Stop blaming Blacks!

[Ophiolite]

Would you have required those businesses to stay? And how would you have done that?

I would favour living in a society where its ethics exclude the possibility of contemplating the move in the first place. You may, rightly, respond that such an expectation is ludicrously placed optimism. If that was to be your response, mine would be, just because an objective is close to impossible, if it is a good objective, we should still strive towards it and condemn contrary actions.

 

[Ophiolite]

An economy is not based on the right to work. That's a Communist idea. An economy is based upon businesses needing workers and workers needing a job. No one has a right to work, be that a CEO or a hamburger flipper. You sell your labor to someone who needs it. Each job needs a certain set of skills. Not everyone has the skills that are needed.

You can't run an economy on a workers have a right to work ideal unless you are communist. You can't have people walking into a business and demanding a job just cause they have a right. A real thriving economy is based upon need. Not right.

There's the old communist boogey man argument. Thanks for the discussion rjs, but anyone who has such a simplistic, one-sided notion of economics, coupled with an apparent lack of compassion is not someone I am likely to find much common ground with. Stay safe. Make sure you have the necessary skills in a changing world. You wouldn't want to find yourself in a situation where you started thinking communism might not be such a bad idea.

 

[rjs330]

There's the old communist boogey man argument. Thanks for the discussion rjs, but anyone who has such a simplistic, one-sided notion of economics, coupled with an apparent lack of compassion is not someone I am likely to find much common ground with. Stay safe. Make sure you have the necessary skills in a changing world. You wouldn't want to find yourself in a situation where you started thinking communism might not be such a bad idea.

You might be wrong here. The idea that everyone has the right to work IS a communistic viewpoint. Look it up.

Now I don't believe you are a communist. It appears to that your heart is in the right place. We can agree that if a man wants to work it would be awesome if he's given the opportunity to do so. But in a free society that is NOT a guarantee. What it the business doesn't have a job for him? Should they be forced to hire him?

Should he be forced to work a job digging ditches?

It just doesn't seem like you have thought this through from a free society standpoint.

What if there are no jobs where the guy lives? Should we make one up for him? Or should he move to somewhere where there is a job? I'm actually in favor of that.

Should he be forced to join a union if he doesn't want to? That might take away his right to work.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, we could start with getting state and local governments in the South to do a much better job of following all those equal rights and equal opportunities laws. Even though the Jim Crow laws have been eliminated, institutional racism is still alive and well in the South. (And much of the North, too, but it is measurably worse in the South. Much work remains to be done.)

What do you mean when you say Institutional racism?

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

What do you mean when you say Institutional racism?

When the system itself is tilted against blacks or other minorities, or when it looks the other way in cases of private, individual racism.

A few easy examples:

Gerrymandering This is a tactic that both parties know how to use to the fullest, despite the Democratic Party claiming the high ground on the issue. In the South gerrymandering is frequently used in a racially-based manner. There is a science to how to do it effectively, but both parties are very good at it. However, there do tend to be more leaders on the Democratic side calling for non-partisan commissions to draw the voting district lines.

Reducing the number of voting locations Texas closes hundreds of polling sites, making it harder for minorities to vote Here is one of many examples of a Republican-controlled government simply reducing the number of places to vote, with most of the negative impact being in black and Latino neighborhoods

Dodge City, Kansas Dodge City polling place debacle: voter suppression or incompetence?
Dodge City has only a single polling place for a city of 13,000. They moved it from the center of town to a place outside of town, making it necessary for most voters to drive or take a bus to vote. This was a greater hardship for Latinos in the city, who make up 60% of the population.

Eagles Landing, Georgia Stockbridge de-annexation, pro-Eagle’s Landing bill heads to governor
This seems to be a mostly neutral news account, but the issue was that in the black-majority city of Stockbridge, a group of suburban residents floated a petition to de-annex a portion of the city from Stockbridge and form a new city, Eagles Landing. Problem is, the suburbanites were mostly white, and they wanted to take away a big chunk of the commercial part of Stockbridge, which would have been economically devastating to Stockbridge. This was a classic case of take-from-the-poor-and-give-to-the-rich. Fortunately, the voters defeated the measure.

There are many, many other examples.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

You might be wrong here. The idea that everyone has the right to work IS a communistic viewpoint. Look it up.

You are basically right, although Plank #8 of the Communist Manifesto calls it an "obligation" rather than a "right" because it was aimed primarily at forcing capitalist owners to work alongside everybody else:

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

So Marx didn't really posit a "right to a job" here, although it was an underlying assumption that every able-bodied person would of course engage in productive labor (with an unrealistic expectation that the government could balance supply and demand without the use of free-market forces).

However, the mere fact that Marx liked something does not automatically make it a bad idea. I bet he liked dogs and children; that doesn't mean that I shouldn't. Every idea has to be judged on its own merits.

 

[Ken-1122]

When the system itself is tilted against blacks or other minorities, or when it looks the other way in cases of private, individual racism.

