Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 daedalus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Interesting exchange between Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/26/bill-oreilly-and-megyn-kelly-face-off-over-white-privilege/

I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan at all, because he does so often ignore statistics like the ones Kelly brings to the table. This is a pretty good representation of why I do like Kelly a fair amount, though.

Wow, the comments on that page are, well, insane.

And your surprised?

I always get a kick out of the ones that make me wonder if I'm not in the south during the early 19th century and I'm not just hallucinating all this technology. And by a kick, I mean sheer horror.

I can see that, I saw a few days ago, the comments on how video games cause violence and I looked down in sheer disappointment at the comments made. Saying yeah my child might become violent offender thanks to video games.

Sometimes I wonder where the world would be if idiots didn't make their voice heard.

 Easy E wrote:
Well Frazz, when a mommy loves a daddy very much; sometimes they have a baby.

Then they should take care of their own Baby. Uncle Frazzled hates kids. Doesn't like their parents much either.

Remember, it's a parasite not a choice.

Corrected you typo.

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Pretty dang good article from 538:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ferguson-missouri/

Seriously... check it out.

Thanks for sharing. This part really resonated with me...

“It all has to do with economics,” she said. “Who wants to go out and get a job and make $7.50 an hour?”

The civil unrest will only get worse until something changes across the country about this. I recall talking to a women who just had a baby. She was looking at her job opportunities vs. the cost of daycare. It turned out getting a job would be a net loser of income and instead staying home and collecting Government subsidies would make her more money. As a rational actor what do you think she chose to do?

Is the problem that wages are too low or are subsidies too high? Well, keep in mind wages have stagnated or dropped since 1977. Never in my lifetime have I seen "peak" wages in inflation adjusted dollars. IN the meantime, benefits for social programs have actually gone down. So I think it is pretty clear what the answer is. Wages need to move and it is in everyone's best intersts for that to happen otherwise we can expect more civil unrest.

It's like the Guilded Age II- Social Darwinism Harder!

A) I don't think the subsidies are too high... just a question of delivery method.
B) $15.00/hr to flip burgers is too high imo...but, I do think min wage need an increase. The question is by how much and is it all at once? or phased in?

 Easy E wrote:
Well Frazz, when a mommy loves a daddy very much; sometimes they have a baby.

Or when a lady sees a really hot guy across the bar/a guy sees a really hot lady at the bar, they buy each other drinks.....

Remember, it's a child not a choice.

Prior to there being a child, there was a choice (as in, 9 months or so prior)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

B) $15.00/hr to flip burgers is too high imo...but, I do think min wage need an increase. The question is by how much and is it all at once? or phased in?

Agreed... Of course, I, like many people here are still waiting to see these millions of "shovel ready jobs" that a certain someone promised America

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Well Frazz, when a mommy loves a daddy very much; sometimes they have a baby.

Or when a lady sees a really hot guy across the bar/a guy sees a really hot lady at the bar, they buy each other drinks.....

Remember, it's a child not a choice.

Prior to there being a child, there was a choice (as in, 9 months or so prior)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

B) $15.00/hr to flip burgers is too high imo...but, I do think min wage need an increase. The question is by how much and is it all at once? or phased in?

Agreed... Of course, I, like many people here are still waiting to see these millions of "shovel ready jobs" that a certain someone promised America

Great. So we are agreed in principle that minium wage needs to be increased. That is a huge start. Therefore, I suggest we all contact our Reps and Senators and ask them to raise minimum wage. Politicans need to know that their voters actual want that. We can argue abotu the proper amounts ad timing once they all know that an increase is needed.

Oh, and a sa follow-up to Whembly's article her eis a intersting conversation with an Iowa Professorwho specializes in the demographics of St. Louis about how the area s structured.

http://www.npr.org/2014/08/26/343484238/a-map-to-the-roots-of-fergusons-civic-unrest

He was surprised that Ferguson type riots don't happen MORE often.

 Easy E wrote:

Thanks for sharing. This part really resonated with me...

