Tuesday, July 3, 2018

What is Diversity?

The SCOTUS Dues Post took a turn. Sean and I started discussing what is diversity.
"Not just those in very homogeneous high population density communities." G2A
 
"You're suggesting that urban areas are, on the whole, less diverse? Source, please." Sean
 
"I'll have to do some looking... In this case I am thinking "diversity of political philosophy, not race"... Now I know you are obsessed with race and sexual orientation, however that really does not matter to me. I am more interested in where people fit on the personal / financial freedom spectrum??? " G2A
 
"You're the one who keep bringing up LGBT issues, not me. Race may not matter to you, but it does for the people who vote with you. There's a reason this administration treats white nationalists the way it does.
 
Democrats do well in areas with high levels of socioeconomic and demographic diversity. Republicans tend to do well in places that are predominantly white. " Sean
Diversity per Merriam Webster:
  1. the condition of having or being composed of differing elements : variety;  especially : the inclusion of different types of people (such as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization programs intended to promote diversity in schools
  2. an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities : an instance of being diverse , a diversity of opinion
 My responses:
  1. I pretty much only bring up topics that are in the news.  LGBT topics still seem to make headlines.  And I don't really care about the LGBT issue as much the balancing of LGBT and Religious rights.
  2. The minorities leaning DEM may simply be an issue of conditioning, not race. I mean the DEMs have spent 60+ years telling these folks that they are victims who need DEM / Government help, of course that kind of brain washing with a huge infusion of  "free money and services" has to have consequences. :-(
  3. As for socio economic diversity, I would argue that the GOP supporters vary just as much.  And their political philosophies vary greatly on social issues and government involvement.
  4. Whereas the DEMs seem to value more government in most cases. (ie regs, taxes, programs, etc)
 
 
 

70 comments:

Sean said...

"The minorities leaning DEM may simply be an issue of conditioning, not race."

Wow, that is condescending.

Anonymous said...

Diversity for Republicans is embodied by Trump's cabinet which includes both millionaires and billionaires.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

But really need to think about that guy who lives in Wyoming who no one would pay attention to at all if he didn't have two senators to represent him.

--Hiram

John said...

Sean,
As I often say... I agree...

I have never understood how DEMs have no faith in the ability of the dependent to learn, work and become independent of government programs.

Of course who would vote for more taxes and more government if they all became independent and successful? :-)

DEMs kind of remind me of the cigarette companies, "got to get them addicted young so they will stay hooked and vote DEM."

Sean said...

"I have never understood how DEMs have no faith in the ability of the dependent to learn, work and become independent of government programs."

Funny, I'm not the guy claiming that people can't think for themselves and figure out who to vote for.

John said...

I am pretty sure that most dependent unsuccessful folks are very rational.

They vote for the people that offer them free stuff for little or no effort... :-)

Time to go fix mowers... Back later...

Anonymous said...

I am pretty sure that most dependent unsuccessful folks are very rational.

My guess is that most folks don't have statute books in their house, or access to Westlaw. Few people who are having problems in their marriages find references to Minnesota Supreme Court decisions helpful in resolving them. Generally, resorting to legal counsel is something that happens more toward the end of a marriage than the beginning. The sight of a divorce lawyer handing out business cards at weddings is a rare one despite that where ultimately he gets all his clientele.

--Hiram

Laurie said...

Minneapolis is much more diverse than Marshall Minnesota and many people in rural MN also benefit from govt programs such as snap and medicaid

Laurie said...

The Role of Medicaid in Rural America

John said...

Laurie,
Have you forgot Collin Peterson is their Congressman?

What are the chances of Minneapolis electing a Republican Congress person?

We have quite the mix of beliefs out here.

Laurie said...

I have a GOP member of congress. The cities and suburbs also have a wide variety of beliefs

districts 2,3 and 6 will be competitive this year I think people in the suburbs are the swing voters.

John said...

Don’t confuse the topic by adding the outer burbs into the “cities”.

I am discussing urban and rural.

Laurie said...

I live in the suburb and consider myself an urban person

John said...

Definitions for thought...

Personally I consider inside 494 / 694 as urban, and outside them as the outer burbs for the most part. Are you inside or outside the loop?

