Kenny Mayne: Dear Fellow White People: Or should I have said ‘Caucasian’?

[Veryoldschool]

5 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Fair enough. I’ll take your word on this. 

 

I still think you are wrong on blue collar jobs. Protectionism isn’t bringing them back or raising wages. Wage stagnation didn’t happen due to globalism which massively increased US corporate profits. 

 

This country simply has a culture that devalues the work of low-income workers. There is plenty of money to go around and corporate bosses like Trump are directly responsible for the shafting of workers. It’s a farce that this man has convinced many of you to think he’s a champion of the blue collar worker when he has benefited from globalism, foreign goods and cheap labor to build his fortunes.

2

 

"This country simply has a culture that devalues the work of low-income workers."

 

Yes, I agree, I agree wholeheartedly.   We need to value laborers not for their utilitarian value but rather their human value and there is dignity in all work because all work provides a service.

 

Trump conducted his business under the rules in place, he is now attempting to change those rules for the expressed purpose of improving blue-collar opportunity.  I understand your skepticism, I was very skeptical when I voted for him and I'm pleasantly surprised he is actually doing what he said he would.  Hopefully, he can show some progress and both parties will come to see the sense in attending to the economic plight of blue-collar American and support him with a big infrastructure program. 

 

 

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

I'm confused.  Are you suggesting that out of work blue collar people would be happy working fields for 1.50 an hour, and therefore we wouldn't see demands for wafe increases and worker protections that would raise costs?

 

I'm legitimately not sure what you're saying here with regards to blue collar work suddenly falling on Americans.  Price of goods relates closely to cost of production.

 

What i'm saying is that claiming increased price of goods as QED to the topic doesn't work because there's more to life than the price of goods. There's what happens to communities when manufacturing leaves and no jobs fill the voice (outsourcing) or when jobs go to low skill/wage labor because it's available (immigration.) A higher price of goods can/may/is worth it if it means, for example, lower use of debilitating drugs. Or lower crime in general. Or lower depression/suicides, or lower family abuse.

 

Measuring utility is great, pretending it's the only thing that matters is silly.

 

Economists know this. They know it's where their field falls short. They can't measure it.

 

People running around regurgitating "price of goods!" usually don't.

 

 

8 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Hey now when unemployment rates  were falling during Obama's 2nd term, I saw plenty of people bringing up "yeah but part-time jobs, no wage growth, people stopped looking for work"

 

Why are those suddenly aspects not to be explored any longer?

 

Wage growth is a several-decades-long-problem that is allowed to continue to be one because each side takes turns pretending it doesn't matter so they can tout other good numbers when they're in charge.

 

(though I feel like I remember Obama saying "yeah numbers are getting better, but we need wage growth" even if the rest of his party wasn't...)

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

22 minutes ago, tshile said:

Yet underemployment and wage stagnation have been a huge problem.

True statement. Not sure that we can blame that on immigrants though.

[Veryoldschool]

8 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Hey now when unemployment rates  were falling during Obama's 2nd term, I saw plenty of people bringing up "yeah but part-time jobs, no wage growth, people stopped looking for work"

 

Why are those suddenly aspects not to be explored any longer?  Hell I even remember Ted Cruz of all people....TED CRUZ.....mention income inequality during his campaign in 2016.

 

 

 

People should continue to focus on wages, they have started to rise but just started.  Trump hasn't solved the problem but for a change, a POTUS is really focused on it.  

[Riggo-toni]

3 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

Yes, a few quarters of growth are not going to reverse the decline in blue-collar earnings that has been going on for 40 years but it is a beginning.

True.

But anti-trade and/or the reduction of work visas for highly qualified STEM applicants will merely aggravate, not ameliorate such conditions.

 

We are in the throes of a digital revolution that is as transformative as the industrial revolution was, but is occurring at a much more rapid pace, and the velocity of change is increasing exponentially as computing technologies piggyback on each preceding development. Pushing for higher wages for unskilled labor rather than pushing for greater access to training is as self-defeating as insisting on wage hikes for pony express riders after the invention of the telegraph. 

