Networking Geek, Linux / OS X aficionado. Rockband God.
25 stories
·
3 followers

Socialism Is Bad

5 Comments and 8 Shares

I get a worrying sense that socialism is becoming cool again. You can see it all over social media where people brag about joining the Democratic Socialists of America, and in the popularity of the socialist magazine Jacobin. If Trump fails terribly, I worry that left populism will be what replaces it and the end result will be a more socialist U.S. That’s bad because socialism is bad. Given the growing popularity of socialism, I think it’s worth talking about why socialism is bad specifically.

Matt Bruenig has written a useful piece on socialism that I think is a jumping off point. As usual with Matt, it’s written with clarity and specificity that is appreciated. Unlike a lot o vague paeans to how socialism is good and we should have it, Matt offers specific plans for how we could get to government ownership of business.

The plan calls for the gradual socialization of existing companies, and Matt tells me on twitter that this would apply only to large firms. It may be appealing to think of a massive, centralized company like Apple and assume that it wouldn’t matter whether the government slowly became the sole shareholders. After all (ignoring the importance of options in executive compensation for the moment) the shareholders aren’t doing the innovating, the employees are. What does it matter who the dividend checks go to?

One issue is that the government would not just own but control companies, and this plan doesn’t tell us what they would do with that control. And yes, Matt does see this control as a benefit and not a cost to be avoided. Would Apple be free to innovate with the government controlling it? Or would they be forced to onshore all their production? It would be a lot easier for Trump to push Ivanka’s clothing line if the government owned and controlled Nodstrom, Sears, and K-Mart. It is hard to both desire control presumably as a means to some unspecified end and also to assume this control won’t have negative consequences for productivity.

Second, even if we could easily socialize every large company in the U.S. without negatively affecting them, this does not tell us about the future large companies who don’t exist yet. If socialism was in place in 1995 would we have Google today? If we were socialist in 1975 would we have Apple today? Why would small business founders grow their businesses knowing that this would cause them to be socialized? This is especially true given that you can’t socialize the globe at once and companies on the cusp of growing large enough to be socialized would be free to locate in, say, New Zealand.

Fast growing, small companies are a very important source of new job creation and innovation. More productive firms are more likely to grow, and less productive ones more likely to exist. Telling firms to stay small or be socialized is going to give small, successful companies incentive to avoid the important growth dynamics that are essential to a productive economy. To take one recent example for how costly inefficiencies like this can be, Garicano, Lelarge, and Van Reenan examine laws in France that affect only firms with 50 or more workers. They find that this creates more small firms than would otherwise be the case, and the distortions lower GDP by 3.5% by increasing unemployment and keeping productive firms below their optimal size.

Indeed, a broad literature shows that the inability of small successful companies to grow is an important factor that holds back economic development. Hsieh and Klenow show that in the U.S., as manufacturing firms age they get bigger. The effect can be seen in the graph below, from Charles Jones “The Facts of Economic Growth”.  Hsieh and Klenow estimate that if U.S. firms expanded as slowly as they do in India and Mexico, total factor productivity in the U.S. would be 25% lower.

klenow

Because he is Matt Bruenig, I know exactly how he will reply to this: if reducing firm size along some margin is bad, then making firms be bigger must be good so let’s just mandate all firms be large somehow. Of course this ignores the fact that it is not arbitrary size that is good, but a system that incentivizes the most productive firms to grow and the least productive to shrink or exist. It is the productivity increasing selection mechanism of capitalism that matters, and not just the mere outcome of firm size that should be mandated by politicians like some kind of dial to turn up or down.

Socialism is bad and it is bad that socialism is becoming cool again. Nevertheless I enjoy reading Matt Bruenig and other new socialists who clearly lay out their ideas for how it all would work. I think entrepreneurship, productivity, dynamism, and reallocation are first order factors for economic growth and socialists should address these issues. There are many other reasons why socialism is bad, but I think this is an important place to start.

Read the whole story
sfrazer
13 days ago
reply
Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of "socialism is bad" without much supporting evidence.

