Why Poor Whites Vote Against Their Interests

[NatMorton]

OK- maybe this might be an area of common ground.

But corporations left free would not move in that direction if left alone- because naturally the wealthiest are also going to have the most education, connections, resources, even bribes and kickbacks-for there to be any incentive to do that. Those born into circumstances which do not offer them such advantages would have very low chance of being able to break out of it and realize their potentials- where we could all benefit. Such optical outcomes would require some outside intervention.

So this is another example of how fairness, opportunities, and best long-term outcomes for all don’t just happen magically by leaving everything free.

Are you OK with any interventions into that kind of freedom?

I would not oppose it. It might not be exactly how I would do it, but handicaping for financial background is certainly not illegal.

And since you're likely to ask what I would do, this is what I actually do in my professional life. I work to make sure I and my hiring managers have as diverse a pipeline of candidates as we reasonably can, and from there we hire the best candidate, period.

FWIW, I and my team have, by far, the best track record in our company hiring diverse talent over the last several years, and we accomplish that without aiming for it. With a diverse pipeline, the law of averages works in diversity's favor.

 

[Bullseye]

FWIW, I and my team have, by far, the best track record in our company hiring diverse talent over the last several years, and we accomplish that without aiming for it. With a diverse pipeline, the law of averages works in diversity's favor.

If the candidate pool is both diverse AND equally talented, knowledgable and motivated that works.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

I work to make sure I and my hiring managers have as diverse a pipeline of candidates as we reasonably can

How do you do that?

 

[NatMorton]

If the candidate pool is both diverse AND equally talented, knowledgable and motivated that works.

At that point, selecting applicants via a random lottery works better. Over time, and with enough selections, you are guaranteed to get a selected pool of applicants that matches whatever percentage of disadvantage-ness was in your pool.

 

[Fledermaus]

Student of Economics...became aware of 'who creates our money and how do they do it?', the legal nature of money, some history, etc., some 30 years ago.

Are you familiar with any of the following?: Steve Zarlenga, Bill Still, Stephen Goodson, G. Edward Griffin, Ellen Brown, The Alliance For Just Money, etc.?

In some ways money is 'the great scoreboard of life'... is it too much to ask that the scoring system be widely understood, egalitarian, PUBLIC, etc. and not esoteric, privileged/elitist, and largely PRIVATE etc.. Don't you think?

Btw, people blathering about DEI and many many other stinking things are blathering essentially about money...hopefully they can at least admit that...

Steve Zarlenga wants too centralize banks to include the Federal Reserve banks. Do you approve?

G. Edward Griffin? Really? The guy that believes chemtrails exist over LA and that cancer is a nutritional deficiency curable by consuming amygdalin?

 

[NatMorton]

How do you do that?

You make extra calls to recruiting agencies. You share your job opportunity with professional affinity groups, i.e. networking groups of women or minorities. You work your professional network.

Diverse talent is out there. It sometimes just takes an extra effort to get it into your pipeline.

 

[roberthughey]

Why do poor whites vote against their own interests?

Lyndon Johnson once stated:

“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”​

This statement is as true now as it was then. Corporations and their rich overlords want to maintain their power and wealth. In order to do that they must offer (through their politicians and media) 'social status.' You may be poor, but at least you aren't these black cityfolk! Or these immigrants! Or these queerfolk! And by the way... those groups are the real threats to society. Let corporate media distract you with black violence porn and scary anecdotes of bearded transwomen leering at your daughter in the public bathroom. Never mind the corporations and rich siphoning off wealth and security from workers. Never mind them whittling away union power. Sure, right-populists may take notice, and may not be too happy about it. But, in the end, it's all worth it if those 'others' get punished.

Until we acknowledge the problem it will continue to fester.

There voting against your interests.

 

[Bullseye]

At that point, selecting applicants via a random lottery works better. Over time, and with enough selections, you are guaranteed to get a selected pool of applicants that matches whatever percentage of disadvantage-ness was in your pool.

I agree. Assuming candidates are equally acceptable in regard to job requirements a random draw is as good as any way of selection.

 

[Parker_Chess]

It's purely cultural issues they are voting for. And they've been duped into thinking the fiscal policies will help them and their families.

Trump and the Republicans are the party for the
billionaires. It's been this way for a long time now. Now Dems conpitulate this as well. Make no mistake about it but they are still far better than the Republicans who are bought.

 

[ataraxia]

I would not oppose it. It might not be exactly how I would do it, but handicaping for financial background is certainly not illegal.

And since you're likely to ask what I would do, this is what I actually do in my professional life. I work to make sure I and my hiring managers have as diverse a pipeline of candidates as we reasonably can, and from there we hire the best candidate, period.