A few easy examples:

Gerrymandering This is a tactic that both parties know how to use to the fullest, despite the Democratic Party claiming the high ground on the issue. In the South gerrymandering is frequently used in a racially-based manner. There is a science to how to do it effectively, but both parties are very good at it. However, there do tend to be more leaders on the Democratic side calling for non-partisan commissions to draw the voting district lines.

Reducing the number of polling places Texas closes hundreds of polling sites, making it harder for minorities to vote Here is one of many examples of a Republican-controlled government simply reducing the number of places to vote, with most of the negative impact being in black and Latino neighborhoods

Dodge City, Kansas Dodge City polling place debacle: voter suppression or incompetence?
Dodge City has only a single polling place for a city of 13,000. They moved it from the center of town to a place outside of town, making it necessary for most voters to drive or take a bus to vote. This was a greater hardship for Latinos in the city, who make up 60% of the population.

Eagles Landing, Georgia Stockbridge de-annexation, pro-Eagle’s Landing bill heads to governor
This seems to be a mostly neutral news account, but the issue was that in the black-majority city of Stockbridge, a group of suburban residents floated a petition to de-annex a portion of the city from Stockbridge and form a new city, Eagles Landing. Problem is, the suburbanites were mostly white, and they wanted to take away a big chunk of the commercial part of Stockbridge, which would have been economically devastating to Stockbridge. This was a classic case of take-from-the-poor-and-give-to-the-rich. Fortunately, the voters defeated the measure.

There are many, many other examples.

Aren't those just examples of racist people in a position of power?

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

Aren't those just examples of racist people in a position of power?

Sorry, but I don't see the distinction. If racists in positions of power perform actions that are demonstrably racist, that is the working definition of "institutional racism." It is racism embedded in the institutions (whether political, economic, religious, or whatever).

Has institutional racism been significantly reduced from what it was before 1965? Absolutely!
Has it been reduced enough? Not quite. More work needs to be done.

 

[Ken-1122]

Sorry, but I don't see the distinction. If racists in positions of power perform actions that are demonstrably racist, that is the working definition of "institutional racism." It is racism embedded in the institutions (whether political, economic, religious, or whatever).

Has institutional racism been significantly reduced from what it was before 1965? Absolutely!
Has it been reduced enough? Not quite. More work needs to be done.

When Stokely Carmichael coined the term Institutional Racism, I think he was referring to something a little more in-depth than simply racists in a position of power.
In order for there to be institutional racism, the institution itself, or that specific jurisdiction must be created in such a manner that the institution will remain racist no matter the person(s) holding positions within it.
Let’s take the example of voter suppression that you mentioned. Lets say racist members of the City Council were responsible for reducing the number of places to vote in minority neighborhoods thus making it more difficult for them to vote.
If you were given free reign to remove all members of the City Council and replace them with a new group of people, hand chosen by you; would said racism remain?
If removing / replacing the variables from the system (in this case the Council members) would cleanse the system of racism, then institutional racism does not exist, you just have another example of racist people in a position of power possibly violating laws in order to further their racists intent. However, if you remove / replace all variables within the system with new variables known to be non-corrupt from the systems intention (in this case if you replace all City Council members with people known to not be racist), yet the system remains corrupt (racist here), then institutional racism exists.

 

[rjs330]

You are basically right, although Plank #8 of the Communist Manifesto calls it an "obligation" rather than a "right" because it was aimed primarily at forcing capitalist owners to work alongside everybody else:

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

So Marx didn't really posit a "right to a job" here, although it was an underlying assumption that every able-bodied person would of course engage in productive labor (with an unrealistic expectation that the government could balance supply and demand without the use of free-market forces).

However, the mere fact that Marx liked something does not automatically make it a bad idea. I bet he liked dogs and children; that doesn't mean that I shouldn't. Every idea has to be judged on its own merits.

True, but to ignore the fact a communist believes a particular political point should give us to pause for concern. Because it's not so beningn as lining dogs. That's totally minimizing the concern.

This idea of a right to a job sounds good on face value. But in reality it's a terrible concept and is not guaranteed by our constitution in any way shape or form.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

True, but to ignore the fact a communist believes a particular political point should give us to pause for concern. Because it's not so benign as liking dogs. That's totally minimizing the concern.

This idea of a right to a job sounds good on face value. But in reality it's a terrible concept and is not guaranteed by our constitution in any way shape or form.

Exactly how many times do I have to repeat that I believe that an absolute "right to a job" does not exist before you acknowledge that I said it and move on to dealing with what else I said? Because I also said that it's not a simple binary question, so it's not enough to just answer whether the "right to a job" does or does not exist. Especially, I might ask what you believe about the proposition that the purpose of a company is to make a profit for its shareholders. Period.

Any comments regarding how you feel about that?

 

[rjs330]

Exactly how many times do I have to repeat that I believe that an absolute "right to a job" does not exist before you acknowledge that I said it and move on to dealing with what else I said? Because I also said that it's not a simple binary question, so it's not enough to just answer whether the "right to a job" does or does not exist. Especially, I might ask what you believe about the proposition that the purpose of a company is to make a profit for its shareholders. Period.

