Jump to content
Scylla Rhiadra

Are You Showing Support for Black Lives Matter in Second Life?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, RavynHunter said:

So, please explain how this was a racist killing.

You seem totally unaware that we have an unconscious mind created through socialization which affects how we perceive and treat others.

What, do you need to see the cop shout the N-word at him before suspecting race could play a part in it? Or hear valid testimony from others proving the 4 cops involved hated Blacks?  Never going to happen.
And there never will be a test demonstrating the same scenario would have unfolded had the neck under Derek Chauvin's knee been white.

But what we can do is evaluate experiments in the Social Sciences which demonstrate prejudice against POC (People Of Color), and study statistics which compare rates of murder by cops among various demographics. The evidence is clear -- Blacks are treated unfairly by the judicial system and law enforcement compared to Whites.
So it is highly likely racial factors played a part in the specific case of George Floyd.

  * PROOF THAT COPS MURDER PEOPLE OF COLOR MORE OFTEN THAN WHITES 
Rate of fatal police shootings by ethnicity U.S. 2015-2020
Published by Statista Research Department, Jun 11, 2020
The rate of fatal police shootings in the United States shows large differences based on ethnicity. Among Black Americans, the rate of fatal police shootings between 2015 and June 2020 stood at 30 per million of the population, while for White Americans, the rate stood at 12 fatal police shootings per million of the population. 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/

  * PROOF OF PREJUDICE IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
The criminal justice system is terribly biased against Blacks, leading to more wrongful convictions and harsher sentences compared to Whites. Statistics in outcomes prove this, along with tests conducted in the Social Sciences.  Biased attitudes develop through socialization, and the stereotypes held are frequently not even conscious, but tests can demonstrate the bias. These unconscious attitudes affects how law enforcement treats Blacks in the criminal justice system and on the streets.

I was shocked in college when I studied tests and learned about the lack of objectivity in perception people hold when evaluating Blacks vs Whites. Extensive experiments in the Social Sciences were designed to allow participants to express their feelings regarding various imaginary scenarios depicted by test facilitators. They demonstrate that Blacks are more often viewed as guilty of a crime, and they are assigned greater punishment for a crime when compared to white counterparts. This held true (though to a lesser extent) even among test subjects who were actually trained in objectivity (scientists, judges).
In tests with young children even the babies reject the darker-skinned doll more often. And saddest of all, even the darker-skinned children reject the darker-skinned doll more often.

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, RavynHunter said:

You are diving deeper into a sea full of strange conspiracy and assumptive creatures where there's obviously not much oxygen. Good luck with all that. I'll stay up here on the surface.

LOL, when you go into your next post, that the press killed George Floyd for excitement?  And, then I don't know what you are going on about Democrats especially when you say private funding is my "mysterious" conspiracy.  Grow up.  Sorry, Mom moment there.  I think you could use a little parenting.   

 

8 hours ago, RavynHunter said:

press needed some excitement after months of monotonous COVID=19 reporting and shamefully used Floyd's senseless murder to feed their sensationalist 'journalism'. And you all fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

The uncomfortable truth: Minneapolis has been solidly in Democrat hands for decades.

Minneapolis has been dominated by Democrat mayors for more than 40 years. If systemic racism exists in the Minneapolis police force it has been enabled by Democrat leaders for more than 40 years. They refuse to own the results of their failed policies and blame the usual scapegoats instead.

So, please explain how this was a racist killing.

 

 

Edited by JanuarySwan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JanuarySwan said:
12 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Found a good definition:

"Systemic racism is both a theoretical concept and a reality. As a theory, it is premised on the research-supported claim that the United States was founded as a racist society, that racism is thus embedded in all social institutions, structures, and social relations within our society. Rooted in a racist foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors that give an unjust amount of resources, rights, and power to white people while denying them to people of color."

