Racism: social fantasy or social problem ?

[Alien djinn]

I've never seen or experienced any case of real racism in real life. For me racism is more like a social fantasy rather than a real social problem, cause it isn't very present any more in nowadays' society. Every one be like: "ow the whites are so racists, minorities in the West are facing discrimination , mistreatment etc" BULLSHIT. What I notice is exactly the opposite: the whites are forced to accept strangers in their countries, or else they are called racists. In France where I live, there is absolutely no freedom of expression when you talk about minorities, it is fordidden to say the word "race" , it is forbidden to publish statistical facts about race and ethnicity or to say that someone is not 100% French even when he has another nationality. There is a big hysteria over a problem that doesn't exist, "racism". People say that whites hate other races but in France whites are imitating blacks and arabs... I'm not claiming that nobody is racist, there are some isolated cases of persons who are racists, but as I just said, there are ISOLATED. I wanna know what you guys think about it. Let's debate !

[Elysium]

TWPR :arrow: ROTW

[phuckphace]

I'm inclined to agree with most of this, although I wouldn't go so far as to say racism doesn't exist - it's definitely true that it's overhyped and blown very much out of proportion.

there's also the problem of anti-racists being unable to distinguish between degrees of racism, that this, cracking an "insensitive" joke or using a racial slur against someone is considered practically as horrible as gassing them in a concentration camp. related to that, the anti-racists think casual racism like the N-word is a slippery slope that ends in Auschwitz or the KKK, which is blatantly ridiculous but whatever.

Alien djinn - I find your perspective interesting because, judging by your name and appearance you aren't white. (was that racist? :P ) feel free to clarify here, if you like.

[KingWavy]

I've never seen or experienced any case of real racism in real life. For me racism is more like a social fantasy rather than a real social problem, cause it isn't very present any more in nowadays' society. Every one be like: "ow the whites are so racists, minorities in the West are facing discrimination , mistreatment etc" BULLSHIT. What I notice is exactly the opposite: the whites are forced to accept strangers in their countries, or else they are called racists. In France where I live, there is absolutely no freedom of expression when you talk about minorities, it is fordidden to say the word "race" , it is forbidden to publish statistical facts about race and ethnicity or to say that someone is not 100% French even when he has another nationality. There is a big hysteria over a problem that doesn't exist, "racism". People say that whites hate other races but in France whites are imitating blacks and arabs... I'm not claiming that nobody is racist, there are some isolated cases of persons who are racists, but as I just said, there are ISOLATED. I wanna know what you guys think about it. Let's debate !


See, for me it's a social problem. Yes I am a black male in America and I am seen as a thug or criminal by default. You even said its in a sense, Bullshit because "whites have to accept people in their country" Bro that's ownership on some shit they have nothing to own. Native Americans own this land in the United States, whites took it over, owned blacks and blacks built it to what it is today. I see where you're coming from and I respect your opinion but it's white privilege that is coming out of you. I understand that you never had it happen to you but for me it literally happens all the time. I don't know about other countries but to experience it first hand sucks. The worst part is that people want to ignore racism or say we are overreacting but we aren't. I mean take Muslims for example as they are constantly being discriminated. It sucks and it's real man, I don't know why people have to feel they are above other races but it's complete shit.

[phuckphace]

[...]and blacks built it to what it is today.

everything is made of cotton?

[Alien djinn]

I'm inclined to agree with most of this, although I wouldn't go so far as to say racism doesn't exist - it's definitely true that it's overhyped and blown very much out of proportion.

there's also the problem of anti-racists being unable to distinguish between degrees of racism, that this, cracking an "insensitive" joke or using a racial slur against someone is considered practically as horrible as gassing them in a concentration camp. related to that, the anti-racists think casual racism like the N-word is a slippery slope that ends in Auschwitz or the KKK, which is blatantly ridiculous but whatever.

Alien djinn - I find your perspective interesting because, judging by your name and appearance you aren't white. (was that racist? :P ) feel free to clarify here, if you like.

You're right, I'm not really Caucasian ! I'm of North African descent. (Wheter North Africans are white or brown can be debated, in the U.S. Census we are considered white for exemple). And no there's absolutely no racism in saying that. I mean why the fuck would we be forbidden to say "You're white, you're asian etc" ? There's nothing offensive in that but still in my country it is forbidden. I'm North African , you can say it, I'm proud of it, and I recognize the fact that I'm less European compared to a person whose ancestors have been in Europe for the last milleniums, cause I retain certain Islamic cultural habits and mentality... and again, I'm proud of it. Why the fuck would I deny the truth, deny my identity... ;)

[phuckphace]

North Africa is best Africa

[Alien djinn]

In the case of America I admit that the land doesn't really belongs to the white man at the beginning... I'm speaking from a Europe point of view, I haven't really reflected on America to be honest.

North Africa is best Africa

I dunno, if you say so x). But thanks. People usually don't really know much about this part of the world. I'd be really interested to know what people know and think about us! Maybe I'll ask the question in a new thread haha.

Posts merged. Use the edit button next time. ~Mars

[Jinglebottom]

I dunno, if you say so x). But thanks. People usually don't really know much about this part of the world. I'd be really interested to know what people know and think about us! Maybe I'll ask the question in a new thread haha.
I like North Africa a lot more than the Middle East, that's for sure. And you guys speak French too so that's cool. ^^

[KingWavy]

everything is made of cotton?

Well that was extremely racists of you. But no, we literally built everything. Whites didn't do labor, they hired blacks to do the labor, such as the cooking and cleaning and oh, building the White house, growing plants, etc. So things aren't all made of cotton but the clothes you are wearing are so you're welcome.

[Alien djinn]

Well that was extremely racists of you. But no, we literally built everything. Whites didn't do labor, they hired blacks to do the labor, such as the cooking and cleaning and oh, building the White house, growing plants, etc. So things aren't all made of cotton but the clothes you are wearing are so you're welcome.

I agree on the fact that blacks didn't only made cotton. But to say they built everything is false. Skyscrapers, airplanes etc... were mostly white-built but anyway.

[Vermilion]

Well that was extremely racists of you. But no, we literally built everything. Whites didn't do labor, they hired blacks to do the labor, such as the cooking and cleaning and oh, building the White house, growing plants, etc. So things aren't all made of cotton but the clothes you are wearing are so you're welcome.


A lot of labour in places like NY with its tall buildings were native Americans as they weren't scared of heights. As for other parts of the posts I'm sure "whites" as you put it where part of the labour force.

[Microcosm]

Well that was extremely racists of you. But no, we literally built everything. Whites didn't do labor, they hired blacks to do the labor, such as the cooking and cleaning and oh, building the White house, growing plants, etc. So things aren't all made of cotton but the clothes you are wearing are so you're welcome.

You say "we built everything,[(emphasis added)]" but the truth is that you weren't a slave. So, "we" isn't the correct term even if you were somewhat right.

Also, it seems that you're trying to say that all black Americans somehow get a one-up on all whites because they worked as slaves.

That sounds like racism to me.

[Porpoise101]

Seeing as I've had to deal with racists on occasion, the claim racism isn't real anymore is too far. It's even worse for my dad who is darker. But, to me, it's not nearly as pervasive as classism.

I'm no hardcore Marxist, but there is tensions between the upper, middle, and lower. I should also be clear that if you are a minority, you are more likely to be at the bottom. It determines your background, likely future, and who you will build relationships with. And unlike racism, people are more open about hating on each other. Poor people say "she is to pretentious," while Richie rich will say "trailer trash" of something like that. And normal middle class people tend to disassociate from those who don't appear to be rich. Of course, I'm a student so that is how classism is seen from my eyes. But even adults have the tendency to shy away from the less wealthy people and places. You might say they are afraid of crime and stuff, which many are. But in the past people would live together, not just put the poor in 'boxes' like ghettos and trailer parks and walk away. Then the problems of everyone would at least have attention rather than just being ignored.

