American economic system....racist????

[Sketcher]

Capitalism isn't racist. In fact, it tends to wear down barriers of race, religion, and whatnot. People who run businesses want to make money. People who patronize businesses want the good or service that the business provides. You tend to make more money when you're not as picky about whom you're selling to. You're more likely to get the good or service you want and a better value for it if you are primarily looking at what it is that is being sold rather than who is selling it to you. Exceptions can exist, but this is the general rule. After all, how many people seriously consider all of those points before shopping, all of the time?

 

[quatona]

Capitalism isn't racist. In fact, it tends to wear down barriers of race, religion, and whatnot. People who run businesses want to make money. People who patronize businesses want the good or service that the business provides. You tend to make more money when you're not as picky about whom you're selling to. You're more likely to get the good or service you want and a better value for it if you are primarily looking at what it is that is being sold rather than who is selling it to you. Exceptions can exist, but this is the general rule. After all, how many people seriously consider all of those points before shopping, all of the time?

I´d agree that capitalism isn´t inherently racist. I do not, however, follow your reasoning that it tends to diminish racism. Being willing to get your customers´ money doesn´t mean you can´t look down on them, for whatever reason.

 

[Sketcher]

I´d agree that capitalism isn´t inherently racist. I do not, however, follow your reasoning that it tends to diminish racism. Being willing to get your customers´ money doesn´t mean you can´t look down on them, for whatever reason.

While it is true that being willing to take people's money doesn't mean you can't look down on them, it is an improvement over refusing to sell to anyone of a given race, religion, political persuasion, or whatever.

 

[quatona]

While it is true that being willing to take people's money doesn't mean you can't look down on them, it is an improvement over refusing to sell to anyone of a given race, religion, political persuasion, or whatever.

What era are you referencing to, in this comparison? When was this time when businessmen weren´t willing to take the money of certain races?

 

[jardiniere]

What era are you referencing to, in this comparison? When was this time when businessmen weren´t willing to take the money of certain races?

The era of Jim Crow Laws. Laws mandated punishments for white establishment businessmen who were willing to take the money of blacks. In this way, "capitalism" was hampered by deliberate actions of a few who thought discrimination on basis of skin color was worth the economic debilitation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Capitalism begins with the massing of capital: money. Most of this money is borrowed initially. Certain requirements must be met by most would-be entrepreneurs. More white people meet those requirements than minorities do, often because of much more home equity, which is the most common form of collateral for small business loans. Even consumer loans are subject to the same credit-worthy scrutiny, and again whites generally have better employment and credit histories than minorities.

The banks have a fiduciary duty to protect the depositors money, so they are often 'careful to a fault' in making any loans.

You know...except for that whole 2008 housing market collapse thingy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You know...except for that whole 2008 housing market collapse thingy.

Where I live, in conservative Wisconsin, the effects were minimal. That's one of the great strengths of conservatism. We're better able to weather such storms.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Where I live, in conservative Wisconsin, the effects were minimal. That's one of the great strengths of conservatism. We're better able to weather such storms.

Lol I'm sure on some level you believe that

 

[quatona]

The era of Jim Crow Laws. Laws mandated punishments for white establishment businessmen who were willing to take the money of blacks. In this way, "capitalism" was hampered by deliberate actions of a few who thought discrimination on basis of skin color was worth the economic debilitation.

...but the USA were a capitalist nation back then, weren´t they?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Lol I'm sure on some level you believe that

I know that on several levels.

States most affected by the real estate bubble crash

Wisconsin Home Prices & Home Values | Zillow

 

[bhsmte]

Where I live, in conservative Wisconsin, the effects were minimal. That's one of the great strengths of conservatism. We're better able to weather such storms.

Really? I lived in a very conservative and wealthy suburb of Chicago during that crisis, and most homes lost at least 30% of their value.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Really? I lived in a very conservative and wealthy suburb of Chicago during that crisis, and most homes lost at least 30% of their value.

Zillow reported about 11% decline in Wisconsin. Stats are based on sales of homes during the recession period.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't think capitalism (or any economic system) is inherently racist.

It can seem that way if racist people are in a position of financial advantage to meddle with the system as they see fit (as they were for nearly 150 years), and the after-effects can linger for quite some time (as poverty is a tough cycle to break in a society where earning potential is tied to expensive degrees)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't think capitalism (or any economic system) is inherently racist.

