SPLIT TOPIC: American society: the poor the unemployed

I mean, for starters you and I simply disagree on how much legitimate political correctness there is. Simple as that.

Armchair says things like "How many generations those native born americans going to wait for the man to act instead of doing it yourself."

Despite your earlier claim, that type of comment is not criticizing an individual nor is it justified by Armchair's life experience.

Armchair is generalizing about a fellow disadvantaged group. He, and you, are free to do so. But own what you are doing.

You are criticizing people who are critical and sensitive to the status quo of American society. That is fine, but again, own what you are doing. Perhaps in there lies your answer about why it's problematic for the privileged groups to be framing the debate.

When you say I have an overdeveloped sense of justice you are forming a judgment about the state of affairs today, as well as your right to do so.

Own that.

I don't know you. Your race or your background. But you do. So when you get "annoyed at 'heroes' of the oppressed" or you question whether political correctness was ever valid, just be very conscious of yourself, and the places that other groups are coming from.

Whether you want to or not, you are staking a serious political position.

BG-

While you think I am staking a political position, I think you owe Armchair an apology.

He explained and clarified his position, yet you continue to assert he is engaging in a level of extrapolation (aka stereotypes, generalizing, etc) that is beyond the norm.

armchair_warrior said:

I don't give a damn about generalizing things, its easier and faster instead of wasting eons trying to get to something that would be argue over etc... what is something specific,

one can never get any real specifics. cause you can always narrow things down to more specifics than the previous persons definition. You just have to stop some where.

I could say that bushmen is generally small, someone could come along and says that they have seen tall bushmen before or really that small relative to them etc... could waste tons of time trying to define something that people already know what I'm talking about.

We all engage in stereotyping to some degree. What gives you the right to continue to assert his stereotyping reaches the degree that is marginalizing and oppressive?

Are you stating that his clarification is insincere?

How do you know this?

How much does he have to type before you deem that he has explained his position adequately?

Because I am satisfied with his explanation, you are now attempting to make Armchair and I "an other". By doing so, the circle of people who are "acceptably politically correct" becomes smaller and smaller.

....eventually you stand alone and become yet another one of the groups within the our society that fights everyone else in the world.

I do not feel your actions represent a successful strategy for fighting something as large as the plague of racism that affects this country. I feel you will need many people, and not be successful on your own or in a small group.

If I can't state my POV w/o being attacked for my background I'm not gonna want to enter the discussion... and BG wins

My argument about privilege was much more developed than this.

You and I simply disagree on what "honest debate about society is." Mine revolves around privilege. Yours doesn't. In a sense that really proves my point about how debates are framed.

but here is the difference in our views that makes me question the validity of yours... when serious individual issues like American individuals' destructive addictions to mindless retail and consumer debt, or our collective cluelessness of our own political process or the machinations of the changing world around us, or our continually eroding work ethic, or our various glaring character flaws that are all just as instrumental in our collective failures as the shortcomings of the systems that frame us, you take offense. You cite my privilege.

No, that's actually completely wrong. I agree with pretty much everything you just wrote, you just rarely state things in such a thoughtful way.

It's when you criticize specific behaviors of the poor that I think privilege is centrally important to the discussion, yet is something which obviously you don't think is relevant.

you grow incensed at the idea of not taking complete advocacy with the disadvantaged, and ironically chastise people for "generalizing" when they mention that all poor people are not merely victims of a failed system, and then go on to generalize them as such

Useless generalization of my arguments.

Nothing, not statistics, nor extensive first hand experience, nor any other substantial proof can sway BG from his advocacy of the poor.

It's funny when you say sh-t like this as if it's not true of you.

The issue of poverty is much more complex and nowhere near as one-sided as he makes it out to be, but if a sizeable (and IMO the correct) portion of the responsibility for the situations of the poor are assigned to the poor, his demonizing of "the privileged" becomes a less legitimate talking point and more the obvious class beef it is.

you might finally be starting to understand my argument. Congratulations.