 

Germany once led the world in physics. Then the ascension of the Nazi regime sent their brightest minds elsewhere, many of them here. Consequently, we became the premiere scientific power, and Germany has never come close since. We are currently at the top of the IT world, but the shortsighted hyper-nationalism of the current regime is pissing all that away.

 

Reagan had the right idea - drain other countries of their brightest minds by providing the best entrepreneurial opportunities here. 1/4 of all Silicon valley startups are created by foreign born people.

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

True statement. Not sure that we can blame that on immigrants though.

 

Oh, no, I'm sure it isn't helping, but the real problem is our political leaders. They've pushed for, allowed, etc policies that have allowed for the top to make more while the bottom makes the same and inflation eats away at their quality of life.

[Veryoldschool]

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

True statement. Not sure that we can blame that on immigrants though.

 

labor supply is part of the problem, basic supply and demand curve.

 

[Going Commando]

2 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

Yes, I agree, I agree wholeheartedly.   We need to value laborers not for their utilitarian value but rather their human value and there is dignity in all work because all work provides a service.

 

I agree with you completely on this point.  And I agree with you that undocumented immigrant labor has fueled the growth of a very exploitative low wage labor market here.  But you are misidentifying the root cause of the exploitation!  There has been a massive upward redistribution of our capital over the last generation, and conservative economic policy is heavily responsible for this.  Supporting Republicans and Trump is making the problem worse, they've already passed a massive tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited corporations and the wealthy.  Republicans always double down on trickle down economics + killing labor rights and protections and Trump has been no different.  And if you were to sharply increase the cost of goods and services that middle and lower class Americans enjoy by destroying the low wage immigrant labor market without first dealing with the problem of massive upward wealth redistribution, then you're going to be crushing the middle and lower classes even more.

 

And you also have to understand that there are 11 million non-White undocumented immigrants here, who are essentially trapped in an underclass.  Sweeping reforms have to be made in order to give these people full and humane status in our society.

[DogofWar1]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

What i'm saying is that claiming increased price of goods as QED to the topic doesn't work because there's more to life than the price of goods. There's what happens to communities when manufacturing leaves and no jobs fill the voice (outsourcing) or when jobs go to low skill/wage labor because it's available (immigration.) A higher price of goods can/may/is worth it if it means, for example, lower use of debilitating drugs. Or lower crime in general. Or lower depression/suicides, or lower family abuse.

 

Measuring utility is great, pretending it's the only thing that matters is silly.

 

Ah gotcha.  And fair enough, but there is such tremendous amount of negative to overcome before hitting positive.

 

There was a reason we outsourced all the cheap labor and manufacturing while becoming a white collar and tech country.

 

We had our cake, and were eating it too.  We got cheap goods which, when combined with us moving into new and profitable industries, enabled us to come out super far ahead.

 

Americans simply aren't going to work fields for 1.50 an hour or go to deathtrap factory/mine for similar wages and no benefits.

 

If we go the other way, and increase wages and protections, the cost increases.

 

Now sure, maybe that improves some places but you're going to kill purchasing power of people everywhere else.  Food costs are like the biggest factor in civil unrest worldwide, and doing this would increase prices and lower purchasing power of the average person.  Costs of other basic goods (wood, steel, etc) would also surge and that filters to everything else.  It would be a disaster anywhere that is even remotely economically prosperous now.

 

The solution is to reverse wealth concentration and corporate-centric economic policy and focus on consumer centric policy (both people and corporations) and make re-training and education, both trade-based and undergraduate collegiate, widely available, hopefully to be used extensively by those who are in economically depressed locales.

 

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Oh, no, I'm sure it isn't helping, but the real problem is our political leaders. They've pushed for, allowed, etc policies that have allowed for the top to make more while the bottom makes the same and inflation eats away at their quality of life.

 

I think we're pretty much on the same page across the board on economic policy, even if we have some minor quibbles.

