Majority Of White Americans Say They Face Discrimination

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic

See but I think you are not thinking through your claims here.

You claim institutional discrimination hurts minorities and women.

Then you cite the legal system.

Men are arrested more, convicted more, suffer more violence from police, have longer sentences And have far worse conditions in jail than women.

In fact, the difference in treatment in these areas between men and women is far greater than between black and white.

So I guess you are admitting, men suffer from rampant institutional discrimination.

Men are more violent than women and commit much more crime than women.

This is not a surprising fact to anyone who has paid any attention to anything in human history.

a reply to: Greven

I think his point was that just because your demographic suffers more under x, y or z statistic doesn't necessarily mean there's systemic discrimination going on. Clearly there is some gender discrimination with police, I mean it's common knowledge women get out of tickets easier, they even brag about it. But for violent crime, men just commit more, so they get arrested more. It's not discrimination. As you said it's just kind of a fact of nature.

That being said, what other statistics have underlying explanations besides discrimination?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Looks like people are buying into the racial divide that's being fueled by the media.

White people discriminated against? Lol. Name 5 black CEO's of Fortune 500 companies. Wait, you can't because there are only 4 of them.

But your point about CEOs doesn't preclude individual white people experiencing a discriminatory situation. You do realize that right?

Or did you buy into the social justice dogma that the only discrimination or racism possible is systematic or institutionalized?

I've experienced a few discriminatory situations working in a few NGOs and my current government office.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

Could you run the business without dumping the trash and mowing the lawn??

Who creates jobs? The guy dumping the trash or the CEO? I'm not saying these jobs are not needed, bad etc...

Could you run a buisness if everyone showed up but the CEO??

Not for long.... Stockholders are not nice and do not take failure very well, there is a reason they pay leadership what they pay...

You take a CEO and many times it is like signing an all star sports player. They have the potential, but they do not always meet that potential and in both cases they leave. To get that all star in either case you need to offer what it would take to get them. I want to see Curry go to a team for 500k per year to be one with the popcorn seller.

Obviously the prices we have set for labor are arbitrary...

Well no they are not. There is a max of what you are willing to pay someone to wash your car before you just do it yourself or don't wash it at all. If you sell donuts and you sell 30 dollars per hour I can't pay you 35 per hour to sell them, so every job has a worth of what that job provides to the company, though I do agree almost all jobs are valuable to the company.

What is obvious is if you cut the pay of your all star team and spread it across everyone else it doesn't come out to what people think it should be.

If not then teachers and great mothers and fathers make the most money.. since those are the most important jobs.

I do think teachers should make more and that we have an educational system of too many jobs in it that do not teach but make the most money. I'm not saying that there are not areas that are not screwed up, but it is not a blanketed: People are getting screwed because CEOs make too much.

When it comes to mother and fathers...if you have children it is your responsibility to be "good" and pay has nothing to do with it. Its your choice to have kids it is your responsibility to be good....

originally posted by: openminded2011

originally posted by: Maroboduus

originally posted by: Butterfinger
I remember race relations were a hell of a lot better 8 years ago before something happened...

Yes. Before a bunch of racist idiots got upset about having a black president and suddenly felt that their dominance was threatened. Good job for noticing.

That's really NONSENSE. Barack Obama would NEVER have gotten elected without the white vote, which he got in droves. I voted TWICE for Barack Obama, before you accuse me of being a racist idiot. And when he did get elected, instead of EVER trying to bring the people together of all races, he turned out to be one of the most racially divisive presidents we ever had. THAT is what happened, over 8 years he never missed out on a chance to demean those very same white people who elected him, and empower racist blacks to hate whites openly. Its called BETRAYAL, not racism. Now I have a question for you, Obama had a white mother but only EVER identified as being black, WHY?

Answer: y'all call him black so...

Question for you: can you actually cite instances he was 'racially divisive' to help your point?

originally posted by: SR1TX
He is 68...

It has nothing to do with his color. Sorry.

I am half white/half hispanic..I am also a business man.

I can tell you with 100% certainty there is no such thing as discrimination based on color or how you look.

It has everything to do with how you present yourself and how you carry yourself around others.

This is bullocks.

The color of your skin is part of your presentation.

What you are actually describing is the fact that "in some local environments" your color of skin doesn't matter.

So, you personally haven't experienced it as an issue for you.

This is also a true reality for many people in various local environments where they happen to live.

So, travel a bit.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: SR1TX
He is 68...

It has nothing to do with his color. Sorry.

I am half white/half hispanic..I am also a business man.

I can tell you with 100% certainty there is no such thing as discrimination based on color or how you look.

It has everything to do with how you present yourself and how you carry yourself around others.

This is bullocks.