“It all has to do with economics,” she said. “Who wants to go out and get a job and make $7.50 an hour?”

The Answer, No one wants to. But sometimes you have to.
But thi is something that has been knoccking around my head. The idea the class, not race, has a culture in and of itself. It perpetuates the class itself. Middle of the road income students will end up usually the same as will those in poverty.

Now you are starting to understand. Race Wars are just a distraction from the true war; the Class War. I think some guy we aren't allowd to think had any good ideas said that once.

Of course class has a culture all of its own.

a Poor person of any ethnicity has more in common than a person of a certain ethnicity that's poor and a person of that same ethnicity that is wealthy in america.

The race thing is simply a way to distract people from that, that's why the media perpetuates the "race" war, like in this case with unconnected facts - "Police in ferguson arrest more more african americans than white people" this is implied racism, but the truth is the population in furguson is 67% african american according to the 2010 census, which means the arrest rates are actually equal. Which the media leaves out because that doesn't incite "Race" war media nonsense.

or that the police force is predominantly non african american. This is a pointless fact, you have to compare the people hired versus the people applying to get a fact that is useful. According to the mayor of the city they have a very very hard time finding african american applicants to the police force and take them any chance they get.

The whole trayvon martin thing, the shooter was hispanic, and Identified as such along with his whole family but the media portrayed him as white, because racial tension = distraction from real issues.

problem isn't race, problem is the class system. In this case the problem is also police brutality.

if you are poor you live from paycheck to paycheck if you are lucky with no savings, eventually you will have a problem. Medical, car accident, tree falls on your home, house fire, whatever. Now you are in debt. The rest of your life you will struggle with debt and never be able to break out of a cycle of paying your debt/not making enough money to get buy/borrowing to go into more debt. Making you live your life as a wage slave, always stuck at the bottom. Your debt will accrue interest generating more money than you possibly originally owed, which will be bought and sold as commodities by banks and other financial institutions along with other poor wage slave debts. You will never have time to educate yourself to break out of the cycle because if you fail to show up to your wage slave job, or attempt to exit the cycle you will have to contend with not being able to qualify for an education due to credit and financial aid problems along with your looming debt waiting to default on you and destroy your pathetic financial existence ruining your ability to get anything for yourself or family in your future. Should you actually make it into college/university at this point you cannot afford it and will go further in debt with student loans most likely, although you might qualify for some grants depending on your ethnicity,gender, other traits and what state you are in. This of course assumes you break out of the poor culture you grew up in, along with all the emotional issues that come with it.

blaktoof wrote:
Of course class has a culture all of its own.

a Poor person of any ethnicity has more in common than a person of a certain ethnicity that's poor and a person of that same ethnicity that is wealthy in america.

The race thing is simply a way to distract people from that, that's why the media perpetuates the "race" war, like in this case with unconnected facts - "Police in ferguson arrest more more african americans than white people" this is implied racism, but the truth is the population in furguson is 67% african american according to the 2010 census, which means the arrest rates are actually equal. Which the media leaves out because that doesn't incite "Race" war media nonsense.

or that the police force is predominantly non african american. This is a pointless fact, you have to compare the people hired versus the people applying to get a fact that is useful. According to the mayor of the city they have a very very hard time finding african american applicants to the police force and take them any chance they get.

The whole trayvon martin thing, the shooter was hispanic, and Identified as such along with his whole family but the media portrayed him as white, because racial tension = distraction from real issues.

problem isn't race, problem is the class system. In this case the problem is also police brutality.

When you adjust for the population density of blacks in Ferguson, the numbers are still disproportionate. The stops are 37% higher for blacks than whites when the number are correctly adjusted.

And you can't just ignore race when talking about poverty. St. Louis housing and urban policies have been crafted since the end of slavery to segregate blacks and keep them poor. By restricting who can purchase home you put a big stop on wealth accumulation for those affected. And if there where no racial component, then upward mobility for whites and blacks would be the same, which it is not. It's something like a 20% percent difference.