I blame this on suburbs, post war racism, and corporations. ✌

[phuckphace]

Whites didn't do labor[...]

are you for real?

slaves cost the equivalent of about $40,000 in today's money, you're absolutely delusional if you believe all or even most whites could afford to buy slave labor so they could sit around all day. slaves and servants were and always have been an upper-class thing.

I bet you also think Django Unchained is a historical documentary.

I don't think that's how it works. Smart people don't think that's how it works.

I know smart people don't think that. but anti-racists, on the other hand...

[Porpoise101]

I know smart people don't think that. but anti-racists, on the other hand...
I'm anti racist. I don't think that's how it works. I don't make that false equivalence. But I do find slurs to be rude and distasteful in general.

[Vlerchan]

Racial fragmentation in the United States and the disproportionate representation of ethnic minorities among the poor clearly played a major role in limiting redistribution, and indeed, racial cleavages seem to serve as a barrier to redistribution throughout the world. This history of American redistribution makes it quite clear that hostility to welfare derives in part from the fact that welfare spending in the United States goes disproportionately to minorities. Another important difference is that Americans dislike redistribution because they tend to feel that people on welfare are lazy, whereas Europeans tend to feel that people on welfare are unfortunate.

Alesina, A., Glaeser, E. and Sacerdote, B. (2001) Why Doesn’t the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, pp. 61. (http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/alesina/files/423__0332-alesina11.pdf)

I remember writing a post before about the manner in which conservatives in the U.S. implicate minorities in their anti-welfare rhetoric. I will link if I find it. You'll find that European parties - FoP is a good example - tend rail against the welfare state in a lot more explicit terms. Least insofar as it comes to ingroup preference significant amounts of racism can be seen to exist.

---

I also agree with Porpoise that classism is quite pervasive.

[Porpoise101]

I remember writing a post before about the manner in which conservatives in the U.S. implicate minorities in their anti-welfare rhetoric. I will link if I find it. You'll find that European parties - FoP is a good example - tend rail against the welfare state in a lot more explicit terms. Least insofar as it comes to ingroup preference significant amounts of racism can be seen to exist.
Yep the 'thug' meme and the 'ghetto family' meme are used by the wealthy GOP elites to scare poor whites. That and the lie that Dems in general want to tax everyone higher. It's been used since the 80s at least, I'm not sure. I've seen an article claiming similar things as well.

[Stronk Serb]

everything is made of cotton?

That one cracked me up for five minutes straight.

See, for me it's a social problem. Yes I am a black male in America and I am seen as a thug or criminal by default. You even said its in a sense, Bullshit because "whites have to accept people in their country" Bro that's ownership on some shit they have nothing to own. Native Americans own this land in the United States, whites took it over, owned blacks and blacks built it to what it is today. I see where you're coming from and I respect your opinion but it's white privilege that is coming out of you. I understand that you never had it happen to you but for me it literally happens all the time. I don't know about other countries but to experience it first hand sucks. The worst part is that people want to ignore racism or say we are overreacting but we aren't. I mean take Muslims for example as they are constantly being discriminated. It sucks and it's real man, I don't know why people have to feel they are above other races but it's complete shit.

I am white and there are higher chances for police in my own country to search me than coloured people. I am not white privilieged and white privilege doesn't exist. The Serbian people were slaves to Turks for centuries. Barbary pirates harassed the European coasts and took among other things, white slaves. In Zimbabwe whites are commonly opressed. In South Africa too. Stop playing the slave card. Every group on earth was enslaved. We the whites just had the common courtesy to say we are sorry and to try and make it right. Are the Irish bitching about their slavery to the English? Hell, Irish slaves were five times cheaper than African slaves.

[Vlerchan]

Yep the 'thug' meme and the 'ghetto family' meme are used by the wealthy GOP elites to scare poor whites.
Even the more neutralised phrases such as 'welfare queen' tends to evoke images of black woman for the average person.

It's been used since the 80s at least, I'm not sure.
It began more-or-less after explicit racism became politically imprudent - is what I've come across.

---

Irish people still bitch about British occupation.

[Stronk Serb]

Even the more neutralised phrases such as 'welfare queen' tends to evoke images of black woman for the average person.


It began more-or-less after explicit racism became politically imprudent - is what I've come across.

---

Irish people still bitch about British occupation.

I doubt the Irish pull the slave card and ask the UK for many euromonies.

[Vlerchan]

I doubt the Irish pull the slave card and ask the UK for many euromonies.
The Irish can view their relations with the British to have come to a reasonable resolution when the historical territories of Ireland were for-the-most-part reclaimed and both nations entered equal partnership within the EU.

It's not quite the same for Blacks.

[DriveAlive]

I most definitely believe that there is racism present in the U.S. And it is a true social problem. Blacks have lower net worth and are paid less than their white counterparts. On average, a black man with a college degree will still make less than a white man with a high school diploma. I also think that sexism is just as big of an issue in the country. Women are still payed less than men and that is disgusting.

However, I think the biggest misconception that has risen from this topic is that the police are evil and racist. I have had a lot of police in my family and they are upstanding people who sincerely want to protect and serve the public. I wish we as a nation still had respect for law enforcement instead of throwing #blacklivesmatter riots. When someone says one of these Twitter phrases to me in response to some perceived police violence, I respond #bluelivesmatter.

[Porpoise101]

However, I think the biggest misconception that has risen from this topic is that the police are evil and racist. I have had a lot of police in my family and they are upstanding people who sincerely want to protect and serve the public. I wish we as a nation still had respect for law enforcement instead of throwing #blacklivesmatter riots. When someone says one of these Twitter phrases to me in response to some perceived police violence, I respond #bluelivesmatter. I don't exactly love the BLM crew, but I feel they have revealed some big problems in terms of criminal justice reform. I believe that in murder cases, people should have a slight bias towards the murdered individual. Look at the Trayvon case. It was pretty much Zimmerman's word against nobody else's since the victim is dead. I also think that bodycams should be in place. I don't think every bad incident recently was necessarily racist, but it does show that the aggressive personality type that PDs hire needs to be put under control. Usually having aggressive cops is a good thing because they won't cow out of situations. If police departments start to outreach to the community and become more transparent then I think it will be a safer, happier place.

[phuckphace]

I live in a state where about one-third of the white population is tweaked out on home-cooked meth. when I encounter one of said tweakers at work, it's almost a guarantee that they'll have a food stamp card.

there's definitely and without a doubt a racial aspect to the resentment in Americans' objections to welfare, but the general sentiment is that welfare is given disproportionately to the least-deserving dregs of society, whether they be white or black, and I tend to agree.

as you've no doubt guessed based on my posts, my preferred approach to welfare and benefits is a lot more bourgeois than most other socialists - I see public benefits as an institution that should reward the productive Ward Cleaver middle class rather than subsidizing the bad habits of the r-selected YOLO crew. while it's not necessarily the fault of the individual for falling into dire financial straights, it's definitely your own fault if you decide to start tweaking and being a fucked-up nuisance while taking public funds.

the matter is complicated by the fact that, unlike in former times, benefits can't be preferentially restricted by race and class like they ought to be. the present setup is totally dysgenic and awful: we tax Ward Cleaver to give Shantel and Tammy welfare bucks so they can eat themselves into a diabetic coma all while maintaining economic policies that ensure the supply of Ward Cleavers continues to shrink. after Shantel collapses and is taken to the ER, you can guess who foots the bill.

while I like the idea of a single-payer healthcare system, I don't trust any leftist in America to implement it properly and without graft and waste (see also Healthcare.gov which cost $500 million to create - mindblowing). leftoids just can't help themselves around [-]whitey's money[/-] public funds. also in order for this to work we'd first need to build a YUGE fucking wall.

el fin.