There's a middle-ground between 100% laissez-faire capitalism and complete government ownership of all businesses.
Chicago
Share this story
Delete
4 public comments
dukeofwulf
12 days ago
reply
People are rightly unnerved by companies with too much power, because we've seen how it can go wrong. Well, the largest company in the world by revenue is Walmart with $482 billion in revenue last FY. US government revenue in FY2016 was $3270 billion. Include state and local, and that jumps to $7030 billion.

One would think that, given the recent election, progressives would be backing away from philosophies that vests undue power in the government. We've just seen how easily those reins can be taken by a malefactor. We've also seen lots of large companies step up against that malefactor.
salsabob
12 days ago
duke, the vast majority of federal spending is for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - all that spending goes to individuals who then spend it in the private sector. Then there's Defense spending. Do you think Apple, Amazon or Google should be providing money to people instead? Do you believe they should be running our military? And at the local level, government spending goes almost entirely to schools, social services, roads, police and fire departments. You want Walmart to do that? Weird.
dukeofwulf
12 days ago
salsa, you're putting words in my mouth. I consider myself a moderate. Example: I support Dodd Frank and ACA, and think that neither went far enough. My point was that the US government is by far the largest organization on Earth, and it's fair to be skeptical of any attempt to increase its power further due to the risk of its abuse. - And yes, funds dedicated to SS, Medicare/Medicaid, schools, roads, etc are still under government discretion, and are a source of government power. I don't care if Amazon gets ripped off by their purchasing manager by giving a bid to their cousin, because I don't own Amazon; but if that happens to government, that's the people's money.
salsabob
5 days ago
dukeofwulf, your metric of government power ($'s spent) is just too simplistic particularly in regard to comparisons to the private sector. The public sector is not driven by profit motive or investors' best interest; instead, it is driven by poltical choice of the electorate - that's why most of government dollars go to safety nets and Defense spending at the federal level and schools and roads at the local level. No other entity is going to do that anywhere near the levels of the government because there is not enough PROFIT in it. What you are saying by confusing power with government spending is that you want less safety nets, less Defense, less education. less roads. If what you are concerned about is government power, you need metrics that address regulatory power. Whether you like it or not, Dodd Frank provides enormous government power and comparable at little actual government spending. The ACA is something in the middle, it has considerabe government spending in the form of subsidies to individuals buying health insurance and it provides considerable government regulatory power over the insurance sector. I'm just suggesting that if you become a tad clearer on what is actually power, you may find your government to be a tad less scary. On the other hand, if you delve into the power of information, you may find Amazon to be a tad more scary.
dukeofwulf
5 days ago
Uh... so you agree that the government has a scary amount of power, not only by the virtue of its massive budget but also due to its power to enact and enforce laws and regulations? You seem to be proving my point. Regardless, you continue to take my simple observation and expand it into a political philosophy that I simply don't hold.
kleer001
12 days ago
reply
Companies need to have lifespans like other living things. Different legal instars. Moultings and matings.
subbes
13 days ago
reply
this post is wrong :)
SF Bay Area
wreichard
13 days ago
reply
Having just lived in the UK, I lived to say there's absolutely nothing wrong with socialism.
Earth
acdha
12 days ago
The weirdest thing about these propaganda posts is the way they completely ignore all of the other countries available for comparison. I mean, maybe Denmark has taxes which are too high but just how bad can it be when everyone seems pretty content with it and surprised by, say, Americans pleading online for donations to cover their medical bills?

Facebook passwords are case insensitive

2 Comments
Comments

Comments
Read the whole story
sfrazer
39 days ago
reply
This is not nearly as bad as Amazon's old method. The headline is inaccurate as well: case isn't ignored, the entered password is retried with the case of all characters inverted.

There are 2 other transformations as well: invert only the first character, remove the last character.
Chicago
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
fxer
39 days ago
reply
Reminds me of when Amazon truncated passwords to 8 chars and were case-insensitive due to the use of crypt()
http://www.techspot.com/news/42209-amazon-security-flaw-lets-you-log-in-with-wrong-password.html
Bend, Oregon
freeAgent
39 days ago
Fake news? I hope.

The Actual Reason Markets Do Not Work In Healthcare is... Pain!

1 Comment and 6 Shares

Today, David Brooks asks whether or not markets function well in the American health care system and he seems to think that, when it doesn't, it's largely because health care providers know so much more about health and wellbeing than health care consumers:

As you know, the American health care system is not like a normal market. When you make most health care decisions you don’t get much information on comparative cost and quality; the personal bill you get is only vaguely related to the services; the expense is often determined by how many procedures are done, not whether the problem is fixed.

