Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Affirmative Action has done what it was designed to do: promote the hiring of QUALIFIED Blacks and White women. With cries of "reverse discrimination" and "unqualified minorities" ringing in their ears, it was no wonder that employers sought the cream of the crop among Blacks....Blacks who had experience or training for the type of skill needed. Now, in this forum I am hearing an entirely different objection to AA. In harmony with Sowell, some of you are now agonizing over the success of AA in creating a vibrant Black middle class. Well, those Blacks who were not qualified and could not be trained to compete were left behind...that's life. The best went on to better things as planned!
Affirmative Action has done what it was designed to do: promote the hiring of QUALIFIED Blacks and White women. With cries of "reverse discrimination" and "unqualified minorities" ringing in their ears, it was no wonder that employers sought the cream of the crop among Blacks....Blacks who had experience or training for the type of skill needed. Now, in this forum I am hearing an entirely different objection to AA. In harmony with Sowell, some of you are now agonizing over the success of AA in creating a vibrant Black middle class. Well, those Blacks who were not qualified and could not be trained to compete were left behind...that's life. The best went on to better things as planned!
I'm not interested in fighting past battles so your choice to phrase the battle in the past tense indicates to me that you believe that the mission of AA is complete, after all "The best went on to better things as planned." So let's kill the creature from hell by driving a spike through it's heart and move forward to a fair and glorious future. Right? A fifty year run is long enough to cull the good from the bad.
This is another example of the decline of Marriage as a desirable social institution. Children of unwed or divorced parents are much more likely to have emotional problems for which our society pays the price.
When I was a kid...the expression "Wait until your father gets home!" was uttered by my mother quite often. I shudder to think about what little bastards we would have been if the threat of a spanking from dad wasn't in the mix. Probably wouldn't be the person I am now...
^ I agree. However, technology has automated a lot of those jobs with good reason - they do a consistent better job than humans and they are cheaper to operate.
That said, the only unskilled labor jobs that require 'human' workers I can think of off the top of my head are construction, maybe packing/moving companies. Neither of which, I'd imagine, are as needed in big cities. There's local stores that are going to need clerks and stuff like that, but there you get into job skills; handling cash, running a register, customer service, etc. Janitor maybe? There's just really not a lot of 'unskilled' jobs, period.
I think we would be better off weaning folks off government dependence and putting that money toward something... like starting up a government run business in the neighborhood; something like a warehouse store; and they 'only' hire people who are on welfare. That way instead of just handing out welfare checks, they have to be earned; it'll give the workers job skills that can get them into a better job, plus incentive folks out of the free money culture/mentality. It wouldn't be a quick fix by any means, but in the long run I think it would help a lot more than the system we have in place right now.
Another facet of the issue is that crime pays, and I have no idea how we could fix that. Even if we legalized ALL drugs (which I don't see happening) there would still be stealing property and so forth that can ultimately be more profitable than working a bottom tier job would be.
Sowell's point back then was that Affirmative Action makes it much more likely for blacks with degrees or established job skills to be hired...thus making it a great thing for upper class blacks...but would make it less likely that a young black male with no job skills would be hired. This was a view that was vigorously attacked at that time and yet four decades later the unemployment rate for young blacks is through the roof and cities like Ferguson are filled with young men who have no job opportunities.
^ I agree. However, technology has automated a lot of those jobs with good reason - they do a consistent better job than humans and they are cheaper to operate.
That said, the only unskilled labor jobs that require 'human' workers I can think of off the top of my head are construction, maybe packing/moving companies. Neither of which, I'd imagine, are as needed in big cities. There's local stores that are going to need clerks and stuff like that, but there you get into job skills; handling cash, running a register, customer service, etc. Janitor maybe? There's just really not a lot of 'unskilled' jobs, period.
I think we would be better off weaning folks off government dependence and putting that money toward something... like starting up a government run business in the neighborhood; something like a warehouse store; and they 'only' hire people who are on welfare. That way instead of just handing out welfare checks, they have to be earned; it'll give the workers job skills that can get them into a better job, plus incentive folks out of the free money culture/mentality. It wouldn't be a quick fix by any means, but in the long run I think it would help a lot more than the system we have in place right now.
Another facet of the issue is that crime pays, and I have no idea how we could fix that. Even if we legalized ALL drugs (which I don't see happening) there would still be stealing property and so forth that can ultimately be more profitable than working a bottom tier job would be.
Can they do that? Hiring only people on welfare sounds like a winner to me!