It's pretty good except that society has overcome many of those, such as female black mayor's such as Leila Foley and the newly elected Mayor of Ferguson, Missouri,  Ella Jones.   And, as far as my ex black bf's black wife, she was Deen of a College.  And, I know of people of all colors and even First Gen American's from India who are doctors.  There are all kinds of equal opportunities in multi-ethnic communities...just all kinds.   

What are the policies in place today that deny blacks equal opportunity?  

However, regarding practices, some of those seem to be here in this matter with racial profiling and the police.  What is their problem?  What is the police's problem?  Not all police, of course, it can never be all.  But, what is their problem - the police?  

Yes we see more POC in positions of authority, so it seems society is improving. But POC are still under-represented in positions of authority, so we have a ways to go.

There are still many policies in place today that deny blacks equal opportunity. Take a look at banking practices -- often they have loopholes that disadvantage Blacks. And if Blacks can't get loans for homes and business start-ups they more easily stay at the bottom economically compared to Whites.

The problem with the police?  Again, they are a product of our society, affected by the same socialization we all receive which assigns negative stereotypes to Blacks. We assume Blacks are more often guilty of crimes, and this affects how cops treat them on the street.  The fact that the police have guns and power through their authority only amplifies the problem.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

The rate of fatal police shootings in the United States shows large differences based on ethnicity. Among Black Americans, the rate of fatal police shootings between 2015 and June 2020 stood at 30 per million of the population, while for White Americans, the rate stood at 12 fatal police shootings per million of the population. 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/

Luna, I don't quite understand this per capita thing. 

And, no I'm not being prejudiced, I just don't understand it so I need help with understanding it.

Okay, so let's say since there are more whites as compared to blacks, then, because there are more whites compared to blacks, the dividing of such by million is showing what?  In other words, since there are more whites, dividing by million would be more spread out because there are more millions (of whites).

So, I guess I need to know the percentage of the ethnic groups of the population to really understand.

Sorry, my example might be crummy but if there are more millions of whites, the number will appear less simply because there are a lot more millions and it has to be diluted, thus 12 is not valid.   

Edited by JanuarySwan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JanuarySwan said:
17 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

The rate of fatal police shootings in the United States shows large differences based on ethnicity. Among Black Americans, the rate of fatal police shootings between 2015 and June 2020 stood at 30 per million of the population, while for White Americans, the rate stood at 12 fatal police shootings per million of the population. 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/

Luna, I don't quite understand this per capita thing. 

I am spacey as hell this morning...heading off for a 2nd cup of coffee.

So will defer to others who might be able to explain this clearly. The two that come to mind at this moment are:

@Beth Macbain

@Madelaine McMasters

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JanuarySwan said:

So, I guess I need to know the percentage of the ethnic groups of the population to really understand.

This might help. These are prison demographics. Black people are 13% of the US population, but are 40% of incarcerated adults. White people are 64% of the US population, but only 39% of prison population. 

Are there more black criminals than white criminals... or are black people arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned at a much higher rate than white people?

2010. Inmates in adult facilities, by race and ethnicity. Jails, and state and federal prisons.[71]
Race, ethnicity % of US population % of U.S.
incarcerated population
National incarceration rate
(per 100,000 of all ages)
White (non-Hispanic) 64 39 450 per 100,000
Hispanic 16 19 831 per 100,000
Black 13 40 2,306 per 100,000
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

This might help. These are prison demographics. Black people are 13% of the US population, but are 40% of incarcerated adults. White people are 64% of the US population, but only 39% of prison population. 

Are there more black criminals than white criminals... or are black people arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned at a much higher rate than white people?

2010. Inmates in adult facilities, by race and ethnicity. Jails, and state and federal prisons.[71]
Race, ethnicity % of US population % of U.S.
incarcerated population
National incarceration rate
(per 100,000 of all ages)
White (non-Hispanic) 64 39 450 per 100,000
Hispanic 16 19 831 per 100,000
Black 13 40 2,306 per 100,000

Yeah, that's better than by millions and without knowing what the population is.  Thanks!  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone seems to think there has been only one instance of a black man being killed by a cop. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Beth's per capita example is spot on.

