I, Racist

[Bronzeage]

I'll wait while you collect data to demonstrate that businessmen are smart.

One does not need to be smart to be a good business man, so I fail to see your point. Unless you are somehow implying that business people are incapable of recognizing what actions and choices improve their well being, in which case, your point is ridiculous.

I am just going sit here and contemplate your statement, "One does not need to be smart to be a good business man...." and consider how often this is played out in real life.

Being "incapable of recognizing what actions and choices improve their well being," is not something restricted to businessmen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your faith in this doesn't make it true. In almost every proper study we find that race is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status. In the majority of studies we find that they do not consider whether race is a proxy for socioeconomic status.

- - - Updated - - -

If the standard of truth is how closely your experience matches mine, you will find little truth in this world.

But you don't seem to have any experience. You say you were paid more but what's the evidence of this beyond your belief you were taking advantage of being white?

If you are going to discount personal experience and personal testimony, there is no discussion. I could just as easily dismiss all you say as your interpretation of what other people told you.

Of course, if you want to argue that I am an amazing person who has remarkable talents and the ability to rise above others due to my inherent abilities, I might find merit in your judgment.

You cited no observations, just your belief that you got higher pay because you are white.

Did you have black coworkers with the same qualifications and ability that were making less???

- - - Updated - - -

A few days ago, I had conversation with someone who made the general statement that they were not responsible for what people did in the past. I gave him this scenario:

Suppose I stole your mother's car and there was nothing she could do about it. I give the car to one of my children. One day, you see them drive by in your mother's car. Is it still a stolen car?

How many generations does it take for a stolen car to become an heirloom?

An unaddressed problem in this analogy is when the son of the lady you stole the car from then demands a car from me, even though I don't live in the same neighborhood as any of you, had my own car stolen, and just managed to get a new car, and he demands my car because you and I are the same height.

Yeah, that's why I was referring to the car as identifiable stolen property. Lacking identifiable stolen property (none exists in your scenario) there's nothing to return.

Neither of my parents inherited anything meaningful and they put themselves though school--there's no way I can possibly be a beneficiary of anything that came before then.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Businesses don't strive to pay employees more money than they have to. Your assertion that employers gave you bonus income because you're white is ludicrous. In the past you have mentioned being a manager at auto shops and owning businesses. Did you ever give white employees extra pay since they were white? If so why did you do that and not simply keep it for yourself as extra profit?

Is there no validity to perceived value? Is it ludicrous that someone could think a white man's production is worth more? Just because I am an enlightened person, not burdened by socially ingrained racism, it doesn't mean no one else is.

I was there and I understood how the system functioned. This does not mean I perpetuated it, when I achieved some small measure of power.

I think I have some idea how a black person feels when someone tells them they did not suffer because of discrimination.

To me it looks like you are a racist--specifically, an anti-white one.

Your explanation for what happened makes no sense. No business owner is going to give a bonus to someone because they are white. That's just throwing money away. They will only give a bonus based on perceived value--and you're talking about a field where it's pretty easy to see what value employees bring. I think it's more likely you failed to see what made the difference than that it was discrimination. Note that coworkers very well might not be in a position to see differences. For example the guy at my former employer who got the axe because he kept going to dodgy websites. We got tired of cleaning the infections off the machines he used. There were rumbles of racism when the only two black employees got the axe--but the actual racism was the other way around, management was reluctant to fire the blacks for fear of racism allegations. They should have been gone long before.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is there no validity to perceived value? Is it ludicrous that someone could think a white man's production is worth more? Just because I am an enlightened person, not burdened by socially ingrained racism, it doesn't mean no one else is.

No there is no validity to perceived value when it come to business in aggregate. Of course there will be individuals that make poor decisions in business, many go bankrupt after all. But if there were this black worker discount like you say then the best business plan would be make hiring them priority number one. You could poach the best black workers from the racist companies by offering them more than the racists that don't value them correctly.

Your labor costs would be lower than companies that foolishly pay the white man premium and you could out compete them on price or use the surplus profit for more marketing.

