If you pick people born to married households middleclass and above regardless of race and compare their success in life to children born in poverty to single mothers regardless of race you will find that the children in the first group have greater success to those in the second.
1 Like
Dem
483
Careful now. That’s socialist talk. 
Maybe. But considering how stacked the deck is in some cases…
It’s a marriage of government bureaucracy and large business immorality. The people are over taxed and underpaid.
Certain industries pay their employees so little that they advise them get on the welfare system. They do not up their pay to account for inflation.
When the people try to move up the ladder, they are slammed with higher income taxes that effectively keep them in their current struggle. And there is often a transitional period where they need some social benefits to make ends meet while they build their new career. And then the state simply takes that away because they are making just a few percentage points over what they made before.
It’s disgusting. It’s almost like it’s designed to keep you in upper poverty at best.
1 Like
Hmm government intentional oppression, no. The system still produces outcomes that impact some races more than others. Even if unintentional.
But here’s the thing… up until 1965ish… oppression was race based. You didn’t see “middle class only” signs. You saw “whites only”.
When you oppress based on race… you tend to look at how that oppression impacts a race… both during oppression and after.
2 Likes
Why should historical facts that a person had no involvement in and their ancestors potentially had no involvement in and has no ability to change make one more empathetic especially in the year 2021? Now if I had ever seen a group of white students picking on one of my black you can be damm sure I would do something about it.
Do you believe it’s the job of history teachers to ensure that their lessons compel empathy?
From the article:
There is no single, simple explanation for the racial wealth gap.
You simply cherry picked one of many that happened to tickle your fancy.
1 Like
And who exactly is ignoring the wealth gap?
Kind of like LIB policies that disproportionately impact the most vulnerable. Green energy is a prime example. Everyone uses energy. LIBs want to force clean energy upon us whether we are ready for it or not. Middle class and rich simply absorb the associated cost increases and mumble about it under their breath. The most vulnerable barely making ends meet would never be able to absorb the cost increases. I’m sure that LIB generated impact was unintentional. So is that what you are referring to?
Racial oppression is no longer an issue today. Historically yes; but not today. So do we continue to dwell on the past or do we move forward?
1 Like
JayJay
492
There is no simple explanation.
They offered several…and yes to redress them would be very difficult to do (although they suggested a possible way to start). I didn’t cherry pick any…I quoted every root cause they listed in the article…that again YOU posted.
Had you read the article…actually read it…you would have known I didn’t cherry pick.
The problem isn’t with them…it’s with you assuming “systemic racism” is a “simple” explanation.
It’s not…it’s complex…because it’s equivalent to the complex reasons that article outlined.
Once again you seem to be confused. I never stated anything resembling that. I was chiding those LIBs who are offering system racism as the problem.
Systemic racism still exists… even if unintentional.
However do you think everything was fine after the government released the knee from our proverbial neck in 1968?
Like do you think some switch flipped and the gap was eliminated?
I did read the article. There is no single reason. Multiple possibilities were floated and you offered up one of those possibilities attempting to contradict my statement that there was no easy answer.
1 Like
JayJay
496
Yes you did.
The reasons for the gap are complicated as is the solution, assuming there even is one. The overriding theme I see from LIBs is that the reasons are simply systemic racism.
The use of the word “simply” and contrasting it with “complicated” reasons implies you see systemic racism as “simple”.
It’s not…it’s precisely what was outlined in more detail in the article YOU linked.
I know LIBs would have us believe that to be the case, but simply isn’t so.
conan
498
Still playing that victim card.
What are thoughts about the 1994 crime bill?
There is no systemic racism. LIBs pointing to that is simplistic. That was my point.
I’ll ask you the same thing peek…
What are your thoughts about the 1994 crime bill? Do you think it was a racist bill?