[KingWavy]

That one cracked me up for five minutes straight.



I am white and there are higher chances for police in my own country to search me than coloured people. I am not white privilieged and white privilege doesn't exist. The Serbian people were slaves to Turks for centuries. Barbary pirates harassed the European coasts and took among other things, white slaves. In Zimbabwe whites are commonly opressed. In South Africa too. Stop playing the slave card. Every group on earth was enslaved. We the whites just had the common courtesy to say we are sorry and to try and make it right. Are the Irish bitching about their slavery to the English? Hell, Irish slaves were five times cheaper than African slaves.

Look I'm not here to start problems, the guy asked for an opinion and that's how it is in America. For you to say white privilege doesn't exist is false because it exists, just not where you are but America is extremely diverse so it is here. Everyone else can literally fuck off with the rude comments because it's doing nothing but proving my point about racism.

[Stronk Serb]

Look I'm not here to start problems, the guy asked for an opinion and that's how it is in America. For you to say white privilege doesn't exist is false because it exists, just not where you are but America is extremely diverse so it is here. Everyone else can literally fuck off with the rude comments because it's doing nothing but proving my point about racism.

Describe this "white privilege".

[KingWavy]

Describe this "white privilege".

"White privilege is a set of advantages and/or immunities that white people benefit from on a daily basis beyond those common to all others. White privilege can exist without white people's conscious knowledge of its presence and it helps to maintain the racial hierarchy in this country." Not my words. Straight from Mount Holyoke College. Theres more:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept of "white privilege" to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people. White privilege denotes both obvious and less obvious passive advantages that white people may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice. These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth; presumed greater social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely. The effects can be seen in professional, educational, and personal contexts. The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal. That's all according to Wikipedia, so it's a real thing man.

[sqishy]

while I like the idea of a single-payer healthcare system, I don't trust any leftist in America to implement it properly and without graft and waste (see also Healthcare.gov which cost $500 million to create - mindblowing). leftoids just can't help themselves around [-]whitey's money[/-] public funds. also in order for this to work we'd first need to build a YUGE fucking wall.


I'm just wondering how much your huge wall would cost.

[Stronk Serb]

KingWavy

Ayy at whites getting minority scholarships and preferential status as minorities
Ayy for whites having white culture month and shit
Ayy for whites being allowed to publicly criticise some things blacks do #WhiteLivesMatter

That there was a joke, BLM and the KKK are in my opinion the opposite sides of a same coin, be it the KKK has a longer and more violent history. Wikipedia is not all hard facts. It is on some things, but is generally a bad source to back your claims. It has articles, especially in history that have no factual basis and fake sources listed.


White privilege? More like rich privilege. The reason I am constantly harassed by the cops here is because I don't look rich. Is Obama ever harassed by the police? Was Ben Carson? No. Why? Because they're influential fucks. Bushs and the Clintons didn't have that too for the same reasons. Bottom line is, rich privilege has always existed, no matter the country. Let me guess, you are a poor black and is harassed by police? I am white and I have the same problem. Do you know what is the main factor determining how the cops treat you? How you dress, the second is how you talk to them. They are more likely to search a guy who dresses in that ghetto culture crap than a guy in a suit. You know why? Because most of the prison population dressed like that before being convicted. It's not based on race as much as it's based on appearance. Now why does the academia, government and other parties say it's all white privilege? So they can fake they are sorry and say that they will fight for the poor opressed minorities, while instead they used the whole white race as a scapegoat, and trust me there are whites who have it as badly as you. They do it so we can be at eachother's throats and that they can remain in power. Those cucks are in a position of influence and that's where the source of privileges lies. This is just a cycle where the lower populations get pissed and make a change fkr the better, but after a few generations it gets back where it started.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/the_lies_of_white_privilege.html

[DriveAlive]

I'm just wondering how much your huge wall would cost.

Last I read, estsimates put it at around 5-8 billion

[Sailor Mars]

[MENTION=121426]
White privilege? More like rich privilege. The reason I am constantly harassed by the cops here is because I don't look rich. Is Obama ever harassed by the police? Was Ben Carson? No. Why? Because they're influential fucks. Bushs and the Clintons didn't have that too for the same reasons. Bottom line is, rich privilege has always existed, no matter the country.
Ben Carson actually grew up in a poor family with a single mother who relied on food stamps. I don't disagree though that the rich are waaayyy better off than us.

Eh racism is real. You can go anywhere and see that. 4chan surely is a place where you can find that shit. It is, though, done by everyone, black, white and other.

I think prejudices are a lot more... Not "common" but more likely to experience. Opinions based off of other opinions or things that one has never experienced themselves. For example prejudice against women or gays and immigrants, while the person holding that opinion doesn't know what it's like to have to run from your country, or be prevented from marrying someone you've loved for years, or to be abused and traumatized. Racism is a problem, yes, but I think prejudice is a lot more evident.

In general though it's all a shit hole. We should just love each other regardless of whatever we are.

[Porpoise101]

I live in a state where about one-third of the white population is tweaked out on home-cooked meth. when I encounter one of said tweakers at work, it's almost a guarantee that they'll have a food stamp card.
I have some family in OK (the white side) and one second cousin was arrested for making meth and his brother was arrested for possessing it. My white family is poor and the majority live in some Middle American nowhereville. Of course there are exceptions. Especially now, some youngsters are moving to the West Coast after college and they are getting jobs at tech companies. Even still, the majority suffer from poor health (one aunt died from a heart attack at 38), and there's no doubt that some use welfare. The ones that aren't are probably the ones in Illinois and Iowa where they can get the factory jobs. The experiences of that family are so different from the suburban people I live near today. I think that is a problem and it hurts our ability to empathise with each other.

[Vlerchan]

I live in a state where about one-third of the white population is tweaked out on home-cooked meth.
Given that the meth-use rate is 0.5% I'm sceptical it's this high. I understand the point nonetheless.

there's definitely and without a doubt a racial aspect to the resentment in Americans' objections to welfare, but the general sentiment is that welfare is given disproportionately to the least-deserving dregs of society, whether they be white or black, and I tend to agree.
For sure this is a basis to it and that's highlighted in the paper - unbolded in the extract I took. I'm also not surprised it does. Equality-of-opportunity is cornerstone to your political culture and I'm sure welfarism offends your meritocratic instincts even if you don't believe you have them. In Europe, in contrast, I imagine welfare-users are seen as unfortunate in-part because of our tradition of natural-hierarchy and a more cohesive nationalism-of-values.

However the degree of racial fragmentation in a given area was also reported to play a separate and pivotal role in determining the extent of redistribution. It can be seen emerging in Europe - that we had stronger welfare states at the time that paper was written is broadly down to the fact that racial fragmentation was non-existent during their establishment.

the matter is complicated by the fact that, unlike in former times, benefits can't be preferentially restricted by race and class like they ought to be.
I'm not sure through what mechanism it can be restricted to certain class-groups, unless educational-attainment is used as a proxy. I also see no reason to restrict it on the basis of race, unless some worthwhile distinction can be identified here.

all while maintaining economic policies that ensure the supply of Ward Cleavers continues to shrink.
I feel I should emphasise again that the shrinkage of the middle-class is in-large down to skills-biased technological advancement: which automated traditional middle-skill, middle-class labour and acted as a compliment to high-skill labour. You'll find that free trade tends to be a boon for skilled-labour (labour-with-a-college-degree) too*.