Exactly. Discrimination to the point of lowering salaries can only exist in an environment where there are outside forces reinforcing it.

Long ago a company that hired blacks for good jobs would face social repercussions--this maintained discrimination. Without something like that it can't happen because of arbitrage--somebody's going to find a way to benefit from the gap and they will narrow it in the process. This continues until the gap is too narrow to benefit from--in other words, basically gone.

- - - Updated - - -

No there is no validity to perceived value when it come to business in aggregate. Of course there will be individuals that make poor decisions in business, many go bankrupt after all. But if there were this black worker discount like you say then the best business plan would be make hiring them priority number one. You could poach the best black workers from the racist companies by offering them more than the racists that don't value them correctly.

Your labor costs would be lower than companies that foolishly pay the white man premium and you could out compete them on price or use the surplus profit for more marketing.

To all free-market-faithers: If your religion tells you there can't be any discrimination and there is discrimination, it's your religion that's wrong, not reality.

To all leftists: If your religion insists there is discrimination despite the fact that almost all competent research shows the opposite then your religion is wrong. Not only that but it's evil as it perpetuates the very problem it's trying to help.

You're loading the firehoses with gasoline rather than water.

 

[Bronzeage]

Is there no validity to perceived value? Is it ludicrous that someone could think a white man's production is worth more? Just because I am an enlightened person, not burdened by socially ingrained racism, it doesn't mean no one else is.

I was there and I understood how the system functioned. This does not mean I perpetuated it, when I achieved some small measure of power.

I think I have some idea how a black person feels when someone tells them they did not suffer because of discrimination.

To me it looks like you are a racist--specifically, an anti-white one.

Your explanation for what happened makes no sense. No business owner is going to give a bonus to someone because they are white. That's just throwing money away. They will only give a bonus based on perceived value--and you're talking about a field where it's pretty easy to see what value employees bring. I think it's more likely you failed to see what made the difference than that it was discrimination. Note that coworkers very well might not be in a position to see differences. For example the guy at my former employer who got the axe because he kept going to dodgy websites. We got tired of cleaning the infections off the machines he used. There were rumbles of racism when the only two black employees got the axe--but the actual racism was the other way around, management was reluctant to fire the blacks for fear of racism allegations. They should have been gone long before.

I will concede that your experiences are different from mine. This does not make your perception of my experience valid.

 

[laughing dog]

I am just going sit here and contemplate your statement, "One does not need to be smart to be a good business man...." and consider how often this is played out in real life.

Being "incapable of recognizing what actions and choices improve their well being," is not something restricted to businessmen.

Never said it was. Do you something actually relevant to contribute?

 

[Jokodo]

Because they're run by people, not by objective algorithms?

There is no such thing as an objective algorithm.

If a business is located in a community of racists, it may make business sense to cater to those racists, even if it is morally wrong.

It may. But even if it isn't, businesses make unwise decisions all the time, and only a tiny minority of such unwise decisions lead to an immediate demise of the business, so even businesses in settings where doing so makes no business sense will make racist decisions and still thrive.

 

[Bronzeage]

I am just going sit here and contemplate your statement, "One does not need to be smart to be a good business man...." and consider how often this is played out in real life.

Being "incapable of recognizing what actions and choices improve their well being," is not something restricted to businessmen.

Never said it was. Do you something actually relevant to contribute?

This thread left the realm of relevance long ago.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Note: political ideologies are not religions.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no such thing as an objective algorithm.

If a business is located in a community of racists, it may make business sense to cater to those racists, even if it is morally wrong.

It may. But even if it isn't, businesses make unwise decisions all the time, and only a tiny minority of such unwise decisions lead to an immediate demise of the business, so even businesses in settings where doing so makes no business sense will make racist decisions and still thrive.

And yet, many businesses did so in the racist South and in South Africa.

- - - Updated - - -

Never said it was. Do you something actually relevant to contribute?

This thread left the realm of relevance long ago.

Are you under the misimpression your responses even remotely on point?

 

[Bronzeage]

It may. But even if it isn't, businesses make unwise decisions all the time, and only a tiny minority of such unwise decisions lead to an immediate demise of the business, so even businesses in settings where doing so makes no business sense will make racist decisions and still thrive.

