What Would of Happened if Malcom X had his Way

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

That’s the American dream! Come here, work hard, earn tons of money! Have a nice house, send your kids to college. This is good for you and your community.

Its also a good inspiration for your neighbors and your neighbors kids. The normal thing to do is go to school and work hard. Anyone who comes from an area like this is more likely to have a job and less likely to be a criminal. If I can use some zoning regulations, or some Section 8 money, or even a Habitat for Humanity house to help some kids grow up in a better neighborhood and go to a better school, I don’t see this as “anti”-middle class, or racial or anything like that. Its like a no-brainer.

62

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

There are poor jews in my area. However you don’t see the abject poverty in their community as you do in other communities. I think this is in large part because of the community and family strength that is absent on many of minority communities. However globally jews are much less likely to be poor than the average. This is hardly an insult.
[/quote]

It’s not an insult and it’s the truth!

I don’t mean to be a wiseass here–seriously–but the word minority doesn’t compute my brain anymore being I live in the borough of Queens, NY, in which NO ONE is minority at this point. If we were to go by race–that is, using only the three main races, Asian, black, and white–then whites are the minority.

Queens is literally the most diverse place in the USA, and possibly on planet earth. This is not an exaggeration.

Northern Asians here are VERY successful and now are the majority in my old town just a mile or so from where I live now. They make up the majority of other towns in Queens too, and are making their way into Brooklyn. They have financial strength and family strength.

The reasons northern Asians succeed are the same reasons that Jews succeed:

high IQ on average
discipline
focus
STRONG desire for money
influence
energy
and racial and ethnic solidarity.

The last one counts A LOT. That is, Jews and northern Asians work as a team, instead of the ridiculous individualism of contemporary Americans. Jews went from pawn shop brokers and garment salesmen (you know, the “schmata business”) to pooling their resources for buying major newspapers and television and radio stations.

I work in the nursing home business and let me tell you, this business is booming these days, with Medicare reimbursing homes with 600 bucks per filled bed for short term rehab and 1000 bucks per day for HIV residents. Perhaps we middle class workers there are remaining middle class, but owners typically earn seven to eight figures, depending on how many homes they have invested for. Go look up on Nursing Home Compare the names of owners who own homes in the vicinity of one another and you will see a trend: the same names over and over again, and also of a certain ethnicity. This is team work, and team work, coupled with intelligence, energy, and vigilance, WINS!

The same goes for northern Asians. They have their own churches, stores, credit unions, local television stations (I don’t see them owning MTV or the NY Times soon), newspapers, and various business. Many work in healthcare and when there is an opening, they invite their friends and family members for the spot.

Same can be said for the Poles, one of the few white groups, who now made their way to Ridgewood, Queens. They have their own labor businesses, restaurants, credit unions, pharmacies, social clubs, and so on. When one of them comes here, they have a job lined up. If I remember correctly, in order to use one of their credit unions, one has to have some other involvement in a Polish American organization, sort of like proving their loyalty to their group.

One can see these examples are in direct opposition to the typical, contemporary American “f— everyone else,” “do as I please”, “every man for himself” attitudes.

And notice how these groups are not just shouting “_______ Power” or donning flags of their home countries or wearing shirts displaying their ethnicities or whining about past oppressions (all groups listed were treated harshly at some points). They are actually DOING stuff! I am going to the diamond district on 47th St. to visit my close Israeli friend who has an office their in a few hours and I will see the things I discuss in action. (Not to sound like a damn broken record, but Jews are in the diamond business through SERIOUS team work too.)[/quote]

I think it is an immigrant thing. It seems to create a certain attitude and a fresh start and motivates people and makes them less scared of failing. Because jews have consistently had to emigrate because of anti semitism they seem to have mastered the entrepreneur attitude.

63

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

I think it is an immigrant thing. It seems to create a certain attitude and a fresh start and motivates people and makes them less scared of failing. Because jews have consistently had to emigrate because of anti semitism they seem to have mastered the entrepreneur attitude.
[/quote]

That could be. Moving around does keep one nimble.

There is much talk here about strengthening communities of ethnicities or races, and one of the reasons the examples I give here are successful is because of racial or ethnic solidarity. That is, they are keeping their success within and not sharing with or strengthening OTHER communities. In fact, one of the examples I have given have consolidated or monopolized various areas of control and influence.

So if others take heed, or at least try to, this goes against a so-called “melting pot” considering this is not melting or sharing with one another. And considering we do not have infinite jobs, real estate, or resources or whatever, some or a few groups will lose, right?