Inhibiting skill-biased technological change would broaden the middle-class but also procure a pretty substantial drop in terms of their standard of living as a group.

---

*The working-class are disproportionate beneficiaries of the fall in the price-level as resulting from trade and it's arguable it's a boon to them too.

while I like the idea of a single-payer healthcare system, I don't trust any leftist in America to implement it properly and without graft and waste (see also Healthcare.gov which cost $500 million to create - mindblowing).
The presumption here though is that the adoption of single-payer would be a strictly disproportionate benefit to middle-class whites, given the pre-existence of medicaid.

That public funding might in-part go to waste would be be absolutely minimal compared to the amount that does under the current system of private insurance, where a quarter is administration costs if I'm remembering correct.

---

I might at some stage make a separate post defending the idea of white privilege.

For reference though the existence of a middle-class privilege doesn't preclude the existence of a white-one.

[Porpoise101]

Ayy at whites getting minority scholarships and preferential status as minorities
Ayy for whites having white culture month and shit
Ayy for whites being allowed to publicly criticise some things blacks do #WhiteLivesMatter
Nowadays, if you are white you can get preferential status if the college is mostly minority. One junior I know is applying to a historically black school.

I've talked about this before, but the white culture of the US is American suburban culture. So while it may not get a month (that 99% of the people don't care about anyways), we have independence day and memorial day (used to be a legit military holiday but now is just for BBQ and parades).

Whites do criticise the actions of some black people. It's called being aware of bad things. It's only a problem when that criticism is applied to the whole population. Then it's a stereotype.

#BLM isn't racist bro, it's just saying that blacks are undervalued in society. Not that I agree with their methods, but their message is ok.

[Stronk Serb]

Ben Carson actually grew up in a poor family with a single mother who relied on food stamps. I don't disagree though that the rich are waaayyy better off than us.

Eh racism is real. You can go anywhere and see that. 4chan surely is a place where you can find that shit. It is, though, done by everyone, black, white and other.

I think prejudices are a lot more... Not "common" but more likely to experience. Opinions based off of other opinions or things that one has never experienced themselves. For example prejudice against women or gays and immigrants, while the person holding that opinion doesn't know what it's like to have to run from your country, or be prevented from marrying someone you've loved for years, or to be abused and traumatized. Racism is a problem, yes, but I think prejudice is a lot more evident.

In general though it's all a shit hole. We should just love each other regardless of whatever we are.


I never denied racism still being a thing. Yeah, it's stupid, but white privilege is a social construct of the ruling class so they can save face and keep getting elected by saying they will combat white privilege. It's not all whites vs. blacks, during wars and hard times both poor blacks and poor whites struggled.

Nowadays, if you are white you can get preferential status if the college is mostly minority. One junior I know is applying to a historically black school.

I've talked about this before, but the white culture of the US is American suburban culture. So while it may not get a month (that 99% of the people don't care about anyways), we have independence day and memorial day (used to be a legit military holiday but now is just for BBQ and parades).

Whites do criticise the actions of some black people. It's called being aware of bad things. It's only a problem when that criticism is applied to the whole population. Then it's a stereotype.

#BLM isn't racist bro, it's just saying that blacks are undervalued in society. Not that I agree with their methods, but their message is ok.

Don't get me started on the BLM, they say whites can't experience racism. Every race can experience it. I disagree with their messages since some of the gzys they defend are legit criminals, while some other real cases of police brutality are not protested. Inmocents regardless of race deserve ro have protests because of their mistreatment, but criminals... they don't deserve jack.

Posts merged. Please use the Edit Posts function.~Giygas

[Porpoise101]

Don't get me started on the BLM, they say whites can't experience racism. Every race can experience it. I disagree with their messages since some of the gzys they defend are legit criminals, while some other real cases of police brutality are not protested. Inmocents regardless of race deserve ro have protests because of their mistreatment, but criminals... they don't deserve jack.
I didn't realize that they said that. And I didn't know they defended criminals either.

[Vlerchan]

I didn't realize that they said that.
There use of the term 'racism' is in reference to it being a structural phenomenon as opposed to being a catch-all term for racial-prejudices and racial-discrimination.

It makes more sense when considered like that.

And I didn't know they defended criminals either.
If any group in our society needs to be defended it's criminals. There's no group so open to violations of their civil rights.

[sqishy]

Last I read, estsimates put it at around 5-8 billion

Alright then.

So phuckphace sees "Healthcare.gov which cost $500 million to create" as "mindblowing", but this is alright.

Let's approach this on a purely economic angle.

[Porpoise101]

If any group in our society needs to be defended it's criminals. There's no group so open to violations of their civil rights.
That's true. When Jared Fogle got stabbed in prison lots of people were happy. I think punishments should be harsher, but vigilantism is terrible. Justice should only come from the court, not blood.

[Stronk Serb]

I didn't realize that they said that. And I didn't know they defended criminals either.

Some cases are really worth protesting, but in others, the cops were legit in danger and had the right to shoot on sight. I find their white supporters really strange. They stick around with them and call themseves the trash of the world. That's why I avoid labelling myself. I am all equal sex rights, but don't call mysekf feminist, I am all for equal treatment based on race, but I am not #BLM or something like that. What Vlerchan said about criminals needing rights, no they don't. They forfeited them the moment they chose to go down the path of violence and spreading of human misery. They forfeited their rights when they destroyed their humanity. In my books, I would use them as free labor, repairing roads, building public buildings, stamping licence plates, manual labor 8-9 hours a day, six days a week. If a convicted is proven innocent, aside from the money he recieves for wrongful imprisonment, he should recieve 10 dollars for every hour he worked. The hourly wage should be adjustable with inflation.

[Vlerchan]

Justice should only come from the court, not blood.
The opinion I have is that adjudication should be as detached and impassive as possible.

They forfeited them the moment they chose to go down the path of violence and spreading of human misery.
Except this isn't the case. You'll find at the least their rights were removed from them by a court and under the course of law.

No-one's rights disappear the moment "they chose to go down the path of violence" or else there'd be place for vigilantism. Further still no criminal is ever entirely voided - in court - of their rights - or else foul treatment at the hands of the public or other criminals would be legally tolerable. There execution could also be immediate - in front of the gallery. Neither are the case. In fact his continued existence is carried out beneath the directives of the law, with all the rights and duties that entails.

I - at the same time - don't feel it's possible for someone to be voided of their fundamental rights. Those being which all further legal commands and duties are built on. Though that's a difference of opinion as opposed to a positive issue.

They forfeited their rights when they destroyed their humanity.
Except this can't be the case. The appeals process and the potential restitution of their right to liberty are built on the idea that there is some lasting connection between the criminal and the legal order.

... he should recieve 10 dollars for every hour he worked
What if his opportunity cost is substantially higher.

That is - In making the convicted pave roads it's ignored that his labour might be better put to use elsewhere: so the cost to him as in fact much higher than 10 dollars an hour.

[Porpoise101]

What Vlerchan said about criminals needing rights, no they don't. They forfeited them the moment they chose to go down the path of violence and spreading of human misery. They forfeited their rights when they destroyed their humanity.
This is so extreme it's funny. Think of it this way...
>Steals a bag of candy
>Instantly loses all humanity, becomes a savage
>Gets sent to gulag for life, but with pay!
ggwp

[Stronk Serb]

This is so extreme it's funny. Think of it this way...
>Steals a bag of candy
>Instantly loses all humanity, becomes a savage
>Gets sent to gulag for life, but with pay!
ggwp

I haven't made myself clear, I meant applying it to the worst criminals, people who are in prison for decades, life or are awaiting death sentence.