You had pretty much all African Americans starting with zero wealth in the 1860s and then 100 years of racist social policies preventing them from acquiring any substantial wealth. The reason so many black people are poor, is directly because of racism.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Of course class has a culture all of its own.

a Poor person of any ethnicity has more in common than a person of a certain ethnicity that's poor and a person of that same ethnicity that is wealthy in america.

The race thing is simply a way to distract people from that, that's why the media perpetuates the "race" war, like in this case with unconnected facts - "Police in ferguson arrest more more african americans than white people" this is implied racism, but the truth is the population in furguson is 67% african american according to the 2010 census, which means the arrest rates are actually equal. Which the media leaves out because that doesn't incite "Race" war media nonsense.

or that the police force is predominantly non african american. This is a pointless fact, you have to compare the people hired versus the people applying to get a fact that is useful. According to the mayor of the city they have a very very hard time finding african american applicants to the police force and take them any chance they get.

The whole trayvon martin thing, the shooter was hispanic, and Identified as such along with his whole family but the media portrayed him as white, because racial tension = distraction from real issues.

problem isn't race, problem is the class system. In this case the problem is also police brutality.

When you adjust for the population density of blacks in Ferguson, the numbers are still disproportionate. The stops are 37% higher for blacks than whites when the number are correctly adjusted.

And you can't just ignore race when talking about poverty. St. Louis housing and urban policies have been crafted since the end of slavery to segregate blacks and keep them poor. By restricting who can purchase home you put a big stop on wealth accumulation for those affected. And if there where no racial component, then upward mobility for whites and blacks would be the same, which it is not. It's something like a 20% percent difference.

You had pretty much all African Americans starting with zero wealth in the 1860s and then 100 years of racist social policies preventing them from acquiring any substantial wealth. The reason so many black people are poor, is directly because of racism.

Can you please elaborate these two points?
By restricting who can purchase home you put a big stop on wealth accumulation for those affected.

The reason so many black people are poor, is directly because of racism.

 whembly wrote:

Can you please elaborate these two points?
By restricting who can purchase home you put a big stop on wealth accumulation for those affected.

The reason so many black people are poor, is directly because of racism.

Equity from home ownership is one of the best ways to accumulate wealth for the middle class. You don't usually have the money to risk on investing, or start your own business. Everyone has to have a place to live, and when you are forced to rent you just throw that money away in the long run compared to owning a home. If the market is right you can sell your home to get a better one. You can also use the equity for loans to cover unplanned expenses. Thirdly, when you die you can pass that home on to your heirs, keeping the wealth for the next generation.

St. Louis used racial covenants and zoning that favored expensive large plot homes to keep blacks out of white neighborhoods. It wasn't the only city to do this, but they were one of the most prolific at it. And whenever a urban development project was started, it was usually a black neighborhood that got bulldozed to do it. Forcing families into government housing like the notorious Pruitt Igoe projects. Even after these policies nominally ended during the civil rights era, it was (and to an extent still is) much more difficult for black families to secure home loans.

So even if a white family and a black family were making the same wage, the white family gets to invest that money into their mortgage while the equivalent black family looses it in rent.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Can you please elaborate these two points?
By restricting who can purchase home you put a big stop on wealth accumulation for those affected.

The reason so many black people are poor, is directly because of racism.

Equity from home ownership is one of the best ways to accumulate wealth for the middle class. You don't usually have the money to risk on investing, or start your own business. Everyone has to have a place to live, and when you are forced to rent you just throw that money away in the long run compared to owning a home. If the market is right you can sell your home to get a better one. You can also use the equity for loans to cover unplanned expenses. Thirdly, when you die you can pass that home on to your heirs, keeping the wealth for the next generation.

St. Louis used racial covenants and zoning that favored expensive large plot homes to keep blacks out of white neighborhoods. It wasn't the only city to do this, but they were one of the most prolific at it. And whenever a urban development project was started, it was usually a black neighborhood that got bulldozed to do it. Forcing families into government housing like the notorious Pruitt Igoe projects. Even after these policies nominally ended during the civil rights era, it was (and to an extent still is) much more difficult for black families to secure home loans.