How can we solve this problem?

64

The cool thing about capitalism is that there are always more jobs. At any one time, there are only X jobs. But because we aren’t limited by the area of land, or the amount of gold we posses, like in fuedalism or mercantilism or something, we can always expand the economy.

Whenever the North Asians open another nursing home, they create new jobs. Doctors, nurses, CNAs, dieticians, cafeteria workers, janitors. The increase demand for linen service, trash pickup, construction. They didn’t take jobs from anyone, they created jobs by responding to the demand for beds.

Now that they are succesful they pay more property taxes. They buy more stuff and generate more sales tax. At the very least, this much money comes out of their “enclave” and into the community. This leads to better schools, roads or whatever local govt uses tax money for.

65

[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
$50000 a year is the national average. Taking on a $450 a month bill for each of your 3 children is pretty much impossible for a family that brings in 50k a year.

The average middle class family does not have any disposable income. Welcome to the new normal.[/quote]

This bugs me - your understanding of statistics is dubious at best my friend (it’s ok - you’re in a rather large boat in that regards).

No. The national household average for income is NOT $50,000. It’s closer to $70,000 per year (How much do Americans earn? What is the average US income and other income figures. Fiscal cliff talks only useful in context of incomes.) source taken from US Census bureau.

The national MEDIAN household income is closer to $50,000 ($51,939 … again taken from US Census Bureau at census.gov via a quick google search).

On top of that, median household income varies among the various racial/ethnic groups that are counted. By a healthy range of $32,467.

And, also, please define what, exactly, constitutes an average middle class family. As a matter of fact, define for me exactly what constitutes middle class. Is this a family with or without kids? What range of household income does “middle class” fall into?

Again, a quick google search and some brief skimming gives me a qualified range between of +$100,000 to as low as $23,050 (Federal poverty level is @ $23,050).

So, now we have to ask ourselves, do we want to average that out? Or do we want to use the median?

Now onto households with children - 19.2% of American households had children (census.gov … the following link is pretty informative about American household demographics actually … pretty easy to follow - https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf)

Per The World Factbook (CIA.gov) in 2012, the average number of children born per woman in the US was 2.01 - This is going to have to be the number we’ll use for average child per middle class household as it seems to be inline with everything I’ve seen for the time frame we probably are discussing (as recently as possible).

I’m not sure of which section of the country you’re using in your comparison as cost of living differs significantly from region to region and state to state making it nigh impossible to substantiate your claim effectively.

I still want to know how you’re measuring disposable income as, I’m sure, it varies greatly from family to family - which, honestly, leads me to believe you’re broadly generalizing your claim (i.e. you’re talking out your ass)

66

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
The cool thing about capitalism is that there are always more jobs. At any one time, there are only X jobs. But because we aren’t limited by the area of land, or the amount of gold we posses, like in fuedalism or mercantilism or something, we can always expand the economy.

Whenever the North Asians open another nursing home, they create new jobs. Doctors, nurses, CNAs, dieticians, cafeteria workers, janitors. The increase demand for linen service, trash pickup, construction. They didn’t take jobs from anyone, they created jobs by responding to the demand for beds.

Now that they are succesful they pay more property taxes. They buy more stuff and generate more sales tax. At the very least, this much money comes out of their “enclave” and into the community. This leads to better schools, roads or whatever local govt uses tax money for.
[/quote]

You are right on everything. I was thinking more of who has the serious clout and that these groups are highly discriminative. No, not hateful, but discriminative based on ethnicity and race.

67

[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
$50000 a year is the national average. Taking on a $450 a month bill for each of your 3 children is pretty much impossible for a family that brings in 50k a year.

The average middle class family does not have any disposable income. Welcome to the new normal.[/quote]

It really rubs me the wrong way when anyone ever questions grants for the poor. Would you rather they not receive that grant and more than likely continue living off foodstamps and wellfare? How do you think the middle class grows? If the rich get richer what happens to the poor and middle class? They remain stagnated if not become even poorer. The pell isn’t so much a handout because you have to meet the satasfactory grade requirment in order to continue recieving the grants. Lets quit pointing the finger at the poor and advocating for the dissmisal of much needed grants.

68

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:
If the rich get richer what happens to the poor and middle class? They remain stagnated if not become even poorer.
[/quote]

100% false.

The pie isn’t a fixed size. One person is NOT poor because another person is rich.