Per-capita is the correct way to cite quite a few public statistics, like national deficit and debt, racial composition, incarceration rate, Covid-19 infections, deaths, etc. Once you are exposed to this idea, it should make sense to you. If a statistic relating to a subset of a nation's population is seriously out of whack with size of that subset, something interesting is happening. Per-capita expressions of those things makes it easier to spot the wackyness.

I don't believe people should be allowed to hold public office unless they DO understand per-capita. We should ALL understand it. I see quite a few important statistics that are NOT presented in per-capita, but should be. I think this is often intentional. Someone presenting a statistic has a choice to make. Do they present one that most accurately portrays the underlying truth or one that most supports their particular agenda. Those needn't be different statistics, but often are. It's on the public to spot any subterfuge and note who's engaging in it.

 

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
Clarification.
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Beth's per capita example is spot on.

Per-capita is the correct way to cite quite a few public statistics, like national deficit and debt, racial composition, incarceration rate, Covid-19 infections, deaths, etc. Once you are exposed to this idea, it should make sense to you. If a statistic relating to a subset of a nation's population is seriously out of whack with size of that subset, something interesting is happening. Per-capita expressions of those things makes it easier to spot the wackyness.

I don't believe people should be allowed to hold public office unless they DO understand per-capita. (I think we should ALL understand it). I see quite a few important statistics that are NOT presented in per-capita, but should be. I think this is often intentional. Someone presenting a statistic has a choice to make. Do they present one that most accurately portrays the underlying truth or one that most supports their particular agenda. Those needn't be different statistics, but often are. It's on the public to spot any subterfuge and note who's engaging in it.

 

I don't know if people are really doing it intentionally because I have never come across per capita graphs before.  This is my first time reading them.  I've just been an office worker, secretary.  In my off time, an artist.  

But, here I was thinking.  Let's make all the people Green and Blue.  Okay, now let's say, 90% of the population is Green and 10% of the population is Blue.  And, let's use COVID-19 as an example here for the Green and Blue people.  Now if you take a 90% to 10%, wouldn't that graph show more COVID-19 cases among the Blue people because the number for the Green people is greater and may be subject to dilution once divided per 100,000? 

I am sort of understanding it but I don't quite understand in regards to dilution upon dividing the numbers?  

Okay, let me explain further.  Let's say there is 50% Green people and 50% Blue people, this would show me what is outstanding if say the Green people had 40% death from COVID-19 and the Blue people had 10% death from COVID-19.  There must be some kind of 50/50 in the per capita formula I am not understanding.  

Edited by JanuarySwan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

Someone seems to think there has been only one instance of a black man human being being killed by a cop. 

ftfy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@JanuarySwan, I've only skimmed the last few days of this thread, but see that you feel there can only be some monetary reasons or systemic racism. (Forgive me if I've misunderstood it, I most certainly have). I think there is some truth in this, but not necessarily in the way I think you think.

First, racism is natural and predates money. Humans (and virtually all other animals) are wired to assess characteristic of other creatures in their environment, either for potential as threat, food, or for procreation. Those animals that have evolved social behavior extend this assessment to envelope their social groups, while continuing to assess differences within them. Ancient humans recognized people of their own tribes and welcomed them, while being wary of people who looked different. As populations migrated across the globe and forked their evolution into easily distinguishable populations (races), tribal recognition mechanisms became racism.

Humanity's ability to record (and rewrite) its own history (verbally and in text) allows us to evolve our social structures at a far faster rate than natural evolution evolves our wiring. Over the very long haul, nature weeds out the unfit using selection rules we truly don't well understand. Over the short haul, humans select, via various mechanisms (public policy, wars, etc) by very different rules that produce effects and unintended side effects with potentially far more dramatic consequences than natural selection. Natural selection is effectively out of the picture now. ETA: though we evolved social structures at breakneck pace, we still contain all that slowly evolved wiring.