The color of your skin is part of your presentation.

What you are actually describing is the fact that "in some local environments" your color of skin doesn't matter.

So, you personally haven't experienced it as an issue for you.

This is also a true reality for many people in various local environments where they happen to live.

So, travel a bit.

The color of your skin is only part of your presentation to racists. You know, the kind of people who think "We should hire this black guy because we don't have enough black people on our staff". Those racists. To most of us it's irrelevant, we're just interested in whether you're qualified for the job and whether you seem like a professional and decent person.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Greven

I think his point was that just because your demographic suffers more under x, y or z statistic doesn't necessarily mean there's systemic discrimination going on. Clearly there is some gender discrimination with police, I mean it's common knowledge women get out of tickets easier, they even brag about it. But for violent crime, men just commit more, so they get arrested more. It's not discrimination. As you said it's just kind of a fact of nature.

That being said, what other statistics have underlying explanations besides discrimination?

Statistically, one can say that men are more violent than women and commit more violent crime than women, simply because there are vastly fewer women who do this sort of thing. It's harder to go elsewhere, though - part of it is because people misunderstand the FBI crime statistics and claim that the numbers say something they do not.

Homicide is the most-cleared form of crime, but only about 2/3rds of homicides are ever cleared. Note that 'cleared' doesn't mean convicted, but that someone was charged with the crime or the person they would charge with the crime has since died. This leaves just over 1/3rd of all homicides not cleared - no suspect at all. For example, you can't say that, statistically-speaking, black men commit more murder than white men because of that 34% missing figure.

You can say that black men were charged (dead or alive) with murder more than white men were. It just leaves out a lot of the story. Additionally, charges don't always stick; about 70% of murder charges result in a conviction (though black men are convicted at higher rates than white men, let's suppose it's equal for the math bit below). There's also a history of black men being charged with crimes they didn't commit at higher rates than whites, but we can ignore that for our purposes.

Suppose 1000 homicides occurred. 340 are not cleared. Of the 660 that are cleared, black men are charged 343 times, and white men are charged 317 times. 240 black men are convicted of murder, and 222 white men are convicted of murder.

Now we have black men convicted of 240 murders, and white men convicted of 222 murders. We can't say black men commit more murders because we only have 462 of the 1000 total homicides. There are 538 murders not accounted for here, and there is no validity in splitting the unsolved murders down the line due to the huge unknown factor in uncleared homicides.

Those 538 murders could be from black men, or could be from white men, but are more likely to be from some proportion of each. We don't know, and we cannot say.

a reply to: Greven

Yeah I get all that. What I'm saying is that just because group A is charged at higher rates than group B, or convicted or whatever other statistic you want to use, that doesn't prove group A is being discriminated against. The male vs. female violent crime rates is an example of this. No one believes cops are out there arresting men because they're men. They're not being discriminated against. They're actually just committing more violent crime. There are other reasons why they are arrested more besides discrimination.

People will just say blacks are convicted at higher rates and present that like it's proof of discrimination, and it's not.

a reply to: Grambler

I like to tell people how I've never experienced racism (I'm half mexican but basically look white) until I moved to the liberal San Francisco bay area...I got yelled at, called a cracker, whitey and everything else, I got told to check my privilege and that I was a part of the "problem." I had La Raza members in my church who treated me like dirt and talked about how they straight up hated white people. My wife (who is white) grew up in the bay and when she started going to college she got treated like dirt by other people because she is white.

This is what I think on this topic.

There is a lot more discrimination and bigotry in this country than what the Main Stream Media and Entertainment industry has decided to capitalize on.

MSM and E are not wrong when they highlight their current pet discrimination; Blacks, Hispanics, Woman and LGBTQ+ face discrimination on a daily bases and their plight does need to be addressed.

MSM and E are wrong when they completely ignore all other forms of discrimination. For example in the OP I suspect that ageism has a lot to do with the fact that the guy can not find a job. But do we ever hear stories about ageisum? The elderly are paired upon on a daily bases, are the targets of abuse and are stolen from regularly. But theirs is not "cool" to the MSM and E and so does not sell ad space and so gets no air time.

When was the last time you heard a story about discrimination against the disabled? By far the most istitutionalized discriminated against group in this country, and more importantly the whole world. It's so bad that even when you read reports trying to be inclusive to groups facing discrimination the disabled seem to be left out.

3NL1GHT3N3D1 is right when (s)he says these White people are watching to much TV. TV is certainly destorting how we preseave and deal with discrimination in this country.

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose
a reply to: Grambler

I like to tell people how I've never experienced racism (I'm half mexican but basically look white) until I moved to the liberal San Francisco bay area...I got yelled at, called a cracker, whitey and everything else, I got told to check my privilege and that I was a part of the "problem." I had La Raza members in my church who treated me like dirt and talked about how they straight up hated white people. My wife (who is white) grew up in the bay and when she started going to college she got treated like dirt by other people because she is white.