You wouldn’t buy a phone this way.

The real issue is that you don't buy a phone because you are experiencing intense pain and discomfort and believe that the purchase of a phone would make the pain go away.  Buying a phone would be like buying health care if and only if somebody twisted your arm out of your socket and agreed to let go and reset you if and only if you present your credit card to the AT&T store.

Health care transactions are almost all performed under duress. Now, later on, Brooks says, "Patients on a gurney can’t really make normal choices..." but that's about it, and it's not even clear that he's talking about pain and discomfort here, he may mean that the patient has been anesthetized.

Maybe I'm weird, but I don't go to the doctor for every scrape, bruise or headache. I go once a year for a physical because it's the right thing to do and for a follow up if I am directed.  If I show up sick or hurt, I am really sick or hurt.  A limb has been damaged.  The flu is so bad I had a hard time even making it to his office.  Okay, I'll go in for a flu shot, but that's to prevent the pain that I know is coming if I don't.What I pay for such services is the functional equivalent of protection money.

When does the stock market not work?  When people are forced to sell stocks against their will.  A lot of the health care market functions as a market in crisis.  In the stock market, it's sellers forced out.  In the health care market, it's sufferers forced in.

Says Brooks:

Laser eye surgery produces more patient satisfaction than any other surgery. But it’s generally not covered by insurance, so it’s a free market. Twenty years ago it cost about $2,200 per eye. Now I see ads starting at $250 an eye.

Well, okay.  The market functions, over time, for elective procedures.  But let's not expect people to negotiate over serious, sometimes chronic conditions. Every time somebody suggests a market-driven health care solution, they are suggesting that patients negotiate with providers while under considerable duress. YIf you ever buy a phone that way, you're buying it from the mob.

Topics: 
Read the whole story
sfrazer
41 days ago
reply
"Twenty years ago it cost about $2,200 per eye. Now I see ads starting at $250 an eye" I'm 100% sure this model will work with cardiac arrest.
Chicago
Share this story
Delete

Fighting With Words | According To Hoyt

1 Comment

Yesterday one of my sons came to me about an argument (religious) two friends had got into.  He was furious at both of them, because both were “arguing” in the terms and from within their rather deep belief systems, and getting increasingly mad at how “stupid” the other was, when there was no intelligence involved on either side.  Or rather, whatever reasoning there was was coming out in terms that the other side either could not decode or would interpret as fighting words. (My son mostly just wanted to vent so he did that, and then he was fine.)

I have banned a total of about 8 people (if you count ten or so of them as being one very notorious troll) from this blog.  A couple I banned were for religious nonsense, and one was of my religion.  But when you come in quoting the Bible as though it “proves” something about a current political situation, you’re not arguing in terms people can discuss.  You’re shutting down the discussion with something you think is irrefutable, because it goes beyond logic.  This might be very convincing in a group of like believers (not always.  Doesn’t convince me.)  BUT in an open group, where people of all religions and none gather, this is just annoying and the equivalent of shouting insults, or reciting meaningless mantras.  UNDERSTAND this is not saying “oh, the situation reminds me of this” as we’ve all quoted the Bible, Kipling, or even songs or movies in that manner.  I mean giving a quote from the Bible and saying “And this ends the discussion” because if everyone believed in the quote and interpreted it as the quoter it would, only people of course don’t.  So such a tactic just drives other people insane and ends meaningful discussion.

What brings this up is not religion, per se, except in the sense that some political movements seem to have acquired religious overtones.

I have long ago realized that when the left says “check your privilege” they are doing exactly the same as people quoting the Bible in a discussion-ending way.  They are saying something that from within the deep halls of their religious belief is meaningful and discussion-ending.  But to the rest of us, it’s mumbo-jumbo and annoyingashell.

Look, I have a liberal arts degree, and I learned in a country that was at the time (probably still is) nuts for Marx.  I understand what they were taught about institutional racism, privilege and all that.  I just happen to think they’re wrong, because individuals are individuals and should be treated as such, not as broad classes.  I refuse to believe Obama’s daughters have fewer opportunities than my sons because they’re female and a little darker.

