Jeb Bush: Dems give Blacks Free Stuff

[SimpleDon]

No, I have repeatedly stated my argument and I never mentioned McDonald's or your favorite job, the fry cook. You have never addressed any of my arguments that you are wrong when you say that the government hasn't suppressed wages to boost the incomes of already rich. The best that I get from you are these little gems of complete absurdity.

There was a manager before your fry cook, I assume we are back to your obsession with fry cooks now, got promoted and someone took the vacated fry cooks job. While I am happy for the fry cook who was promoted and who got a raise, no it doesn't count as an increase in wages for this discussion unless the promoted fry cook/new manager makes more money than the manager he or she replaced. Likewise the person that is the new fry cook is only an increase in income if she or he makes a higher wage than the old fry cook.

Now that I have now addressed your latest deflection maybe you could start to defend your statement that the government isn't suppressing wages.

But the point of the changes is to get the economy moving. The economy is always in flux with people coming in, going out, moving around and moving. You are argument is that the new people coming in aren't making tons of money as they come in instead of gauging how everyone else is doing.

So you have nothing to add to the discussion but this babble?

What are you doing now? You are not defending your statement that the government isn't intentionally suppressing any wages. Correct?

You don't believe that Reagan lowering taxes on the rich and raising taxes on everyone else impacted the distribution of income because we can't compare between groups and the "economy is always in flux with people coming in, going out, moving around and moving." Correct?

That my argument is "that the new people coming in aren't making tons of money as they come in instead of gauging how everyone else is doing."

I don't speak babble so I not sure what, if anything, this means. But I thought that my argument was clear. Perhaps you could reread my posts to you stating my points and explain how you distilled my position into this:

You are (Your?) argument is that the new people (babies, immigrants, new graduates, those promoted to McDonald's managers?) coming in (to the world, to the country, the workforce, management?) aren't making tons of money as they come in instead of gauging how everyone else is doing.

Parenthetical remarks are mine.

Perhaps you are not aware of which remarks are mine. I am saying that conservative economic policies are all designed to increase the incomes of the very rich and as a consequence lower the wages of everyone else. I can't see how the most adept strawman creator here could turn this statement into your quote above.

The closest that I can come is this.

I am saying that the upper earners, the rich, are earning too much money and the rest of the earners, the lower 90%, are earning too little money because of the conservative economic policies that we have instituted over the last thirty five years starting with the Reagan tax cuts for the rich and the Reagan tax increase, the largest tax increase in history. The lower 90% of earners are hardly "the new people coming in," in your terms. And I am definitely "gauging how everyone else is doing," the 10%. The 90% haven't had a wage increase in the thirty five years and the 10% have doubled and more their wages in the same time.

Yes, individuals are promoted and their wages do go up. This is not what we are talking about here. Because the position that the individual was promoted into is paid the same that the previous holder of that job was paid. There was no net gain in real wages for the 90% in the thirty five years. The labor share of GDP has gone down and the capital share of GDP has gone up by the same percentage, ~5.5%. And the labor share includes the wages of the 10% which as we already know have more than doubled.

And yes, "the point of the changes is to get the economy moving." This is always the point of economics policy changes. But Reaganomics was suppose to improve the economy over the previous economy that we had by the wet dream of providing more money for investment. But this didn't happen. The economy was worse than the economy that preceded it with less investment and slower growth.

This is because while Reaganomics increased the amount of financial capital available for investment it did it by lowering demand, which comes primarily from wages. Without demand there is no investment. The economy had changed from an agrarian economy that was supply constrained in the 19th century into an industrial economy that is constrained by demand in the 20th century.

The agrarian economy that the classical economists studied, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, John Mill, etc. was supply or capital constrained* because the supply side was land to grow food on. But the modern industrial economy doesn't have any supply side constraints because supply is only money. And in the modern fiat money system the economy determines how much money is created. The only limit on making a good investment is whether there will demand for the products to be produced by the investment.

* Ironically the two economies that lead the industrial revolution did it in no small part by solving the supply side problem in the agrarian economy, limited land for planting crops. The US by expanding westward as the need for more food became a limitation on growth and the UK through colonization.​

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's take something simple. The government will make the decision that the average family buys 20 Double AA batteries in a certain period of time. So they call a certain amount of stores of ask, how much would 20 AA batteries cost and they say $30. So then the people that create this basket then compute how much that has changed to figure out inflation. Do you see where the multiple decisions made is just an art?

And how careful are people about bargain hunting? I still have a few hundred AA and AAA batteries around from when OfficeMax and Staples were having a rewards war--batteries that I got for the tax alone.

