Why do poor communities exist in America?

[WinterBorn]

That sounds like vague Liberal double speak. So why do poor Black communities turn into drug/gang war zones and poor White communities don't?

Vague double speak is all Daniel has.

 

[danielpalos]

That sounds like vague Liberal double speak. So why do poor Black communities turn into drug/gang war zones and poor White communities don't?

It is merely your unsubstantiated opinion they don't. Right-wingers seem more willing to be rebels without a Cause and rebel against the Union.

And, black codes never helped under our form of Capitalism especially back before we had the social services we have now. Even now, money Talks, right-wingers only gossip, hearsay, and soothsay regarding blacks. Why are blacks still at the bottom on the wealth scale when we have refugees seeking asylum who can't even speak the language "bringing down the wealth average" for those minorities?

Right-wingers prefer to criminalize poverty than be legal to our own Constitutional laws yet practice the abomination of hypocrisy regarding less fortunate "illegals".

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I'm from Harlem, New York, and I just started my first day of school today at Bergen Community College, but while I was there, I couldn't help but notice how different people act in Paramus, New Jersey, as opposed to how people act in my part of town.

Aside from the uncomfortably obvious racial difference, people in this area act very unfamiliar with the difficulties that people deal with in poor communities, such as the lack of financial opportunities, abundance of poverty and desperation, pressure to get into illegal business, oppressive police activity, violent gang activity, constant drug use and trafficking, public lewdness and intoxication, overall hopelessness, etc.

Some individuals don't only seem unaware of the characteristics of my type of neighborhood, but also intolerant of the regular tenants of its atmosphere, like the trend of wearing designer clothing, listening to rap music, smoking weed, avoiding romance, as well as maintaining a guarded, skeptical mentality. Even professionals from the ghetto who aren't gang affiliated in any way do most if not all of these things in the 21st century. Despite this however, people's heads spun regardless when I was casually talking about my older brother who did 7 years in Riker's.

It doesn't seem to me like some anyone is really that concerned with what goes on in these communities, and it does seem like this lack of consideration often extends to hatefulness and resentment towards the so-called "vibes."

That aptly brings me back to my question. Quick history lesson here, communities such as Harlem started being developed into poor neighborhoods in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement had finally gained momentum. If that is the case, then the federal government is obviously responsible for every step of the development of these areas ranging from their conception to their final establishment. I can definitely understand the ghetto perhaps having been established to keep certain members of our society "in line," which brings me back to my question.

Why was it even established? Why would the government think it's a good idea to create dangerous neighborhoods all of a sudden? If it really was to keep certain Americans in line, then which ones? Of course, many would assume black people but they clearly don't make up the entirety of the ghetto's demographics. There are also Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Jews, Russians, (and definitely lots of Dominicans!) in New York City's poorest areas. While hate towards the vibes of the ghetto is certainly prejudice on a whole laundry list of levels, it cannot be considered a form of racism. So if people are separated by race in this country, then all five of the races I mentioned before, as well as black people, must have something in common that the federal government finds incredibly dangerous, and thus wishes to inhibit it. (edit: which sounds absolutely silly)

However, if it isn't actually a race issue, then what determines who goes where? Do a couple of senators just flip a coin and get to see who lives in poverty and who gets to live as a middle class citizen? It seems to me like something else must be a deciding factor here.

If someone could help me understand this basic question as it's been sufficiently elaborated (for those who are about to say TL;DR ) that would be great!

All kinds of reasons...

IN ORDER
1) Technology and modern manufacturing. - it takes less people to provide the wants and needs of a population than before, and getting smaller every year.
2) Labor is not appreciated. - Investors seek the cheapest labor they can find to produce goods. And the cheapest labor is most certainly not in America. Watch a few episodes of "Shark Tank"... it is a pretty decent microcosm of how new goods are made. Over and over and over you will see the "sharks" talk about "getting the delivered cost down" = Chinese slave labor.
3) As noted above... slave and near slave labor is very much in full force. While we all talk about slaves in the U.S. 200 years ago - your house is full of products made by essentially slaves. They may not be chained and bought and sold like centuries ago, but their compensation for their labor is absolutely slavery.