FWIW, I and my team have, by far, the best track record in our company hiring diverse talent over the last several years, and we accomplish that without aiming for it. With a diverse pipeline, the law of averages works in diversity's favor.

Sure. That’s YOUR job.

But the job of a competent government is to make sure that as many people as possible have a fair shot at developing their potential to become a good candidate for your company in the first place. That creates a win-win cycle for everybody: for you, for them, and for the rest of us in our society.

Of course, another job of a competent government is to ensure some fairness and justice in society. But I know those concepts are becoming increasingly dirty words and falling out of fashion these days, I can’t imagine that they would carry much weight with you, so I’m not going to try to bother to get too much into that topic.

 

[NatMorton]

Sure. That’s YOUR job.

But the job of a competent government is to make sure that as many people as possible have a fair shot at developing their potential to become a good candidate for your company in the first place. That creates a win-win cycle for everybody: for you, for them, and for the rest of us in our society.

Of course, another job of a competent government is to ensure some fairness and justice in society. But I know those concepts are becoming increasingly dirty words and falling out of fashion these days, I can’t imagine that they would carry much weight with you, so I’m not going to try to bother to get too much into that topic.

Which brings us back to the point. Yes, you can argue that government has an obligation to foster fairness. I may even agree with you about that, but what the US government cannot legally do is fulfil that obligation through the use of racial discrimination, even if that discrimination is done with the best of of intentions.

The best way eliminate all forms of racial discrimination is to go to a purely merit based system. If some groups are coming up short on merit, therein lies the problem to be fixed.

 

[ataraxia]

Which brings us back to the point. Yes, you can argue that government has an obligation to foster fairness. I may even agree with you about that, but what the US government cannot legally do is fulfil that obligation through the use of racial discrimination, even if that discrimination is done with the best of of intentions.

The best way eliminate all forms of racial discrimination is to go to a purely merit based system. If some groups are coming up short on merit, therein lies the problem to be fixed.

But merit is based on education and experience, and education and experience in turn are based on investments in developing those things. Merit is not something genetic or innate.

That’s why I liked your idea that it be based on family resources better.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

Steve Zarlenga wants too centralize banks to include the Federal Reserve banks. Do you approve?

G. Edward Griffin? Really? The guy that believes chemtrails exist over LA and that cancer is a nutritional deficiency curable by consuming amygdalin?

^^^

Steve Zarlenga wanted the PUBLIC TREASURY to issue money not a cartel of PRIVATE COMMERCIAL BANKS like it is now..

G. Edward Griffin is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar ahead of you as to the subject of money...

"...The first thing, you must put the Federal Reserve into the US Treasury. Second thing, you must stop the private banks from creating money..."

Transcript: talks with Stephen Zarlenga about money, his American Monetary Act, 11 May 2009

Thom Hartmann talks with Stephen Zarlenga, 11 May 2009 Thom Hartmann: Well, a trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon, to badly paraphrase the late great senator from, was it Illinois? Stephen Zarlenga: Illinois? Thom Hartmann: Yeah. Stephen Zarlenga: Dirksen.

www.thomhartmann.com

 

[H. E. Panqui]

But merit is based on education and experience, and education and experience in turn are based on investments in developing those things. Merit is not something genetic or innate.

That’s why I liked your idea that it be based on family resources better.

'Merit' is SUBJECTIVE.. In any sane decent non-authoritarian society the owner(s) of the business will make all decisions about who they hire, fire, etc., not legislatures full of village idiots/Republicrat-level shit puppet$..

 

[Fledermaus]

^^^

Steve Zarlenga wanted the PUBLIC TREASURY to issue money not a cartel of PRIVATE COMMERCIAL BANKS like it is now..

G. Edward Griffin is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar ahead of you as to the subject of money...

"...The first thing, you must put the Federal Reserve into the US Treasury. Second thing, you must stop the private banks from creating money..."

Transcript: talks with Stephen Zarlenga about money, his American Monetary Act, 11 May 2009

Thom Hartmann talks with Stephen Zarlenga, 11 May 2009 Thom Hartmann: Well, a trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon, to badly paraphrase the late great senator from, was it Illinois? Stephen Zarlenga: Illinois? Thom Hartmann: Yeah. Stephen Zarlenga: Dirksen.

www.thomhartmann.com

Steve Zarlenga wants to centralize banks to include the Federal Reserve banks.

Do you approve?

G. Edward Griffin is a conspiracy theorist.

 

[ataraxia]

'Merit' is SUBJECTIVE.. In any sane decent non-authoritarian society the owner(s) of the business will make all decisions about who they hire, fire, etc., not legislatures full of village idiots/Republicrat-level shit puppet$..

