*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[spoonitnow]

What type of incentives and how do you fund them? I don't think I'm making this complicated. Moving people from their home is very complicated. Landlords sometimes have to pay out 6-figure sums to remove tenants from a rental when the house gets repurposed. You want to remove families from a city or a country, you bet it's going to be more expensive than that.

Again, you're making this much more complicated than it is. You're stuck on the idea of moving people instead of realizing that there's also the option of people moving themselves. Another way of framing it is that you're assuming that these people who would be moving do not want to move. Banana gave you one example in post #538.

[oskar]

Again, you're making this much more complicated than it is. You're stuck on the idea of moving people instead of realizing that there's also the option of people moving themselves. Another way of framing it is that you're assuming that these people who would be moving do not want to move. Banana gave you one example in post #538.

If you drive up the price of living, you are are targeting poor people of all ethnic groups. So, yes, this lowers diversity because on average black people in the US have lower economic standings. But you're also targeting poor white people. If you drive out poor people, you're going to see a net positive impact on quality of living in that area, but for one thing you are not targeting the underlying factors why these people have lower economic standings and arguably you are not solving the actual problem of poverty and rather just relocating it.

I think the important question then is why black people have lower economic standings.
My take on this is: let's say you take 100 novice poker players who are able to beat 100NL at 2bb/100. Start out 50 of them with a roll of 1k and 50 of them with a roll of $500. Which group would have a better chance of running their BR up to the point where they can beat variance?
I think this is a fair example because just a couple of generations ago people of color have been actively discriminated against in education and job opportunities, and while this gross injustice no longer exists, the effects of it still trickle down.

[spoonitnow]

If you drive up the price of living, you are are targeting poor people of all ethnic groups. So, yes, this lowers diversity because on average black people in the US have lower economic standings. But you're also targeting poor white people. If you drive out poor people, you're going to see a net positive impact on quality of living in that area, but for one thing you are not targeting the underlying factors why these people have lower economic standings and arguably you are not solving the actual problem of poverty and rather just relocating it.

We aren't trying to solve poverty in the problem you posed. We're trying to maximize the percentage of a particular ethnic group from a specific location as efficiently as possible. Stop moving the goal posts.

I think the important question then is why black people have lower economic standings.
My take on this is: let's say you take 100 novice poker players who are able to beat 100NL at 2bb/100. Start out 50 of them with a roll of 1k and 50 of them with a roll of $500. Which group would have a better chance of running their BR up to the point where they can beat variance?
I think this is a fair example because just a couple of generations ago people of color have been actively discriminated against in education and job opportunities, and while these gross injustice no longer exists, the effects of it still trickle down.

The number one factor to this question is the lack of the nuclear family. The number one predictor of basically every negative outcome in life is not having a present father. (Fun fact: Not having a present mother doesn't have nearly the same level of negative effects.)

[oskar]

We aren't trying to solve poverty in the problem you posed. We're trying to maximize the percentage of a particular ethnic group from a specific location as efficiently as possible. Stop moving the goal posts.

That's fair. I think my point still stands that the method used is still highly ineffective - we're talking about a couple of percentile points, and you're not solving a problem that is caused by diversity and rather by poverty.

The number one factor to this question is the lack of the nuclear family. The number one predictor of basically every negative outcome in life is not having a present father. (Fun fact: Not having a present mother doesn't have nearly the same level of negative effects.)

Why do you think black people are more likely to grow up without a father?

[spoonitnow]

Why do you think black people are more likely to grow up without a father?

I don't presume to know the root cause. However, a few relevant points:

1. Black people are more likely to grow up without a father than people of any other race in the United States, even when compared across poverty demographics. This is important to show that it's not caused specifically by poverty.
2. Black culture celebrates the nuclear family less than any other culture in the United States.
3. Any black figure who tries to promote nuclear family values is openly made fun of by the majority of black people.
4. Abortion kills more black people than any other cause and at a higher rate per capita than any other race in the United States. This illustrates an overwhelming lack of responsible birth control use, which could obviously be a factor. The root cause of #4 here is likely some combination of education and culture.

This topic is actually related to why I support the voucher system for public schools. I think it's much better than just tying school funding to local property values and gives black communities a much better chance at increasing the quality of their K-12 education.

Edit: Obligatory that's raaaacist.

[oskar]

I don't presume to know the root cause. However, a few relevant points:

1. Black people are more likely to grow up without a father than people of any other race in the United States, even when compared across poverty demographics. This is important to show that it's not caused specifically by poverty.
2. Black culture celebrates the nuclear family less than any other culture in the United States.
3. Any black figure who tries to promote nuclear family values is openly made fun of by the majority of black people.
4. Abortion kills more black people than any other cause and at a higher rate per capita than any other race in the United States. This illustrates an overwhelming lack of responsible birth control use, which could obviously be a factor. The root cause of #4 here is likely some combination of education and culture.

