(Jan 26, 2025 11:14 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Government trying to forcefully rebalance "redlining" is what led to the 2008 recession, as they threatened banks into subprime lending.
So you admit that redlining went on, but blame the 2008 recession on the attempt to correct it? That doesn't sound like a very good argument against trying to correct redlining. Should we have continued slavery because it wasn't economically beneficial to abolish it? Actually, as everyone knows, the collapse of the housing market is what caused the recession.
In that period, "redlining" was a misnomer (hence the scare quotes). Banks were not denying loans due to race/ethnicity. They were denying loans to high risks of defaulting on the debt. But the left is always so eager to attribute to immutable characteristics, like race or gender (to create victims they can farm for votes), they ignore the obvious facts that bad loan risks do not make the lenders money. IOW, they caused the Great Recession because they insisted there was racism where there was none. That's what social justice always does... more harm than what it seeks to address.
The collapse of the housing market was directly due to all the defaulting on home mortgages.
Quote:Quote:The gender pay gap is a thoroughly debunked myth, where proponents moronically fail to compare the same jobs and the hours worked (ignoring the difference in jobs men and women are interested in doing... where when done, women have a slight pay advantage).
No it isn't. The evidence for gender-based wage disparity is solid and irrefutable:
"Working women are paid less than working men. A large body of research accounts for, diagnoses, and investigates this “gender pay gap.” But this literature often becomes unwieldy for lay readers, and because pay gaps are political topics, ideological agendas often seep quickly into discussions.
This primer examines the evidence surrounding the gender pay gap, both in the literature and through our own data analyses. We will begin by explaining the different ways the gap is measured, and then go deeper into the data using hourly wages for our analyses,1 culling from extensive national and regional surveys of wages, educational attainment, and occupational employment.
Summary
Why different measures don’t mean the data are unreliable
A number of figures are commonly used to describe the gender wage gap. One often-cited statistic comes from the Census Bureau, which looks at annual pay of full-time workers. By that measure, women are paid 80 cents for every dollar men are paid. Another measure looks at hourly pay and does not exclude part-time workers. It finds that, relative to men, typical women are paid 83 cents on the dollar.2 Other, less-cited measures show different gaps because they examine the gap at different parts of the wage distribution, or for different demographic subgroups, or are adjusted for factors such as education level and occupation.
The presence of alternative ways to measure the gap can create a misconception that data on the gender wage gap are unreliable. However, the data on the gender wage gap are remarkably clear and (unfortunately) consistent about the scale of the gap. In simple terms, no matter how you measure it, there is a gap. And, different gaps answer different questions. By discussing the data and the rationale behind these seemingly contradictory measures of the wage gap, we hope to improve the discourse around the gender wage gap."---- https://www.epi.org/publication/what-is-...s-it-real/
Who said the data was unreliable? I literally just said that it fails to compare the exact same jobs or the hours worked. If you can manage to read your own citation, you'll notice how neither is mentioned. They do mention occupation, but there are many different job titles and pay scales within any occupation... even with the same education level.
These lefty academics are as out of touch with the real world as those who had to do a study to find out that fat girls get less dates.
Quote:Quote:The rebalance of law enforcement has led to a crime surge and under-policing (in those very "poor and crime-ridden neighborhoods" that your single mothers live in).
Cite your sources and show how this was caused by working to eliminate racial profiling.
It's a direct result of all the BLM rioting, prosecuting police officers for doing their jobs, attempts to "defund the police," etc., etc.. The overreaction against all police to isolated real racism has made officers gun-shy about doing their jobs in neighborhoods of certain demographics... even the officers of the same race as that neighborhood, as they get accused of internalized racism. Again, the left insisted things were racist, due to supposed "disproportional" injured by police, by like the gender pay gap, they fail (or outright refuse) to account for the higher crime rate in different demographics and the subsequently higher interactions with police.
So again, the social justice "solution" made the problems worse.
Quote:Quote:That's a recipe for a race to the bottom, as you disincentivize merit and hard work. Booker T. Washington had it right
That would be great in a perfect society. Unfortunately we live in one where there exists classes of people who have greater disadvantages and more obstacles blocking access to jobs and housing and education and healthcare and these inequalities need to be remedied. The very fact that you earlier called these classes of the oppressed "losers" shows the persistence of these disadvantages in white prejudice and discrimination based on racism and sexism. So claiming the system is fair and should be based on merit is a lie perpetrated to continue depriving marginalized minorities of being helped out of their disadvantages. It is prejudicial treatment denied to even be happening in order to sustain its systemic continuation.
There are tons of people, from every sort of demographic and disadvantage who succeed every day. Many of their disadvantages are created or maintained by the social justice left. See the increased crime rates in their neighborhoods, the predatory loans to objectively bad loan risks, the victim/oppressed narrative, welfare, etc..
Again, your tenuous grasp of the English language fails you. I never said actual oppressed people were losers. I said, "Social justice is just the losers demanding the capable and hard working take care of them." The losers are those who fail because they do not work hard, do not develop marketable skills, etc.. Among the social justice morons, this can include everything from someone with a gender studies degree who can't find work to someone who chooses to sell drugs rather than start building a legit work history.
Social justice is an excuse for bad choice. It is not society's responsibility to protect you from your own bad choices.