So to me when a Marxist screams “check your privilege” what I really hear is “I’m a brain washed idiot.”

This is worse if it comes in the middle of a comment or rant that makes sense otherwise, say something about the culture of recent immigrants can hold their kids back.  I’ll be reading along going “Okay, I see you’re coming from the left, but there’s common groun–” and then we hit the “magic words” and my brain goes into instant “these are my middle fingers.”

Recently we’ve started getting the same from the soi-disant right.  It’s an “European right” that treats races and classes as groups, not as aggregations of individuals with wild variation.  Look, they’re mostly young, and mostly rather stupid.  I’m not saying some of them aren’t individually smart, because some of the ways they’re stupid are ways in which only smart people can be that dumb.  Like believing the melanin content of the skin correlates with IQ, or that culture is hereditary.

Mostly they’re kids who realize that they’ve been lied to all their lives, and think that by turning the lies completely around they’ll find the truth.  The world is never that simple.

The problem though, is that their lingo has acquired the same properties as the left.  It has spread to older people who should know better, and who use it because they can and because they think it’s a thumb in the eye of political correctness.  But what it actually does is argue from “deep cult” and shut down discussion for anyone not already along for the ride.

I was reminded of this, recently, while reading a comment to one of my posts at Instapundit.  I don’t often do it, because lately there’s been a lot of crazy.  But the comments were interesting, and this particular one was very good (and no, I can’t remember about what) and made perfect sense/explained things beyond where my post was.  All except the last line who referred to the Halfrican Queen.

It took me a moment to realize from context it was talking about Valerie Jarret.  But beyond making the comment more opaque and signaling a brain-shutting cultish type of thinking, it did more than that.

It introduced completely irrelevant emotional distractions.  Halfrican, and all the other stupid epithets of that ilk is not an argument.  If it were an argument, you’d have to explain why the fact that Valerie Jarret is half African (is she even?  I thought she was mostly Arab) has anything to do with the fact that she works for the Muslim brotherhood or is a red diaper baby.  I mean, sure, there’s some covalence there, but that’s cultural, and part of her being indoctrinated to believe she was hard-done-by due to her skin color.  But there are many people who fill the same role without the genetic heritage.  Obama’s lily-white mother was a red diaper baby and so are half of the lily white, upper class darlings of science fiction.

The term, besides not sounding nearly as clever as it does inside the cult IS anti-pc, but it is anti-pc in a way that not only brings irrelevant arguments to the discussion but that like “check your privilege” proclaims “I come from so deep within an echo chamber that I consider this a clinching argument.”

I’ve gotten to the point that my middle fingers come up automatically when I hear one of these words.  Cuck, for instance, means “I don’t understand parliamentary procedure or governmental structure in the US and I want to impress it with how angry I am.”  Halfrican means “I have no clue how human intelligence/DNA/culture works, but I want to be superior to someone.”  The rest of the vile lot means a bunch of other things such as “I believe in an international Zionist conspiracy, just like Marxists and Palestinians, because I think those two are beacons of sanity.”  Or “I believe in magic dirt, because if you’re born on the land for x generations you’ll have the right culture/beliefs, even if the schools and society are no longer teaching them.  And I’ll ridicule others for believing in “magic dirt” when people do their best to BECOME part of the nation.”

In fact, all of these terms aren’t cute, aren’t funny.  They’re creepy eructations that mean “I joined a cult.”

They have the added “benefit” of making people who don’t fully agree with you and don’t come from the deep cult shut down on you.  And of making people on the other side FURTHER believe they were justified, are victims and should hold on hammer and tongues to their victimhood instead of actually listening to what they’ve been doing wrong.

In fact, these thought-stopping and substitute for thought words do the very opposite of shattering the PC bubble and making people think.

We have to fight with words, or surely we’ll fight with actions. But fighting with words that stop thought and discussion will only make things worse.

And yes, I know, because I’ve seen this in posts by Stephen Green or other of my friends, some *sshole will come along and say because I don’t like these cutesy words that mean nothing I’m a “closet democrat” or a “communist.”  Being called a communist is one of my new and favorite pastimes, considering I’ve broken more communist heads than anyone not a veteran of the armed forces and that even before I had a political philosophy I knew I was anti-communist.

