work for the same pay. Or the employer increases their wage to account for the difference.

The longer hours worked by men has a free market connection to the concept of seniority. If you had two people working the same assembly line, one has been there 10 years and other is new, do they get equal pay for the same job? The answer is no. The person with more seniority, will usually make more money and vacation benefit, than the rookie, for the same job. The unions do this all the time. The longer hours of men allows the men to gain seniority. The flexible work hours women get to enjoy, is a benefit, but it has an opportunity cost.

In terms of the free market, an employer will hire more people if an additional person is able to make them profit. The work value of the new employee has to cover their own expenses; wage and benefits, plus some extra for profit. Seniority reflects employees who have not only earned you profits for very many years, but their efficiency on the job, has improved with time, allowing that profit margin to increase with time. This extra profit margin is often shared. If you work more hours, you make the employer more profit, he shares this, making your wage higher as incentive to continue to evolve.

The current liberal scam uses emotional manipulation instead of math and common sense logic. This scam is all based on the dynamics of a baby or infant, which is hard to ignore. It is time to let the babies cry, and not pick them up and give them a treat to shut them up. Babies and infants are good at scamming their parents to get special attention. It works easier on women, but men also fall prey.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Start with this: How will you institute and enforce wage equality? How will you end systemic wage discrimination?

By first having democrats and specifically progressive democrats win back the government on a economic first platform, they will then vote on bills for wage equality and what ever systemic discrimination you imagine, but if your candidate whining about "systemic wage discrimination" to begin with, well then they lose, we get nothing and you get nothing.

What did the republicans win on, lets see: "Wes gonna abolish obamacare and put lock Hillary up and drain de swamp!"... did they do that? No! They simply removed regulations like coal waste dumped in streams and allowed ISP to sell your internet history because some lobbyist paid them money to vote for that. So If they got voted in on aganda X and instead do A,B,C.. then why can't we? Of course by not fulfilling their aganda (or worse fulfilling it and producing backlash) they will eventually by voted out as the pendulum swings back, thus we MUST fulfill our agenda and actually bring about economic improvements that keep the voters voting for us, meanwhile there are plenty of other laws we could pass when we have power, don't see why we can't pass pro-choice, pro-women wage bills too, of course that would depend on what you specifically want to actually do. See you have presented no solution, you only bitched about problems, many of which are grossly exaggerated or even semantic abstractions like "systemic oppression" and presented no solutions that can be implemented at a congressional, executive or judicial level.

Oh perfect - EF teams up with wellwisher - a match made in heaven...

Hey Wellwisher, oh body, oh pal, oh teammate, highfive, come on.

Yeah! Ok lets listen to a Trumpette together while braiding each others manes:

 

[ElectricFetus]

So you just choose to ignore the problems European countries have in regards to discrimination against women and minorities and how that discrimination is reflected in regards to poverty, as it is everywhere else in the world?

Degrees and magnitude is beyond you as well? Ok tell me is the discrimination of women in say Sweden as bad as the discrimination of women in the USA? And no this is not counting subpopulation of backwards Muslim fundamentalist.

Do you now understand how poverty and wealth disparity is so closely linked to and cause by discrimination first and foremost?

Nope, you have not shown cause and effect, you have not shown how sexism and racism today is suppressing the whole economy to its present 2 decades of stagnation for the middle class while the rich grow ever richer (how come it was not suppressing the economy in the 50's?). Sure discrimination is a problem for minorities, but it does not explain why the majority are economically oppressed. And most of all you have not explained how giving EVERYONE higher wages, free healthcare, free education, debt relief, basic income, would not improve their lives greatly despite their still being discrimination.

It's not just about paying them more. You cannot pay someone more if their sex, ethnicity or sexuality prevents them from being hired due to discriminatory practices that are entrenched in all levels of society.

Sure we can, its is called a basic income guarantee (BIG): we cut everyone a monthly check instead of welfare. Also why can't we give them free healthcare and free education as well? Are you suggesting that if we give all those services, women and blacks will get nothing because of skin color and vagina?

[/QUOTE]Your repeated assertions that this is just identity politics simply tries to ignore the realities of poverty and wealth disparity and income disparity.[/QUOTE]

What percentage of the poor are white? 41%, the plurality, how come it is not zero if racism is the cause? What percentage of the homeless are men? 75%, a majority, how come it is not zero if sexism is the cause? Sure racism and sexism have effects, but its is not the majority cause, classicism is.

