6 ms·

When you could house, feed and clothe a family of four (or more!) on a single unskilled labor job, unemployment numbers meant something. Today they mean nothing

When you could house, feed and clothe a family of four (or more!) on a single unskilled labor job, unemployment numbers meant something. Today they mean nothing. A measure of how many households live above the poverty line would be a step in the right direction, but also frankly the poverty line in America is set too low. People 10% above it are still too poor to live comfortably on their income.

LorenPechtel 7y ago
That state never existed. If you were white and in the US you could--it's just we were pushing the bad jobs off on those we didn't notice. Now we can't.
- ghastmaster 7y ago
  Hate to break it to you but the vast majority of people living in poverty in the united states are and have been white. The majority of government assistance goes to poor whites. Poverty doesn't discriminate. The bad jobs were not pushed off on those we did not notice. The wealth of minorities was rising until we implemented the civil rights act of 1964 which has screwed every minority applicant at a small business. It is riskier to hire and fire than it is to not hire. The civil rights act prevents minority only businesses ta boot! The worst thing to happen to minorites in the US was the civil Rights Act of 1964.
  - tryptophan 7y ago
    >The worst thing to happen to minorites in the US was the civil Rights Act of 1964. Well this is certainly an interesting take of the situation.
    - ghastmaster 7y ago
      I should have phrased that differently. While it is still my opinion, in this context I should have phrased it: "The worst thing to happen to minority employment..." While your comment does not add much to the conversation, I appreciate your skills in ambiguity.
  - jogjayr 7y ago
    > civil rights act of 1964 which has screwed every minority applicant at a small business....The worst thing to happen to minorites in the US was the civil Rights Act of 1964. That's an...interesting perspective on what most consider to be landmark legislation in American history. So I looked it up, because I didn't know what you were talking about. "Small businesses with fewer than 25 employees were originally allowed to continue discriminating under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Equal Opportunity Employment Act of 1972 changed the law to require all businesses with 15 or more employees to adhere to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."[1] I'm still shocked that discrimination is allowed for any business at all. But you weren't entirely correct. Also, the Act's other benefits have to be weighed against allowing discrimination in small businesses. Small businesses that were racist and discriminatory before the Civil Rights Act could continue to be so after it, but could only grow up to a certain size. That's still an improvement on what existed previously, which was that they could be racist and discriminatory forever and always. If I was a minority in the 60s I'd consider federally guaranteed right to vote, equal education, stay at any hotel, use any public water fountain or bus, and be considered on an equal basis for federal jobs, private sector jobs in 15/25+ employee firms, loans, assistance programs and the rest to be a massive gain over the status quo. You're entitled to your opinion on the CRA of 1964, but to most people it's going to sound bizarre. Sorry. > The civil rights act prevents minority only businesses ta boot! I don't know what "ta boot" means so the meaning of this statement is unclear. 1. https://aapf.org/civil-rights-act https://aapf.org/civil-rights-act
    - ghastmaster 7y ago
      Just because a law makes it illegal to discriminate does not eliminate discrimination. In the United States small businesses account for the most employees. Small business owners do not hire minorities because they risk being sued when they fire them. There is less risk to not hire than there is to hire due to the Civil Rights Act. This results in less minority hires. If a minority runs a business and only wants to hire minorities they have a greater risk of being sued because it is easier for a person in majority race to prove discrimnation.
      - jogjayr 7y ago
BurningFrog 7y ago
> When you could house, feed and clothe a family of four (or more!) on a single unskilled labor job Life in those days were in extreme poverty by today's standards.

LorenPechtel 7y ago

That state never existed. If you were white and in the US you could--it's just we were pushing the bad jobs off on those we didn't notice. Now we can't.

ghastmaster 7y ago
Hate to break it to you but the vast majority of people living in poverty in the united states are and have been white. The majority of government assistance goes to poor whites. Poverty doesn't discriminate. The bad jobs were not pushed off on those we did not notice. The wealth of minorities was rising until we implemented the civil rights act of 1964 which has screwed every minority applicant at a small business. It is riskier to hire and fire than it is to not hire. The civil rights act prevents minority only businesses ta boot! The worst thing to happen to minorites in the US was the civil Rights Act of 1964.
- tryptophan 7y ago
  >The worst thing to happen to minorites in the US was the civil Rights Act of 1964. Well this is certainly an interesting take of the situation.
  - ghastmaster 7y ago
    I should have phrased that differently. While it is still my opinion, in this context I should have phrased it: "The worst thing to happen to minority employment..." While your comment does not add much to the conversation, I appreciate your skills in ambiguity.
- jogjayr 7y ago
  > civil rights act of 1964 which has screwed every minority applicant at a small business....The worst thing to happen to minorites in the US was the civil Rights Act of 1964. That's an...interesting perspective on what most consider to be landmark legislation in American history. So I looked it up, because I didn't know what you were talking about. "Small businesses with fewer than 25 employees were originally allowed to continue discriminating under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Equal Opportunity Employment Act of 1972 changed the law to require all businesses with 15 or more employees to adhere to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."[1] I'm still shocked that discrimination is allowed for any business at all. But you weren't entirely correct. Also, the Act's other benefits have to be weighed against allowing discrimination in small businesses. Small businesses that were racist and discriminatory before the Civil Rights Act could continue to be so after it, but could only grow up to a certain size. That's still an improvement on what existed previously, which was that they could be racist and discriminatory forever and always. If I was a minority in the 60s I'd consider federally guaranteed right to vote, equal education, stay at any hotel, use any public water fountain or bus, and be considered on an equal basis for federal jobs, private sector jobs in 15/25+ employee firms, loans, assistance programs and the rest to be a massive gain over the status quo. You're entitled to your opinion on the CRA of 1964, but to most people it's going to sound bizarre. Sorry. > The civil rights act prevents minority only businesses ta boot! I don't know what "ta boot" means so the meaning of this statement is unclear. 1. https://aapf.org/civil-rights-act https://aapf.org/civil-rights-act
  - ghastmaster 7y ago
    Just because a law makes it illegal to discriminate does not eliminate discrimination. In the United States small businesses account for the most employees. Small business owners do not hire minorities because they risk being sued when they fire them. There is less risk to not hire than there is to hire due to the Civil Rights Act. This results in less minority hires. If a minority runs a business and only wants to hire minorities they have a greater risk of being sued because it is easier for a person in majority race to prove discrimnation.
    - jogjayr 7y ago

BurningFrog 7y ago

> When you could house, feed and clothe a family of four (or more!) on a single unskilled labor job Life in those days were in extreme poverty by today's standards.