Workfare ~ what an apt name indeed! Still for me it's not specifically that they are 'all' lazy, though I do think an idea like mine would weed those folks out, it's more that a lot of folks are stuck in a trap of stereotypes and non-employability; be it due to culture or otherwise. My father was always hiring ex-convicts to do little projects for our family and friends; when I was younger it concerned me greatly to be completely honest. I eventually spoke to him about letting those people into our home, mother and I's safety, fear of them stealing things, etc. He told me that our justice system was broken in a way, for those who made mistakes as young adults and did their time, they could never live it down nor live a normal life. He felt that ones record should be sealed a second time at around age 30 because folks in their 20s were just as stupid in their actions as children heh Anyway, after that I started to get to know "those people" and I realized that they were a lot like me, except for that one mistake in their past.
Now of course there are some who are simply criminals and don't ever 'grow up' and join the rest of civilized America, but there are a lot who just fucked up and are ostracized despite serving their time; they are often left with no real choice but to live poor or return to crime. That's not right either, but I digress.
I don't think such a 'workfare' idea would help pull everyone out of the ghettos, because unfortunately crime pays rather well, but for those who actually 'do' want out I think it would help get them on their way 'up'. For the criminal types, I say we cut their power base and legalize drugs and regulate it like alcohol. Make it a less lucrative field to get into in the first place and perhaps we can turn these folks around before they make stupid mistakes. Perhaps a bit of wishful thinking, but I think if we can just get them settled down on the right path they will 'grow up' as well. *shrug*
Legalizing and regulating drugs would of course take away most of their incentive to be criminals, but criminals would find another illegal way to make a buck, proven by the fact that the mob didn't go out of business when prohibition was lifted.
Frankly , I don't care if they show up and sit in a room for eight hours, NO ONE who is capable of working, should be allowed to just collect a check from uncle sam for nothing in return.
Legalizing and regulating drugs would of course take away most of their incentive to be criminals, but criminals would find another illegal way to make a buck, proven by the fact that the mob didn't go out of business when prohibition was lifted.
Frankly , I don't care if they show up and sit in a room for eight hours, NO ONE who is capable of working, should be allowed to just collect a check from uncle sam for nothing in return.
Agreed, there have always been criminals and there will always be some out there. Still, the more rugs we can pull out from under 'organized' criminals the better; they foster a lot of it in those who might not otherwise commit crimes - gangs you can't get out of for fear of death and the whole showing off thing criminals do to entice young people into a life of crime. The odd ball lunatic we can get past easily enough, but the organized folks are working against us.
My husband is the same way about the 'lazy' thing so I understand. Throwing money at them for sitting around doing nothing... I guess it could keep them off the streets for 8 hours a day, but to me it isn't a "good enough" solution for the long run; for me it's not just about making them 'earn' their welfare, it is about trying to get them OUT of that mouse trap.
Don't you think at least some of them would CHOOSE to find a away out of it if they had to go and sit in a room for 8 hours no TV, no XBox, no thing, you can bring a book if you like.
I mean I'd rather have them out sweeping the streets or whatever. My IDEAL would be each community hires them at minimum wage tax free and they work 40 hours a week around the community, even if that's just baby sitting so other parents can do other work around the community. If you don't want to work, then don't , but you aint getting any money.
Another idea is mandatory military service age 18-20 if you don't attend college. If we're paying the welfare, we may as well be paying them to be in the military.
Don't you think at least some of them would CHOOSE to find a away out of it if they had to go and sit in a room for 8 hours no TV, no XBox, no thing, you can bring a book if you like.
I mean I'd rather have them out sweeping the streets or whatever. My IDEAL would be each community hires them at minimum wage tax free and they work 40 hours a week around the community, even if that's just baby sitting so other parents can do other work around the community. If you don't want to work, then don't , but you aint getting any money.
Another idea is mandatory military service age 18-20 if you don't attend college. If we're paying the welfare, we may as well be paying them to be in the military.
The biggest problem I see with your sit in a room idea is that it just won't fly, it doesn't serve enough of a purpose and I think simply 'getting them off the street' won't sell it to the general public. We are going to have to 'give' something to change the current welfare system and I with a bit of marketing that we're giving folks job skills to help keep them off the system has a slightly better chance of being received by the general public.
I could see tying in community work stuff and paying folks for that though, it'd work in there - not too sure about the babysitting part just because of the safety issues though. The government cannot endorse anyone as acceptable babysitters because that's just asking for lawsuits... That said, you're right that a daycare system could help, perhaps extending some welfare funds to cover that would be a good idea; though I think that needs to be done through private sector.
mmm I can't agree with mandatory military service; I really think that would be asking for more trouble, especially in the current climate of authority rejection. You're just asking for more difficulties like those that have come up with the riots and militarization of the police and stuff. Plus, frankly, I don't want a bunch of people in the military who don't 'want' to be there; I'd rather our troops and their families be (at least mostly) committed to their duty and service to the country. Our military needs to be voluntary, and frankly I'd like to see the draft removed because there are some folks that are just not cut out for military service. I imagine there'd be a huge safety argument from folks as well; handing out easy access to military weapons and equipment would most likely halt that idea before it even made it to any kind of vote.