 

[iceaura]

By all means, cite evidence for these claims for Tiassa. Here I can cite how single childless women of their 20-30's age bracket now make more then their male peers

Not than their male peers. You once again leave race - for example - out of it. And you forget to correct for education, rather than folding it in as a natural advantage. And you don't correct for nature of employment - entry level jobs vary by career potential. And so forth.

What percentage of the poor are white? 41%, the plurality, how come it is not zero if racism is the cause?

What is it with this crowd and "the cause" ?

 

[Bells]

Degrees and magnitude is beyond you as well? Ok tell me is the discrimination of women in say Sweden as bad as the discrimination of women in the USA? And no this is not counting subpopulation of backwards Muslim fundamentalist.

Reading and comprehension is a problem for you?

Let me guess, you did not read any of the links provided?

You want to know about Sweden and then compare it to the US? Knock yourself out.

Nope, you have not shown cause and effect, you have not shown how sexism and racism today is suppressing the whole economy to its present 2 decades of stagnation for the middle class while the rich grow ever richer (how come it was not suppressing the economy in the 50's?). Sure discrimination is a problem for minorities, but it does not explain why the majority are economically oppressed. And most of all you have not explained how giving EVERYONE higher wages, free healthcare, free education, debt relief, basic income, would not improve their lives greatly despite their still being discrimination.

Had you read any of the links provided in my last post, you would see just how wrong you are. In fact, had you read even the quoted parts of my last post, you would see just how wrong you are.

So, we are down to assuming you are stupid, or an intellectually dishonest troll? Which one are you?

And you keep complaining about why the "majority" are economically oppressed? Really? Majority of what? Of whom? Whites?

For god's sake, this is getting ridiculous.

Put simply, whites have a higher and better chance of moving up the 'economic' ladder, of moving from middle class to upper middle class and so on and so forth, because they are not weighed down by bigoted and discriminatory practices and policies against them. Had you read the links I provided in the previous post, you'd see that blacks, for example, even when they earn $100,000 a year in average income, they will continue to live in a much poorer area, thereby reducing their wealth when it comes to property ownership, and what their children will inherit. Not because they cannot afford to buy a better house in a suburb where people earn around the same as they do, but because those suburbs are predominately white and the discrimination they face in trying to buy into those suburbs is immense. Do you understand now how discrimination plays such a vital role in poverty and how and why discussing poverty and economic reform to end poverty will fail if you completely refuse or fail to account for discrimination?

Sure we can, its is called a basic income guarantee (BIG): we cut everyone a monthly check instead of welfare. Also why can't we give them free healthcare and free education as well? Are you suggesting that if we give all those services, women and blacks will get nothing because of skin color and vagina?

Wow, the stupid becomes even more stupid.

Even if you just give them more money, say a monthly cheque, in the hope of pulling them out of poverty, will still not pull them out of poverty.

Why? Because poverty is not just about money. Classism is not just about money.

Classism is about discrimination.

 

[Bells]

What percentage of the poor are white? 41%, the plurality, how come it is not zero if racism is the cause? What percentage of the homeless are men? 75%, a majority, how come it is not zero if sexism is the cause? Sure racism and sexism have effects, but its is not the majority cause, classicism is.

You are saying that the percentage of the poor who are white is 41%?

Can you please provide links to support that 41%?

Because here is the reality of poverty, when broken down by ethnicity in the US:

While the poverty rate for the population as a whole is 13.5% the rate varies greatly by race. Blacks have the highest poverty rate at 24.1% and Non-Hispanic whites the lowest at 9%.

The Poverty rate for Blacks and Hispanics is more than double that of non-Hispanic Whites.​

So where did you get that 41% figure from? Because it does not show up (not even close) in any of the literature about poverty and ethnicity. Even looking at State by State comparisons, that 41% figure does not actually exist.

The US Department of Agriculture studies show even bigger numbers and also show the glaring differences when looking at "race" and poverty in 'non-metro areas'.

Areas with a high incidence of poverty often reflect the low income of their racial/ethnic minorities. Nonmetro blacks and African Americans had the highest incidence of poverty in 2015 (33.8 percent), while nonmetro American Indians and Alaskan natives had the second highest rate (32.4 percent). The poverty rate for nonmetro whites in 2015 was less than half as much (15.0 percent) of both groups. Nonmetro Hispanics had the third-highest poverty rate, which was 25.9 percent. The high rate of poverty for Hispanics is noteworthy as their share of the nonmetro population increased faster than other racial/ethnic groups over the last several decades.