OK. But surely you agree that if more people have the opportunity to get educated and develop their potentials, there will be more people with merit in that society, however you define it, and we will all be better for it. Don’t you think?

 

[JoeB131]

But we don't see the rightwing up in arms about the bolded, do we? We only see them get up in arms about diversity quotas. That is telling.

We don't see the left wing up in arms about them, either.

And here's the thing. I didn't go to some fancy Ivy League school. I went to a state college, paid for it by joining the National Guard, and just got on with my life.

The reason why anyone cares who gets into Harvard or Yale is that we've given these colleges an outsized role in business and government. Which means that some DEI admission would have no problem getting into UIC, if they really wanted to, but getting into Harvard is important to the people who want to change the power structure in this country.

 

[ataraxia]

We don't see the left wing up in arms about them, either.

And here's the thing. I didn't go to some fancy Ivy League school. I went to a state college, paid for it by joining the National Guard, and just got on with my life.

The reason why anyone cares who gets into Harvard or Yale is that we've given these colleges an outsized role in business and government. Which means that some DEI admission would have no problem getting into UIC, if they really wanted to, but getting into Harvard is important to the people who want to change the power structure in this country.

The reason Harvard and Yale play such an outsized role in business and government is that all the wealthy and powerful parents who can afford to send their kids there, do- so their kids will meet the kids of other wealthy powerful people, connect with other wealthy and powerful alumni, and develop networks. Developing networks is the main reason to go to those schools. Otherwise, anyone can just pick up a book and read it and listen to Youtube lectures on any topic they like.

Why Are Ivy League Schools So Prestigious?

The Ivy League schools are a group of eight prestigious private colleges and universities located in the Northeastern region of the US.

collegeaftermath.com

Ivy League Alumni Network Benefits | Ivy Coach

Where you go to college has a life long impact. Learn some of the critical benefits of the Ivy League network.

www.ivycoach.com

This is just a continuation of the same theme: rich people get richer, and poor people get poorer, and middle class people stay middle class.

If you want a society with some opportunity for social mobility, you will give everyone a chance at this. Otherwise, it's just aristocracy propogating aristocracy.

 

[JoeB131]

And if society is super racist or antisemitic they should be rewarded for it, right?

We aren't talking about "society", we are talking about a private business being forced to hire on a quota system to appease the DEI Gods.

Their company, their rules.

My current boss asks, "Cubs or Sox," as an interview question. I don't know if he seriously rejects anyone who answers "Sox", but he has every right to do so.

But he's the one who took the risks, started the company, made the hard decisions, etc.

Government is not forcing diversity quotas upon private corporations. If the corp has a contract with the govt there might be some rules they have to follow (idk the specifics on that one) but it's the corp's choice to get into business with the govt in the first place.

Sure they are. Besides the fact the government is so intrusive you can't really avoid them, current laws are written in such a way that companies are automatically on the defensive.

Why do you think companies gather all that EEO data during interviews?

There is no question that children born to poverty and low education households are more likely to go on to fail educationally- but do better when those opportunities are provided. Is it any wonder that wealthy families are so eager to get private tutoring, elite college prep schools, etc, … for their kids? Opportunity matters. Why do you think family and social background have no bearing on a child’s ability to succeed?

I'm sure it does.
Life isn't fair.
Trump and Bush are idiots, but they are privileged idiots.

I work as an educator in a public high school in one of the more liberal areas of my blue state. It should be pretty obvious our hiring staff love to hire ethnic minorities. And still, we have majority white staff (with a student base about as diverse as it gets). Do you see no benefit of hiring an ethnically diverse staff? With everything else being equal on the resumes, do you not see the benefit of my school hiring a Hispanic or black man over another white man/woman?

I see the benefit of hiring the most qualified person, period. Diversity isn't about hiring the best person, it's about trying to balance the scales. And when you got to the absurdity of Havard excluding very qualified Asian applicants to admit more less qualified black applicants, then something seriously went wrong with the system.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

OK. But surely you agree that if more people have the opportunity to get educated and develop their potentials, there will be more people with merit in that society, however you define it, and we will all be better for it. Don’t you think?

Of course... One problem is an anachronistic, EXPENSIVE government-run system..

For example we could all be partaking the best lecturers/experts/etc. via video/audio at a fraction of today's dinosaur system..It seems to me any 'educational institution' that receives money from any government should be making all lectures, etc., EASY to access online, etc., and inexpensive to the citizens...

Btw, why don't you recognize and respect the, ime, obvious fundamental tenet of 'freedom of association'?

 

[ataraxia]

We aren't talking about "society", we are talking about a private business being forced to hire on a quota system to appease the DEI Gods.