In virtually any human conflict, there is a desire for something someone else has got, food, shelter, freedom, power, etc. Upon creating money, people will want that too. Almost anything you want is easier to get if you have power. Power is the lever at work here and everything else flows from that. Systemic racism is about power, not money. While money might exchange hands between groups in power over the maintenance of that power, the actual goal of power is to extract wealth from the powerless.

Here's an example:
https://lapa.princeton.edu/content/predatory-cities

Google "Covid-19 wealth transfer" to discover more. Do keep in mind that any discussion of transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich correlates strongly with race, as the poor are disproportionately people of color.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
ETA marks the spot.
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, JanuarySwan said:

I am sort of understanding it

PER CAPITA EXPLANATION
Let's compare 2 types of cats - a black cat group consisting of 100 black cats, and a white cat group consisting of 1000 white cats.
50 of the black cats have feline leukemia, and 250 of the white cats have feline leukemia.
Which GROUP has more feline leukemia?
So 50% of the black cats are suffering from feline leukemia (50 out of 100 have it, equaling 50% of their group), and 25% of the white group have it (250 out of 1000 equals 25%). So we can say that AS A GROUP, as a PERCENTAGE of that group, the black cats have more feline leukemia compared to the white cats.  This is because 50% is more than 25%.

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

PER CAPITA EXPLANATION
Let's compare 2 types of cats - a black cat group consisting of 100 black cats, and a white cat group consisting of 1000 white cats.
50 of the black cats have feline leukemia, and 250 of the white cats have feline leukemia.
Which GROUP has more feline leukemia?
So 50% of the black cats suffering from feline leukemia (50 out of 100 have it, equaling 50% of their group), and 25% of the white group having it (250 out of 1000 equals 25%). So we can say that AS A GROUP, as a PERCENTAGE of that group, the black cats have more feline leukemia compared to the white cats.

I see, Luna.  The black cats have 50% Leukemia while the white cats have 25% Leukemia.  That explanation is per capita for dummies, like me, but it's very understandable.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

Someone seems to think there has been only one instance of a black man being killed by a cop.

So true, it seems many think this all began with George Floyd, and are unaware of the past atrocious murders of Blacks before Floyd.  Finally, more cameras are capturing them, and shocking the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

@JanuarySwan, I've only skimmed the last few days of this thread, but see that you feel there can only be some monetary reasons or systemic racism. (Forgive me if I've misunderstood it, I most certainly have). I think there is some truth in this, but not necessarily in the way I think you think.

First, racism is natural and predates money. Humans (and virtually all other animals) are wired to assess characteristic of other creatures in their environment, either for potential as threat, food, or for procreation. Those animals that have evolved social behavior extend this assessment to envelope their social groups, while continuing to assess differences within them. Ancient humans recognized people of their own tribes and welcomed them, while being wary of people who looked different. As populations migrated across the globe and forked their evolution into easily distinguishable populations (races), tribal recognition mechanisms became racism.

Humanity's ability to record (and rewrite) its own history (verbally and in text) allows us to evolve our social structures at a far faster rate than natural evolution evolves our wiring. Over the very long haul, nature weeds out the unfit using selection rules we truly don't well understand. Over the short haul, humans select, via various mechanisms (public policy, wars, etc) by very different rules that produce effects and unintended side effects with potentially far more dramatic consequences than natural selection. Natural selection is effectively out of the picture now.

In virtually any human conflict, there is a desire for something someone else has got, food, shelter, freedom, power, etc. Upon creating money, people will want that too. Almost anything you want is easier to get if you have power. Power is the lever at work here and everything else flows from that. Systemic racism is about power, not money. While money might exchange hands between groups in power over the maintenance of that power, the actual goal of power is to extract wealth from the powerless.

