dagblog - Comments for "When Affirmative Action was White"

Response to PP above

rmrd0000 — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:06:09 +0000

In reply to When Affirmative Action was White

Response to PP above

Social Security was an option at the time tat was denied to black agricultural workers.

The options without Social Security was work til you drop after age 65, depend on paltry welfare, or rely on family and charity.

Why were options so limited? Racism.

See below

rmrd0000 — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:00:50 +0000

In reply to How is an 80% chance you're

See below

How is an 80% chance you're

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:28:00 +0000

In reply to It was the best available at

How is an 80% chance you're pissing away retirement money "the best available"? I'm talking about an 80% you reach 65, so start to spend your banked retirement over 20 or 30 years. Money you get to spend for 2 days, a month, a year, 3 years, 5 if lucky before you croak? That's just simply dumb. You're better off putting the cash under a mattress or in the bank (assuming the bank was finally covered by FDIC, which at those amounts it would be).

*AND* - how the fuck is a barter system for sharecroppers going to do any of this anyway? So you got to keep part of your acreage as food, and you got some (overcharged) supplies from the company store, and now the government will want you to estimate its value in dollars and hand over 6% of that value even though you have next to 0 cash?

Best available at the time? Sure as fuck not for dirt poor farmers in the middle of a crisis. It was a joke then & for years after. Not for other professions, maybe not for blacks who owned their own land, but for the 7/8 without, yeah, wasn't attractive in the slightest except as some kind of symbolic something.

It was the best available at

rmrd0000 — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:04:17 +0000

In reply to So when Social Security

It was the best available at the time.

So when Social Security

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:01:08 +0000

In reply to There was a bigger population

So when Social Security expanded, they included more of the population (which was also moving to the cities & into factories) - so your point is what, they were right to wait?

And of course 100% don't die at 50, only 50% on average. But most blacks died by 65 - expect 80% at least, especially for the hard-worked agricultural sector. So maybe 20% or 1/5 of blacks lived to see retirement benefits, maybe less. Still sounds like a crap retirement plan.

There was a bigger population

rmrd0000 — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:23:52 +0000

In reply to Ah, but I didn't dodge it - I

There was a bigger population density when Social Security expanded.

100% of blacks didn’t suddenly drop dead at age 50. Your argument is one used by Conservatives today to encourage privatization of Social Security. Blacks die before they receive benefits.

Ah, but I didn't dodge it - I

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:17:00 +0000

In reply to Nice dodge ignoring Great

Ah, but I didn't dodge it - I pointed out population density - which applies to UK & the habitated/farmed parts of Sweden. But you're too busy trying to score points to notice. 6-8% of Sweden is arable, with total farming land now only ~630 square miles. (largely uninhabited Norrland occupies 3/5 of the country). Add to that both UK & Sweden went heavily industrial in the 19th Century, so didn't look much like Oklahoma or Kansas or Mississippi (less than 30% of Swedish workforce was on farms in 1939), which with about 5.5 million people in 1935 - less than Illinois and Texas and Ohio and California and New York and Pennsylvania ... - that means maybe 1.6 million farmers total.

But to repeat, why does it make sense for guy with life expectancy of 50 to invest in an insurance that pays out at 65?

Nice dodge ignoring Great

rmrd0000 — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:54:01 +0000

In reply to Wow, yes, Germany 1939 had

Nice dodge ignoring Great Britain and Sweden included agricultural worker and focusing only on the Axis countries.

Regarding the lost funds that came into the black community by the exclusion. A sample agricultural workplace was used to extrapolate (from the pdf)

———-

The vesting period from 1937 through 1939 provided 441,745 beneficiaries with a total of $25,652,000 in benefits, or $58.07 per year for that brief period. Subsequently, a monthly benefit would have been paid, the amount calculated according to a formula that advantaged low-wage workers over their higher earning compatriots. The vast majority of agricultural and domestic workers would have been eligible for the minimum Social Security benefit of $20.00 per month, had they been included (Cohen & Myers, 1950, p. 4). Assuming the excluded numbers in Table 2 and accounting for the differences in payments as per vesting from 1937 to 1940 and averaging the period when excluded agricultural and domestic workers were included under amendments of 1950 and 1954, an estimate of the value of denied benefits is possible, displayed in Table 3. The total value of benefits for excluded agricultural and domestic workers totals $618.24 billion in 2016 dollars, not an insignificant figure.4

————

Wow, yes, Germany 1939 had

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 06:52:42 +0000

In reply to So we create the permanent

Wow, yes, Germany 1939 had solved a lot of problems with its underclass. (Austria was of course by then part of Germany, as was Czechoslovakia and Poland - France could have just waited). I hear Mussolini not only made the trains run on time, he made sure the Social Security payments flow too.

Back in reality, distances in America are much much greater and population densities much less (and the south for one had a crap train system, but out west of the Mississippi rural handling of biweekly payments and disbursements would have been much more the nightmare.

No response on short black life expectancy?

Wow, this nuance stuff is

rmrd0000 — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 03:51:44 +0000

In reply to maybe it did help create an

Wow, this nuance stuff is hard. I was talking about the black underclass created by the racism and segregation of the 30s, but we are taken to a Wiki about the rural Populist Republican areas with opioid deaths. Perhaps, nuance is telling me that the groups are identical. My non-nuanced brain leads me to point out that drug problems in blacks in the rural South or urban North with drug problems are treated as criminals. The opioid crisis impacting rural whites is treated as a public health epidemic. No nuance. Racism. Both groups should be treated equally, but they aren’t. I was talking about the creation of a black underclass and nuance pulls me to address other things first. Isn’t that the same situation when Social Security was created? We’ll get to your problem in twenty years.