[Porpoise101]

I haven't made myself clear, I meant applying it to the worst criminals, people who are in prison for decades, life or are awaiting death sentence.
Those people shouldn't have rights. They should be dead, and their death should be quick and expedited.

[DriveAlive]

Alright then.

So phuckphace sees "Healthcare.gov which cost $500 million to create" as "mindblowing", but this is alright.

Let's approach this on a purely economic angle.

First of all, I believe that any effective effort to curb the illegal drug flow across the Mexican border is worth the monetary cost.

Second, I subscribe to the old adage, "watch the pennies and the pounds will watch themselves." You must watch every expenditure and avoid any waste. This does not mean that you should not spend money, rather you should not waste money.

Stopping drugs is not a waste of money in my book. Drugs are an epidemic that have destroyed millions of lives in this country. Watch the HBO doc "Heroin: Cape Cod, USA" and then tell me that our nation does not have a problem. These drugs make people useless and a drain on society, not to mention the pain and suffering that they wreak on those affected.

[Sailor Mars]

Please remember to keep the thread on topic. Thank you ~Mars

[sqishy]

First of all, I believe that any effective effort to curb the illegal drug flow across the Mexican border is worth the monetary cost.

I grant that, if the amount of drugs coming through Mexico is making up the vast majority that exists in the US.


Second, I subscribe to the old adage, "watch the pennies and the pounds will watch themselves." You must watch every expenditure and avoid any waste. This does not mean that you should not spend money, rather you should not waste money.

Always helps to be in the know, yes.


Stopping drugs is not a waste of money in my book. Drugs are an epidemic that have destroyed millions of lives in this country. Watch the HBO doc "Heroin: Cape Cod, USA" and then tell me that our nation does not have a problem. These drugs make people useless and a drain on society, not to mention the pain and suffering that they wreak on those affected.

I will do so some time soon.

Are you with the 'war on drugs', if I may ask? (I assume so at this stage but just clarifying.)

___________

[EDIT: I realise this is going way off-topic. Sorry! (I can talk more about this elsewhere.)]

[DriveAlive]

I grant that, if the amount of drugs coming through Mexico is making up the vast majority that exists in the US.



Always helps to be in the know, yes.



I will do so some time soon.

Are you with the 'war on drugs', if I may ask? (I assume so at this stage but just clarifying.)

___________

[EDIT: I realise this is going way off-topic. Sorry! (I can talk more about this elsewhere.)]

We should probably spin this off into its own thread. But for now, to connect it with the OP, it is often assumed that a person is racist because they are tough on drugs and border security. If a person supports law enforcement for example, one will often hear that this person is racist or does not care about black lives etc. Moreover, the war on drugs is often labeled as an attack on minorities because they are the most likely to be incarcerated for drug offenses.

I think that the war on hard drugs (coke, heroin, meth, etc.) is not a matter of race, but national security and safety. The people most effected by drugs are those at the bottom, whether they be victims or perpetrators. Tightening border security and cracking down on drug trafficking is not about punishing minorities, but about stopping drugs from destroying our country.

[Stronk Serb]

Those people shouldn't have rights. They should be dead, and their death should be quick and expedited.

Forced labor is an option, a good way to rennovate America's infrastructure or help building schools or hospitals. Just sayin'. Maybe ask the victim's families to decide? Also I mentioned a sallary in case they are proven innocent, so it could be paid out to them. If nothing, the forced labor will make the whole prison population more sustainable, money wise.

On topic, as to not derail the thread:

Racism exists, but so do prejudices and stereotypes which are different than racism, but both mock a race in one way or another. Privilege of any race doesn't exist, it's rich privilege. I'm gonna keep it short to make myself clear because my text walls are sometimes hard to understand.

[phuckphace]

Given that the meth-use rate is 0.5% I'm sceptical it's this high. I understand the point nonetheless.

I may have been exaggerating just a bit for comedic effect, but yeah. all of that .5% seems to be drawn to me like flies on shit.

Equality-of-opportunity is cornerstone to your political culture and I'm sure welfarism offends your meritocratic instincts even if you don't believe you have them.

I think actual meritocracies are more or less fantasy. in practice the system gets gamed hard and defeats its own purpose, most famously exemplified in China's old civil service exams - you had candidates sneaking in cheat-sheets written on their underwear.

In Europe, in contrast, I imagine welfare-users are seen as unfortunate in-part because of our tradition of natural-hierarchy and a more cohesive nationalism-of-values.

I and a lot of other people are able to discern the difference between someone who has fallen on hard times through an unfortunate alignment of the economic stars, such as a layoff, and someone who is poor because they are too stupid to handle money and not make poor decisions such as impregnating an S.O./becoming pregnant at a stage in their lives when they can't afford it.

one of my former roommates was a 19-year-old hick married (shotgun wedding) to another 19-year-old hickette who was not only drawing food stamps for their unnecessary child but also used his $1,300 tax refund to buy a $700 video card for his gaming rig. this is exactly the kind of aggressive hick stupidity that gets rewarded with funbux that are then promptly blown on junk food.

I don't think very many Americans would truly have an issue with welfare if it were restricted to Laid-Off Guy and not Jimbo the vidya nerd.

However the degree of racial fragmentation in a given area was also reported to play a separate and pivotal role in determining the extent of redistribution. It can be seen emerging in Europe - that we had stronger welfare states at the time that paper was written is broadly down to the fact that racial fragmentation was non-existent during their establishment.

moral of the story: don't fragment your ethnic makeup on purpose or by accident.

I'm not sure through what mechanism it can be restricted to certain class-groups, unless educational-attainment is used as a proxy. I also see no reason to restrict it on the basis of race, unless some worthwhile distinction can be identified here.

in the case of a nationalist overhaul like the one we envision under eternal president Trump, it can go to whomever we please. welfare in the 1950s was, I'd imagine, much less generous than today and likely went mostly to Laid-Off Guy.


Alright then.

So phuckphace sees "Healthcare.gov which cost $500 million to create" as "mindblowing", but this is alright.

think about it for a sec, mang - it's an effing website. all you need is a small team of programmers and say a couple of months if it's a big project - I'd believe $2 million given its scope, but a price tag of $500 mil for a single site no matter the size is automatic graft, no question.

by comparison, a sealed border (which is really what The Great Wall represents) would pay dividends in reduced crime and social alienation, and be a boon to the shrinking middle class.

[sqishy]

We should probably spin this off into its own thread. But for now, to connect it with the OP, it is often assumed that a person is racist because they are tough on drugs and border security. If a person supports law enforcement for example, one will often hear that this person is racist or does not care about black lives etc. Moreover, the war on drugs is often labeled as an attack on minorities because they are the most likely to be incarcerated for drug offenses.

I think that the war on hard drugs (coke, heroin, meth, etc.) is not a matter of race, but national security and safety. The people most effected by drugs are those at the bottom, whether they be victims or perpetrators. Tightening border security and cracking down on drug trafficking is not about punishing minorities, but about stopping drugs from destroying our country.

I am more okay with this when it comes from a moreso reasoning angle than being just emotive attacking of people rather than dangerous processes. So I am reservedly alright with this.

_______________


think about it for a sec, mang - it's an effing website. all you need is a small team of programmers and say a couple of months if it's a big project - I'd believe $2 million given its scope, but a price tag of $500 mil for a single site no matter the size is automatic graft, no question.

