6 ms·

To simply imply that immigrant owned == poor quality is lazy and incorrect. I am sure there is more to the story than that, and in order to have a proper discus

by magpi3 4y ago

To simply imply that immigrant owned == poor quality is lazy and incorrect. I am sure there is more to the story than that, and in order to have a proper discussion we need the rest of that story.

Spooky23 4y ago
It has a basis in truth, although it is more of a 90s thing. Now many franchise operators are immigrants, with more money now. At one time something like 30% of motels were operated by Patels.
- dang 4y ago
  It may have a basis in truth but to single that one thing out and make it the issue is to forfeit its basis in truth.
wrp 4y ago
I spent a while today thinking about how to discuss this productively. I began listing various businesses in my area that had been bought by immigrants over the past 40+ years. In some cases, they maintained or even raised the quality of the business and became well-regarded in the community. In other cases, they trashed the business. What emerged as the list grew was that the pattern of good versus bad management was closely following ethnic stereotypes. At that point, I quit. I think it may be impossible to have productive discussion about this issue, because it will inevitably lead into sensitive territory.
- magpi3 4y ago
  It is sensitive territory, but the main point is that correlation does not equal causation. I imagine if there is a correlation between immigrant owned and poor quality, there might be some cultural factors at play. An immigrant taking over a Howard Johnson's for example, might not "get" why Americans valued Howard Johnson's in the first place, and the end result might be, from an American's perspective, a significant drop in quality. Who knows. I just use that as an example. But my point is you have to look deeper, and just broadly stating that immigrant owned equals poor quality is lazy and quite frankly comes across as ignorant.
  - wrp 4y ago
    > just broadly stating that immigrant owned equals poor quality is lazy and quite frankly comes across as ignorant. Wait, you misinterpret my post. I did look deeper than just the quality of being an immigrant. The point is that those who did well tended to be of certain ethnicities, and those who did poorly tended to be from certain others. The sensitive aspect would not be their immigrant status, but in the perceived reinforcement of negative ethnic stereotypes. I never implied that "immigrant owned" by itself is necessarily a negative.
    - magpi3 4y ago
      I understand, but I still say you have to go deeper before a discussion takes place. Why are ethnic stereotypes being reinforced in this instance? Are the cultural elements or other factors at play? It _is_ a sensitive topic, and a complex one, which is why talking about it casually feels irresponsible, because it is so easy for some people to draw the wrong conclusion about what is being said.

by magpi3 4y ago

To simply imply that immigrant owned == poor quality is lazy and incorrect. I am sure there is more to the story than that, and in order to have a proper discussion we need the rest of that story.

Spooky23 4y ago

It has a basis in truth, although it is more of a 90s thing. Now many franchise operators are immigrants, with more money now. At one time something like 30% of motels were operated by Patels.

dang 4y ago
It may have a basis in truth but to single that one thing out and make it the issue is to forfeit its basis in truth.

wrp 4y ago

I spent a while today thinking about how to discuss this productively. I began listing various businesses in my area that had been bought by immigrants over the past 40+ years. In some cases, they maintained or even raised the quality of the business and became well-regarded in the community. In other cases, they trashed the business. What emerged as the list grew was that the pattern of good versus bad management was closely following ethnic stereotypes. At that point, I quit. I think it may be impossible to have productive discussion about this issue, because it will inevitably lead into sensitive territory.

magpi3 4y ago
It is sensitive territory, but the main point is that correlation does not equal causation. I imagine if there is a correlation between immigrant owned and poor quality, there might be some cultural factors at play. An immigrant taking over a Howard Johnson's for example, might not "get" why Americans valued Howard Johnson's in the first place, and the end result might be, from an American's perspective, a significant drop in quality. Who knows. I just use that as an example. But my point is you have to look deeper, and just broadly stating that immigrant owned equals poor quality is lazy and quite frankly comes across as ignorant.
- wrp 4y ago
  > just broadly stating that immigrant owned equals poor quality is lazy and quite frankly comes across as ignorant. Wait, you misinterpret my post. I did look deeper than just the quality of being an immigrant. The point is that those who did well tended to be of certain ethnicities, and those who did poorly tended to be from certain others. The sensitive aspect would not be their immigrant status, but in the perceived reinforcement of negative ethnic stereotypes. I never implied that "immigrant owned" by itself is necessarily a negative.
  - magpi3 4y ago
    I understand, but I still say you have to go deeper before a discussion takes place. Why are ethnic stereotypes being reinforced in this instance? Are the cultural elements or other factors at play? It _is_ a sensitive topic, and a complex one, which is why talking about it casually feels irresponsible, because it is so easy for some people to draw the wrong conclusion about what is being said.