So would you be OK with a private business just having a blanket policy that they don't hire Jews or blacks? Or refusing to serve them? It should not be government's job to do anything about that?

Life isn't fair.
Trump and Bush are idiots, but they are privileged idiots.

Sure. Life without civil government is the jungle: in nature, you have the freedom of the jungle, and the law of the jungle- where the strong get to eat the weak for lunch and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

But that's why humans created civilization and governments which ideally should try to have some sense of law, order, justice, and fairness. Which do you prefer.

I see the benefit of hiring the most qualified person, period. Diversity isn't about hiring the best person, it's about trying to balance the scales. And when you got to the absurdity of Havard excluding very qualified Asian applicants to admit more less qualified black applicants, then something seriously went wrong with the system.

I get where you’re coming from—no one wants to feel like people are being hired or admitted for anything but merit. But here’s the catch: “merit” isn’t measured in a vacuum. It’s always shaped by context—like what kind of schools someone had access to, what they have done to overcome obstacles ("it's not where you are, but how far you have come"), whether they had stable housing or had to work to support their family, or whether they got mentorship or internships. A 4.0 GPA at a struggling school with limited resources often reflects more grit and potential than the same GPA at a private prep school with every advantage.

As for Harvard and the Asian American applicants, it's worth digging into the actual data. Most of those applicants were still getting in—Asian Americans make up around 30% of Harvard’s student body, even though they’re about 7% of the U.S. population. So it's not that Harvard was excluding them—it’s that in a system where thousands of extremely qualified students apply and there are limited spots, other factors besides test scores matter too, like leadership, community service, or life experience.

The bigger question is: what kind of excellence do we value? Is it only scores and grades, or is it also about who has the potential to lead, to bring fresh perspectives, or to overcome serious obstacles and still succeed? Diversity isn’t about lowering the bar—it’s about widening the lens. It’s recognizing that “qualified” can look different depending on what someone’s had to work through. If we only measure success by a narrow definition, we’ll keep rewarding the already-advantaged—and miss out on a lot of incredible people and lots of potential.

 

[ataraxia]

Of course... One problem is an anachronistic, EXPENSIVE government-run system..

For example we could all be partaking the best lecturers/experts/etc. via video/audio at a fraction of today's dinosaur system..It seems to me any 'educational institution' that receives money from any government should be making all lectures, etc., EASY to access online, etc., and inexpensive to the citizens...

Like I said in an earlier post- the value of those schools is not the lectures- but the connections and networking one makes in those schools.

Why Are Ivy League Schools So Prestigious?

The Ivy League schools are a group of eight prestigious private colleges and universities located in the Northeastern region of the US.

collegeaftermath.com

 

[H. E. Panqui]

Like I said in an earlier post- the value of those schools is not the lectures- but the connections and networking one makes in those schools.

Why Are Ivy League Schools So Prestigious?

The Ivy League schools are a group of eight prestigious private colleges and universities located in the Northeastern region of the US.

collegeaftermath.com

We have a hideous, unjust system of 'money issuance', etc., monopolized by a cartel of PRIVATE ?foreign COMMERCIAL BANKS that GUARANTEES a privileged cla$$.. Gee what could go wrong?

Get at the root$...

 

[ataraxia]

We have a hideous, unjust system of 'money issuance' that GUARANTEE$ a privileged cla$$.. Get at the root$...

Conservatives want to preserve that in the name of equality: because leaving inequality free and doing nothing about it guarantees it will continue.

That's true economically, as well as racially. That's why the GOP today is such a powerful coalition between racists and plutocrats: if you leave racism and plutocracy free, you will guarantee they continue.

That's why ever since Nixon's successful Southern Strategy, the GOP became a devil's bargain between racists and plutocrats. The plutocrats have the money, the racists have the electoral numbers. The racists don't mind living in a plutocratic society, as long as it remains racist; and the plutocrats don't mind living in a racist society, as long as it remains plutocratic.That way each can preserve their own perceived power and privilege in society on the backs of everyone else. Yay freedom. Win-win.

Southern strategy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NatMorton]

But merit is based on education and experience, and education and experience in turn are based on investments in developing those things. Merit is not something genetic or innate.

No, that's not true. I could have worked harder than an human alive and received the best coaching possible, and I promise you my merit as a football quarterback would not have earned my a roster spot in the NFL. Merit is most often a combination of talent, practice, and experience. It all depends on the role.

That’s why I liked your idea that it be based on family resources better.

I'm okay with handicapping by family income in some cases, and in particular competitive admissions in elite schools. If we're talking about a mid-level career position where one might need, say, five years prior, relevant experience, I don't see why humble beginnings should be a factor.