So even if a white family and a black family were making the same wage, the white family gets to invest that money into their mortgage while the equivalent black family looses it in rent.

I understand the whole "home ownership = wealth" argument...

What I was driving at is this: What are these policies now that could be considered some form of racism?

Keep in mind that in these past few decades, lending policies were liberalized to encouraged minorities/poors to purchase homes.

Oh... those large urban projects? Take a look at the STL airport expansion.

One could make a reasonable argument that a big factor in the 2008 housing bubble was that "liberalization" of lending policies.....

But wealth accumulation is a long game. So what the policies where like in the 40-60s, still plays into the current dynamics. Current policies are better, but the housing bubble hurt first time home owning black families pretty hard. Erasing much of the progress of the last 30 years. And if you look directly at St.Louis(grew up in St. Peters myself), you see a city where modern progressive federal housing policies hasn't done much to crack entrenched segregation.

I happen to think we live in a much less racist America than we used to. But the effects of racism in the past are going to play into social, political, and economic problems for some time still.

 cincydooley wrote:
One could make a reasonable argument that a big factor in the 2008 housing bubble was that "liberalization" of lending policies.....

Not important in the discussion...

I believe he's local (lives in St. Louis) and I'm curious if anyone believes that current policies today is some form of racism.

What happened in the past is done, move forward with your eyes in the future. (Al Sharpton actually said that in one of his speeches here )

 cincydooley wrote:
One could make a reasonable argument that a big factor in the 2008 housing bubble was that "liberalization" of lending policies.....

shhhh, we dont want facts to get in the way of the whole "whitety and the man be bringing everyone down, because of racism and stuff."

Someone should go let spain know that they are not at fault for their economic situation, they should blame the moors who invaded, enslaved their population, and raped their citizens to the point where the genetic landscape was forever changed. Because history matters, no matter how distant.

(tougne in cheek a bit, which should be obvious, though I fully expect it not to be taken as such)

It hurt people that were too ignorant to take loans they could actually afford or people that CHOSE to be house poor. And again, those loans were encouraged by the CRA

 whembly wrote:

What happened in the past is done, move forward with your eyes in the future. (Al Sharpton actually said that in one of his speeches here )

sharpton says a lot of things... that being one of the few sensible/true ones.

seriously, at some point we need to stop blaming everything on what happened in the past and own up/move on/go forward.

what cincy said is pertinant though, changes were made to make things more available to people who were otherwise being rejected as they honestly could not afford the homes they wanted to buy, then Gak hit the fan when they could pay, and now they are actually worse of then before.

 cincydooley wrote:
One could make a reasonable argument that a big factor in the 2008 housing bubble was that "liberalization" of lending policies.....

That "liberalization" of policies was to correct past discrimination. Historically blacks have been denied home loans they should have received.

And from experience I can tell you that banks went after blacks in a very predatory fashion. My MIL is black, and you would not believe the crazy messed up mortgage she was pressured into by her broker. He had her in the bank after hours with no one around signing forms. And she was left with a set of multiple loans I still can't even sort out. When no one in your family has ever had a mortgage before, it's hard to figure out when you are being screwed. They even tried to sue my wife for the balance of a foreclosed property illegally. Luckily I was able to find a lawyer to get the whole thing thrown out.

unfortunately ethnicity really doesn't matter much when you go to purchase a home, often the buyer and seller never meet and its solely through a middle real estate agent.

The main determining factor is $.

yes there is zoning in america, and yes they do not zone poor homes next to rich homes because the people developing the homes want to sell rich homes, because $. If you put a poor home next to a rich home the rich home is worth less money because a wealthy person is likely to move there, a wealthy person is likely to move there because the resale value is more likely to be lower if the homes around it are of lower value. This is also the reason for gated communities, home owners associations, etc.

I do not believe the current real estate, zoning, etc are racist in any regards in America.

They are simply classist.