I grew up in a district of PA that tends to vote Dem. Then while I was in the Air Force I lived in North Carolina for 7 years. Guess where I saw more racism. My liberal hometown in PA by far. Military town in North Carolina? I honestly don't remember seeing one instance, and that was much more recent.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
This is what I think on this topic.

There is a lot more discrimination and bigotry in this country than what the Main Stream Media and Entertainment industry has decided to capitalize on.

MSM and E are not wrong when they highlight their current pet discrimination; Blacks, Hispanics, Woman and LGBTQ+ face discrimination on a daily bases and their plight does need to be addressed.

MSM and E are wrong when they completely ignore all other forms of discrimination. For example in the OP I suspect that ageism has a lot to do with the fact that the guy can not find a job. But do we ever hear stories about ageisum? The elderly are paired upon on a daily bases, are the targets of abuse and are stolen from regularly. But theirs is not "cool" to the MSM and E and so does not sell ad space and so gets no air time.

When was the last time you heard a story about discrimination against the disabled? By far the most istitutionalized discriminated against group in this country, and more importantly the whole world. It's so bad that even when you read reports trying to be inclusive to groups facing discrimination the disabled seem to be left out.

3NL1GHT3N3D1 is right when (s)he says these White people are watching to much TV. TV is certainly destroying how we preseave and deal with discrimination in this country.

If anyone's got a distorted view of reality from the media, this post of yours is full of it. About the only thing you said that's accurate is how disabled and elderly people are discriminated against, but that's thankfully starting to improve.

a reply to: AnonymousMoose

Aren't you the second person who has talked about this kind of problem on the west coast?

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: DanDanDat
This is what I think on this topic.

There is a lot more discrimination and bigotry in this country than what the Main Stream Media and Entertainment industry has decided to capitalize on.

MSM and E are not wrong when they highlight their current pet discrimination; Blacks, Hispanics, Woman and LGBTQ+ face discrimination on a daily bases and their plight does need to be addressed.

MSM and E are wrong when they completely ignore all other forms of discrimination. For example in the OP I suspect that ageism has a lot to do with the fact that the guy can not find a job. But do we ever hear stories about ageisum? The elderly are paired upon on a daily bases, are the targets of abuse and are stolen from regularly. But theirs is not "cool" to the MSM and E and so does not sell ad space and so gets no air time.

When was the last time you heard a story about discrimination against the disabled? By far the most istitutionalized discriminated against group in this country, and more importantly the whole world. It's so bad that even when you read reports trying to be inclusive to groups facing discrimination the disabled seem to be left out.

3NL1GHT3N3D1 is right when (s)he says these White people are watching to much TV. TV is certainly destroying how we preseave and deal with discrimination in this country.

If anyone's got a distorted view of reality from the media, this post of yours is full of it. About the only thing you said that's accurate is how disabled and elderly people are discriminated against, but that's thankfully starting to improve.

What's that now? What did I say that was incorrect?

a reply to: DanDanDat

I think the amount of discrimination and type of it is likely to be dependent on where you are in the country as much as anything else along with what you are doing.

Try being on a team sport and being discriminatory. If you are, if your team operates that way, you won't be very successful for very long as you go up in levels. You quickly learn that in order to keep winning, you have to be willing to play the best or at least the combination of the best players who work best together. Try discriminating based on race and you're overlooking potential talent no matter which race we're talking about.

The military is another place that isn't supposed to support that kind of attitude for long.

Various regions of the country have different levels and types of discrimination or prevalence of it.

I think it gets hard to just point a finger and say X is racist or discriminatory while Y is not.

a reply to: DanDanDat

People of color, women and LGBT don't face daily discrimination. Get out of your bubble. Most of the country is long past that kind of crap. It's only being kept alive in select circles that need it for votes and fundraising.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

Could you run the business without dumping the trash and mowing the lawn??

Who creates jobs? The guy dumping the trash or the CEO? I'm not saying these jobs are not needed, bad etc...

Could you run a buisness if everyone showed up but the CEO??

Not for long.... Stockholders are not nice and do not take failure very well, there is a reason they pay leadership what they pay...

You take a CEO and many times it is like signing an all star sports player. They have the potential, but they do not always meet that potential and in both cases they leave. To get that all star in either case you need to offer what it would take to get them. I want to see Curry go to a team for 500k per year to be one with the popcorn seller.

Obviously the prices we have set for labor are arbitrary...

