Immigration Debate

[30A Skunkape]

Are you stupid? That's the only answer, isn't it, that I'm a racist? Blacks offer less because that's what the data shows. That's what the market dictated. My employer puts a dollar value as to my services. I am more valuable to them than some, so they paid me more than those folks, but I'm not as valuable as others, so they pay me less than the other folks. Black teenagers offered less, first, because they are teenagers and therefore lack experience. Second, I don't know, you'll have to ask the employers that were paying the white kids more. Considering the lack of lawsuits with merit, the white teenagers had more skills to offer, be it work ethic, education, or how fast they could punch numbers on the Publix cash register. White teenagers also had the advantage of having more profitable businesses nearby that could afford to pay them an arbitrary minimum wage. The businesses weren't in the black community, because it was a poorer community. By setting an arbitrary floor, they didn't allow black kids in black neighborhoods the opportunity to decide for themselves if they would accept less than what some old, white ahole in DC determined was a living wage. Rather than addressing anything at its core, Smiling Joe, just call me a racist, because I know how to read market data. Or better yet, post a poll and get all your friends from the other south Walton boards to vote for you.

Are you PUI?

 

[Smiling JOe]

Scooterbug,
I'm not trying to be glib or condescending, but have you ever hired someone? If you have, you should know that it is virtually impossible to discriminate based on race. Further, it is in your interest to hire the best candidate for the job, regardless of race. I know that doesn't always happen, but in practice, race does not play a role in hiring. Blacks may have been employed because they work for less, but that's likely because they offered less to their employer. Setting a floor does not allow them to choose to work for less, nor does it allow an employer to hire workers with limited skill. As for France, I'd argue different based on what I've studied in economics, but I've met Frenchmen and I've been to Paris a few times, so I realize that race plays a part in hiring, more than it does here, but state regulation of employers is far more responsible for high unemployment.

Are you stupid? That's the only answer, isn't it, that I'm a racist? Blacks offer less because that's what the data shows. That's what the market dictated. My employer puts a dollar value as to my services. I am more valuable to them than some, so they paid me more than those folks, but I'm not as valuable as others, so they pay me less than the other folks. Black teenagers offered less, first, because they are teenagers and therefore lack experience. Second, I don't know, you'll have to ask the employers that were paying the white kids more. Considering the lack of lawsuits with merit, the white teenagers had more skills to offer, be it work ethic, education, or how fast they could punch numbers on the Publix cash register. White teenagers also had the advantage of having more profitable businesses nearby that could afford to pay them an arbitrary minimum wage. The businesses weren't in the black community, because it was a poorer community. By setting an arbitrary floor, they didn't allow black kids in black neighborhoods the opportunity to decide for themselves if they would accept less than what some old, white ahole in DC determined was a living wage. Rather than addressing anything at its core, Smiling Joe, just call me a racist, because I know how to read market data. Or better yet, post a poll and get all your friends from the other south Walton boards to vote for you.

No, I'm not stupid. The first post above, is the one from which I quoted you. No where in there do you mention "teenage" blacks, which you drift to in your second post, above. You suggest, "Blacks may have been employed because they work for less, but that's likely because they offered less to their employer. "

Look up the definition of racist. For the record, I stated that the comment sounds racist, not that you are a racist. I missed the "data" showing that "blacks offer less." Isn't that about as general as saying that blacks like fried chicken?

I understand that some people have more to offer a business, and therefore should be offered more money in exchange, but to categorically state that blacks offer less, is discrimination, and if you are hiring and basing pay upon the black person's skin color ("they offer less," in your words), you are discriminating based on race, and that is illegal in the USA.

You sound very angry and defensive. I think you may be working too hard on SoWal.com.

 

[Bob]

Are you stupid? That's the only answer, isn't it, that I'm a racist? Blacks offer less because that's what the data shows. That's what the market dictated. My employer puts a dollar value as to my services. I am more valuable to them than some, so they paid me more than those folks, but I'm not as valuable as others, so they pay me less than the other folks. Black teenagers offered less, first, because they are teenagers and therefore lack experience. Second, I don't know, you'll have to ask the employers that were paying the white kids more. Considering the lack of lawsuits with merit, the white teenagers had more skills to offer, be it work ethic, education, or how fast they could punch numbers on the Publix cash register. White teenagers also had the advantage of having more profitable businesses nearby that could afford to pay them an arbitrary minimum wage. The businesses weren't in the black community, because it was a poorer community. By setting an arbitrary floor, they didn't allow black kids in black neighborhoods the opportunity to decide for themselves if they would accept less than what some old, white ahole in DC determined was a living wage. Rather than addressing anything at its core, Smiling Joe, just call me a racist, because I know how to read market data. Or better yet, post a poll and get all your friends from the other south Walton boards to vote for you.

The lack of lawsuits are due to lack of resources in hiring representation, and the lack of potential reward for the plaintiffs attorneys. Washington D.C. is the perfect venue that blows holes in your theory about whites/blacks. No city in the U.S. has a greater disparity of socio-economic classes living in extremely close range. The white ahole in D.C. behind minimum wage was FDR, one of the top 3 presidents in our history. Poor people have even less access to the legal system than the medical system.....numbnuts.