- - - Updated - - -

You are simply misinformed. The weight in the basket is empirically determined. And inflation can and is measured by a number of methods that do not include fixed weights. But even use fixed weights, the result of X percent is not ball park but a precise measure arising from the precise methodology. Yes, one can derive different measures of inflation using different methods - is that your point?

He's talking reality--the problem is that there is not one precise answer to these things and thus they can be gamed.

 

[laughing dog]

He's talking reality--the problem is that there is not one precise answer to these things and thus they can be gamed.

"Gamed"? What you are posting about?

 

[coloradoatheist]

He's talking reality--the problem is that there is not one precise answer to these things and thus they can be gamed.

"Gamed"? What you are posting about?

It's judgement calls. When the government calls Wal-Mart to ask how much AA batteries are, do you use the sale price from Monday or the normal day? How many stores do you call to find out? Do you call the stores poor people shop at? It's an art.

 

[laughing dog]

"Gamed"? What you are posting about?

It's judgement calls. When the government calls Wal-Mart to ask how much AA batteries are, do you use the sale price from Monday or the normal day? How many stores do you call to find out? Do you call the stores poor people shop at? It's an art.

No, there are specific protocols to collect the information on a regular basis. Read this http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifact2.htm for a start.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He's talking reality--the problem is that there is not one precise answer to these things and thus they can be gamed.

"Gamed"? What you are posting about?

You can change the assumptions to move the result in the desired direction.

 

[SimpleDon]

Glad to hear that.

I would much prefer if we could catch up minorities without resorting to it.

Talk of "catching up" minorities smacks me of equality of outcomes, not of opportunities.

Why do you believe that more minorities are poor? Do you you think that it might have something to do with centuries of legal discrimination against them?

Do you believe that there is no discrimination against minorities today? Did the laws against discrimination wipe it out?

I don't see how you can say that we have equality of opportunity today.

But I don't see how this would be possible except to go to the logical step of eliminating poverty for everyone including minorities by raising the wages of the working poor.

That is difficult because most of the so-called "working poor" are in that situation because of their own decisions, like having (too many) children or spending too much money on expensive things they did not need. For example, a former co-worker drove a Mercedes R350 but got evicted from her Buckhead apartment. At least she didn't have any children.

No, the working poor are by definition in that situation because their jobs don't pay enough to get them out of poverty.

I don't think that most of the working poor work at low paying jobs because they have made bad decisions. For example, why would having too many children force someone to take a low paying job when they were qualified for a higher paying job? It doesn't make any sense.

This would solve the poorly named "reverse discrimination" problem. But surprisingly, in my experience, it meets even more resistance from the people like you who complain relentlessly about "reverse discrimination. At this point "reverse discrimination" somehow becomes less of a problem than preserving the income gains of the rich accumulated over the last thirty five years because of conservative supported government policies.

The issue should be really simple. Treat everybody like an individual and not as a member of a race or other group. Stop the counterproductive identity politics that the Democrats have used for the last 40-50 years or so. As Justice John Roberts said, "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
The question of minimum wage and other economic policies should not be seen through the lens of race at all.

Bottom line then, it is more important to maintain poverty and to further suppress the wages of the middle class to maximize the incomes of the already rich than it is to eliminate affirmative action.

Once again do you believe that if we end "reverse discrimination" that discrimination against minorities will disappear? I don't see it. Racism still exists. You are proof of that. Reference: why are more blacks poor than whites as a percentage of their population? Because they have too many children? Because they buy more than they can afford?

Do you believe that there is currently a level playing field of equality?

I think there is more than equal playing field if you consider racial preferences (aka so-called "affirmative action") in college admissions and hiring.

So you believe that if we end affirmative action that racial discrimination will disappear too. I don't see the mechanism that would produce this. Can you explain?

That the fact that such a large percentage of blacks are poor today is justifiable because of what?

If they are poor because of their own poor decisions, is that racism? Should we do anything special to bail them out just because of the color of their skin?

Yes, it is racism to believe that more blacks make bad decisions that force them to take low paying jobs. Why do you think this? Because of a lady you know bought a Mercedes that she couldn't afford? You are going to have to tell us how making bad decisions results in a person taking a low paying job when, presumably, they would have worked at a higher paying job if, for example, the woman that you know hadn't bought that Mercedes. It makes no sense.

In the world the working poor take low paying jobs because a low paying job is all that they are qualified for or that it is the only job that they can get because of something like discrimination. All I am saying is that there shouldn't be any jobs that pay so little that the people who do them are poor because of the job that they have.