Unfortunately there is a historical relevance to certain ethnic groups being impoverished and unable to afford to purchase a home in general. This leads to renting, which is usually an eventual net loss of monetary assets compared to owning where the money you spend becomes value you can use later in life. This is not just an issue with ethnic peoples, there are many "white" people who are stuck in this general debt cycle as well.

Also regarding ethnics, or minorities, banks do not care about your ethnicity, they care about your money. The will offer you a loan if they think you can pay any of it off, knowing if you do not they can always repossess your home using a lien if need be.

the whole recent housing market thing was not a racist endeavor, but was an $ endeavor, a large percent of the small percent made a lot of money at the expense of the many off that crash.

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
One could make a reasonable argument that a big factor in the 2008 housing bubble was that "liberalization" of lending policies.....

Not important in the discussion...

I believe he's local (lives in St. Louis) and I'm curious if anyone believes that current policies today is some form of racism.

What happened in the past is done, move forward with your eyes in the future. (Al Sharpton actually said that in one of his speeches here )

I grew up there, I live in Indianapolis now. I don't think there are active policies that are overtly racist. Mostly a situation that is coasting on past racist policies. And probably needs to be corrected in some fashion. Probably by incorporating most of the county into fewer municipalities. Mostly to even out the tax base and move away from 100 small towns with urban problems that have to supplement their budgets with ridiculous levels of traffic policing.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
But wealth accumulation is a long game. So what the policies where like in the 40-60s, still plays into the current dynamics. Current policies are better, but the housing bubble hurt first time home owning black families pretty hard. Erasing much of the progress of the last 30 years. And if you look directly at St.Louis(grew up in St. Peters myself), you see a city where modern progressive federal housing policies hasn't done much to crack entrenched segregation.

I happen to think we live in a much less racist America than we used to. But the effects of racism in the past are going to play into social, political, and economic problems for some time still.

Honestly... I believe we're way past the effects of institutional racism. This is not just me blindly burying my head in the sand. I went to High School at St. Louis Public Schools (Magnet program) and participated in that reverse de-segreation program, where a cab fetched me every day. I grew up in North County and played sports in StL city/county.

Don't get me wrong, racism of all stripes will always exists because people are donkey-caves.

But, to say that the effects of racism of the past is having major impacts now is a bit of a stretch.

What's more prevalent these days, are economicclass issues. It remains hard to break out of the cycle from poor -to- middle -to- wealthy class.

Instead of trying to find reasons in the past to justify some systemic "racial issues". Let's talk about how do we move forward?

As a country, we're pouring billions of dollars into various welfare, educational, house systems. The money is there... if it's not working, let's engage the civic/political process to adjust these programs, so that the poor can successfully break that cycle.

Let's have an honest conversation of not only white vs black relations, but also black-on-black issues.

There is no silver bullet here. Society does need to listen and make goodfaith efforts to address any grievances.

IMO, things are being taken out of context ITT because it's largely a media-driven event.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
One could make a reasonable argument that a big factor in the 2008 housing bubble was that "liberalization" of lending policies.....

That "liberalization" of policies was to correct past discrimination. Historically blacks have been denied home loans they should have received.

And from experience I can tell you that banks went after blacks in a very predatory fashion. My MIL is black, and you would not believe the crazy messed up mortgage she was pressured into by her broker. He had her in the bank after hours with no one around signing forms. And she was left with a set of multiple loans I still can't even sort out. When no one in your family has ever had a mortgage before, it's hard to figure out when you are being screwed. They even tried to sue my wife for the balance of a foreclosed property illegally. Luckily I was able to find a lawyer to get the whole thing thrown out.

they did, and do, the exact thing to white/hispanic/ect people in the exact same proportions.

Race has NO bearing on the banks actions, the only colour that matters is green.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
One could make a reasonable argument that a big factor in the 2008 housing bubble was that "liberalization" of lending policies.....

That "liberalization" of policies was to correct past discrimination. Historically blacks have been denied home loans they should have received.