That said, there already are voluntary options like the Military Youth Academy programs that parents can send their kids too; problem is that the social/cultural environment that often exists in places like Ferguson tends to consider that a non-option.
Let's just be frank. Inner city blacks are the biggest problem, and the reality is they don't want to be helped. Oh they'll take the handouts , but ask ANYTHING of them in return, and nope.
It's going to take a brutal "nope, no more" to get their attention, and it will eventually come to that because the liberals just won't budge on the issue. They are NOT going to budge on this.
In reality the best course of action to take would be to pass a law stating that if you are one welfare for more than half of any election cycle you don't get to vote. PERIOD. If you keep letting the people who are sucking up all the benefits without giving anything in return vote, they are obviously just going to keep voting to keep giving them benefits without asking anything in return.
Let's just be frank. Inner city blacks are the biggest problem, and the reality is they don't want to be helped. Oh they'll take the handouts , but ask ANYTHING of them in return, and nope.
It's going to take a brutal "nope, no more" to get their attention, and it will eventually come to that because the liberals just won't budge on the issue. They are NOT going to budge on this.
In reality the best course of action to take would be to pass a law stating that if you are one welfare for more than half of any election cycle you don't get to vote. PERIOD. If you keep letting the people who are sucking up all the benefits without giving anything in return vote, they are obviously just going to keep voting to keep giving them benefits without asking anything in return.
Most of them don't vote anyway, so that's not going to help I'm afraid.
I actually have no problem agreeing there are some who have no interest in being helped out of the situation; though I argue the reason is because they are not asked to do jack shit for the welfare and are in a bit of a mouse trap. However, that is why I say they would have to actually 'work' for their 'welfare' and that the current welfare system would have to be scrapped entirely - this would effectively put those particular types at the mercy and whim of local charities who would either support them, or turn them out to die.
Or yes turn to crime... Those who chose to turn to crime should be weeded out and, in my brutally honest opinion, thrown into cages like the uncivilized animals they wish to be. Frankly, I am of the opinion that if one cannot follow the laws, specifically more violent criminals, they should be treated as nothing more than fighting dogs and euthanized for the good of mankind if they cannot be 'rehabilitated.' Since we are being brutally honest, I am actually ruthless enough to think that we should capitalize on such incurable criminals with televised Hunger Game like 'prisons.' I have zero sympathy nor compassion for those who cannot keep their hands/knives/bullets/bats/ropes/etc. off innocent people.
I actually don't have a heck of a lot of sympathy for non-violent criminals either; thieves, like CEO's who steal to buy nicer cars and shit like that. Though I do admit I see entertainment value of throwing those incurable 'pansy' types in with the violent hardened criminals; we could make bets on how long they survived, maybe have a lottery and the winners could split any of the criminals 'left over' assets (retirement, life insurance, etc.)
Anyway back to welfare, and my less uhm... vicious side
Thing is, we have to offer real help before I am willing to condemn the poor to such a life of bad choice death or bad choice crime. Not just these bullshit programs that 'satisfy' the mislead sympathetic morals of bleeding hearts without actually addressing getting the poor out of the mess they've gotten/found themselves in, but a true effort to give the poor obtainable opportunities to better their financial situation. Basically there needs to be another choice for survival than crime before I lose compassion and my 'dark side' comes out.
Maybe our darker side needs to come out. Maybe we need to just cut bait and tell these people , sink or swim.
One thing is for sure, we can't just keep dumping money into the black hole of welfare.
Maybe our darker side needs to come out. Maybe we need to just cut bait and tell these people , sink or swim.
One thing is for sure, we can't just keep dumping money into the black hole of welfare.
heh I'm not quite sure the US would ever be ready for my darker side, but I do agree that we've got a welfare black hole that needs fixing. We just have to figure out how and make it happen
How come the Asian people never riot or act ignorant and rude? They also have nice restaurants. What's up with that?
Sowell's point back then was that Affirmative Action makes it much more likely for blacks with degrees or established job skills to be hired...thus making it a great thing for upper class blacks...but would make it less likely that a young black male with no job skills would be hired. This was a view that was vigorously attacked at that time and yet four decades later the unemployment rate for young blacks is through the roof and cities like Ferguson are filled with young men who have no job opportunities.