Here's an example:
https://lapa.princeton.edu/content/predatory-cities

Google "Covid-19 wealth transfer" to discover more. Do keep in mind that any discussion of transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich correlates strongly with race, as the poor are disproportionately people of color.

I am wondering if there could be a possibility of channeling of monies for favoritism.  

The White Angelo Saxon Protestants aka WASPS of which most of America was founded on, had a high belief in nepotism, which I am wondering might have turned into favoritism.  

As far as color of skin, there are supremacist's of all colors all over the world - the ones with the money and the weapons.  

However, I don't want to dilute this issue but I think most oppression comes from money and the ones with the guns or the power.  

As far as natural, what does a white skin say as a way to survive?  I can't think of any other than the American ideal of it may be money.  

Edited by JanuarySwan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JanuarySwan said:

Okay, now let's say, 90% of the population is Green and 10% of the population is Blue.  And, let's use COVID-19 as an example here for the Green and Blue people.  Now if you take a 90% to 10%, wouldn't that graph show more COVID-19 cases among the Blue people because the number for the Green people is greater and may be subject to dilution once divided per 100,000? 

Imagine a population of one million people, 1000 of whom are black, the rest white. Imagine that C19 kills 1% of the white people and 100% of the black people. That's 9,990 white deaths and 1000 black deaths. Would you walk away from this thinking that C19 is a scourge for white people because it killed more of them? With the blackest of humor, I could argue that it couldn't be a scourge for black people. There are none.

From American Public Media

  • Aggregated death rates from COVID-19 across all states and the District of Columbia have reached new highs for all groups:

  • 1 in 1,625 Black Americans has died (or 61.6 deaths per 100,000)

  • 1 in 2,775 Indigenous Americans has died (or 36.0 deaths per 100,000)

  • 1 in 3,550 Latino Americans has died (or 28.2 deaths per 100,000)

  • 1 in 3,800 Asian Americans has died (or 26.3 deaths per 100,000)

  • 1 in 3,800 White Americans has died (or 26.2 deaths per 100,000)

Each of those statistics is per-capital within each subset of the American population. Notice that, if you are black, you are more than twice as likely to die from C19 than a white person. C19 has no eyes, so this disparity in per-capita death rates must have some other basis. There may be genetic factors at work, but I've yet to see any related to a genomic difference that correlates to perceived race (thereby giving C19 eyes). So what explains the difference? We know that C19 greatly stresses people with other vulnerabilities. Obesity (and correlated diabetes), high blood pressure (affected by sodium content in a culture's cuisine), anxiety, etc are all factors that increase one's chance of becoming seriously ill or dying from C19.

Those risk factors can often be traced back to the effects of... systemic racism.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
Math error. 9990 white deaths, not 10,000. Every life matters! ;-).
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, JanuarySwan said:

However, I don't want to delude this issue but I think most oppression comes from money and the ones with the guns or the power.  

As far as natural, what does a white skin say as a way to survive?  I can't think of any other than the American ideal of it may be money. 

I can agree with this in part. Unregulated Capitalism by its nature funnels more wealth to the top , and it needs to have 'lower' groups to stomp down and extract profits from.   Society itself creates the lower classes (via our racist nature that needs to stomp some down so we can feel better about ourselves being 'on top', as well as extract more resources for our preferred group).  In other words, unregulated Capitalism uses our prejudice to achieve its goals.

Edited by Luna Bliss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

From American Public Media

  • Aggregated death rates from COVID-19 across all states and the District of Columbia have reached new highs for all groups:

  • 1 in 1,625 Black Americans has died (or 61.6 deaths per 100,000)

  • 1 in 2,775 Indigenous Americans has died (or 36.0 deaths per 100,000)

  • 1 in 3,550 Latino Americans has died (or 28.2 deaths per 100,000)

  • 1 in 3,800 Asian Americans has died (or 26.3 deaths per 100,000)

  • 1 in 3,800 White Americans has died (or 26.2 deaths per 100,000)

Wow!  This statistic is just mind-boggling, just mind-boggling.  

