> whitefire wrote:
>> Culture isn't a sensical explanation either though.
> I don't think it's the only variable, but it is a major one that is often ignored.
In terms of academia, it's not ignored, necessarily, but it's explained through institutional racism.
>> Generational wealth is a better
>> one, just to name part of it.
> I don't know. If I die wealthy I'd hope to share that with my children.
That's part of the problem is that wealth is viewed individually, and people often try to put themselves in that context. However, in my opinion, capitalism is not left alone to allow for fairness (which is the major appeal of it). Things are stacked against you if you're not born into a certain class, and upward mobility is becoming increasingly difficult, on the whole. Also, through lobbying and other political avenues, it's too interwoven into policy.
> and of itself isn't a problem to me. I think what's most important is that everyone,
> regardless of race, has the opportunity. Wishing we all have the same outcome
> is fantasy to me. There are minorities who are much more wealthy and successful than
I agree, but you're focusing on individuals. As a whole, whites have far more power and wealth. This is trans-generational. We're only a couple of generations away from a time, that I think we all could agree, that was not true, and many of them never had the chance to build trans-generational wealth, especially after the industiral revoltuion and WWII when most of the whites in this country did.
> This is true for any minority that looks at whites and sees an economic disparity.
> We all have opportunities in modern day America. More than most places in the world.
I agree. I hate it when the US is demonized for harsher xenophobia, stricter immigration laws, and racist policies compared to other industrialized countries. This just isn't true. In fact, a large part of the readon we're so high on the HDI, despite our (comparatively) atrocious healthcare and education system is our freedom, opportunity, and cultural diversity.
Still, the massive dominance of white, Christian men in political, Fortune 500 CEO, and other positions of power cannot be explained by culture, IMO. There's a lot more to it than that. They are ridiculously overrepresented. I think that's great evidence.
>> Also, racial bias still exists in hiring practices, for instance. They've done
>> resume studies, and people with black or hispanic sounding names are less likely
>> to be seen as desirable by employers even though everything else on the resume
>> exactly the same.
> This was talked about in a book called Freakonomics. They made a documentary too.
> I It should be explored, but I don't think the answer is coercing employers. It's
> true, but maybe the reasons aren't so malicious or full of ill-intent.
I agree. It won't solve the problem. In fact, it may worsen if. However, it is strong evidence that should not be ignored, and it doesn't change that reality for those marginalized groups. They've done the same thing with married men and married women too. Married men were seen as more desirable and married women as less (liabilities).
>> Ultimately, as a society, in my opinion, we're better off looking passed race
>> gender and other differences based on the way people look, etc. and instead start
>> focusing on wealth disparity and poverty. If you help the poor, you automatically
>> help minorities and women who need help, so make it about that. Rich people have
>> too much money and end up (through loopholes, etc.) paying far too little a percentage
>> in taxes. I think we need to focus more on economic justice and less on racial
>> with some exceptions.
> We don't have true capitalism here. We have a mixed economy where the government
> is heavily involved in business. When the rich can go to the government for benefit/advantage,
> we have a problem. We do have a problem, but it's not because of a free market, it's
> the lack of one.
>> Health care, childcare (at least for the employed) and a strong education should
>> all be free and everyone should have a roof over their head and food to eat unless
>> they choose not to. What we want keeps the economy going not what we need. I am
>> capitalism and profit. I just think that basic necessities, such as the ones I
>> should be a right for every citizen and be exempt from that system, except in
>> cases where people WANT more. Want to eat steak? Get a job. Want little to no
>> for the doctor and only prescription drugs and little to no limitations? Get a
>> Want your own (or even a nice) place instead of just a roof over your head? Get
>> job. You get the idea. It's not a popular opinion, and it means more government
>> or federal), but that's what I believe.
> It sounds like you think people should be able to get by without working or effort.
> If we're talking about people who are legit mentally/physically disabled I think
> you have a case. Government isn't necessarily the answer. Providing able citizens
> with all the necessities of life at "no cost" doesn't work. Eventually, very few
> are pulling the cart.
> Look at the plight of the folks on some of these native American reservations. Many
> of these folks can "get by" exclusively on government aid and it's not improving
> their communities. Very sad state.
That is strong evidence. However, I feel that it's deplorable to have these problems to these degrees in one of the richest countries in the world. Also, I don't think anyone should get free money, just a real safety net and real support. Maybe you should get these things, but only if you contribute to society (assuming you can). That could be a better solution.
>> Fudge race-baiters and whiney little doges with their stupid, selfish bullcrap.
>> They don't want liberalism. They just want to further whatever their agenda is.
If that's Marxism, they need to read a fudging book. Lol.