 

[6thGen]

No, I'm not stupid. The first post above, is the one from which I quoted you. No where in there do you mention "teenage" blacks, which you drift to in your second post, above. You suggest, "Blacks may have been employed because they work for less, but that's likely because they offered less to their employer. "

Look up the definition of racist. For the record, I stated that the comment sounds racist, not that you are a racist. I missed the "data" showing that "blacks offer less." Isn't that about as general as saying that blacks like fried chicken?

I understand that some people have more to offer a business, and therefore should be offered more money in exchange, but to categorically state that blacks offer less, is discrimination, and if you are hiring and basing pay upon the black person's skin color ("they offer less," in your words), you are discriminating based on race, and that is illegal in the USA.

You sound very angry and defensive. I think you may be working too hard on SoWal.com.

First, I was not posting under the influence. I tend to get angry and defensive when I?m labeled a racist, because that, personally, is very offensive to me. My argument all along was that setting a minimum wage affected black teenagers? ability to obtain employment. I would like for black teenagers to be employed, which is why it?s maddening to be labeled a being a racist when you are advocating something that would significantly benefit them, both currently, but more importantly in the future when they would have more employable skills to earn far more than whatever current arbitrary minimum wage is out there. I don?t have time to go back and document every post number if you can?t keep up, or if you want to intentionally miss something in order to cherry pick an argument. I?m saying they offer less because that?s what 50 years of market data from employers demonstrates. Employers determined that they offer less to the marketplace, and I said I didn?t know why, but I speculated that education, work ethic or especially location might be a reason. I know you intentionally miss things when you are losing an argument, and that?s very cute on the internet, but if you are having this discussion in person, I?d suggest that you do not seriously and incorrectly label the other person something as inflammatory a racist, because there are consequences to such comments with others that are not as patient with your nonsense as I have been.

 

[6thGen]

The lack of lawsuits are due to lack of resources in hiring representation, and the lack of potential reward for the plaintiffs attorneys. Washington D.C. is the perfect venue that blows holes in your theory about whites/blacks. No city in the U.S. has a greater disparity of socio-economic classes living in extremely close range. The white ahole in D.C. behind minimum wage was FDR, one of the top 3 presidents in our history. Poor people have even less access to the legal system than the medical system.....numbnuts.

I'd suggest you pick up The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes and Aselford Terence before you label FDR one of the top 3 presidents in our history. His only saving grace was his handling of the war, as his economic policies were a disaster. A little known fact is that Churchill helped set the British welfare state in motion with his advocation for a minimum wage, so I recognize that even great conservative politicians are known to make mistakes...jackass.

 

[Miss Kitty]

I'd suggest you pick up The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes and Aselford Terence before you label FDR one of the top 3 presidents in our history. His only saving grace was his handling of the war, as his economic policies were a disaster. A little known fact is that Churchill helped set the British welfare state in motion with his advocation for a minimum wage, so I recognize that even great conservative politicians are known to make mistakes...jackass.

And I suggest you take a breath and go listen to some Sly and the Family Stone.

 

[ladyj]

I'm all for intelligent discourse and I enjoy reading it. But when it degenerates into name calling, it's no longer intelligent.
Words like "deviant" and "stupid" hardly help one attain one's goal of making a valid and well thought out argument.

 

[6thGen]

I'm all for intelligent discourse and I enjoy reading it. But when it degenerates into name calling, it's no longer intelligent.
Words like "deviant" and "stupid" hardly help one attain one's goal of making a valid and well thought out argument.

When one's valid and well thought out argument is called racist when it is the antithesis of such, it hardly makes one want to type out anything other than "stupid" and "deviant". Why doesn't anyone here jump on anyone but me when it comes to name calling? It is like a ref in football, it's the retaliatory punch that always gets the flag.

 

[ladyj]

You weren't called a racist. It was said that your choice of wording seemed racist. Big difference.
And my statement applies to anyone who resorts to name calling. That's my opinion, worth what you paid for it.

 

[6thGen]

You weren't called a racist. It was said that your choice of wording seemed racist. Big difference.
And my statement applies to anyone who resorts to name calling. That's my opinion, worth what you paid for it.

Well, since we are splitting hairs, I didn't call him stupid, I asked if he was. Below is what was posted, I'm holding my breath for an apology, which everyone here is always so willing to do. "I didn't say you were a racist, but you might as well wear blackface and I'm turning you into the law because you refuse to hire black people."

Look up the definition of racist. For the record, I stated that the comment sounds racist, not that you are a racist. I missed the "data" showing that "blacks offer less." Isn't that about as general as saying that blacks like fried chicken?

I understand that some people have more to offer a business, and therefore should be offered more money in exchange, but to categorically state that blacks offer less, is discrimination, and if you are hiring and basing pay upon the black person's skin color ("they offer less," in your words), you are discriminating based on race, and that is illegal in the USA.