I don't know enough about the website to be responding on your response to it, I was rather comparing the 500M to the wall which I am guessing is a factor of 10 greater, but then I come to this:


by comparison, a sealed border (which is really what The Great Wall represents) would pay dividends in reduced crime and social alienation, and be a boon to the shrinking middle class.

You want the wall, I'm not seeing problems if you believe with good founding that the price for it will be 'paid back' in the coming years/decades with the anticipated good results out of it. There are so many factors to this (let us not forget environmental/ecological influences from this, for example).

Do you mean social alienation in a good sense?

[Vlerchan]

I think actual meritocracies are more or less fantasy. in practice the system gets gamed hard and defeats its own purpose, most famously exemplified in China's old civil service exams - you had candidates sneaking in cheat-sheets written on their underwear.
Exam in modern meritocracies there's no decisive terminal exam. Your relative decision is determined through a long multiturn game. The management majors that signalled their capabilities through passing their undergraduate perform awful in actual business and get pushed-back as a result. You can game it at one stage but that just sets one up for greater losses at the next.

Beholden to transparent competition a relatively meritocratic state of affairs will emerge.

and a lot of other people are able to discern the difference between someone who has fallen on hard times through an unfortunate alignment of the economic stars, such as a layoff, and someone who is poor because they are too stupid to handle money and not make poor decisions such as impregnating an S.O./becoming pregnant at a stage in their lives when they can't afford it.
I'm not claiming people in the U.S. can't tell the difference between those two states. What I'm claiming is that people in the U.S. have a higher likelihood of starting from a presumption of malpractice on the part of the downtrodden than their state being a result of outside factors. This is demonstrated in the empirical literature.

I imagine it's for the reasons I outlined - though I could be wrong there.

...his $1,300 tax refund...
I'm not claiming that blowing this on graphics card isn't nuts - but if the terminologies are the same as in Europe: isn't this indicative that he worked some amount?

moral of the story: don't fragment your ethnic makeup on purpose or by accident.
I should add we can't be sure of the long-run effects with regards to Europe. The trend could alter:

Other than with the U.S. - and it's relationship with race is quite exceptional - there's not enough observations to claim in one direction or the other for sure. Earliest indications aren't good though.

in the case of a nationalist overhaul like the one we envision under eternal president Trump, it can go to whomever we please.
Trump's supporters are still disproportionate lumoenproles and he's promises to ensure the preservation of their entitlements. There's a considerable overlap between nativists and those in dire economic straights.

Here it seems like one or the other.

but a price tag of $500 mil for a single site no matter the size is automatic graft, no question.
It's more than a website. That's the price for the production of the entire service.

You can imagine that meant interfacing with legal teams to deal with the different legal regulations at each states. Then I imagine interfacing with a different legal team to discuss the intersection of these regulations with federal regulations. Then interfacing with insurance companies - which happens to be different in each state. I imagine more - but that's the most immediate considerations.

Without a doubt some amount of waste is contained in all that. But I imagine nowhere near as first appearances suggest.

[phuckphace]

I'm not claiming people in the U.S. can't tell the difference between those two states. What I'm claiming is that people in the U.S. have a higher likelihood of starting from a presumption of malpractice on the part of the downtrodden than their state being a result of outside factors. This is demonstrated in the empirical literature.

I imagine it's for the reasons I outlined - though I could be wrong there.

I could also be wrong here but I've got the vibe that the last decade or so of economic hardship has caused the common man's view of welfare to soften a little bit. when you're the direct beneficiary of an economic boom, it's pretty easy to caress your copy of Atlas Shrugged with a sly grin. not so much after it gets bad enough that your own meal ticket disappears.

on the other hand, it's also undeniable that a good portion of welfare takers fit the "inept hick/ghetto queen" stereotype to a T. anyone with a service sector job is subjected to a generous sample of these types - poor dietary choices, unfortunate body odor, on drugs, rude, loud, uncouth, etc. I never exactly understood how not having any disposable income correlates so reliably with "poor personal hygiene" but it's definitely there and everybody knows it.

I'm not claiming that blowing this on graphics card isn't nuts - but if the terminologies are the same as in Europe: isn't this indicative that he worked some amount?

he had some okay-tier job working for a relative until he knocked up his girlfriend/wife and quit, ostensibly to take care of the kid (which meant playing vidya with headphones on while the kid screamed in his playpen). even with one of the two working it's a cascade of monumentally stupid decisions - a non-stupid non-hick would've done the following: kept his job, not impregnated the S.O., not entered into a marriage of convenience for the funbux, not spent a work-week playing vidya on a $700 graphics card, and perhaps put his tax refund toward his car payment instead. none of these things require a genius-tier IQ to manage.

Trump's supporters are still disproportionate lumpenproles and he's promises to ensure the preservation of their entitlements. There's a considerable overlap between nativists and those in dire economic straights.

true. in the long run though, I think the creation of jobs is the most appealing part, with the welfare as a temporary crutch until things improve.

You can imagine that meant interfacing with legal teams to deal with the different legal regulations at each states. Then I imagine interfacing with a different legal team to discuss the intersection of these regulations with federal regulations. Then interfacing with insurance companies - which happens to be different in each state. I imagine more - but that's the most immediate considerations.

Without a doubt some amount of waste is contained in all that. But I imagine nowhere near as first appearances suggest.

all of this sounds like rent-seeking waste to me. the more complex a system is, the more funds have to be blown to get around in it. now just imagine the comparative simplicity of an NHS-style system - which we will probably never have due to our enormous and varied population and parasitical regulatory layers.

[Vlerchan]

I could also be wrong here but I've got the vibe that the last decade or so of economic hardship has caused the common man's view of welfare to soften a little bit.
This logic makes sense. I've seen no polls that verified it but I wouldn't be surprised.

With regards to the character of welfare-users: 53% have jobs. I'm sure the stereotypes are disproportionately represented but I'd have a difficult time believing that these make up close to the general portrayal.

in the long run though, I think the creation of jobs is the most appealing part, with the welfare as a temporary crutch until things improve.
I'm really unsure we'll see much job creation on the back of the Trump plan.

I would agree though that if the lumpenproletariat could be transformed into a regular proletariat then I can imagine we might see some stab at welfare reform.

all of this sounds like rent-seeking waste to me.
I'm sure a tonne of it is.

Though building over the shit was never going to get rid of the smell. It's really fundamental reform that's needed. I would be fine with the adoption of something like the NHS: though I have a preference the state of affairs in Canada.

[Zbmrnb16]

Maybe it's just because I live in Louisiana, but I've experienced much blatant racism.

[Porpoise101]

Maybe it's just because I live in Louisiana, but I've experienced much blatant racism.
By whom, and what are some examples?

[Xiao.Z]

Race problem very much happen in USA. Not limit to white people. Many people all color can be racist. I experience race problem every day.

[Hermes]

Going right back to the original question it is apparent to me there is a significant international dimension this. Some places may have a problem with racism and others may not and groups that may be a minority in one place may be the majority in another.

We touched on law enforcement and race and there has been an issue in London for years. London has a significant black population as well as many other minorities as you'd expect of a modern multicultural city. Some black teenagers are involved in armed gangs and this has resulted in a number of deaths, sometimes from knives and sometimes from shooting. A number of these have made the news and in every case both the perpetrator(s) and the vitcim(s) have all been black.

The Metropolitan Police (responsible for London) have been criticised for stopping and searching a disproportionate number of young black men compared to white men of the same age.

You can make what you will of this. It is entirely possible that the police know very well who the gang members are, it is these that are the focus of the stop & search, and the stats are just an unfortunately consequence.

Some believe, though, that the police tend to view any young black man with distrust and that the level of suspcion of actual criminal activity need be much lower before a black man is searched than a white man.