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Ah gotcha.  And fair enough, but there is such tremendous amount of negative to overcome before hitting positive.

 

I know, but you're not going to overcome that negative when you sound like you don't understand the situation of the people to which you are speaking.

 

The left has treated that segment of the country the same way the right has treated the poor black community - bootstraps and other bull****.

 

Plenty on the left don't care. They have a 'too bad' attitude with everyone who disagrees with them (and the right has the same problem on other topics...) It's fine, I can't make anyone care, but to then watch the same people whine about how they can't get through to them (and eventually make them double down on the 'too bad' attitude) is frustrating from the aspect that nothing is really being accomplished. 

 

We've got a lot of problems in this country and I feel like the biggest one is that we don't know what to do with under-skilled, under-educated people. No one wants to be universally truthful and say - You didn't learn enough or acquire enough skills as you went through life, so good luck the rest of us are moving on.

 

Instead each side has a preferred group they have pity for and a group they target with their 'bootstraps' bull****. The left targets the blue collar whites outside of dense urban areas (which they only ever had power with because of labor union support, for the most part), and the right targets inner city minorities. Each pits the other's targets.

 

It's created a lot of disdain. You see it in every political thread on ES - many on the left can't let a thread go by without taking a shot at lower/middle class white people. For some it's a daily routine. And if you spend time elsewhere dominated by those on the right, you'll see the same thing from them about poor minorities.

 

Maybe that's not the biggest. Maybe in general it's the complete lack of education that's the biggest. It's up there near the top though.

[NoCalMike]

6 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

But what do we call people, who choose to benefit from institutional racism and support administrations that perpetuate it, while not necessarily committing a prejudicial act themselves (in that given moment)? Are they racist supporters?  Do we just call them assholes? Weak-hearted, **** ass mother****ers?

 

 

I actually heard this somewhat explained, (I believe by Eric Dyson?)  Bigot vs. Racism.  Anyone can be a bigot because that is simply hating someone for their race/sex/gender/whatever.  Racism, at least traditionally, contained a political & institutional cogitation to it which is often why you hear african american pundits say "black people can't be racist" referring to their lack of power in the system itself.

 

Take that for what it's worth.

 

To address your question: I suppose you could say we all participate in a racist system, while at the same time not everyone is a bigot individually?

[Veryoldschool]

2 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

True.

But anti-trade and/or the reduction of work visas for highly qualified STEM applicants will merely aggravate, not ameliorate such conditions.

 

We are in the throes of a digital revolution that is as transformative as the industrial revolution was, but is occurring at a much more rapid pace, and the velocity of change is increasing exponentially as computing technologies piggyback on each preceding development. Pushing for higher wages for unskilled labor rather than pushing for greater access to training is as self-defeating as insisting on wage hikes for pony express riders after the invention of the telegraph. 

 

Germany once led the world in physics. Then the ascension of the Nazi regime sent their brightest minds elsewhere, many of them here. Consequently, we became the premiere scientific power, and Germany has never come close since. We are currently at the top of the IT world, but the shortsighted hyper-nationalism of the current regime is pissing all that away.

 

Reagan had the right idea - drain other countries of their brightest minds by providing the best entrepreneurial opportunities here. 1/4 of all Silicon valley startups are created by foreign born people.

3

 

Boy, you sure covered a lot of ground.  I want to respond to this part, " Pushing for higher wages for unskilled labor rather than pushing for greater access to training is as self-defeating as insisting on wage hikes for pony express riders after the invention of the telegraph."

 

I don't know what kind of high school you went to but the full bell curve of abilities was well represented in mine.  I'm of the opinion that while I want every American to have access to training I also believe there are a lot of people where training isn't the answer.  Maybe 20-25% or the bottom 1/3 of my high school class just wasn't equipped for abstract work and training.  They would have to make their way in this world with willing hands.  The top 2/3 of the class were equipped to master all the trades and professions but what about the rest?  We need to be focused on ensuring the bottom 1/3 can also earn a decent living because their value isn't utilitarian based.