That is the dumbest talking point in the world, and yet morons eat it up…

69

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:
If the rich get richer what happens to the poor and middle class? They remain stagnated if not become even poorer.
[/quote]

100% false.

The pie isn’t a fixed size. One person is NOT poor because another person is rich.

That is the dumbest talking point in the world, and yet morons eat it up… [/quote]
^
It’s not a dumb talking point, IF you’re such a small person that the only thing you care about is your status. IF having your needs, and many of your wants, met does not matter to you as long as someone else is able to satisfy MORE of his wants, then it makes perfect sense.

“Poor” can be(and usually is) a relative term.

70

Sorry Brick, I misread you.

I guess NYC has a long, well documented history of different immigrant groups rising and falling and competing. It’d be silly to deny that.

71

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:

[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
$50000 a year is the national average. Taking on a $450 a month bill for each of your 3 children is pretty much impossible for a family that brings in 50k a year.

The average middle class family does not have any disposable income. Welcome to the new normal.[/quote]

It really rubs me the wrong way when anyone ever questions grants for the poor. Would you rather they not receive that grant and more than likely continue living off foodstamps and wellfare? How do you think the middle class grows? If the rich get richer what happens to the poor and middle class? They remain stagnated if not become even poorer. The pell isn’t so much a handout because you have to meet the satasfactory grade requirment in order to continue recieving the grants. Lets quit pointing the finger at the poor and advocating for the dissmisal of much needed grants.
[/quote]

How about we advocate for personal responsibility? The middle class has to work for scholarships, work jobs while in school and take out loans to get an education and the poor can do all of those things as well because they don’t cost any money. They do; however, cost a lot of hard work and elbow grease which seems to be things that are seriously lacking among the youths of our impoverished neighborhoods. This points out the causation fallacy you are perpetuating.

It is easy to play on people’s emotions and say things like “Let’s quit pointing the finger at the poor and advocating for the dismissal of much needed grants” but it is more important to remain objective about these things. I am not saying that poor people should not get help getting on top but we have created a society with so much emotional reaction to poverty that the impoverished are now just handed everything without having to work for it. This creates an attitude and mentality that make many of them unemployable and thus perpetuates their poverty. This, many claim, is by design as leftists try to push our country closer and closer to neo-socialism and I am inclined to agree with them to some extent.

72

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:
If the rich get richer what happens to the poor and middle class? They remain stagnated if not become even poorer.
[/quote]

100% false.

The pie isn’t a fixed size. One person is NOT poor because another person is rich.

That is the dumbest talking point in the world, and yet morons eat it up… [/quote]
^
It’s not a dumb talking point, IF you’re such a small person that the only thing you care about is your status. IF having your needs, and many of your wants, met does not matter to you as long as someone else is able to satisfy MORE of his wants, then it makes perfect sense.

“Poor” can be(and usually is) a relative term.[/quote]

It really is a dumb talking point. We live in America, not Afghanistan. If a person wants to succeed here, all they need to do is go out and make it happen. If you want an education you can do that, if you want to work your way up in a company you can do that too. The only thing stopping anyone from succeeding in America is their own inability and there’s nothing we can do about a lack of motivation, a victim mentality, an attitude of entitlement, stupidity or unwillingness to work. Those are things that need to be addressed by a person’s parents when they are being raised, not by the government. The only thing we can do, as a society, is encourage people to raise their children appropriately, frown upon undesirable behaviors that inhibit success and vote for those who would encourage competition in and bolster the success of our primary educational system.

73

[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
They do; however, cost a lot of hard work and elbow grease which seems to be things that are seriously lacking among the youths of our impoverished neighborhoods.
[/quote]

Gang members in my town in the mid-90’s had this mentality: Our fathers & grandfathers worked in the steel mills and made a lot of money so we are entitled to a lot of money…only problem was the gang members thought the steel workers didn’t actually work and somehow were just given good money. They didn’t want to work at McDonalds or any fast food or minimum wage job because they felt entitled to good pay…for doing NOTHING.

Entitlement! that’s the problem.

The difference is their relatives WORKED. Now the good paying jobs are gone and they expected the same money for being thugs, criminals, selling drugs & terrorizing their neighborhoods.

Like a cop once told me, these guys think they can get rich living this life style, but I don’t see any of them with any money.

It’s entitlement, an illusion, the friggin Me-generation.

74

[quote]Loftearmen wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:
If the rich get richer what happens to the poor and middle class? They remain stagnated if not become even poorer.
[/quote]

100% false.