And the burbs are neither urban nor rural. They are a unique mix of both.

John said...

By the way, I live inside the loop and I am definitely a suburbanite...

Laurie said...

You are the one who said the topic is urban or rural. Given those two choices I am much more urban. I live just outside the 494 loop. The schools in my city are quite diverse, more than 50% minority. I go to the heart of the city everyday to work. We also go to many bars and restaurants in the two central cities. Lastly my political views align much more with urban than rural.

If your topic is about diversity of political views I think the suburbs have the most diversity (and are the swing voters.)

John said...

Going back to the source of the post...

"Not just those in very homogeneous high population density communities." G2A

"You're suggesting that urban areas are, on the whole, less diverse? Source, please." Sean

As for "diversity of political views" which is somewhat the topic. I guess to me the Urban areas go DEM and the outer Burbs go GOP... The toss ups usually seem to be in the rural areas. At least in MN.

Anonymous said...

As someone who has to deal a lot with the problems real diversity creates, it his hard for me to get head around the notion that we aren't diverse. In many ways, my life would be easier if we weren't diverse.

The problem the other party has is obvious enough. This may be an example of how we don't know the opposition, but here is my perception. the Republican Party, as I perceive it, is a coalition between social conservative who are economic liberals On, and social liberals who are economic conservatives. That's what their diversity consists of, and indeed it presents a number of challenges for the GOP. Social conservatives don't like the moral culture, but they do like their entitlements. They like Social Security, and they like affordable health insurance. On the other side there are economic conservatives, who are social liberals. They want to lower the taxes that pay for the things the other half of their party want, and they don't want the government intruding on their personal lives. This was always an uneasy coalition for my Republican friends, and what we are seeing today is sort of a political breakdown where the party is led by a man who in his own mind is unable to reconcile these seething ideas and emotions and who is politically paralyzed as a result.

--Hiram

John said...

Given his high popularity amongst Republicans, he seems to be doing okay. :-)

Anonymous said...

It's a fascinating phenomenon, and example of what I think of as political arbitrage, in this case between what is paid lip service to and what people actually feel.

America has certain national myths, the things we are taught in schools, and which we celebrate particularly on a holiday such as today. One of them is that we are unified as a nation, and that unity is a good thing. It's even on the coinage, "Out of many one", not "out of one many". But while universally accepted, myths aren't always universally believed, and sometimes they just wear out. I remember during the Obama years, there was a dispute between a white police officer, and a black professor. In a display of unity, President Obama invited them both to the White House for a beer so they could talk about their differences. For much of our history, that would have been applauded. But it wasn't that time. In fact, President Obama came under political attack for it. What that told us that the idea of unity as a national ideal had just worn out, that we are entering a period where disunity and the division are the goal. This is played out in the symbols of our popular culture. Where we once had a president whose impulse was to invite each side over to a beer, now we have a president whose impulse is castigate those who he disagrees with while accommodating those who try to divide us in the sharpest way possible. No beers for Kaepernick, but Nazi's in Virginia are not without their good points. That's the way we live now.

--Hiram

John said...

Sometimes I wonder if Obama was too wishy washy...

I mean it is good to try to bring people together to talk, however unfortunately often it just yields more talk and few results... Especially when people's beliefs are diametrically opposed.

Now I am not in support of Trump's pointless bullying and lies, however he does seem to know what he wants for the good of America and is willing to aggressively pursue that agenda.

Sean said...

No conservative was accusing Obama of wishy-washiness from 2009-2016. He was the point of the spear that was going to take your guns away, nationalize your health care, eliminate the armed forces, and force you to get a gay marriage.

All you conservative folks are going to realize what you missed with Obama after about a week of the next Democratic President.

John said...

If the DEMs keep moving Left, that may be awhile.

Sean said...

Guy who voted for Donald Trump provides lecture on political moderation. I'll be sure to write it all down.

Anonymous said...

If the DEMs keep moving Left, that may be awhile.

the challenge from Trump comes from the left also. Economic protectionism appeals to the left more than Republicans. It's the one area Donald is getting serious resistance from Republicans in Congress.

Trump is trying to dictate management decisions to Harley Davidson? Isn't that what Communists do?