I was raised across the street from the Bass Brothers in Texas. I was a scholarship student in an expensive private school filled with the privileged children of the rich. I saw the children of the rich make a lot of bad decisions and they weren't forced to take low paying poverty level jobs. By your logic they should have had to take these low paying jobs, shouldn't they?

That this was the reason for past discrimination but no more because we passed a law against it? And because we passed a law against discrimination it disappeared overnight?

There is racial discrimination, but it cuts both ways. A black sheriff of a majority black county around here (Clayton) fired white deputies when he took office. That racist sob is still in power there.

I also live in Atlanta. Are you talking about the current sheriff Victor Hill. He is black and did indeed fire all of the previous sheriff (I don't remember his name.) and most but not all were white but all of them were corrupt. Even at that he had to pay almost ten million dollars to settle all of the lawsuits. This was in 2005. Then Hill was defeated by Kim Kimbough (sp?) who is black and he fired most but not all of Hill's hires most of whom were black because they were corrupt resulting in lawsuits again and replacing them in 2009. Then Hill beat Kimbough in 2012.

I haven't been involved enough in Atlanta politics since then to keep up. Which one of the elections were you talking about as an example of racism that you feel justifies continued racism against blacks? The 2005 election of Hill certainly was racism even though there was a large degree of corruption involved. That is why they had to pay to settle the lawsuits. But Hill also fired black deputies convincing many less racism sensitive than you to believe his actions were primarily about corruption.

This is not so much a reason then to continue to discriminate against blacks but is more of a reason to cut back on the 17,000 or so law enforcement agencies in the US, to get more professionalism and less corruption in law enforcement in the US. Believe or not there are countries that have much better results with only a dozen or so law enforcement agencies.

So we did get rid of racial discrimination against blacks when we passed the law except for the amount that you retain personally as some kind of balance against the various forms of "reverse discrimination" including affirmative action and black discrimination against whites such as in Clayton county. Right?

But isn't this more than John Roberts' quote that you used? He was only talking about affirmative action and his rather dubious belief, shared by you, that discrimination against blacks will stop once affirmative action ends.

That racism is no longer what it was for 400 years, a gigantic waste of human potential?

Racism is a gigantic waste of human potential whether it's anti-black or anti-white.

But you won't give up your anti-black racism until affirmative action is gone and the Clayton County Sheriff gives up his anti-white racism?

I think that I have a pretty good idea of your position.

You feel the sting of racial discrimination because of affirmative action.

You believe that racial discrimination against blacks ended when the civil rights laws were passed.

You don't believe that blacks are poor because of past legal or current residual racial discrimination. Rather they are forced to take low paying jobs because of bad decisions even if they are qualified for a higher paying job.

And you feel that it is more important to preserve poverty and wage stagnation for the middle class to boost the incomes of the wealthy than it is to get rid of affirmative action.

I feel sorry for you.

 

[SimpleDon]

No I am not rich, but what does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

Nothing really. It is just an observation. You seem to believe that preserving poverty, stagnating wages for the middle class to pump ever increasing amounts of money to the rich is more important than getting rid of affirmative action. An interesting set of priorities, as I said.

That you believe that you are disadvantaged because of the favorable treatment given to blacks as can easily be demonstrated by their exalted position in current society?

Favorable treatment given to blacks can be directly proven from the favorable treatment, i.e. racial preferences given to black people.

Yes, affirmative action has to be racially based, obviously. I gave you a solution, getting rid of poverty for all of the poor, but you don't seem to want to eliminate affirmative action without a racial based method all that much.

That without the special treatment given to them they would be poorer for the same reason presumably that so many more of them are poor now, not that they were legally discriminated against for 400 years or so?

Most people's ancestors went through horrible things 400 years ago. I fail to see why a black kid who was born in 1997 or 1998 should get a preferential access to college just because of what happened to some of their ancestors a long time ago.

Because today's blacks still suffer from residual racism and they still suffer from the legal discrimination inflicted on their ancestors.

Arguing that they aren't suffering from the effects of the legal discrimination against their ancestors is as illogical as saying that the children of the rich don't gain any advantages from their parents and other ancestors. That the children of the rich are more likely to become rich only because they make good decisions.

I think that I have been too subtle hoping that you would connect the dots. Try this.

I believe that poor whites are largely poor because their ancestors were poor. That there is a cycle of poverty. This is a pretty widely accepted idea.

Your theory that bad decisions causes people to become poor is confusing what is an effect of being poor, making bad decisions, as being the major cause for being poor.

