I do to. It's called abusing public welfare programs. The majority of people who are overpaid in the civilian work sector are so far exponentially less than those who sit at home all day and wait on the mail man for their cut of the taxes. That person who is at least gainfully employeed (even though me might not work for his keep per say) is having his money taken from his check. Do you really think what Bill Gates does warrants him to have over 60 billion liquid dollars in his bank account?

 

Some understanding of US history would do you well. Work ethic doesnt over-ride engrained stereotypes and subtle racism / prejudice.


You ever hear of a concept called the "glass ceiling"? Well, it is glass, which means you can see to the top, but it is an impenetrable barrier, which means you aint getting through it. Sometimes women and minorities find that the view from the top doesnt have open admission for all.

 

HAHAHAHA I literally laughed out loud when I read your post. Just so you know I have minor in history and it is apparent to me that you are looking at this from one side. If you are going to be close minded enough to say that work ethic was not one of if not the key ideal in this country (next to patriotism) then you need to look back to the Industrial Revolution, all wars, the internet boom, etc... Secondly, there is a little thing called affirmative action that has brought an entirely new meaning to "discrimination in the work place". Don't make assumptions.

 

This aint a pissing contest, but a minor requires a whopping 4 classes.

Anyways, this is an argument that can be defended from either angle. As far as affirmative action is concerned, I think we have it mixed it up. We need to appreciate the fact that some people have always gotten the shaft, but we should look into more need-based programs rather than skin-based programs.

If a kid grows up in Compton and has crap teachers and crap books, rocks a 3.5 gpa in high school, he should have a slight advantage (for college) admissions) over the lilly white Palo Alto pretty boy who has a 4.0 and had top-rate tutors.

My .02

 

Why should he have an advantage? If you owned a company (a business who's profit puts food on your table and a roof over your head) would you want to hire the best qualified or the most politically correct? If I had two resumes in front of me I'm picking the best qualified regardless and that's how it should be. Until that happens were are letting creed and race determine our decisions which does little more than prompt more racism in the office place which in turns amplifies it back into society. Using ones societal status in any way, shape or form does nothing but breed more racism and until America escapes that reality there will always be racists.

 

I agree, but how about:

- Chinese indenture slaves who were killed by the thousands in mines and while working for the companies run by the Big 4?

- The hundreds of thousands of tribes who were decimated

- The demarcation of anything black (codified racism until 1964!)

- The current sea of divisiveness that pits black against white and vice versa


Why do you think Robert Kennedy was assasinated? I believe it was because he made a grand statement to the poor of the US. He said racism is a tool used to divide the poor and keep them subdued. He urged poor Americans to rally against the injustices levied against them by the powers that be, which would in effect bridge the schism between the haves and have nots.

 

You just made my point. No, he doesn't work hard enough (or ever did) do desearve so much money. Noone does or ever did. So tax him at a higher rate.

 

JFK was 100% absolutely right. That being said how are we helping the problem by now and as in the past, using race to try and make up for those mistakes. That's like burning down the forest to prevent a fire. If you're going to use the "injustices were done in the past and this is how we will repay them" then why don't we just give reparations and be done with it? It's the same logic (as flawed as it may be).

Now, I have answered your question. Would you give me the courtesy of answering mine or are you avoiding on purpose?

 

In the example that dub2w brougt up it's not about the poorer student getting an advantage; it's about nulifying the advantage that the PA kid got.

 

Hahahahahaha. You do realize that this is EXACTLY how we control forest fires hahahahaha...

 

Tax him at a higher rate because he was inventive and came up with ideas who others never did? Punish him for creating the most applicable computer software the world has ever know? Again, that is the same system socialists use. Why did socialism fail? That's highly debatable but one cannot neglect the fact that ingenuity and evolutionary thought processes are not rewarded in such a system. There is no intrinstic motivation what-so-ever. That being said how is a society that follows such rules supposed to evolve and compete with a free-enterprise country were it's citizens rewarded for essentially doing things that give their country an advantage. If you were to get paid the same amount regardless of how hard you worked would you work harder?

 

I knew you were going to say that and you are wrong. Read it again. We do not burn down the forest. We maintain the undergrowth through controlled burning.

 

And how do you propose we do this? That's what I want to know.

 

I am a director for a web-based company. When hiring, I will look at the candidate as a whole. To completely stereotype, let's say I had a person in front of me from a great school, great past job, but has always had things easy. Compare him to someone who doesnt have the same nptched-up resume but has bigger and more diverse life experiences and I will take him every day of the week.

But that is just me. My point is the term "qualifications" is basically subjective as many different things could be incorporated in making your judgement.

And do I think people should just be given their job without earning it? No way! This only perpetuates unsounds practices... it doesnt do much to resolve them.

 

I can understand part of your resume evalution. For instance, if I was looking a potential employee that had a 3.8 from Southern Mississippi Technical College and a potential employee with a 2.8 from MIT I'd take the MIT grad everyday of the week. Why, because (based on GPA alone and assuming all other credentials are equal) the MIT student had a much more challenging ciriculum than did the SMTC student. Could the SMTC student have achieved a 2.8 at MIT. Probably not. In the case of the PA "whitey" (racial slur/racism) and the Compton student I'd look at it the same way. Could the PA have gotten a 3.5 in Compton cetebis paribus? Probably so because he is used to a much harder academic load and even with a tutor he'd probably still do as well. Likewise if the Compton student had a 4.0 with no tutor and the PA had a 3.0 and a tutor I'd take the Compton student. (this is all assuming everything else is equal)