|
|
 Originally Posted by spoonitnow
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.
|
Reply With Quote