 

A few years ago a vacuum cleaner manufacturer closed its Iowa based plant and moved its production to Mexico.  The plant was located in a town of 4,000 or so as I recall and employed 700-800 people.  The US employees were Teamsters who earn $17.50  an hour plus benefits or about $35,000 per year in a small town where a decent house could be bought for $100,000 or less.  The manufacturer built a new plant in Mexico where their workers would get $2.50 an hour.  I don't blame the company they had to do this because the livable wage they were paying their Iowa workforce would raise the retail cost of their product because their competitors had already moved their production to low wage countries.  This is just one of the 50,000 factories that closed during the last few decades since our leaders of both parties decided to open our market to low wage manufactured goods.

 

I blame the leaders of both parties who abandoned blue-collar workers for the campaign donations of the globalists.  I want us to make and consume our own goods with our own people and mind our own business.  We have lost control of our country to globalists who run it for their own benefit and I'm sick of it.

[Veryoldschool]

54 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I agree with you completely on this point.  And I agree with you that undocumented immigrant labor has fueled the growth of a very exploitative low wage labor market here.  But you are misidentifying the root cause of the exploitation!  There has been a massive upward redistribution of our capital over the last generation, and conservative economic policy is heavily responsible for this.  Supporting Republicans and Trump is making the problem worse, they've already passed a massive tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited corporations and the wealthy.  Republicans always double down on trickle down economics + killing labor rights and protections and Trump has been no different.  And if you were to sharply increase the cost of goods and services that middle and lower class Americans enjoy by destroying the low wage immigrant labor market without first dealing with the problem of massive upward wealth redistribution, then you're going to be crushing the middle and lower classes even more.

 

And you also have to understand that there are 11 million non-White undocumented immigrants here, who are essentially trapped in an underclass.  Sweeping reforms have to be made in order to give these people full and humane status in our society.

1

 

I don't care what the illegals look like I want them to unemployable in the US and for them move back home of their own accord.  If businesses wouldn't employ them they would not be here, the feds really need to hammer employers of illegals. If Trump turned getting caught with illegals on the payroll to a business killer these folks would go home.  I am for domestic labor including unions and domestic production. 

 

"There has been a massive upward redistribution of our capital over the last generation"

 

I agree globalization doesn't work.  It does not produce the broad-based prosperity I saw growing up.  I want to change our trade and immigration policies and work on restoring the economic balance we used to enjoy.  Given all the advances it ought to be easier for people of modest skills to make a living in the US not harder.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Veryoldschool, this isn’t how this is supposed to work. You’re not supposed to demonstrate any kind of brain activity or participate in a conversation.

 

You’re either supposed to A.) post something that makes no sense and is only intended to piss people off then disappear for a week and a half before returning to do the same thing OR B.) post repeatedly with trolling comments like “Still better than Hillary” followed up with an emoticon of a bunny with a pancake on its head hopping around.

 

This is bucking a lot of trends.

 

p.s. I disagree with almost everything you’re saying but I’m giving you credit for not being a total dumbass (or pretending to be one like my one old friend on here likes to do... cough cough no names. We’ll call him teeduby).

[Veryoldschool]

8 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Veryoldschool, this isn’t how this is supposed to work. You’re not supposed to demonstrate any kind of brain activity or participate in a conversation.

 

You’re either supposed to A.) post something that makes no sense and is only intended to piss people off then disappear for a week and a half before returning to do the same thing OR B.) post repeatedly with trolling comments like “Still better than Hillary” followed up with an emoticon of a bunny with a pancake on its head hopping around.

 

This is bucking a lot of trends.

 

p.s. I disagree with almost everything you’re saying but I’m giving you credit for not being a total dumbass (or pretending to be one like my one old friend on here likes to do... cough cough no names. We’ll call him teeduby).

 

Yeah, well I'm going to retain my low opinion of you and your views...:-)

[Fresh8686]

36 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I actually heard this somewhat explained, (I believe by Eric Dyson?)  Bigot vs. Racism.  Anyone can be a bigot because that is simply hating someone for their race/sex/gender/whatever.  Racism, at least traditionally, contained a political & institutional cogitation to it which is often why you hear african american pundits say "black people can't be racist" referring to their lack of power in the system itself.