 

[danielpalos]

Any "race to the bottom" is due to Bad legislative management. Congress could easily tax firms leaving for cheaper labor at the federal minimum wage rate regardless of where they get their labor.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Any "race to the bottom" is due to Bad legislative management. Congress could easily tax firms leaving for cheaper labor at the federal minimum wage rate regardless of where they get their labor.

You are missing a HUGE component here.
Corporatism/globalism (mind you embraced wholly by the vast majority of Democrats, not just Republicans) has done two things:
1) Dramatically concentrated wealth by dramatically reducing the number of owners of production. I belong to a facebook group that is about the history of the city I live in. Last week someone posted a video from, I believe it was 1982, of a drive through downtown and surrounding areas.
It is impossible not to notice that the vast majority of businesses you saw were locally owned. Today... corporate box stores everywhere with a mere sprinkling of local businesses. Less owners = wealth concentration.
2) Modern slave labor. Globalism and it's never ending search for the lowest cost to manufacture goods has resulted in the modern slave.
They may no longer be chained and bought and sold on blocks. But their compensation for labor is unconscionable. While China releases state controlled data that laughably tries to claim the average worker in China makes about $1200 a month U.S.... the actual known estimates are about 1/3 that. Many working a minimum of 12 hours a day, during peak times it is not unusual for workers to be "encouraged" to work as many as 18.
So let's say they only work 12... that is an average of $1.80/an hour.

 

[danielpalos]

You are missing a HUGE component here.
Corporatism/globalism (mind you embraced wholly by the vast majority of Democrats, not just Republicans) has done two things:
1) Dramatically concentrated wealth by dramatically reducing the number of owners of production. I belong to a facebook group that is about the history of the city I live in. Last week someone posted a video from, I believe it was 1982, of a drive through downtown and surrounding areas.
It is impossible not to notice that the vast majority of businesses you saw were locally owned. Today... corporate box stores everywhere with a mere sprinkling of local businesses. Less owners = wealth concentration.
2) Modern slave labor. Globalism and it's never ending search for the lowest cost to manufacture goods has resulted in the modern slave.
They may no longer be chained and bought and sold on blocks. But their compensation for labor is unconscionable. While China releases state controlled data that laughably tries to claim the average worker in China makes about $1200 a month U.S.... the actual known estimates are about 1/3 that. Many working a minimum of 12 hours a day, during peak times it is not unusual for workers to be "encouraged" to work as many as 18.
So let's say they only work 12... that is an average of $1.80/an hour.

I don't endorse any "race to the bottom". US Labor needs to be able to afford our "first world" economy.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I don't endorse any "race to the bottom". US Labor needs to be able to afford our "first world" economy.

What?
Where did I say that??
What are you talking about. Why do you always take a conversation to somewhere that has nothing to do with what is discussed?
I am pointing out that simply taxing outsourcers isn't the issue. And then what - you really think the government would do the right thing with the $trillions in tax revenue that would gain?
And who is going to pay for those $trillions?
You will.
That $15 dohicky you buy will now cost $25. Inflation would be staggering. And that would solve nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

What?
Where did I say that??
What are you talking about. Why do you always take a conversation to somewhere that has nothing to do with what is discussed?
I am pointing out that simply taxing outsourcers isn't the issue. And then what - you really think the government would do the right thing with the $trillions in tax revenue that would gain?
And who is going to pay for those $trillions?
You will.
That $15 dohicky you buy will now cost $25. Inflation would be staggering. And that would solve nothing.

How about balancing the budget?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

How about balancing the budget?