But before you do that, explain to me how using stupid made up words makes your point that communism is bad, or that the democrats are Marxists.  Make it cogent.  Show your work.

Because all I’m seeing are people coming from deep-cult and thinking that the short cuts around thought that they’ve gotten used to will work on everyone.

And that’s tragically wrong.

Like this:

Like Loading...

Read the whole story
sfrazer
88 days ago
reply
Once again I see Hoyt leads herself almost to an epiphany and then jumps off at the last moment.

"I understand privilege" she says as she proceeds to give an example that completely ignores the concept of intersectionality

"We shouldn't group people together, focus on the individual" she says as she proceeds to tell us how all liberals are exactly the same.
Chicago
sfrazer
88 days ago
"I have long ago realized that when the left says “check your privilege” they" -- because everyone on the left who has mentioned privilege is trying to shut down conversation?
sfrazer
87 days ago
Saying "this person cannot be reasoned with" when you've completely misunderstood the argument they are making (and have taken much effort to promote your misunderstanding of that argument as the argument itself) and then saying it's their fault for the conversation being shut down seems awfully lazy. And that's pretty classic Hoyt.
sfrazer
87 days ago
I don't think this rebuts my previous point. Saying people who use the term "white privilege" cannot be reasoned with is completely different than saying people who _hear_ it refuse to change their mind. I'm not even going to try to change Hoyt's mind, I know a sisyphean task when I see it. I'm merely pointing out that (again) Hoyt is wallowing in hypocrisy. Sure it's nice to see her realize that the far right can be terrible, but she's created a _very_ false equivalence between "cuck" and "white privilege."
sfrazer
87 days ago
You started off chastising me for arguing something not in her text, but now I'm supposed to make the leap to the words she didn't put in there? :-) And the stuff you've put here about "check your privilege" is your _opinion_ that you state as fact. When someone says that to me I don't assume it's meant to end the argument. It's meant to remind me that there are factors at play I may not have considered. Hoyt's children do, absolutely have privileges the Obama girls do not. The Obama girls also have many privileges Hoyt's children do not. The fact that she thinks the argument ends with the first statement and ignores the second is the source of their frustration with the term. That's not a failing of the term. It's a failing of the person.
sfrazer
87 days ago
"I refuse to believe Obama’s daughters have fewer opportunities than my sons because they’re female and a little darker" I'm not guessing anything.
sfrazer
87 days ago
As for what I'm arguing, perhaps go back to the top of this long thread. Hoyt exhorts us to focus on the individual and then paints everyone on the left with a broad and incorrect brush. That wasn't a side point, it was the point of the whole article.
sfrazer
87 days ago
Why is the privilege you're considering restricted to race? Her sons are male, they enjoy privileges females don't. My statement stands. And again what you say it means is what you are hearing and it's not the same thing I hear when it's said to me. Why is that the problem of the person saying it and not the problem of the person hearing it?
sfrazer
87 days ago
I'll add this: 'I have long ago realized that when the left says “check your privilege”' followed by 'So to me when a Marxist screams “check your privilege”' certainly seems to conflate everyone on the left with Marxism which certainly isn't the case.
sfrazer
87 days ago
Do you not see the hypocrisy you just typed? Isn't Hoyt using "Marxist" to refer to all the left her "saying something from her silo where she should be aware of how it is perceived?" Isn't it counter-productive to refer to me (someone definitely on the Left) as a Marxist? Isn't she intentionally trying to insult me and people like me?
sfrazer
87 days ago
We must have crossed posts on your initial "silo" comment, they appear to be only a minute apart. I cannot educate you on the concept of intersectionality in the comments section of Newsblur, sorry. It's not a cop-out. It's a tool for understanding how the world works. That you think it's a method of self-aggrandizement shows you suffer (or not, perhaps you are quite happy there) the same unwillingness to engage with the concept that Hoyt does. Also, I cannot agree with you that's okay to be hypocritical in your point simply because you don't believe people outside your "silo" will read it. She's talking ABOUT me, and doing so in an insulting way that flies in the face of the very point she tries to make. The fact that someone shared the post to the (not-so-)wide-world of Newsblur's General Shared stories means it's now outside that silo anyway. I guess this has been sort of entertaining, but I really feel like you've bobbed and weeved by my initial point so many times that I don't see much use in continuing.
sfrazer
86 days ago
I said nothing about being offended. I said she was being hypocritical. That's not the first time you have set up things I did not say in order to argue some tangental point to the one that started this thread.
sfrazer
86 days ago
Given the amount of reading comprehension you've displayed, I'm not really surprised you're confused. Have a good evening.
Share this story
Delete