This is all against a background of violent crime being committed by a small number of people such that the vast majority of black guys, just like the vast majority of others are law abiding citizens who have just as much right to resent being searched.

With regards to the character of welfare-users: 53% have jobs. I'm sure the stereotypes are disproportionately represented but I'd have a difficult time believing that these make up close to the general portrayal.

There has been much debate in the UK about benefits with the government happy to let people beleive that benefits are primarily paid to strangers wheras the greatest costs seems to be in top-up benefits, i.e. those paid to people in work to make up for the shortfall between their wages and their cost of living. of particular interest is housing benefit paid to cover people's housing costs.

There is an argument that these top-up benefits should stop and that employers should step and pay people's real living costs. With regard to housing benefit if that means the business has to relocate to somehwre housing is cheaper in order to have competitive costs then that's what they should do [Housing the genrally cheaper in the UK in the North than in the South]

I would be fine with the adoption of something like the NHS: though I have a preference the state of affairs in Canada.

Interesting. I'll have to read up on what they have in Canada. Here in the UK the NHS seems to work quite well. There are imperfections but no system is perfect and despite the criticism that money is spent treating people whose illnesses are the result of their own poor judgement it is cheaper per person than healtcare in the USA. On the subject of treatment as a result of one's own bad judgement how would one distinguish between someone having broken a leg playing football vs. someone suffering from the chronic effects of obesity? Either would have been avoidable.

Beholden to transparent competition a relatively meritocratic state of affairs will emerge.

I was thinking that a meritocracy in its purest form is actually the law of the jungle; survival of the fittest and all that and you've pretty much said it, i.e. the system that emerges if you don't make a political decision to have some other system.

The question is do we want the law of the jungle in a civilised society? I think we don't want incentives for those with talent and prepared to work hard to rise but shoukd we be paying for that by allowing the disabled, those born to incompetent parents, the thick and the sick etc. to hit rock bottom and risk starvation?

I think most don't want to see that but it is a question of where do you draw the line and whether you see supporting those at the bottom as optional charity or whether it is a duty for anyone who is doing well and thus to be formalised through the tax system.

[Vlerchan]

There is an argument that these top-up benefits should stop and that employers should step and pay people's real living costs.
You're better off implementing Earned-income Tax Credits than interfering with the supply decisions of labour or the hiring decisions of firms. The former has a [1] much better track-record of poverty-relief, [2] targets low-income households and thus is more efficient, [3] ensures the current demand for labour is maintained, and [4] so too is the current level of investment in productivity-enhancing physical capital, and [5] doesn't distort decisions surrounding the acquisition of human capital.

There's certain issues relating to the tax burden, but these can be worked around.

With regard to housing benefit if that means the business has to relocate to somehwre housing is cheaper in order to have competitive costs then that's what they should do [Housing the genrally cheaper in the UK in the North than in the South]

Edit: Lol. I realised I misread the statement I was arguing with, and just wasted a half-hour writing the below up. Originally, I thought you were suggesting we dictate policy so that London-based firms would move. I'm leaving the irrelevant response anyways, just because I might use it some other time.

In much shorter terms, I agree that if firms need to shift production to an area where housing prices are less expensive then firms should do that. Though, dealing with the structural issues causing the spiralling of London housing prices should be prioritised.

---

I have the barest understanding of the London-area in particular but generalising from my knowledge of urban economics, I disagree with a couple of reasons.

The first is that it encourages malinvestment. The reasons firms are investing in London is it poses a greater return. It poses a greater return because there's more space between current output and potential output. In the long-run we should be attempting to ensure the most productive use of resources possible, this is what promotes real wage growth.

The second issue is that most low-income workers in London work in the service sector. There employment is a function of the demand of middle- and high-income individuals. That means you would need to target middle-class professions which tend to be situated in London because of strict benefit from exposure to agglomeration economies, and thus will be expensive to shift, and when shifted will be expected to experience lower productivity growth.

You might have more luck shifting middle-class public administration out of London. I have no idea what the political situation is like there.

The biggest reason though is that it's just punting the issue up the line. You're not dealing with the underlining causes of spiralling London house-price growth. What's been suggested is an expensive ploy. One big issue is that urban planning is beholden to established vested-interests. There's a tight statistical correlation between barriers to housing-supply and the growth in housing prices (eg: Sanchez and Johansson 2011: 24 (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/5kgk9qhrnn33.pdf?expires=1462566224&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=34B4C7704EC4C1D0AC11193CD0AE4DA6)).

This is illustrated in the Oxford-Cambridge situation.

In Oxford, the surrounding local authorities have prevented new development, so that accommodation costs approach London levels. In Cambridge, while it is still an expensive place to live, housing costs are significantly lower because the local authority permits new building. The result, is that businesses are increasingly favouring Cambridge*.

The UK experience shows that over-restrictive planning can be a major obstacle to providing adequate housing. It is not sufficient to zone “just enough” land. If supply is equal to demand sellers know that, by holding out, they can extract very high prices.

John Fitzgerald (2016) Learning from Britain’s housing crisis, Irish Times, 8 March. (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/john-fitzgerald-learning-from-britain-s-housing-crisis-1.2563445)

One of the biggest issues in London has been that supply has a difficult time keeping up with the demand, and this can be in-part placed on restrictive planning conditions. Easing these, though, should be accompanied with Land-valuation taxation, which should eliminate the economics rents held in the land; and encourage development.

There are some other issues. One of the most major issues though, is the extent to which London is an international city and the amount of demand for housing by absentee-owners. This is pressing but difficult to combat as it also places restrictions on domestic owners too. The likelihood is that easing planning restrictions won't eliminate the issue.

Nonetheless, altering incentives on the issue is messy and cumbersome, and going to lead to severe long-run suboptimalities.

---

* N.B.: investment decisions are a function of hiring costs, and wage-demands are a function of housing-costs. Ergo, investment decisions become a function of housing-costs.

I was thinking that a meritocracy in its purest form is actually the law of the jungle; survival of the fittest and all that and you've pretty much said it, i.e. the system that emerges if you don't make a political decision to have some other system.
I used the phrasing 'relatively meritocratic' because I'm not in support of no-holds-barred economic freedom. I support a basic minimum income, facilities enabling re-skilling, a host of government-provided services (healthcare, for one), amongst other things.

Generally, though, restrictions on hiring and firing should be eliminated.

[Hermes]

I take you are study econnomics, either alone or as part of PPE? If so you've have to forgive me being an "amateur".

You're better off implementing Earned-income Tax Credits than interfering with the supply decisions of labour or the hiring decisions of firms. The former has a [1] much better track-record of poverty-relief, [2] targets low-income households and thus is more efficient, [3] ensures the current demand for labour is maintained, and [4] so too is the current level of investment in productivity-enhancing physical capital, and [5] doesn't distort decisions surrounding the acquisition of human capital.

I am not sure if I understand the detail of that but it sounds like: "Given employers can't afford to pay the whole of some workers living costs it is better to accept the employers paying some and make up the rest in benefits than having the person on the dole and claiming benefits for that." I don't think it answers the question of why employers can't afford to pay. Is it not just that the employers who also provide the same service and are thus their competitors also don't pay.

I noted your second reply which makes sense.

The first is that it encourages malinvestment. The reasons firms are investing in London is it poses a greater return. It poses a greater return because there's more space between current output and potential output. In the long-run we should be attempting to ensure the most productive use of resources possible, this is what promotes real wage growth.