And yet, many businesses did so in the racist South and in South Africa.

- - - Updated - - -

Never said it was. Do you something actually relevant to contribute?

This thread left the realm of relevance long ago.

Are you under the misimpression your responses even remotely on point?

When you said that it is not necessary to be smart, in order to be a good businessman, I considered the discussion to be at an end.

 

[Jokodo]

It may. But even if it isn't, businesses make unwise decisions all the time, and only a tiny minority of such unwise decisions lead to an immediate demise of the business, so even businesses in settings where doing so makes no business sense will make racist decisions and still thrive.

And yet, many businesses did so in the racist South and in South Africa.

Why would that be an "and yet"? If a society at large is racist, the businesses that fail and the businesses that thrive alike will be lead (to a large part) by racists who make racist decisions whether or not those make any business sense. Even if some of the businesses that fail fail in part because of unwise racist decisions, that won't make the situation go away when the startups that perpetually replenish the pool are, too, overwhelmingly lead by racists.

Conceivably, even if the society at large is not dominated by overt racists, a business class making racist decisions can perpetuate itself. If 80% of the successful businesses are overtly making racist decisions, someone trying to emulate the rich and successful (i.e. most founders of start-ups) will come to the conclusion that doing so is part of the formula, that those racist decisions make business sense even when they don't. If 90% of the start-ups do come to that conclusion (definitely not outside the realm of possibility), even if those racist decisions are counterproductive to the degree that refraining from making them makes a business twice as likely to survive and thrive long-term, the next generation down the pipe will again end up emulating a business class where 80% make racist decisions.

 

[laughing dog]

And yet, many businesses did so in the racist South and in South Africa.

Why would that be an "and yet"? If a society at large is racist, the businesses that fail and the businesses that thrive alike will be lead (to a large part) by racists who make racist decisions whether or not those make any business sense. Even if some of the businesses that fail fail in part because of unwise racist decisions, that won't make the situation go away when the startups that perpetually replenish the pool are, too, overwhelmingly lead by racists.

Conceivably, even if the society at large is not dominated by overt racists, a business class making racist decisions can perpetuate itself. If 80% of the successful businesses are overtly making racist decisions, someone trying to emulate the rich and successful (i.e. most founders of start-ups) will come to the conclusion that doing so is part of the formula, that those racist decisions make business sense even when they don't. If 90% of the start-ups do come to that conclusion (definitely not outside the realm of possibility), even if those racist decisions are counterproductive to the degree that refraining from making them makes a business twice as likely to survive and thrive long-term, the next generation down the pipe will again end up emulating a business class where 80% make racist decisions.

Why is it so hard to comprehend that it is possible for a firm to make rational and good business decisions and thrive within a racist social system?

 

[laughing dog]

When you said that it is not necessary to be smart, in order to be a good businessman, I considered the discussion to be at an end.

The possibility of intelligent discussion ended with your remark of "I'll wait while you collect data to demonstrate that businessmen are smart."

 

[Bronzeage]

When you said that it is not necessary to be smart, in order to be a good businessman, I considered the discussion to be at an end.

The possibility of intelligent discussion ended with your remark of "I'll wait while you collect data to demonstrate that businessmen are smart."

That's when I gave up on it.

 

[Jokodo]

Why would that be an "and yet"? If a society at large is racist, the businesses that fail and the businesses that thrive alike will be lead (to a large part) by racists who make racist decisions whether or not those make any business sense. Even if some of the businesses that fail fail in part because of unwise racist decisions, that won't make the situation go away when the startups that perpetually replenish the pool are, too, overwhelmingly lead by racists.

Conceivably, even if the society at large is not dominated by overt racists, a business class making racist decisions can perpetuate itself. If 80% of the successful businesses are overtly making racist decisions, someone trying to emulate the rich and successful (i.e. most founders of start-ups) will come to the conclusion that doing so is part of the formula, that those racist decisions make business sense even when they don't. If 90% of the start-ups do come to that conclusion (definitely not outside the realm of possibility), even if those racist decisions are counterproductive to the degree that refraining from making them makes a business twice as likely to survive and thrive long-term, the next generation down the pipe will again end up emulating a business class where 80% make racist decisions.