Well no they are not. There is a max of what you are willing to pay someone to wash your car before you just do it yourself or don't wash it at all. If you sell donuts and you sell 30 dollars per hour I can't pay you 35 per hour to sell them, so every job has a worth of what that job provides to the company, though I do agree almost all jobs are valuable to the company.

What is obvious is if you cut the pay of your all star team and spread it across everyone else it doesn't come out to what people think it should be.

If not then teachers and great mothers and fathers make the most money.. since those are the most important jobs.

I do think teachers should make more and that we have an educational system of too many jobs in it that do not teach but make the most money. I'm not saying that there are not areas that are not screwed up, but it is not a blanketed: People are getting screwed because CEOs make too much.

When it comes to mother and fathers...if you have children it is your responsibility to be "good" and pay has nothing to do with it. Its your choice to have kids it is your responsibility to be good....

CEOs don't create jobs.

Business needs create jobs.

You don't hire more people for a single cash register if that register is sufficient; if you need an additional register, then you would hire someone to cover that.

Suppose you worked at some contracting company; your job might hinge on whether or not the contractor lands a big contract. Another company might win a contract instead, then they suddenly need more people to get the job done; otherwise, they might be penalized by the contract terms.

Suppose some popular media decides to mention your product, and suddenly you get a whole lot of business - now you need more people and didn't even have to do anything to get the business.

Suppose a CEO wants to expand into another location, opening new facility. As a consequence of the expansion, more people are needed in order to run said facility. Yes, the CEO's action led to jobs, but they only appeared because of the needs of the business. If they were able to expand and not change their workforce, they would gladly do that instead.

Here's the other thing - what drives these business needs? The pursuit of money.

Suppose you have a toy store (or stores); the CEO is only ever going to buy so many toys. His or her money is not going to be going back to the business for the most part. Employees would buy toys as gifts for children to some extent, which would return money to the business. Mostly, non-employees would buy toys for kids as well.

Let's say the CEO earns the typical U.S. ratio of 300% the average employee makes. Suppose we have $10 million going in, and the toy store(s) pays about 30% of income to their workforce. So, they have $3 million in payroll and the CEO gets $1 million. Let's say when all is said and done, the average employee earns $35k. The company supports 57 employees and the CEO with this sort of budget, and needs to do $28k a day in sales (after taxes) to meet its $10 million. Let's suppose sold toys average out to $28 each over 1000 sold per day.

Each employee might buy several toys a year (they work at toy stores partly of love) for their kids or others' kids, including the CEO. Let's say they buy a lot of toys on average - about100 a year, for $2800 per employee, or $162,400 of the $10 million annual income. The CEO might even buy more toys; suppose he or she bought $5600 in toys in a typical year. Yet, the portion of income is far lower; less than 1% of income spent back on the business, where the rest of the employees are spending an average of $2,750 - equal to 7.8% of their pay.

So here's the thing - if you increased the CEO's pay, he or she might buy more toys... but it would likely be more than offset by a decline in workers' spending as they could no longer afford to buy as many toys. Now, in this example, only 1.6% of the company's income comes from its employees, so most of it is from people employed at other companies.

The thing is, the same applies to those people, too. If they don't earn as much one year to the next, overall demand will fall. If their earnings go to the CEO, that CEO is not going to buy enough to offset the decline in goods. You only need so many of a good before you stop buying it; you don't buy dozens of TVs because you get a pay raise.

In reality, it is the guy dumping trash - who has money to spend to buy things - that creates jobs. That guy and the thousands of other men and women like him. They have the money businesses want. They are why businesses expand and create jobs.

Can CEOs spend extravagantly to offset their income?
Sure, but they tend to save or (more likely) invest money, rather than spending it.

Money makes the world go 'round, but CEOs don't tend to grease the wheels very much. If they spent it, they wouldn't have it anymore - and you know how important net worth is for those guys and gals.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: DanDanDat

People of color, women and LGBT don't face daily discrimination. Get out of your bubble. Most of the country is long past that kind of crap. It's only being kept alive in select circles that need it for votes and fundraising.

Oh ok thanks for the info.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DanDanDat

I think the amount of discrimination and type of it is likely to be dependent on where you are in the country as much as anything else along with what you are doing.

Try being on a team sport and being discriminatory. If you are, if your team operates that way, you won't be very successful for very long as you go up in levels. You quickly learn that in order to keep winning, you have to be willing to play the best or at least the combination of the best players who work best together. Try discriminating based on race and you're overlooking potential talent no matter which race we're talking about.

The military is another place that isn't supposed to support that kind of attitude for long.

Various regions of the country have different levels and types of discrimination or prevalence of it.

I think it gets hard to just point a finger and say X is racist or discriminatory while Y is not.

I would agree with what you have said.

My issue is that there are forms of discrimation that are almost universally ignored.