​

It would help if you stopped pulling numbers out of your arse and what I suspect in this instance, you saw one figure and ran with it without bothering to read the whole paragraph from start to end.

And you want to look at poverty along gender lines? Let's look at family breakdowns of poverty.. First link:

Overall 10.4% of the families in America are in poverty. Families headed by a single female have a Poverty Rate of 28.2% - about five times higher than married couple families.

There are 15.6 million families headed by a single mother which represent 19% of all families in America. But 4.5 million of these single mom families are in poverty which account for an astounding 52% of all the families in poverty. These statistics are the basis for the conclusion that marriage is one of the best defenses against poverty.

Second link:

Family type has a significant bearing on poverty. Families headed by two adults are likely to have more sources of income than single-adult families with children and are therefore less likely to be poor. In 2015, nearly 4 out of every 10 nonmetro families headed by a female with no spouse present were poor (36.2 percent) and nearly 5 out of every 10 of those with related children were poor (47.3 percent). In contrast, fewer than 1 in 10 nonmetro married couple families were poor in 2015. Poverty rates by family type also reveal large metro-nonmetro differences for single-adult families. In 2015, the poverty rate was more than 8 percentage points higher for nonmetro families headed by females (no spouse present) in general and more than 9 percentage points higher for those with related children than for the same types of metro families.

Third link:

The family poverty rate and number of families in poverty in 2015 were 10.4 percent and 8.6 million, respectively, a decline from 2014 (see Figure 6). Married-couple families also saw decreases in 2015, in both the poverty rate, 5.4 percent, and number in poverty, 3.2 million, down from 6.2 percent and 3.7 million in 2014.

The poverty rate for families headed by a single woman (with no husband present) declined, to 28.2 percent and 4.4 million in 2015. Male-householder families (with no wife present) showed no statistical change from 2014 to 2015, with 14.9 percent and 939,000 in poverty in 2015, much lower than the rate for female-headed families noted above.

And now onto homelessness..

Have you considered the breakdowns of homelessness and the cause?

The 'Good Men Project' had a very simple breakdown of the causes of homelessness, in particular for men:

First, it is necessary to consider aspects of the male gender role that might make men more likely to be homeless: for instance, men’s greater likelihood of being veterans, or the tendency of men to not seek treatment for their mental illnesses and substance abuse. Looking at it without the gender lens risks missing important aspects of gender.

Second, it is necessary not to erase the existence of women who are homeless. Even though men are more likely to be homeless, homelessness is a lot more gender equal than a lot of people present it. The primary causes of homelessness– poverty, lack of affordable housing, unemployment– affect everyone, regardless of gender. A large percentage of the increase in homeless families is probably caused by the recession: unemployment and lack of affordable housing were the two most commonly cited causes of the increase in homeless families.​

And let me guess, you have never bothered looking at the ethnic breakdown of homelessness?

According to the 2010 SAMHSA report, among long-term stayers (persons staying six months or more) in emergency shelters in 2008:[429]

• 56.6% were Black/African-American
• 28.7% were Hispanic/Latino

According to the 2014 NCHWIH report:[432]

• 42% are African American (over-represented 3.23x compared to 13% of general population).
• 38% are Caucasian (under-represented 0.53x compared to 72% of general population).
• 20% are Hispanic (over-represented 1.25x compared to 16% of general population).
• 4% are Native American (over-represented 4x compared to 1% of general population).
• 2% are Asian-American (under-represented 0.4x compared to 5% of general population).

Keep declaring that discrimination when it comes to poverty is not important and you'll just keep showing just how full of shit you actually are and keep denying it is a problem and keep ignoring it and you'll just keep showing how much of a bigot you are. If you cannot tackle discrimination, then you will never be able to tackle economic equality or income equality. Failure to deal with the actual causes of inequality will mean that you will consistently fail to address it.

 

[Randwolf]

You are saying that the percentage of the poor who are white is 41%?

Can you please provide links to support that 41%?

In case you haven't googled I won't spoil the source sites - there are several though, just the type you might expect.

Even better, if you track the citations you eventually end up with a 404 error. Typical crap from EF, I can't wait to see the reply to your inquiry...

 

[ElectricFetus]

You are saying that the percentage of the poor who are white is 41%?

Can you please provide links to support that 41%?