This topic is actually related to why I support the voucher system for public schools. I think it's much better than just tying school funding to local property values and gives black communities a much better chance at increasing the quality of their K-12 education.

Edit: Obligatory that's raaaacist.

I still don't see how that's a compelling reason for segregation. You said yourself that an absentee father is a greater indicator on a persons outlook in life than any other factors. If that's true, why would you advocate segregation based on another trait that loosely correlates with that trait? Wouldn't it be more effective to segregate based on family composition? Or let's say you want to reduce violence in a certain area. The vast majority of crimes are committed by people carrying a Y chromosome, so why not deport those people? I can see there could be some legitimate objections to gender or mutation based segregation, but there are also a number of behavioral phenotypes that are more indicative of a persons outlook in life than the phenotype related to melanin. Segregating based on those would be much more effective than segregation based on ethnicity.

[spoonitnow]

I still don't see how that's a compelling reason for segregation. You said yourself that an absentee father is a greater indicator on a persons outlook in life than any other factors. If that's true, why would you advocate segregation based on another trait that loosely correlates with that trait? Wouldn't it be more effective to segregate based on family composition? Or let's say you want to reduce violence in a certain area. The vast majority of crimes are committed by people carrying a Y chromosome, so why not deport those people? I can see there could be some legitimate objections to gender or mutation based segregation, but there are also a number of behavioral phenotypes that are more indicative of a persons outlook in life than the phenotype related to melanin. Segregating based on those would be much more effective than segregation based on ethnicity.

None of what you wrote has anything to do with why black people are less likely to grow up with a father (the question I was answering), and none of what I wrote has anything to do with segregation (the topic of your latest incoherent rant). I have no idea why you do this.

[wufwugy]

If you drive up the price of living, you are are targeting poor people of all ethnic groups.

If that is the effect of a policy, you are right. And I know that's what you meant.

I'm posting this as an add-on, because a frequent derivation of that concept is to do something like build "affordable housing." Here's Scott Sumner explaining how doing the opposite is what helps the poor. As usual, economic effects are counter-intuitive. Where building "unaffordable housing" might look like housing costs are increasing for the poor, it instead reduces the poor's housing costs.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...uld_focus.html

[spoonitnow]

If that is the effect of a policy, you are right. And I know that's what you meant.

I'm posting this as an add-on, because a frequent derivation of that concept is to do something like build "affordable housing." Here's Scott Sumner explaining how doing the opposite is what helps the poor. As usual, economic effects are counter-intuitive. Where building "unaffordable housing" might look like housing costs are increasing for the poor, it instead reduces the poor's housing costs.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...uld_focus.html

You better stop with all of that economics and math and logic and shit.

[wufwugy]

I think the important question then is why black people have lower economic standings.

I know of very few economists who touch this issue, and Thomas Sowell is one of the only who do. He claims that data show blacks had rising standards, and some standards even higher than whites, up until the wide adoption of welfare and similar policies like affirmative action. He accounts how black nuclear family rates survived slavery and Jim Crow and were higher than whites until they plummeted after welfare institution. He discusses how he grew up in a safe and prospering Harlem that today is destitute and crime-ridden.

I can probably source some interviews where he discusses these in more detail if you want.

[BananaStand]

I think the important question then is why black people have lower economic standings

This actually isn't a debate. this question already has an answer.

I'm not sure exactly what the number is, but US economics recognizes a level of income at which a person crosses "the poverty line". For simplicity, I'm going to refer to everyone below that line as "poor", and everyone above that line as "prosperous".

now here are the numbers.

90% of prosperous people share these three cultural traits.
1. They finished high school
2. They did not have a child before age 21.
3. They did not have their first child outside of marriage.

That's it. Do those three things, and you will not be poor. Conversely, 90 percent of poor people are missing one or more of those traits. So if black people are disproportionately poor. the answer probably lies somewhere on that list.

1. The high school graduation rate for black people is 69%. For white people, its' 86%
2. The teenage pregnancy rate among black people is 39 births per 1000. For white people, it's 19. LESS THAN HALF!!
3. 72% of black people are born to unwed mothers, compared to only 26% of white people. ALMOST A THIRD!!

You might say "but schools in black neighborhoods are bad..." FUCK YOU. This analysis makes no distinction for the quality of the school. Every child in America has access to public school. All they have to do is show up.

You might say "but fathers are absent because of racist policing, and mass-incarceration". FUCK YOU. Unless 70+% of black people are being conceived during conjugal visits, this is bullshit. If these guys are fucking....it means they're free men with the ability to work and provide for their family. If they shirk their parental responsibilities by engaging in highly risky illegal activities, that's simply called irresponsibility....not a symptom of white privilege.

So Lincoln freed the slaves 150 years ago, schools are open, and it's legal to buy condoms. Why are black people not prosperous?

It's pretty easy to see, as spoon pointed out, that an emphasis on education and a nuclear family would head off ALL of these problems. However, black culture seems to be rejecting that. I will bet a lung that more than two-thirds of black people who read this post would consider it racist.