Package delivery woes in Berlin portend imminent collapse of western civilization, Vox Day warns

2 Comments
Mr Mc Bealey with a speedy delivery

Mr Mc Bealey with a speedy delivery

Fantasy author Theodore “Vox Day” Beale certainly has a rich fantasy life. Beale, who seems to grow ever more flamboyantly racist by the day, has roused himself into what he thinks is righteous fury over reports in far-right media outlets claiming that DHL Express has cut off delivery services to one especially dangerous neighborhood in Berlin.

According to The New Observer, a virulently racist and anti-immigrant “news service” quoted by Beale,

Violent attacks on personnel, robberies, and fraud have forced DHL Express to halt all deliveries in the invader-overrun region of Wedding, north-west Berlin, a statement from the company has announced.

Wedding has a “German-origin” population of only 50 percent, with the rest being made up of Africans, Turks, Arabs, Asians, and Eastern European gypsies.

The implication, of course, is that these terrible brown “invaders” have rendered a portion of formerly white Berlin uninhabitable.

The reality is a teensy bit more nuanced. According to TheLocal.de, an English-language German news site, DHL in fact said that only a handful of people in Wedding had been asked to pick up packages at a DHL facility in a different neighborhood. Dismissing press reports that Wedding had become a “no go” zone due to violent attacks, the company said its main concern was fraud, not violence, “referring to when people falsely pose as the recipient of packages.”

But, damn the fact-checking, full speed ahead! Beale, accepting the New Observer account as gospel, warns his readers that the end is near for Western cities and countries that aren’t majority white. Sorry, majority “European.”

“Forget home delivery,” Beale declares.

A minority-European population in a Western country isn’t even going to have flush toilets or functioning dishwashers for very long. If white workers can’t even drop off a package safely, they sure as Hell aren’t going to enter a stranger’s home and stay there for hours.

Really? When Beale thinks of “minority-European” cities in the United States, he no doubt thinks of deindustrialized basket cases like Detroit, or Flint, or Gary, Indiana.

But there are a lot of other cities in the United States with minority-white populations, including New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago. None of these cities are on the verge of collapse, or even vaguely close to it. Their toilets and dishwashers work fine, and there are many options for delivery of everything from electronics to burritos.

The thing that is so ludicrously stupid about the equalitarian position shared by American liberals and conservatives alike is that it assumes because reasonably digestible numbers of European immigrants were semi-successfully assimilated with only one massive civil war followed by 60 years of virtually no immigration, an unlimited number of non-European immigrants can be permitted to enter the country indefinitely.

This is not merely bad logic. This is insane. There is no way – none – to rationally defend or justify the position, which is why its defenders immediately retreat to abstract ideals and pure rhetoric.

Bullshit. Even setting aside such “abstract ideals” as, you know, equality and fairness, consider this: the US is considerably less white than it was a quarter century ago. It is also a safer place to live, with violent crime rates down considerably nationwide and in many of our largest minority-white cities, including New York and, yes, Chicago, despite a rash of gun deaths mostly linked to gangs and a failed drug war.

Yes, the US faces all sorts of problems and challenges. But it is demonstrably not turning into the dystopian hellhole of Beale’s imagination, where toilets don’t work and roving gangs of “invaders” chase deliverymen out of the inner cities.

The invasion of 60 million immigrants in 50 years, the largest invasion in human history, will lead to war in the United States. There is ZERO question of this, as it is only a matter of time. We can’t know when it will happen, we can’t know exactly why it will happen, but given the fact that the USA is already at a stress level that was last seen in 1856, the odds are against the USA even making it to the 2033 date I had predicted for financial collapse and some form of political dissolution. 