That does nothing to address the increasing poor population and the shrinking of the middle class

 

[danielpalos]

That does nothing to address the increasing poor population and the shrinking of the middle class

Some on the left are advocating for equal protection of our at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation to help solve simple poverty and improve the efficiency of our economy.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Some on the left are advocating for equal protection of our at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation to help solve simple poverty and improve the efficiency of our economy.

So in other words... dramatically increase the welfare roles because that worked so well with inner city blacks?

 

[danielpalos]

So in other words... dramatically increase the welfare roles because that worked so well with inner city blacks?

You confuse means tested welfare with a more efficient automatic stabilizer. Besides, how well did black codes work.

Unemployment compensation that bears true witness to our at-will employment laws is more cost effective than means testing and could result in lowering your individual income tax burden since more people will be circulating money and paying general taxes on it. A positive multiplier will ensure Capitalists still get Richer.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You confuse means tested welfare with a more efficient automatic stabilizer. Besides, how well did black codes work.

Unemployment compensation that bears true witness to our at-will employment laws is more cost effective than means testing and could result in lowering your individual income tax burden since more people will be circulating money and paying general taxes on it. A positive multiplier will ensure Capitalists still get Richer.

1) Crime will rise even higher. Nothing, absolutely nothing drives crime up more than large numbers of people with too much time on their hands.
2) Drug addiction will rise even higher. Same as above.
And you are once again trying to claim that high social services is going to lower taxes - which is so absurd it is Neanderthal thinking.
There is not one example in world history where a society exists(ed) where they had high social services and low tax rates.
It's like trying to claim you can lose weight by doing less and eating more.

 

[MarathonMike]

It is merely your unsubstantiated opinion they don't. Right-wingers seem more willing to be rebels without a Cause and rebel against the Union.

More double speak. My thread Black Deaths Matter documents the daily carnage that is going on in poor Black communities a.k.a Inner Cities. Those are not my OPINIONS. Those are FACTS. People like you allow the carnage to continue because your political opinion is more important than innocent Black people being gunned down in their neighborhoods by other Black people. You and the rest of the Democrat minions live in a bubble of denial.

 

[danielpalos]

Crime will rise even higher. Nothing, absolutely nothing drives crime up more than large numbers of people with too much time on their hands.

I don't follow your line of reasoning. Why would persons with recourse to an income for being unemployed accomplish what you allege? Why would they not be more market friendly, and participate more in market based activity while paying general forms of taxes?

 

[danielpalos]

More double speak. My thread Black Deaths Matter documents the daily carnage that is going on in poor Black communities a.k.a Inner Cities. Those are not my OPINIOINS. Those are FACTS. People like you allow the carnage to continue because your political opinion is more important than innocent Black people being gunned down in their neighborhoods by other Black people. You and the rest of the Democrat minions live in a bubble of denial.

It is only "doublespeak" if you appeal to ignorance of economics. Do you believe poverty improves civility or causes more incivility under Any form of Capitalism?

 

[irosie91]

I don't follow your line of reasoning. Why would persons with recourse to an income for being unemployed accomplish what you allege? Why would they not be more market friendly, and participate more in market based activity while paying general forms of taxes?

for the record------money making in the hood is not impeded by the receipt
of entitlements. Sorry for the reality check

 

[danielpalos]

for the record------money making in the hood is not impeded by the receipt
of entitlements. Sorry for the reality check

Yes, it is. Means testing in our republic is by definition not very market friendly. Sorry you appeal to right-wing fantasy rather than economics.

 

[irosie91]

Yes, it is. Means testing in our republic is by definition not very market friendly. Sorry you appeal to right-wing fantasy rather than economics.

sorry-----you are naive. HOOD money is neither reported nor taxed. Lots of
the existing professions are not "controlled"-----no unions, no pensions, etc----
not "credit checkable"

 

[MarathonMike]

It is only "doublespeak" if you appeal to ignorance of economics. Do you believe poverty improves civility or causes more incivility under Any form of Capitalism?

I haven't read an answer to the question that I have posed to you twice. Answer it and I will answer yours.