 

Take that for what it's worth.

 

To address your question: I suppose you could say we all participate in a racist system, while at the same time not everyone is a bigot individually?

I feel you. Bigot is a good word to use, but I was thinking more along the lines of a differentiation that was still specific to race, while incorporating a degree of separation from ascribing to the ideology of full-on racial hate/disdain. 

For example, I see a lot of instances of racial prejudice, that aren't based on hate/disdain, but are the result of faulty mental heuristics or lazy thinking. People not taking the next step of evaluating character and context, before prejudging a person and developing a habit of. That's what I call racial prejudice in lieu or racist.

There are a lot of people who support a racist or bigoted president while not necessarily participating in racist acts themselves. Do we call them tertiary bigots? Indirect bigots? It's not that they hate people of different races, they just won't lift a finger to help them, even if their dying and they will happily let them be marginalized if it benefits their current standard of living.

Is a person a racist or a bigot if their intent is driven by apathy, rather than hate? If not, what are they?

Is there a word for racially driven apathy?

[NoCalMike]

Just now, Fresh8686 said:

Is a person a racist or a bigot if their intent is driven by apathy, rather than hate? If not, what are they?

Is there a word for racially driven apathy?

 

 

Well I do think ignorance plays a significant part in bigotry as no one is born with a "racism gene." It is learned behavior whether it is from friends, family, news outlet.  Also I eluded to either earlier in this thread or another, that I personally feel life experience plays a big part in this.  When you don't have a lot of experience say with brown or black folks, it becomes a lot easier for your mind to be manipulated and bias towards them.   Donald Trump's nonsense about Democrats protecting MS-13 is a much easier sell to people who don't live among immigrants on a daily basis and their "education" about immigrants is only the few bad apples among the millions.

[Veryoldschool]

3 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

I feel you. Bigot is a good word to use, but I was thinking more along the lines of a differentiation that was still specific to race, while incorporating a degree of separation from ascribing to the ideology of full-on racial hate/disdain. 

For example, I see a lot of instances of racial prejudice, that aren't based on hate/disdain, but are the result of faulty mental heuristics or lazy thinking. People not taking the next step of evaluating character and context, before prejudging a person and developing a habit of. That's what I call racial prejudice in lieu or racist.

There are a lot of people who support a racist or bigoted president while not necessarily participating in racist acts themselves. Do we call them tertiary bigots? Indirect bigots? It's not that they hate people of different races, they just won't lift a finger to help them, even if their dying and they will happily let them be marginalized if it benefits their current standard of living.

Is a person a racist or a bigot if their intent is driven by apathy, rather than hate? If not, what are they?

Is there a word for racially driven apathy?

 

Or it could be it isn't race at all it is economics and your head has been filled with a racial narrative to keep you and others from examing the economic issues of the day.  Democrats talk about race to because they abandoned their private sector blue-collar worker base for campaign contributions from Wall Stree, Hollywood, and other global interests.  The Democrats keep talking about race because they don't want minority blue-collar workers to understand they only care about them on election day.  The Democrats don't want their poor minority base to think about trade and immigration issues, they want them to feel oppressed racially instead of economically.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

Or it could be it isn't race at all it is economics and your head has been filled with a racial narrative to keep you and others from examing the economic issues of the day.  Democrats talk about race to because they abandoned their private sector blue-collar worker base for campaign contributions from Wall Stree, Hollywood, and other global interests.  The Democrats keep talking about race because they don't want minority blue-collar workers to understand they only care about them on election day.  The Democrats don't want their poor minority base to think about trade and immigration issues, they want them to feel oppressed racially instead of economically.

See I would say that everything you just said is true, except in reverse. Which party do the wealthy elites support? Which party’s policies are designed to benefit the wealthy elite? Seems to me that poor minorities vote democrat because their policies benefit them? Poor whites vote republican because they are being intentionally misled with hate and fear.