If civil war erupts in this country, and at this point I wouldn’t rule it out, it won’t be the fault of immigrants. It’ll be the fault of racists like Beale and the demagogues like Donald Trump who’ve exploited their bigotry to win power in elections in which, due to the bizarre anachronism that is the electoral college, white votes count more than those of minority voters.

Trump won big with whites in majority white areas freaked out about immigration, but whites in cities and states where lots of immigrants actually live went, often overwhelmingly, for Clinton.

Consider Chicago, where Trump got a measly 12.4% of the vote. Chicago has a justified reputation as a severely segregated city, at least when it comes to where people live. But public space is significantly less segregated, and the city is sufficiently diverse that even in the whitest neighborhoods on Chicago’s north side, white residents regularly encounter and interact with and sometimes even become friends with people of all races and nationalities.

Contrary to what people like Beale believe, all this contact with black and brown people — many of them immigrants — hasn’t turned white Chicagoans into white supremacists. As a reporter for one of Chicago’s neighborhood newspapers recently pointed out,

Clinton got 95.4 percent of the vote in Chicago’s 18 black-majority wards, 87.1 percent in the 11 Hispanic-majority wards and 84.6 percent in the seven affluent, mostly white, Lakefront wards.

None of this is to suggest that racism isn’t a problem in Chicago; it has been and remains a huge issue, as does the city’s seemingly intractable racial segregation. But it is striking that white Chicagoans who live in a city teeming with non-white immigrants are a lot less anxious about immigration than whites who live in decidedly un-diverse areas where immigrants are more of an abstract boogeyman, rather than people they interact with every day.

So, cry Racism, Constitution, Declaration, and Proposition Nation all you like. Virtue-signal your color-blindness all you like. Adopt one child of every color if you want. None of that frantic appeal to totem magic will save you from what is to come any more than it would have in 1861, in 1914, or 1939.

An interesting selection of dates there, given that both the Civil War and World War II were caused not by “virtue-signaling” liberals but by, you know, racists — in the first instance, by southerners who refused to give up slaves and slavery, and in the second, by Literally Hitler.

None of that is going to excuse your complicity in the nightmares to come. And regardless of what you think of it, understand that the Alt-Right program is the only one that even has the possibility of averting the coming conflict.

Sorry, dude. I’ll “cry Racism” when it’s completely fucking blatant. The problem isn’t immigrants. It’s the irrational fear and hatred of immigrants being preached by alt-white supremacists and their “God Emperor” Trump.

Read the whole story
sfrazer
88 days ago
reply
I didn't think teddy could become more of a caricature.
Chicago
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
skittone
89 days ago
reply
Stats for Chicago and more discussion in the article, but FTA: "Trump won big with whites in majority white areas freaked out about immigration, but whites in cities and states where lots of immigrants actually live went, often overwhelmingly, for Clinton."

This Is How Much You Need to Make to Live Comfortably in NYC

2 Comments and 4 Shares

A household would need to earn over $158,000 to rent a two-bedroom

Residents in this country's top 15 metro areas spend a large chunk of their income (unsurprisingly) on rent, and in New York City, a family would have to make over $158,000 a year to live comfortably in a two-bedroom apartment, a new study by SmartAsset, the financial data analysis service, has revealed.

The company based its study off of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)'s 30 percent threshold — where a household that spends more than 30 percent of its annual income on rent is considered cost-burdened.

   Via SmartAsset

By that logic, about 46 percent of renters across the country pay more than 30 percent of their income towards rent, according Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies, leaving less money towards other household expenses and savings.

SmartAsset calculated its annual income threshold for each city based on a 28 percent rent-to-income ratio. By that measure, New York City ranks second (once again) to San Francisco in terms of the income required to comfortably rent a two-bedroom. In NYC, SmartAsset calculated the average cost of a two-bedroom apartment at $3,692 per month — that's actually a 0.1 percent drop from the previous year, though that's not really much of a consolation. On average, the cost of living in New York City is 70 percent higher than the rest of the country.

   Via SmartAsset

Curbed Video: 4 Storage Ideas for Small Spaces

Read the whole story
sfrazer
284 days ago
reply
It's a blunt instrument too be sure, but the only place on that list remotely affordable at $15/hr is Detroit
Chicago
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
sirshannon
284 days ago
reply
A good example of why a nation-wide minimum wage doesn't make sense to me.
Next Page of Stories