The pie isn’t a fixed size. One person is NOT poor because another person is rich.

That is the dumbest talking point in the world, and yet morons eat it up… [/quote]
^
It’s not a dumb talking point, IF you’re such a small person that the only thing you care about is your status. IF having your needs, and many of your wants, met does not matter to you as long as someone else is able to satisfy MORE of his wants, then it makes perfect sense.

“Poor” can be(and usually is) a relative term.[/quote]

It really is a dumb talking point. We live in America, not Afghanistan. If a person wants to succeed here, all they need to do is go out and make it happen. If you want an education you can do that, if you want to work your way up in a company you can do that too. The only thing stopping anyone from succeeding in America is their own inability and there’s nothing we can do about a lack of motivation, a victim mentality, an attitude of entitlement, stupidity or unwillingness to work. Those are things that need to be addressed by a person’s parents when they are being raised, not by the government. The only thing we can do, as a society, is encourage people to raise their children appropriately, frown upon undesirable behaviors that inhibit success and vote for those who would encourage competition in and bolster the success of our primary educational system.
[/quote]

A poor person truly is poor because another is rich. The two terms are relative. If no one is poor, then no one is rich. If no one is rich, then no one is poor.

I’m typing this on a 3x5 phone and responding to someone who lives far(not sure where) away. Mansa Musa couldn’t come close to paying for that kind of ability.

The pie is not a fixed size, but the small-minded don’t distinguish between owning 1% of a 1-inch-wide pie and 1% of a 1-mile-wide pie. In their minds all that matters is the fact that someone else owns 5% of the pie.

75

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Loftearmen wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:
If the rich get richer what happens to the poor and middle class? They remain stagnated if not become even poorer.
[/quote]

100% false.

The pie isn’t a fixed size. One person is NOT poor because another person is rich.

That is the dumbest talking point in the world, and yet morons eat it up… [/quote]
^
It’s not a dumb talking point, IF you’re such a small person that the only thing you care about is your status. IF having your needs, and many of your wants, met does not matter to you as long as someone else is able to satisfy MORE of his wants, then it makes perfect sense.

“Poor” can be(and usually is) a relative term.[/quote]

It really is a dumb talking point. We live in America, not Afghanistan. If a person wants to succeed here, all they need to do is go out and make it happen. If you want an education you can do that, if you want to work your way up in a company you can do that too. The only thing stopping anyone from succeeding in America is their own inability and there’s nothing we can do about a lack of motivation, a victim mentality, an attitude of entitlement, stupidity or unwillingness to work. Those are things that need to be addressed by a person’s parents when they are being raised, not by the government. The only thing we can do, as a society, is encourage people to raise their children appropriately, frown upon undesirable behaviors that inhibit success and vote for those who would encourage competition in and bolster the success of our primary educational system.
[/quote]

A poor person truly is poor because another is rich. The two terms are relative. If no one is poor, then no one is rich. If no one is rich, then no one is poor.

I’m typing this on a 3x5 phone and responding to someone who lives far(not sure where) away. Mansa Musa couldn’t come close to paying for that kind of ability.

The pie is not a fixed size, but the small-minded don’t distinguish between owning 1% of a 1-inch-wide pie and 1% of a 1-mile-wide pie. In their minds all that matters is the fact that someone else owns 5% of the pie.
[/quote]

You seem to be missing my point simply because you are more interested in philosophical differences between classes than actual ones. Regardless of a person’s perception of what is poor and what is rich, it is sufficient to say that, barring disability, no one in America HAS to be poor. It is up to them to insure their own well-being and they certainly have the tools to be at least middle class should they have the drive and initiative; no government handouts needed.

76

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:

Sticking with our own " kind" was good for survival back in the day. Now, its not so useful. [/quote]

Oh yeah?

Taking from my own experience, contacts, and observations–up close, that is-- in Queens, Zoo York City, and Long Island, it is sure working nicely for the Greeks in Astoria, Bayside, and Douglaston; the Asians in Flushing and Douglaston; the Poles in Ridgewood; the Guyanese in Hollis and Queens Village; Jews everywhere; and the WASPS in Brookville and Muttontown.

You are clearly an intelligent person but I am not sure you are making real-life observations.

77

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:

So a strong neighborhood with good schools, save streets and citizens who spend money in thier own community is ideal. But a community that is “voluntarily” segregated just doesn’t seem right.
[/quote]

The neighborhood is not “right” or “wrong”. It’s just the way people behave ALL THE TIME. They self-segregate. As I’ve repeated over and over, like a broken record, I live in the most diverse areas on this earth and it happens over and over before my eyes.