[No Excuses]

12 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

Or it could be it isn't race at all it is economics and your head has been filled with a racial narrative to keep you and others from examing the economic issues of the day.  Democrats talk about race to because they abandoned their private sector blue-collar worker base for campaign contributions from Wall Stree, Hollywood, and other global interests.  The Democrats keep talking about race because they don't want minority blue-collar workers to understand they only care about them on election day.  The Democrats don't want their poor minority base to think about trade and immigration issues, they want them to feel oppressed racially instead of economically.

 

I don’t know how you can say this when Trump just passed a tax cut which is essentially the largest transfer of wealth to coastal elites in US history. 

 

Nowhere in the tax code restructuring did American workers get long term relief or funding for programs that rebuild the infrastructure of this country. 

 

The Republicans are complete hucksters. I know you like the tarrifs going into place but all they will accomplish is broken alliances with our global partners and loss of American jobs when other countries retaliate. The Bush steel tariffs in the 2000s were a complete failure and were repealed for a reason.

[TradeTheBeal!]

13 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

Or it could be it isn't race at all it is economics and your head has been filled with a racial narrative to keep you and others from examing the economic issues of the day.  Democrats talk about race to because they abandoned their private sector blue-collar worker base for campaign contributions from Wall Stree, Hollywood, and other global interests.  The Democrats keep talking about race because they don't want minority blue-collar workers to understand they only care about them on election day.  The Democrats don't want their poor minority base to think about trade and immigration issues, they want them to feel oppressed racially instead of economically.

 

Enjoy these facts.

 

 

Also keep in mind that UAW membership was roughly 800K when W was elected.

[Veryoldschool]

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

See I would say that everything you just said is true, except in reverse. Which party do the wealthy elites support? Which party’s policies are designed to benefit the wealthy elite? Seems to me that poor minorities vote democrat because their policies benefit them? Poor whites vote republican because they are being intentionally misled with hate and fear.

 

You're not aware that the contributions of the Wall Street investment firms go to the Democrats?  Don't you know who is funding your party?  Why do you think Bill Clinton became a free trader and signed NFTA and provided most favored nation trading status to China?  To help Joe 6-pack's prospect at the plant?  No, American blue-collar worker was abandoned by the Democrats for Coastal money, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood fund the Democrats and that is who the Democrats look out for, the racial narratives are used to distract poor blue-collar minorities whose interests were ignored by Republicans also until Trump.

1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Enjoy these facts.

 

 

Nice!  Thanks for posting this I didn't know that and it pleases me!  I hope it grows even further during Trump's 8 years!

[NoCalMike]

Ok we're going over covered ground now.  We all understand wall street, big banks, and corporate interests fund both parties. It's a problem, perhaps the biggest problem in all of politics, however only one side seems to have any interest in removing all of the money out of the system.  Until the system itself is change, you can't try to single out one side over the other for playing the rules of a messed up game.  We can still point out the dirty money and how it influences the decision making, but "bought & paid for" is a pox on both parties. 

 

Who are the voices looking to change the game itself?

[TradeTheBeal!]

4 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

 

 

Nice!  Thanks for posting this I didn't know that and it pleases me!  I hope it grows even further during Trump's 8 years!

 

1. You’re welcome.

 

2. It won’t.

[Veryoldschool]

3 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Ok we're going over covered ground now.  We all understand wall street, big banks, and corporate interests fund both parties. It's a problem, perhaps the biggest problem in all of politics, however only one side seems to have any interest in removing all of the money out of the system.  Until the system itself is change, you can't try to single out one side over the other for playing the rules of a messed up game.  We can still point out the dirty money and how it influences the decision making, but "bought & paid for" is a pox on both parties. 

 

Who are the voices looking to change the game itself?

 

You don't like it but Trump and Bernie were the two guys outsiders the Hillary and the other 15 Republicans were establishment globalists. Trump is working on trade now maybe he'll get to campaign reform but I doubt it.