But it's not racist. I'm just making a factual observation that black culture is broken.

1. Family failures are cyclical. Bad fathers breed bad fathers. Black fathers simply do not appreciate the impact of their absence since it's so common in their culture.

2. Black music, movies, and TV, are full of "thugs" and "pimps" who are glamorized. Drug dealing, street violence, and disrespect for women is actually GLORIFIED and this shit is fed to black kids all day every day.

3. Black leaders are not addressing the above two issues. Rather they decry any mention of them as racist. And as an alternate message, they are telling black citizens that the system is rigged against them. THIS DESTROYS MOTIVATION!! [Aside: Bernie Sanders is guilty of the same thing]. The Al Sharptons of the world have made a lucrative living making sure that black people grow up believing they will always be oppressed. Consequently, they don't try, and the self-fulfilling prophecy is complete

4. Black culture does not seem to emphasize education as much as other cultures do. Watch the NFL playoffs this weekend. Listen to the post-game interviews with black players. Listen to how bad their command of the english language is. And those guys are all college graduates! Imagine what theses guys would have to do with their lives if they weren't incredibly blessed with athletic talent.

[wufwugy]

3. 72% of black people are born to unwed mothers, compared to only 26% of white people. ALMOST A THIRD!!

This used to be reversed. Blacks used to have higher marriage rates. That was during the lives of our grandparents and back when Harlem was not a ghetto.

Related: Sheriff David Clarke:

[Savy]

What do you think this means?

If you're talking about fixing society then ye dur obviously but that means something different to everyone and doesn't really mean much. By the police understanding and developing their policy and action they can make huge differences and it's much more under their control.

This is the type of bullshit that people get behind in a way where like police being dicks to people in society is excused because they're trying to fix the problem and the people they are dealing with is the issue. It just isn't true.

[wufwugy]

What do you think this means?

If you're talking about fixing society then ye dur obviously but that means something different to everyone and doesn't really mean much. By the police understanding and developing their policy and action they can make huge differences and it's much more under their control.

This is the type of bullshit that people get behind in a way where like police being dicks to people in society is excused because they're trying to fix the problem and the people they are dealing with is the issue. It just isn't true.

I'm not a big fan of some of police culture. It could be fixed. The amount of problems it is causing and the value gained by attempts to fix it are minuscule in comparison to that of ghetto culture.

[CoccoBill]

90% of prosperous people share these three cultural traits.
1. They finished high school
2. They did not have a child before age 21.
3. They did not have their first child outside of marriage.

That's it. Do those three things, and you will not be poor.

Did you know that the leading cause of drowning is ice cream?

[BananaStand]

Did you know that the leading cause of drowning is ice cream?

Are you suggesting that I've got my facts wrong??

Well......you'd be right. Corrections in bold.

92% of prosperous people share these three cultural traits.
1. They finished high school
2. They did not have a child before age 20.
3. They did not have their first child outside of marriage.

That's it. Do those three things, and you will not be poor.

[spoonitnow]

Are you suggesting that I've got my facts wrong??

Well......you'd be right. Corrections in bold.

But but but mah causation.

[Savy]

But but but mah causation.

Do you really believe that opposite though.

Finishing highschool is an automatic bias in the sample. Even if you took a sample where everyone was equally able and then looked at those who graduated you'd find that bad things make people drop out and have a longer term effect on your life and people that don't face those issues graduate and are less likely to have those issues in the future. It's pretty self fulfilling.

The difference in life quality of those who barely miss out on graduating and those who barely graduate is actually pretty indifferent and that's with a pretty big bias in employment and opportunity to those who do graduate.

The bits about not having children is also interesting. The first point is that good schools in bad areas (which is surprisingly common) combats this. So that would imply that having kids, whilst an issue, isn't that big of a factor. It just turns out that when things are going well you're less likely to have children. This is also an effect which is seen throughout loads of different socioeconomic groups basically across the world.

The next is that, in the UK at least, asian cultures tend to have children at an earlier age and also have more children yet their success rates are also much better than both white and black people when comparing across poorer socioeconomic backgrounds. This has huge amounts to do with the culture that is around for dealing with these things. So once again it's more an effect of negatives than it is the cause of negatives.

You also find that black and ethnic pupils actually tend to do much much better whilst in the later years of education and the progress they make is amongst the best.

There is the affect of people from certain areas being forced to live in worst places and having less when it comes to immigration. This is true of a lot of people who immigrated however you tend to find that the people who have integrated the best in the society have the better results. Now there is an argument that this is down to what you do to intergrate and I agree however how easy it is to single you out as different plays a huge part. If you're 3rd generation Irish immigrant basically no one knows you aren't American, if you're third generation african-american they know you are different. It matters.

The ways you deal with it and how you approach it is a different thing but ignoring it's existence is rubbish.