Consider if you were correct and making bad decisions caused people to become poor. There is no doubt that this happens occasionally but the question should be how widespread it is.

If making bad decisions forced a large number of people into poverty and, presumably, making good decisions got large numbers out of poverty then we would see a lot of social mobility with people dropping into poverty from the middle and upper class and people making their way out of poverty into the middle and upper class. Yet social mobility has decreased to the point that the US is about the least mobile country in the first world. Only the notoriously class bound UK is worse, but not by much and we are catching up to them.

The surest predictor of one's class in US society is the class of the parents. The US is no longer a country that rewards people for who they are, but a country with an increasingly rigid social structure, a country that strictly maintains the status quo.

It also means that the major reason that people are poor is the poverty of their parents. And the reason for the poverty of the parents is the poverty of the grandparents, and so on. A greater percentage of blacks are poor today than whites because their parents and grandparents were condemned to poverty by legal discrimination.

That instead of bad decisions causing one to drop into poverty we see that the poor make bad decisions because they are poor. Perhaps this is where you are confused.

The poor and the rich are the ones who most often make bad decisions but they make those bad decisions for different reasons. The poor because they feel that they have so little that they have nothing to lose and the rich because they know that they can get away with it. Crime, drugs, indebtedness, are examples.

It is the middle class that has to hold close to society's norms. The obvious solution is to enlarge the middle class by elevating the poor and by cutting down on the upper class. A more egalitarian society.

do you think that so many minorities are poor if not because of past discrimination?

There are many reasons why some people are poor, mostly to do with people's own poor decisions. Most people's ancestors have been discriminated against at some point in the past. Again, you are trying to argue that the only reason for unequal outcome is discrimination.

No, I am arguing that past legal and current residual racial discrimination is mostly the reason that so many more blacks are poor than whites as a percentage. That legal discrimination is the main reason that their ancestors were poor. Your argument that most poor blacks are there because bad decisions forced them to take low paying jobs when they could have had higher paying jobs really makes no sense. See above.

And I don't see any reason why blacks would be prone to making bad decisions than whites, or why whites would be more prone to making bad decisions than asians. A larger percentage of whites are poor than the percentage of asians who are.

The obvious question for your theory is why do you think that blacks are more prone to making bad decisions that drop them into poverty?

I don't doubt that there are some blacks that want free money because of the past 400 years of discrimination and the current residual discrimination that exists still in society, not in small part due to conservative and Republican support for it. And there are a lot of the rich who believe that their contribution to society is so valuable that they shouldn't have to pay taxes, especially because they don't need the government.

I think that both are wrong.

Well I guess we can agree on some things.

Yes, I am not disagreeing with you to be cute. I am just a little surprised to discover people who think like you fifty years after the civil rights era. Your talking points defy logic and appear to be something you have heard, that reinforced your world view and that you have repeated often without really thinking them through.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I believe that poor whites are largely poor because their ancestors were poor. That there is a cycle of poverty. This is a pretty widely accepted idea.

Your theory that bad decisions causes people to become poor is confusing what is an effect of being poor, making bad decisions, as being the major cause for being poor.

Consider if you were correct and making bad decisions caused people to become poor. There is no doubt that this happens occasionally but the question should be how widespread it is.

If making bad decisions forced a large number of people into poverty and, presumably, making good decisions got large numbers out of poverty then we would see a lot of social mobility with people dropping into poverty from the middle and upper class and people making their way out of poverty into the middle and upper class. Yet social mobility has decreased to the point that the US is about the least mobile country in the first world. Only the notoriously class bound UK is worse, but not by much and we are catching up to them.

No, because making good or bad decisions is to a large degree learned from one's family and peers. That is how poverty passes from generation to generation. It's more of a factor in the US because our welfare system doesn't shield people as much from the effects of bad decisions.

 

[laughing dog]

"Gamed"? What you are posting about?

You can change the assumptions to move the result in the desired direction.

You can do that with any set of data.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can change the assumptions to move the result in the desired direction.

You can do that with any set of data.

And that's supposed to be a rebuttal? Just because other data can be gamed doesn't mean this wasn't.

 

[laughing dog]

You can do that with any set of data.

And that's supposed to be a rebuttal?

It is an observation with the implication that your beef is with data-based analysis. While I can understand that someone whose claims are usually shown to be without factual merit would have such a beef, that doesn't make it relevant.

Just because other data can be gamed doesn't mean this wasn't.

Doesn't mean it was gamed either. You have presented no evidence (oops, but evidence is data, and it can be gamed as well) to support your observation.