Because here is the reality of poverty, when broken down by ethnicity in the US:

While the poverty rate for the population as a whole is 13.5% the rate varies greatly by race. Blacks have the highest poverty rate at 24.1% and Non-Hispanic whites the lowest at 9%.

The Poverty rate for Blacks and Hispanics is more than double that of non-Hispanic Whites.​

So where did you get that 41% figure from? Because it does not show up (not even close) in any of the literature about poverty and ethnicity.

Find the total population of poor: Added up Whites (17.8M) plus Blacks (10.0M) plus Asian (2.1M) plus Hispanics (12.1M) and you will get 42 Million people in poverty, now here is the tricky part, (not as tricky as make derivatives of batch reactors mass balances for answers to final exam questions so that I have an answer key, that if I look at right now I will puke) What percentage of that 42 million people are white? Come on you can do it... that it take 17.8 M white poor people and divide by 42 M poor people total and you get: 42.38%

So a little higher then 41% that I cited before and pages ago or on another thread, good enough and I'm to tired now to find again... did you like that Randwolf, now put your pants back on.

The 'Good Men Project' had a very simple breakdown of the causes of homelessness

yeah and so? First of all no mention of all the gender roles that keep women off the street, but besides that why would not free healthcare help homeless men get the psychiatric care they need? Why would not a basic income give these people a home to live in and an opportunity to put their lives backtogether?

Fuck that white guy right? Fuck his potential rapist boys too right? They went from over 1900 chronic homeless to 168, that is a 91% reduction in homeless, and they did it by simply giving homes to the homeless, not the black homeless, not the hispanic homeless, not the women homeless, ALL homeless.

So how did this pass in a conservative state anyways, oh it is sold right (http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how):

["And I said you guys are smoking something, because there's no way on this earth that you're going to end homelessness," says Lloyd Pendleton, who at the time ran humanitarian services for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

He says as a conservative, he didn't think the government should simply give people a place to live.

"Because I was raised as a cowboy in the west desert," Pendleton says, "and I have said over the years, 'You lazy bums, get a job, pull yourself up by the bootstraps.'"

Then in 2003, Lloyd Pendleton went to a conference on homelessness in Chicago.

At that conference, a founder of the Housing First philosophy, Sam Tsemberis, told him that chronically homeless people cost the government a lot of money when they're living on the street, because of services like emergency room visits and jail time.

HUD estimates that annual cost as between $30,000 and $50,000 per person.

Housing them simply costs a lot less.

On the way home Pendleton says he sat in a window seat on the plane.

"And as we flew out and we flew through the clouds," Pendleton says, "I can remember looking out at the clouds and saying, 'Lloyd if there's any state in the union that can accomplish this, it's the state of Utah.'"]

Like basic income will save a lot of money by getting rid of all that welfare bureaucracy, conservative hate bureaucracy and welfare, we just put a tax on high frequency trading and we can make all the welfare disappear with a basic income, heck social security would disappear too (because basic income would be social security)

But you don't want to sell solutions, you want to bitch about deeply ideological problems and present no solution and worse force our candidates to spew forth that divisive ideology resulting in us losing everything to the republicans!

 

[Randwolf]

Find the total population of poor: Added up Whites (17.8M) plus Blacks (10.0M) plus Asian (2.1M) plus Hispanics (12.1M) and you will get 42 Million people in poverty, now here is the tricky part, (not as tricky as make derivatives of batch reactors mass balances for answers to final exam questions so that I have an answer key, that if I look at right now I will puke) What percentage of that 42 million people are white? Come on you can do it... that it take 17.8 M white poor people and divide by 42 M poor people total and you get: 42.38%

Total fucking bullshit - you claimed 41%

What percentage of the poor are white? 41%, the plurality, how come it is not zero if racism is the cause?

and you got it from here, or one of the clones:

41% of Nation’s Poor Are White, Nearly Double the Number of Poor Blacks

A whopping 4 out of 5 Americans struggle with poverty, driving them to welfare programs to subsidize their income, according to the Associated Press. The Great Recession has toppled the American dream for many and increased the gap between the rich and the poor.

As the bottom continues to fall out of the economy, and good middle class jobs are replaced with low wage jobs, one of the most striking demographic changes is the growing number of whites who’ve fallen into poverty or are in danger of falling below the poverty line:

From AP:

While racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show. Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in the government’s poverty data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60…\
Although the right wing enjoys drawing caricatures of black Welfare Queens, data indicates that the new face of poverty is increasingly white.