--Hiram

John said...

CNN What did DEMs Learn?

Anonymous said...

What Democrats learned from that race is that it's hard to turn out voters in primaries. Came as quite a shock, I can tell you.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Another thing Democrats learned is legislators should never take leadership positions unless they are sure of their electoral base.

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
I guess my point is that folks were likely sure of that district's electoral base until that base moved even further Left.

I think the DEMs are going to have the same problem the GOP is having... The parties keep having to cave to their extremists to get the nomination. And that leads to poor candidates in November.

Anonymous said...

I guess my point is that folks were likely sure of that district's electoral base until that base moved even further Left.

I don't think fondness for socialism broke out in that district all of a sudden.

But I do think capitalists need to do a better job of making their case to the American people. They take too much for granted. No one owes them a living.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

"...until that base moved even further Left."

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. When presented with the choice of a Liberal or a Neo-Liberal, a Liberal constituency will pick the Liberal.

Which is why we need true Liberals to run for office. A Liberal agenda is in line with the attitudes of more Americans than any other agenda.

Moose

John said...

Moose,
Is this the Liberal Platform you are talking about?

Anonymous said...

No. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s.

Medicare-for-all (and she meant real single-payer health insurance)
A federal jobs guarantee
Tuition-free college for all
Repeal Citizens United by constitutional amendment
Abolish ICE
Restore the Glass-Steagall financial regulations
A Green New Deal to be fossil fuel-free by 2035
Ban privately owned prisons

Actual Liberal ideas.

Moose

John said...

Yep, that is what I meant by FAR LEFT...

I mean she is a Democratic Socialist after all,

Anonymous said...

Capitalists have gotten lately. When is the last time you saw a commercial on TV in support of capitalism?

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
Ironically, commercials on TV pretty much are all about capitalism. As I sit here being inundated by them...

Anonymous said...

Then they need to do a better job. Perhaps if they focused on something other than selling toothpaste, they would be more effective. They are focusing too much on short term profits, without recognizing the long term dangers they face. Quite frankly, too many people are in business just for the money.

--Hiram

John said...

How would you define / measure effective?

As for money's importance, I like the following quote.

"Money isn't everything as long as you have enough." Malcolm Forbes

Anonymous said...

I think the rise in socialism suggests that capitalists are doing something wrong. In my opinion, the anti labor supreme court appointment are overreaching particularly in a period when executive compensation has reached ridiculous levels. Also the court attacks on Obamacare haven't been helpful.

--Hiram

John said...

I think many Americans have not learned what real work is, and they think “someone” owes them free services and stuff/ for “some” reason. That is likely why dem soc is becoming more popular.

Hopefully the workers and investors tell them clearly that they need to work and earn things in America, NO FREE LOADING ALLOWED!!! :-)

Laurie said...

The problem is not that people need to work harder.

"Alston criticized the Trump administration for stigmatizing the poor and saying those receiving government benefits are lazy and should be working. The report found just 7 percent of benefits recipients are not working."

U.N. report: With 40M in poverty, U.S. most unequal developed nation

Anonymous said...

“NO FREE LOADING ALLOWED!!! :-)”

Arbeit Macht Frei!!!


Moose

Anonymous said...

I think many Americans have not learned what real work is, and they think “someone” owes them free services and stuff/ for “some” reason.

And I think that's true of capitalists who way over estimate the durability of their preferred economic system. Warning signs are everywhere and they are being ignored.

==Hiram

John said...

From Laurie's Link.

Detailed Comments

"In response, the Trump administration has pursued a welfare policy that consists primarily of (i) steadily diminishing the number of Americans with health insurance (‘Obamacare’); (ii) stigmatizing those receiving government benefits by arguing that most of them could and should work, despite evidence to the contrary; and (iii) adding ever more restrictive conditions to social safety net protections such as food stamps, Medicaid, housing subsidies, and cash transfers, each of which will push millions off existing benefits. For example, a Farm Bill approved yesterday by Republicans in the House of Representatives would impose stricter work requirements on up to 7 million food stamp recipients. Presumably this would also affect the tens of thousands of serving military personnel whose families need to depend on food stamps, and the 1.5 million low-income veterans who receive them."