It can seem that way if racist people are in a position of financial advantage to meddle with the system as they see fit (as they were for nearly 150 years), and the after-effects can linger for quite some time (as poverty is a tough cycle to break in a society where earning potential is tied to expensive degrees)

Are you equating poverty with the lack of a college degree?

When College Grads Earn Like High School Grads

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Are you equating poverty with the lack of a college degree?

When College Grads Earn Like High School Grads

It's not a 100% overlap, nor is it the only contributing factor, but it is a factor none the less...

People tend to excel when given the opportunity to pursue the field(s) that interest them...when you drastically limit the fields available to them, the chances of them pursuing a worthwhile career path are going to, in turn, be limited as well.

For example, I hate doing physical labor, hate getting my hands dirty, etc... I don't mind physical activity, I love weightlifting, running, etc... However, if you ask me to paint, do yard work, manual labor, work on cars, etc... that stuff is absolute torture for me. I was fortunate enough to go to college, so I'm able to do what I actually enjoy for a living, which is working with software and computers.

Had college not been an option for me, I'd have been screwed because I would've been lousy at any job involving manual labor (likely been fired for not giving it my all, or not inspired to even apply for those jobs at all) and as a result, would probably be working retail or some mundane job making 1/5 of what I'm making now.

That same narrative certainly applies to a large percentage of the population. Everyone wants to find a job their well-suited for and enjoy doing to at least some degree...every job is work, but different people find different forms of work enjoyable or at the very least, tolerable.

When you take a group of people (referring to people from low income households) and say "everyone else is getting to choose between those 100 career paths...but for you, you have to pick from these 12", it's no wonder that the group has more people in poverty situations because you likely have more people who are facing the choice of "pick something you absolutely hate, or be poor"

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's not a 100% overlap, nor is it the only contributing factor, but it is a factor none the less...

People tend to excel when given the opportunity to pursue the field(s) that interest them...when you drastically limit the fields available to them, the chances of them pursuing a worthwhile career path are going to, in turn, be limited as well.

For example, I hate doing physical labor, hate getting my hands dirty, etc... I don't mind physical activity, I love weightlifting, running, etc... However, if you ask me to paint, do yard work, manual labor, work on cars, etc... that stuff is absolute torture for me. I was fortunate enough to go to college, so I'm able to do what I actually enjoy for a living, which is working with software and computers.

Had college not been an option for me, I'd have been screwed because I would've been lousy at any job involving manual labor (likely been fired for not giving it my all, or not inspired to even apply for those jobs at all) and as a result, would probably be working retail or some mundane job making 1/5 of what I'm making now.

That same narrative certainly applies to a large percentage of the population. Everyone wants to find a job their well-suited for and enjoy doing to at least some degree...every job is work, but different people find different forms of work enjoyable or at the very least, tolerable.

When you take a group of people (referring to people from low income households) and say "everyone else is getting to choose between those 100 career paths...but for you, you have to pick from these 12", it's no wonder that the group has more people in poverty situations because you likely have more people who are facing the choice of "pick something you absolutely hate, or be poor"

Many are just sick of school after high school (I was) so college is out of the question. That leaves seeking a 'job' in hopes of attaining a good life style. Many love physical work (as I do). Life choices involve more than just one's occupation. I have turned down some great offers because they would limit other activities that I love (if I revealed one of those offers you would call me insane). Even in my 'chosen field' I placed limits, thus limiting my income, so as to be free for other pursuits.

I knew a very wealthy man who loved working with his hands. He revealed that early in his life that he realized that he couldn't attain the wealth he wanted by working with his hands, so he learned the insurance business, and eventually helped start an insurance company. The firm prospered and he became wealthy. When he finally retired he spent the rest of his days doing what he loved...working with his hands.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Many are just sick of school after high school (I was) so college is out of the question. That leaves seeking a 'job' in hopes of attaining a good life style. Many love physical work (as I do). Life choices involve more than just one's occupation. I have turned down some great offers because they would limit other activities that I love (if I revealed one of those offers you would call me insane). Even in my 'chosen field' I placed limits, thus limiting my income, so as to be free for other pursuits.

I knew a very wealthy man who loved working with his hands. He revealed that early in his life that he realized that he couldn't attain the wealth he wanted by working with his hands, so he learned the insurance business, and eventually helped start an insurance company. The firm prospered and he became wealthy. When he finally retired he spent the rest of his days doing what he loved...working with his hands.