So how does this effeciency improvement work, then? Let's imagine firms A and B both has workers producing 10 widgets an hour and sell each sell them for £10 each. Firm A discovers a more efficient way to produce the widgets so they can get 20 per hour out of their workers. They reach a deal with the workers to give a small payrise in return for co-operation and suddenly they're making more profit. Surely it's only a matter of time before firm B discovers this too and starts producing 20 widgets per hour per worker. At that point surely the price of that widget now falls because firm B sees an opportunity to score market share off A when a stable price is reached again it is nearer to £5 than £10.

The second issue is that most low-income workers in London work in the service sector. There employment is a function of the demand of middle- and high-income individuals. That means you would need to target middle-class professions which tend to be situated in London because of strict benefit from exposure to agglomeration economies, and thus will be expensive to shift, and when shifted will be expected to experience lower productivity growth.

So I think you are saying if you start with the service workers and their wages increase, so the cost of their services to middle and high income individuals increases, the middle and high income individuals will simply reduce or eliminate their consumption of those services rather than either ask for a raise or decide to move somewhere cheaper?

The biggest reason though is that it's just punting the issue up the line. You're not dealing with the underlining causes of spiralling London house-price growth. What's been suggested is an expensive ploy. One big issue is that urban planning is beholden to established vested-interests. There's a tight statistical correlation between barriers to housing-supply and the growth in housing prices (eg: Sanchez and Johansson 2011: 24 (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/5kgk9qhrnn33.pdf?expires=1462566224&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=34B4C7704EC4C1D0AC11193CD0AE4DA6)).

Are you saying planning policy (not not build more housing) is strongly influenced by those with investment in housing stock such that by restricting new building those people are furthering their own interests to have what they own appreciate?

If so, I think this may be a London thing (and maybe other places) but is less typical of more rural towns where the developers seem keen and it is the locals who are not.

This is illustrated in the Oxford-Cambridge situation.

[indent]In Oxford, the surrounding local authorities have prevented new development, so that accommodation costs approach London levels. In Cambridge, while it is still an expensive place to live, housing costs are significantly lower because the local authority permits new building. The result, is that businesses are increasingly favouring Cambridge*.

But the cambridge area has horrendous traffic problems. There is a cost to allowing somewhere to develop organically without restriction. Initially it is probably more to quality of life than an ecconomic cost but it must become economic in the end, surely?

The UK experience shows that over-restrictive planning can be a major obstacle to providing adequate housing. It is not sufficient to zone “just enough” land. If supply is equal to demand sellers know that, by holding out, they can extract very high prices.

Ok, I think I get this one - it's standard "competition only happens when there is over capacity".

Easing these, though, should be accompanied with Land-valuation taxation, which should eliminate the economics rents held in the land; and encourage development.

What's this? Taxing people for land they sit on? Would it apply to housing that has been "bought to leave"?

[Vlerchan]

I take you are study econnomics, either alone or as part of PPE? If so you've have to forgive me being an "amateur".
Economics and law, heading into final year (university).

If you do, I also don't mind at all. I just enjoy talking about economics :).

I am not sure if I understand the detail of that but it sounds like: "Given employers can't afford to pay the whole of some workers living costs it is better to accept the employers paying some and make up the rest in benefits than having the person on the dole and claiming benefits for that."
The argument I posed rests more on the idea that it's more efficient to reduce the effective taxation rate for lower-income households - and this is to be targeted at them through certain benefits - than to have employers increase the wage-income of all people earning a certain rate, regardless of their household income. This is for those reasons I outlined previous.

You are correct in what you've outlined is part of it. One of the issues is that the gains for low-skilled workers are transferred from even lower-skilled workers. But with the EITC it's ensured that all transferred gains originate from workers of a higher skill-level and higher income potential.

Presuming that there's diminishing marginal returns on the utility derived from income - that is, the increase in happiness derived from another boost in ones income falls as ones income increases - overall utility, or overall happiness, will be maximised. There's also something more noble about stealing from the rich to save the poor, than stealing from the poorer to do the same.

---

There's a couple of other reasons, but that's the main one.

I don't think it answers the question of why employers can't afford to pay. Is it not just that the employers who also provide the same service and are thus their competitors also don't pay.
The issue here is that some workers are more skilled than others. Having a more productive workforce will allow a firm to accrue greater profits, because the marginal product of a unit of good-labour is larger than that of a unit of bad-labour.

To attract more productive labour, firms increase their wages, i.e., compete amongst each other for workers.

The reason that firms won't increase the wage-rate is that it stops being profit-maximising to do so. It's possible that in some industries firms might be able to reduce profits and increase the wage-rate, but a firm will be unwilling to do so.

Let's imagine firms A and B both has workers producing 10 widgets an hour and sell each sell them for £10 each. Firm A discovers a more efficient way to produce the widgets so they can get 20 per hour out of their workers. They reach a deal with the workers to give a small payrise in return for co-operation and suddenly they're making more profit. Surely it's only a matter of time before firm B discovers this too and starts producing 20 widgets per hour per worker. At that point surely the price of that widget now falls because firm B sees an opportunity to score market share off A when a stable price is reached again it is nearer to £5 than £10.
It's more efficient because when the number of widgets produced doubles, then the supply-price falls (supply exceeds demand, at the old supply-price). When the supply-price falls, consumers can direct more of their (now-higher real) income into other sectors, which encourages investment into these sectors. This induces increased demand for labour, which results in a higher wage-rate, because labour now have more outside-options.

Because of that, profits for the firm have increased, and real wages for labour (which are also consumers) increased, real incomes of consumers have increased*.

Though, I should add that I had, originally, intended to point to more efficient allocation of investment in the first place. That is, if we eliminate policies that distort the incentives that determine investment decisions, then we will have investment occur where it will produce the most wealth.

---

* It's of course more imperfect that that. But the general trend holds.

I'm also presuming a wholly capital-biased technological advancement.

So I think you are saying if you start with the service workers and their wages increase, so the cost of their services to middle and high income individuals increases, the middle and high income individuals will simply reduce or eliminate their consumption of those services rather than either ask for a raise or decide to move somewhere cheaper?
This was tangential to a point I aborted but decided to keep around, for the curious.

It's irrelevant now.


---

The original point was that if we are going to dictate policy so that firms shift to areas where housing is cheaper, then we would need to target firms that hire middle- and upper-class people, as opposed to lower-class people. This is because the employment of lower-class people is a function of the incomes of middle- and higher-class people.

That is, the lower-class is broadly dependent on higher classes spending for jobs.

Are you saying planning policy (not not build more housing) is strongly influenced by those with investment in housing stock such that by restricting new building those people are furthering their own interests to have what they own appreciate?
If there's an increase in the housing stock then the price of houses fall. This is not in the interests of those that own houses, and these people engage in political action to hinder it.

You're correct it's worse amongst rural-people (I'm rural based) and I imagine that's because more housing reduces the aesthetic. I have one neighbour that hasn't spoken to another since they moved in two decades ago, because there house blocked the first neighbours view.

But the cambridge area has horrendous traffic problems. There is a cost to allowing somewhere to develop organically without restriction. Initially it is probably more to quality of life than an ecconomic cost but it must become economic in the end, surely?
Oh yes, surely there's externalities, derivative costs, to be accounted for, and you're definitely correct here.

If I'm honest I have no clue about the situation in Cambridge, I just remembered that article and thought it might be easier to spread the message.

Ok, I think I get this one - it's standard "competition only happens when there is over capacity".
Here, yes. Home-owners have a lot of market-power and housing is a non-perishable good. There's an incentive to attempt to hold out and collect rents.

What's this? Taxing people for land they sit on? Would it apply to housing that has been "bought to leave"?
More-or-less. The price of land is determined by surrounding public amenities, so it doesn't distort, negatively, economic decision-making.

Also, yes.