And from experience I can tell you that banks went after blacks in a very predatory fashion. My MIL is black, and you would not believe the crazy messed up mortgage she was pressured into by her broker. He had her in the bank after hours with no one around signing forms. And she was left with a set of multiple loans I still can't even sort out. When no one in your family has ever had a mortgage before, it's hard to figure out when you are being screwed. They even tried to sue my wife for the balance of a foreclosed property illegally. Luckily I was able to find a lawyer to get the whole thing thrown out.

It had nothing to do with them being black. It had everything to do with them being uncreditworthy. feth, I make well over the national average and I have trouble getting loans for anything because my student loans and my DTI.

The CRA and some of the addendums of the 90s encouraged (and in some
Cases rewarded) banks for participating in more subprime lending.

People are categorized as subprime because of a combination of credit history, DTI, and a few other categories. Not based on their race.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
One could make a reasonable argument that a big factor in the 2008 housing bubble was that "liberalization" of lending policies.....

Not important in the discussion...

I believe he's local (lives in St. Louis) and I'm curious if anyone believes that current policies today is some form of racism.

What happened in the past is done, move forward with your eyes in the future. (Al Sharpton actually said that in one of his speeches here )

I grew up there, I live in Indianapolis now. I don't think there are active policies that are overtly racist. Mostly a situation that is coasting on past racist policies. And probably needs to be corrected in some fashion. Probably by incorporating most of the county into fewer municipalities. Mostly to even out the tax base and move away from 100 small towns with urban problems that have to supplement their budgets with ridiculous levels of traffic policing.

Now THAT I agree with you 100%

For those reading this thread, St. Louis city/township/county is weird.

The green/red area... that's St. Louis County.

To the east of that (uncolored) to the Mississippi River is St. Louis City.

Two very different jurisdiction, leadership, etc....

A typical city would have the county/township under the City.

There's always rumors that the City and County will merge, but it never seems to hit the ballot.

This is also the reason why St. Louis City (sometimes East St. Louis is thrown in, but that's Illinois) is near the top ten murder rates in the US. But, as every St. Louisan knows... it's not that bad because unless there's a sporting / conference event ongoing, this city is dead at night. If you add in the rates/people from the county into the City statistic... then the St. Louis region is fairly middle of the pack if I remember correctly.

blaktoof wrote:
unfortunately ethnicity really doesn't matter much when you go to purchase a home, often the buyer and seller never meet and its solely through a middle real estate agent.

Depends on the area, and a bunch of factors. I have a cousin who was sent to the Salt Lake City area by his company as a promotion. Thinking he was going to be there for a good while and decided he would buy a house. He found one that he liked, but was near the top of his budget (as in, legitimately near the top of his budget, not the DIY shows "ohh, well this house is ONLY 25,000 over your budget" type deal), and so he made an offer on the house. Well, at some point during the house viewing process, the realtor asked about what stake he'd be joining, and he informed the agent that he was catholic, so had no idea what they were talking about. Anyhow... a couple days later, the real estate agent came back with the response from the buyer. Not only had they declined his offer, which was the original list value to begin with, they had raised the price on the home by about another 100-150k, placing it well out of his reach.



I say all that to say, housing discrimination is real, and is based on all kinds of things, depending on the location of where the person is looking.

Sounds like that has nothing to do with the lender and everything to do with the private seller.

What did the realtor mean by what stake he was joining?

cincydooley wrote:Sounds like that has nothing to do with the lender and everything to do with the private seller.

While true, I believe (I may be wrong here) that the Real Estate Agent could still be on the hook, as it were, because he/she "tipped off" the seller that a potential buyer was someone they may not wish to sell to.

Hordini wrote:What did the realtor mean by what stake he was joining?

It's a distinctly Mormon thing... As opposed to saying you belong to X church on "Main Street" the Stake is actually the church building and surrounding neighborhood. I guess one decent (not perfect) way of describing it would be like saying you're from Flatbush in Brooklyn.. or my being from the Pearl District in Portland, OR (I'm not btw)

Which still has nothing to do with the lender. The real estate agents are in business to connect buyer and seller; they're not the ones making the loans.