Yes, many are sick of school after high school, however, many aren't and would love to go to college if they could actually do so.

...and I understand that some people love working with their hands and physical work, which is fine, but not everyone does and for the people who don't, if college isn't an option, that leaves their career prospects quite limited. As far as your story, that couldn't even happen today because a person would actually need 4 years of college to work at an insurance company.

No matter which way you slice it, the fact that some have wide open career options, while others are limited to "manual labor or multiple low-paying part-time retail jobs", and that line is drawn by how much money their parents have...that's indicative of a socioeconomic problem that our country faces.

When a certain measure of wealth is required in order to unlock the door to access more wealth, the system can't be anything but perpetual at that point.

It'd be like a system where "the only way to get a new car, is to come from a household that already has a car".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, many are sick of school after high school, however, many aren't and would love to go to college if they could actually do so.

...and I understand that some people love working with their hands and physical work, which is fine, but not everyone does and for the people who don't, if college isn't an option, that leaves their career prospects quite limited. As far as your story, that couldn't even happen today because a person would actually need 4 years of college to work at an insurance company.

No matter which way you slice it, the fact that some have wide open career options, while others are limited to "manual labor or multiple low-paying part-time retail jobs", and that line is drawn by how much money their parents have...that's indicative of a socioeconomic problem that our country faces.

When a certain measure of wealth is required in order to unlock the door to access more wealth, the system can't be anything but perpetual at that point.

It'd be like a system where "the only way to get a new car, is to come from a household that already has a car".

We have enough people in college. We need more skilled workers.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We have enough people in college. We need more skilled workers.

I would agree...but fostering an environment where all of our skilled labor force targets a specific economic class is problematic for the reasons I listed earlier.

You want people in those positions who want to be there because they have at least some enjoyment in it. You don't want people in there who are there merely because "my parents are poor and couldn't afford to send me to college and it was either this or work at Arby's"

People who are in jobs out of desperation or "last resort" mentality are never going to perform the task as well as people who enjoy the work.

Switzerland has become more vocational training-centric over the past few decades with nearly 55% of their high school grads picking trade school or 2-year vocational school instead of 4-year traditional degrees. ...and that's a great thing, however, each kid is given the choice of what they wanted to pick. None were limited by their parents' income level.

We should be encouraging kids to pursue things that are both useful/productive, and that they find enjoyable. (I'm not talking about flushing money away on philosophy and art degrees). There shouldn't be this invisible line drawn around which fields kids can, and can't, pursue based on how much money their parents have.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I would agree...but fostering an environment where all of our skilled labor force targets a specific economic class is problematic for the reasons I listed earlier.

You want people in those positions who want to be there because they have at least some enjoyment in it. You don't want people in there who are there merely because "my parents are poor and couldn't afford to send me to college and it was either this or work at Arby's"

People who are in jobs out of desperation or "last resort" mentality are never going to perform the task as well as people who enjoy the work.

Switzerland has become more vocational training-centric over the past few days with nearly 55% of their high school grads picking trade school or 2-year vocational school instead of 4-year traditional degrees. ...and that's a great thing, however, each kid is given the choice of what they wanted to pick. None were limited by their parents' income level.

We should be encouraging kids to pursue things that are both useful/productive, and that they find enjoyable. (I'm not talking about flushing money away on philosophy and art degrees). There shouldn't be this invisible line drawn around which fields kids can, and can't, pursue based on how much money their parents have.

I don't personally know of anyone who has been limited by their parents income. Both of my parents struggled with income. My brother, sister, and I chipped in to pay our father's funeral expenses. Neither his or our mother's financial condition affected any of us in any meaningful way. When I was 21 years old I became a journeyman meat cutter, and made more money than my dad at that time. My mother had life-long mental problems (schizophrenia) and was unable to hold a job. She lived with me in her final days, SSI being her only income (she did pay for her own funeral however).

I can't recall any of my friends who didn't earn more than their parents. Even my son, who grew up in 'poverty' (living with his mother) earns very good money as a concrete finisher. His wife, whose parents are college educated, skipped college choosing a nursing career instead and makes good money as a cardiac nurse. There are lots of good career choices, including business, that don't require college.

If I were to advise someone about attaining wealth I would tell them to skip college, get a job in the trades, and invest in real estate.