Are these MILLIONS of people all wrong? If so, how do you suggest eight million inhabitants of a city, let alone the rest of the world, nine billion people, to start thinking and behaving as you suggest?

[quote]

Am I like a know-it-all college boy just messing up people’s town with my pie-in-the sky, unrealistic, book learned “ideals?” [/quote]

Yeah.

78

Brick, to be honest Queens, let alone all of NYC is way over my head. I live and work in a Tennessee town of like 55,000.

You obviously know whats going on up there, better than me. I saw Ken Burn’s NYC documentary from PBS one time. I don’t want to argue or fight or “counter” what you’ve said in any way.

People sticking together, is fine. Especially if it develops a strong community. I would never try to mess up a good thing. But the opposite of “good self-segration” is like a trailer park or something. One " kind" or “class” or people, living together. Not be choice, but because its what was available.

By survival back in the day, I meant like pre-historic times. As far as I know, the first cities started for the purpose of defense. People coming together to watch each others backs. Better off through diversity. As time passed, cities were more about economics. Many skilled craftsmen or whatever, all close together, making it cheaper to do business. Again, everyone better off, together.

79

Central Park was designed as a public space for people of different social classes and ethnicities to mix.

Elections-at-large instead of by district or ward are used to limit the power of ethnic, regional politcal “blocs.” The council/manager form of local government, the open bidding process and Sun-shine laws exist to prevent corruption and graft.

LaGuardia and Giuliani are famous inclusive reformers, not political bosses.

Solidarity and everything is cool. But taken to far (Politcal Machines, the Mafia, corrupt Unions, collusion in the marketplace) cost society productivity and money.

I know all of the above is pretty vague. I know its pretty much me just talking out of my ass about YOUR town. Intellectual play for me, versus reality for you. But I stand to learn a lot by putting stuff out there for you to respond to. So please, don’t take this as any kind of “challenge.”

Joe Bananno called NYC “The Volcano.” For me to sit here in the country and pretend I have it figured out would be silly.

80

[quote]Loftearmen wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:
If the rich get richer what happens to the poor and middle class? They remain stagnated if not become even poorer.
[/quote]

100% false.

The pie isn’t a fixed size. One person is NOT poor because another person is rich.

That is the dumbest talking point in the world, and yet morons eat it up… [/quote]
^
It’s not a dumb talking point, IF you’re such a small person that the only thing you care about is your status. IF having your needs, and many of your wants, met does not matter to you as long as someone else is able to satisfy MORE of his wants, then it makes perfect sense.

“Poor” can be(and usually is) a relative term.[/quote]

It really is a dumb talking point. We live in America, not Afghanistan. If a person wants to succeed here, all they need to do is go out and make it happen. If you want an education you can do that, if you want to work your way up in a company you can do that too. The only thing stopping anyone from succeeding in America is their own inability and there’s nothing we can do about a lack of motivation, a victim mentality, an attitude of entitlement, stupidity or unwillingness to work. Those are things that need to be addressed by a person’s parents when they are being raised, not by the government. The only thing we can do, as a society, is encourage people to raise their children appropriately, frown upon undesirable behaviors that inhibit success and vote for those who would encourage competition in and bolster the success of our primary educational system.
[/quote]

I agree in most of what you are saying however there are situations where the notion of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is bullshit, some people are born without bootstraps. I had a childhood friend who was born to a crackhead mum, lived in poverty around gangs. His dad was in jail for murder and both his brothers were serving large sentences.

He had no chance. He had no base of support or help as a kid, which in turn meant by the age of 12 he had an extensive record and the only loved ones he had were criminals. There was no real chance he would escape the cycle.
On the other hand my other friend whose mother was my godmother, who was born in the neighbouring county was born to a well off family who had him receive the best education possible. He went to Oxford. He now works in banking and at 24 years old earns an insane amount of money.

Life is not some race where we all start off at the beginning and dash to the end. Some people are born right next to the finish line and others are 5 miles away with hurdles every 100 meters. I don’t see how people can just pretend like with the right mental attitude everyone can succeed no matter how shit their circumstances. Yeah now and then some of those born at the very bottom succeed, but to pretend that is anything more than a very rare meeting of hard work and extreme luck is fanciful.

Saying that I agree the U.S is probably the place where it is most likely to occur.