WN

To be perfectly honest, No, I do not personally think your Armchair quote legitimizes comments like "The Poor in this country just abuse those privileges by acting stupid and acting out in schools" or "the poor in this country is way too self entitled like the wealthy are. they think if you are born here (Americans in general) that you are god given gift to humanity and as citizens you are special with magical properties that distinguish you from rest of humanity."

I think it was a weak attempt to justify generalizations ("cause you can always narrow things down to more specifics than the previous persons definition"). It seems Armchair doesn't have the time or desire ("easier and faster") to discuss the way I would.

Sorry, and yes, I'm grouping you two together as you defend the validity of his generalizations and I do not.

It is a discussion and therefore you/Armchair and I are on opposite sides of this sub-topic.

I do not feel your actions represent a successful strategy for fighting something the plague of racism that affects this country. I feel you will need many people, and not be successful on your own.

As with the bike lane debates, your advice is always appreciated.

Yes, while BG thinks we somehow minimize the suffering of the poor and minorities, and hold unfounded prejudice toward them, we will continue to think he embodies the very definition of "overdeveloped sense of justice".

That's some weak sh-t, WhyNot.

I am offering a critique of a very specific topic (political correctness and backlash against it), a topic which I've thought a lot about and I believe is demonstrably part of bigger societal questions this country faces.

You are free to disagree, and occasionally you have here. But labeling me elitist or whatever isn't actually a refutation of my argument.

It's standard trope that assumes the legitimacy of the status quo.

So, BG, how much sensitivity toward the poor do we need to demonstrate before we are not part of the problem?

Rather than explain your beliefs, this is you not owning your opinion of the role of political correctness in American society.

Boygabriel said:

Yes, while BG thinks we somehow minimize the suffering of the poor and minorities, and hold unfounded prejudice toward them, we will continue to think he embodies the very definition of "overdeveloped sense of justice".

That's some weak sh-t, WhyNot.

I am offering a critique of a very specific topic (political correctness and backlash against it), a topic which I've thought a lot about and I believe is demonstrably part of bigger societal questions this country faces.

You are free to disagree, and occasionally you have here. But labeling me elitist or whatever isn't actually a refutation of my argument.

It's standard trope that assumes the legitimacy of the status quo.

So, BG, how much sensitivity toward the poor do we need to demonstrate before we are not part of the problem?

Rather than explain your beliefs, this is you not owning your opinion of the role of political correctness in American society.

Yes, state I am part of the problem and unaware of the issues faced by our society. Yes, state that you are the only one who sees the state of the country and that the rest of us are blind or -better yet- ignoring it in order to continue to benefitting from it.

Do you really believe that you are "making friends and influencing people" by doing this?

Um, this is merely furthering my resolve that you are making assumptions about me and that I should not bother to attempt to meet your standards.

Yes, state I am part of the problem and unaware of the issues faced by our society.

Um, this is merely furthering my resolve that you are making assumptions about me and that I should not bother to attempt to meet your standards.

When your responses to my argument are largely based on, "you're elitist and judgmental", there's not much else for me to go on.

I am not making assumptions about you personally. I am telling you how I see the debate of political correctness and where it fits into American society and questions of power and privilege.

If you choose to take it largely personally, that's your position.

Next up-

Does someone have to work their way up from a sucky condition, like AW did, in order to comment on their first hand experiences?

Can someone from a middle class background hold views about specific incidents that they experienced without being called racist or classist?

I.E. Must every statement about a crime be prefaced with "I'm sure he had a disadvantaged background and was oppressed for hundreds of years, but that really annoyed me when he broke into my car. I hope that black guy goes to jail."

Is it reasonable to assume that I would be no less (and no more) pissed if the guy was white?

Is it reasonable to assume that I would root for the police to put him in jail just as much?

Or, is the middle class person assumed to hate one criminal more than the other?