Why is it so hard to comprehend that it is possible for a firm to make rational and good business decisions and thrive within a racist social system?

I never said it's impossible. What I'm saying is that even racist business practices that are bad for business can and do prevail, and that that's probably the more important factor in the mix.

 

[bilby]

Your faith in this doesn't make it true. In almost every proper study we find that race is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status. In the majority of studies we find that they do not consider whether race is a proxy for socioeconomic status.

- - - Updated - - -

If the standard of truth is how closely your experience matches mine, you will find little truth in this world.

But you don't seem to have any experience. You say you were paid more but what's the evidence of this beyond your belief you were taking advantage of being white?

If you are going to discount personal experience and personal testimony, there is no discussion. I could just as easily dismiss all you say as your interpretation of what other people told you.

Of course, if you want to argue that I am an amazing person who has remarkable talents and the ability to rise above others due to my inherent abilities, I might find merit in your judgment.

You cited no observations, just your belief that you got higher pay because you are white.

Did you have black coworkers with the same qualifications and ability that were making less???

- - - Updated - - -

A few days ago, I had conversation with someone who made the general statement that they were not responsible for what people did in the past. I gave him this scenario:

Suppose I stole your mother's car and there was nothing she could do about it. I give the car to one of my children. One day, you see them drive by in your mother's car. Is it still a stolen car?

How many generations does it take for a stolen car to become an heirloom?

An unaddressed problem in this analogy is when the son of the lady you stole the car from then demands a car from me, even though I don't live in the same neighborhood as any of you, had my own car stolen, and just managed to get a new car, and he demands my car because you and I are the same height.

Yeah, that's why I was referring to the car as identifiable stolen property. Lacking identifiable stolen property (none exists in your scenario) there's nothing to return.

Neither of my parents inherited anything meaningful and they put themselves though school--there's no way I can possibly be a beneficiary of anything that came before then.

Just because your, and your parents, privileged beginnings are so pervasive that you forget their existence, that doesn't mean they are not real.

Do you think you would have done just as well if your father was born the son of a poor farmer in the Sudan? If not, why not?

Didn't inherit anything meaningful my arse.

Just as one example: The right to live and work in the USA is something you inherit, and it is a very valuable commodity.

 

[Jokodo]

Neither of my parents inherited anything meaningful and they put themselves though school--there's no way I can possibly be a beneficiary of anything that came before then.

According to your profile you're fifty. Assuming your parents are ~25 older than you, they went through primary school around 1940 and through college (if they went) or through their first work experiences around 1950. I wouldn't call myself an expert on US history, but my understanding is that racism - very overt, explicit racism - was well alive at the time, according even to the people who are most prone to deny that it plays any role today. So you still wouldn't be where you are had they been black.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Neither of my parents inherited anything meaningful and they put themselves though school--there's no way I can possibly be a beneficiary of anything that came before then.

According to your profile you're fifty. Assuming your parents are ~25 older than you, they went through primary school around 1940 and through college (if they went) or through their first work experiences around 1950. I wouldn't call myself an expert on US history, but my understanding is that racism - very overt, explicit racism - was well alive at the time, according even to the people who are most prone to deny that it plays any role today. So you still wouldn't be where you are had they been black.

You're still simply assuming that every white person benefited.

 

[Metaphor]

The GDP in the US would have been higher but for the racism of the past. Therefore, GDP is lower than it otherwise would have been because of racism. Do you think it benefits you to live in a country with a lower GDP than a higher GDP? I guarantee you, it does not.

Your guarantee is worthless because it makes an unwarranted assumptions about the distribution of the resulting GDP. It is entirely within the realm of reason that there are individuals whose incomes are higher now because of racism than if there had never been. Those individuals might very well be better off.

Individuals could be, but overall, everyone is worse off. There might be individual winners in war (munitions manufacturers say) but war makes everyone worse off compared to what they could have been was there no war.