I don't know what to say.  This is an American tragedy.  I hope we can improve those numbers real fast!  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2020 at 1:41 AM, FairreLilette said:

My ex-husband constantly being threatened "we can get people to work for less than you", or this one "we can get a Mexican to work for $300 a week, will you take a paycut?"

tell your ex-husband to report these employers.  If they are employing people for $300 a week then they are breaking the law.  The minimum wage in California is $12 an hour. 12 * 40 = $480

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

 

I remember doing a similar exercise during foster carer training.  To see one's unearned privilege lain out clearly should be (it was for me) a very sobering moment. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Mollymews said:
On 6/11/2020 at 8:41 AM, FairreLilette said:

My ex-husband constantly being threatened "we can get people to work for less than you", or this one "we can get a Mexican to work for $300 a week, will you take a paycut?"

tell your ex-husband to report these employers.  If they are employing people for $300 a week then they are breaking the law.  The minimum wage in California is $12 an hour. 12 * 40 = $480

Well, Molly, it's not always a simple choice regarding reporting those who are not playing by the rules.
Case in point, when I began to get good-paying jobs from corporations in SL I was a good girl and paid my taxes!
But I knew of others like me who skated under the radar, as we could so easily in those early days of SL, and did not pay taxes. They severely underbid me for a few possible contracts, putting me at a major disadvantage.
Did I ever report them?  No, that would have felt creepy first of all. Plus they could have received major fines or even prison time if discovered.

With Fairre's case, I have to wonder what the repercussions could have been. Perhaps it would have ruined her employer and the end result would be nobody had a job.

Edited by Luna Bliss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

 Perhaps it would have ruined her employer and the end result would be nobody had a job.

this raises a whole issue in itself

but on the bidding up/down of paid remuneration, all the State can do is set some minimum below which bids can't go.  The main reason for minimum wage, is that when wages/salaries drop below the poverty line then the State by law is obligated to top up the person's income.  Which creates a subsidy for these employers. A subsidy which advantages these employers

on the raised issue, my view is that a commercial enterprise that can only make a profit, in the normal course of trading, by receiving State subsidies has no place in business. Better to fold the enterprise and free up what capital there is for investment in actual profitable enterprises

all State subsidies should be open and directly viewable by the people paying them, the taxpayers.  Subsidies should not be by indirect methods making it difficult for the taxpayers to see/know them for what they are 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

but on the bidding up/down of paid remuneration, all the State can do is set some minimum below which bids can't go.  The main reason for minimum wage, is that when wages/salaries drop below the poverty line then the State by law is obligated to top up the person's income.  Which creates a subsidy for these employers. A subsidy which advantages these employers

Fairre is describing a situation a number of years ago, so wage subsidies weren't in effect then as far as I know. CA has them now, but not sure about the rest of the States.  It certainly seems like a good way to reduce income inequalities!

Back in the day, and even now, there was a lot of 'under the table' work going on. Adopting these policies would seem to prevent this, in many cases anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

Fairre is describing a situation a number of years ago, so wage subsidies weren't in effect then as far as I know. CA has them now, but not sure about the rest of the States.  It certainly seems like a good way to reduce income inequalities!

Back in the day, and even now, there was a lot of 'under the table' work going on. Adopting these policies would seem to prevent this, in many cases anyway.

the USA federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for non-tipped workers. The federal min. wage is $2.13 per hour for tipped workers who receive not less than $30 per month in tips, which is a pittance. In California the tipped worker minimum is $12, the same as for non-tipped workers

i am a supporter of minimum wage. It helps turn workers into contributing taxpayers rather than tax reciepients

i also have no sympathy for commercial enterprises that do business under the table to thwart the norms of civilised society. Is a practice that corrupts our societies as a whole and corrupts the employers, and those they hire under the table, on a individual basis. I get that people need jobs,  but not on the terms of corruption that erodes us as a body and individually

Edited by Mollymews
. The
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...