Any comments regarding how you feel about that?

Sorry I wasn't specifically addressing you nor claiming you said that. I apologize for making you think I was. I wasn't trying to convince you about it. Just making my point to whomever might be reading.

I think it is that simple. Do we have a right to a job or not? I'm not sure how it could be more complicated.

In answer to your question, in a free market capitalist system the goal is to create something that people will find beneficial. For in doing so you will then create profit. If you are ONLY looking to create profit then odds are you will eventually fail or at least start losing profit. Because you will start cutting corners and people will no longer desire your product.

If you look at a good strong business you will often find the founding if that business was a desire to benefit others and in that process you make money. The most successful long lasting companies have found ways to help people.

 

[Ken-1122]

I might ask what you believe about the proposition that the purpose of a company is to make a profit for its shareholders. Period.

Any comments regarding how you feel about that?

People start companies for all sorts of reasons. Some companies probably are started to make a profit for its shareholders. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

People start companies for all sorts of reasons. Some companies probably are started to make a profit for its shareholders. Do you have a problem with that?

Possibly.

You see, the point is that "making a profit" is seen as the only purpose. In that case, anything that contributes to profitability is good; anything that hurts profitability is bad. Therefore, hypothetically, if starting a policy of treating employees better results in happier employees who do better work, then that's great. Keep doing it. But if the policy costs money, with no positive effect on the bottom line, then management would decide that if the company is more profitably with miserable employees, let's keep doing that. Even though you would assume that better morale makes for a more profitable company, if experience shows that cutting costs and making everybody miserable is actually more profitable, then that's what responsible management should do (according to this view of the purpose of a company.)

So, yes, I would have a problem with that.

 

[Ken-1122]

Possibly.

You see, the point is that "making a profit" is seen as the only purpose. In that case, anything that contributes to profitability is good; anything that hurts profitability is bad. Therefore, hypothetically, if starting a policy of treating employees better results in happier employees who do better work, then that's great. Keep doing it. But if the policy costs money, with no positive effect on the bottom line, then management would decide that if the company is more profitably with miserable employees, let's keep doing that. Even though you would assume that better morale makes for a more profitable company, if experience shows that cutting costs and making everybody miserable is actually more profitable, then that's what responsible management should do (according to this view of the purpose of a company.)

So, yes, I would have a problem with that.

I guess that's how Unions got started. But I guess it goes both ways huh? Do workers show up for work to make money? Or are they doing it to sell a great product and make happy customers.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

I guess that's how Unions got started. But I guess it goes both ways huh? Do workers show up for work to make money? Or are they doing it to sell a great product and make happy customers.

The person who is following a dream and doing what they most enjoy doing is a rare individual. I suppose that the great majority of workers do what they do just to be able to pay the bills. But there are some who, given a choice, will turn down a better-paying job that will make them less happy. Others will absolutely take the higher-paying job no matter how much stress it adds. I favor the first category.

 

[Ken-1122]

The person who is following a dream and doing what they most enjoy doing is a rare individual. I suppose that the great majority of workers do what they do just to be able to pay the bills. But there are some who, given a choice, will turn down a better-paying job that will make them less happy. Others will absolutely take the higher-paying job no matter how much stress it adds. I favor the first category.

The first category is great! But a lot of people don't have that luxury. I suspect there are a lot of business that don't have the luxury to run it in a way that makes their employees happy either.

 

[Aldebaran]

The first category is great! But a lot of people don't have that luxury. I suspect there are a lot of business that don't have the luxury to run it in a way that makes their employees happy either.

Or be able to run it at all, no matter what their motive. Some end up going to jail in order to simply make a living for themselves and their employees: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/06/dallas-salon-owner-jailed-coronavirus/

 

[Ken-1122]

Or be able to run it at all, no matter what their motive. Some end up going to jail in order to simply make a living for themselves and their employees: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/06/dallas-salon-owner-jailed-coronavirus/

I think that's a different situation than what we are talking about.

 

[pescador]

Possibly.

You see, the point is that "making a profit" is seen as the only purpose. In that case, anything that contributes to profitability is good; anything that hurts profitability is bad. Therefore, hypothetically, if starting a policy of treating employees better results in happier employees who do better work, then that's great. Keep doing it. But if the policy costs money, with no positive effect on the bottom line, then management would decide that if the company is more profitably with miserable employees, let's keep doing that. Even though you would assume that better morale makes for a more profitable company, if eerience shows that cutting costs and making everybody miserable is actually more profitable, then that's what responsible management should do (according to this view of the purpose of a company.)

So, yes, I would have a problem with that.

Are you serious? Do you really value the almighty dollar over human beings?

"For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains." 1 Timothy 6:10

"Your conduct must be free from the love of money and you must be content with what you have..." Hebrews 13:5a

Employees do the real work, investors do nothing concrete.