Again, from AP:

While poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics are nearly three times higher, by absolute numbers the predominant face of the poor is white.
More than 19 million whites fall below the poverty line of $23,021 for a family of four, accounting for more than 41 percent of the nation’s destitute, nearly double the number of poor blacks.
In all, a record 46.2 million Americans fall below the poverty line, which is '$'23,021 for a family of four.

What will the whitening of poverty mean for America? More racial tension of more collective class action?​

http://breakingbrown.com/2013/07/41...hite-nearly-double-the-number-of-poor-blacks/

Track the AP link "according to the Associated Press." and you get a 404 error.

You fuck up a lot EF but I've never seen you outright lie like this - when you were cornered on your sources you just made up an answer. Who are you kidding? No one - except maybe wellwisher, I'm sure he will buy it. Pitiful...

Jesus F*ing Christ on a Pogo Stick - really?

 

[ElectricFetus]

Total fucking bullshit - you claimed 41%

LOL! Oh I feel your pain! 42.38% is just too far from 41% for you to accept, by the way Bell cites right there 38% for whites, so I guess depending on the exact numbers used and year calculated and how it was tabulated it varies by a few percent.

* 38% are Caucasian (under-represented 0.53x compared to 72% of general population).

You fuck up a lot EF but I've never seen you outright lie like this - when you were cornered on your sources you just made up an answer. Who are you kidding? No one - except maybe wellwisher, I'm sure he will buy it. Pitiful...

By all means tell me what percentage of the poor are white? Clearly what ever my source was it was working with nearly the same numbers!

Let me get this straight, you think 2+2=3 and you think wellwisher will buy 2+2=4, you know I think your right.

Jesus F*ing Christ on a Pogo Stick - really?

So that did not feel as good as it felt for me? Don't worry you should be defecating right in a few weeks.

 

[iceaura]

So how did this pass in a conservative state anyways, oh it is sold right (http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how):

The single most important reason: few black people. Utah is mostly white.

The reason we didn't get single payer Medicare-like basic health care in the US in the 1950s or 60s was essentially the requirement of providing it to black people in racially segregated areas, and poor women when they had sex - the entire Confederacy dug in its heels, the white folks in the north started talking about the evils of socialism and birth control, everybody went spla. Same thing happened in the early 90s with Wellstone's plan - the cost savings were dramatic even then, but it never even got a hearing.

You go right on talking about "basic economic issues" and ignore race and gender, and others will keep explaining to you why those old familiar arguments have been failing in the US for your entire life (the fact that these lefty solutions are cheaper than the status quo is one of the oldest and most often failed arguments around - it's striking how resistant Republicans have been to saving the country money if the policy benefits either poor people or black people, and poor black people? forget it.)

 

[ElectricFetus]

The single most important reason: few black people. Utah is mostly white.

Ok then you don't think if we got democrats back in power we could get a public option in obamacare? Do you think the democrats are to racist to do that? Had Obama had a little more spine and the skills of LBJ we would have had a medicare for all.

Your argument is basically "it will never happen" so did voting rights for women "never happen" did civil rights "never happen" sure it can take generations and we have been fighting generations for better healthcare, it will happen.

 

[parmalee]

What percentage of the homeless are men? 75%, a majority, how come it is not zero if sexism is the cause? Sure racism and sexism have effects, but its is not the majority cause, classicism is.

Who claimed that sexism is "the cause" of homelessness? How did homelessness even enter this discussion? Oh, that's right: you were dismissing an illness, which afflicts nine times as many women as men, for which one in three patients were dead within five years of diagnosis (during the seventies--the period implied from the context in which it was referenced) as trivial, because more men get murdered, become homeless, and suffer erectile dysfunction.

And again with "classicism"--use a goddamn dictionary.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Who claimed that sexism is "the cause" of homelessness? How did homelessness even enter this discussion? Oh, that's right: you were dismissing an illness, which afflicts nine times as many women as men, for which one in three patients were dead within five years of diagnosis (during the seventies--the period implied from the context in which it was referenced) as trivial, because more men get murdered, become homeless, and suffer erectile dysfunction.

And again with "classicism"--use a goddamn dictionary.

Compare total number of people killed, which is bigger, the bigger one is the more important issue. Tiassa and Bells argument can be summed up as "if we don't deal with sexism first then we can't solve poverty" I ask how so.

I need sleep now.