...a reverse classism.

Or, do we have some variety of privileges based on race, wherein someone who is a minority can hate a minority for breaking into their car, but someone who is white is not allowed to?

Does a middle class, white guy, ever get to root for the police when they hunt a black guy who just broke into his car? While we are at it, do the aforementioned police have to be the same race as the aforementioned defendant?

I tend to think there are a lot of people that are well aware that such wars are occurring, but don't participate because they view the wars as not win-able.

Some of the noncombatants are poor, others are rich. ...but I believe all aware of the war.

They may be so fatigued that they simply wish the combatants would take their fighting somewhere else.

to the barricades?

which side are you on?

....yea, um, maybe later.

I love how both communism and capitalism simultaneously trend toward "oppression", "freedom", "stability" and "anarchy" depending upon the viewer.

I wonder how many thousands of ways those conditions can be defined?

Let's see, everyone has their own definition, and there are something like 6 billion of us on the planet....

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

I'm sure we will work this out soon.

While I don't dispute the findings, I can't imagine that companies would find america an attractive place to do business if the findings of Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW) were pursued by the government .

If WOW was taken seriously, the government could pursue the findings by mandating either higher wages or income redistribution through taxes (such as the Earned Income Tax Credit). If you are employer, you end up paying that one way or the other.

As a global entity, if it is going to cost me $42.5k to hire two workers for a year, I'll do as little business here as possible. I don't care if I have to pay the workers that directly, or if I have to pay the sum of that as a result of wages and taxes.

If I am a mere store owner, I'll just buy and resell as many products and service from overseas cheaper labor markets as possible.

In other words, if we participate in the global market place, those wages are not going to happen for anyone except the most skilled and/or lucky.

I'm explaining why poverty occurs. And stating that unless the US gets its act together it may need to define its definitions of poverty downward, not upward.

Yes, more productivity may need to be demanded from the poor, non-privileged, and/or hourly workers OR we may need to pay them less.

Unless a way is found to lower costs such as health care, raw materials, salaries to managerial and executive staff income, and/or dividends that must be paid to directors and shareholders.....

...companies often go after the wages of laborers.

(this why the phenomena that WOW describes is happening)

If a company can't lower one of the costs, they take as much of their business manufacturing and provision elsewhere.

A company has a set amount of money, if it can't hire enough skilled, fed, housed workers here for that money ....it goes elsewhere (such as China).

....and the US gets poorer. And things often become more expensive. And, predictably, WOW writes reports and how the workers have lost ground.

...some then use these reports to state that wages should be even higher!

And the business community says "What? You want me to stay here and you want a thriving economy, yet, you already don't compete. Your wages will continue to fall, and your costs may continue to increase, unless you find a way to be more attractive"

Basically, companies will unapologetically employ the lowest cost people who can do the job. They perceive this thing the government and WOW calls "quality of life" and "poverty" as relative concepts throughout the world, and important only if and when if it impacts their bottom line.

It is not merely you and I who disagree.

The business community perceives much of the US as being unable to see the reality.

....in turn, the US maintains its denial by simply borrowing to cover up the trade deficits.

Like has been said, the companies don't care which cost is cut. Go on, get investors to demand less dividends. ...Get directors to demand lower salaries.

Until then, the companies perceive the US as being in denial about the effect of globalization. ....and think of ever more clever ways to enjoy its benefits.

Boygabriel, the corollary to your example is that traditional upper middle class professional jobs are starting to be exported as well. Law firms now hire young lawyers in India for research and document review instead of employing armies of young attorneys on a temporary basis. Investment banks have started filling their analyst classes with Indian b-school grads who will work for $45k rather than $85k. The untethering of employees from their desks through increased usage of smartphones, tablets and wifi, etc will only speed up this process.

Its going to suck when a degree from Harvard Law or Wharton will not guarantee you a job domestically, but that day is coming quickly.