John said...

Again... Why are people against work / training requirements?

If the tax payers are giving you services, food, healthcare, etc and you are not truly disabled or a child, why would you not be required to be working?...

My 80 something old mother in law still works ~30 hours a week in a garment making facility. My parents are self employed and ~78, but they keep very busy between the farms, rental properties, investments and now that silly golf course. :-)

How did so many start thinking of work as a bad thing?

What do they want all these people doing?

Work Defined


1
a : to perform work or fulfill duties regularly for wages or salary ·works in publishing
b : to perform or carry through a task requiring sustained effort or continuous repeated operations ·worked all day over a hot stove
c : to exert oneself physically or mentally especially in sustained effort for a purpose or under compulsion or necessity

2 : to function or operate according to plan or design ·hinges work better with oil

3 : to produce a desired effect or result : succeed ·a plan that will work

4 : to exert an influence or tendency

5
a : to make way slowly and with difficulty : move or progress laboriously ·worked up to the presidency
b : to sail to windward

6
a : to move slightly in relation to another part
b : to get into a specified condition by slow or imperceptible movements ·the knot worked loose
c : to be in agitation or restless motion d : ferment 1

7 : to permit of being worked : react in a specified way to being worked ·this wood works easily

John said...

Strangely, I am now at the office trying to catch up from taking most of last week off... Now back to work !!!

Anonymous said...

Why do you think you deserve time away from your job?

Moose

John said...

PTO and Holidays are part of the company's employment policy. That is part of how they attracted me to come work for them over the other offers I had.

That is why it is called "employment at will"... I am free to move to a better opportunity whenever I choose. :-)

Usually I end up taking my cell phone and computer every where anyway... That is one of the challenges of being a Project Manager for projects in multiple time zones... Sometimes my help is needed at strange times.

Most of the projects I lead are in areas that do not celebrate the 4th of July. :-)

Anonymous said...

Do you think that your employer thinks you deserve the time off, or simply that it's the only way to attract the right employees?

I mean, if they could get away without paying for your time away, do you think they would still offer it to you, or do you think the bottom line would rule the day?

Moose

John said...

If you could get the same apartment / home for half the price...

Would you take it?

American consumers who insist that American Unions / Workers should be supported and paid well choose to buy high foreign content products and services daily, thereby weakening domestic unions, reducing the number of US jobs and lowering wages.

Are these customers just focused on their bottom line?

Or is it just how markets work?

Who is willing to pay more than they need to for a product or service? What is their rationale?

Anonymous said...

Just answer the question.

Moose

John said...

I'll try...

"Do you think that your employer thinks you deserve the time off, or simply that it's the only way to attract the right employee?"

Given that I work for a publicly traded corporation and own shares myself... I am not sure which "employer" you are talking about... Please remember that pretty much all of us "employees" have the same benefits... Even the HR personnel and the Mgrs, so I pretty sure they want time off.


"I mean, if they could get away without paying for your time away, do you think they would still offer it to you, or do you think the bottom line would rule the day?"

See above... Who do you see as the "decision maker"?

John said...

Now are you going to answer my questions?

Anonymous said...

It's interesting that you agree with the idea that you don't deserve time off because you're a person, but because it may be good for the company's bottom line.

Yes, it's the contract. But let's not pretend that the people who pay you have based this benefit on some sort of objective morality.

Moose

Laurie said...

getting back to comments related to should there be a work requirement to receive any type of govt assistance- which is a greater problem -a lazy nonworking person receiving aid or someone deserving aid not qualifying due to losing their job.

I think the greatest problem is jobs that pay too little. If I was in charge I would expand / raise the EITC _ I don't know much about it but it seems like a logical way to increase incomes and reward work.

John said...

Laurie,
I am fine with increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit. As long as we decrease some other things... :-)

Anonymous said...

I'm not going to comment on the new thread, because my point is relevant to this thread.

A person who may be receiving money from the government has value because they are a person, not because they may or may not benefit the government or any other person.

Moose

Laurie said...

all we need to do to expand the EITC is raise taxes on the overpaid

John said...

Moose,
Where ever you prefer, however remember that this thread was about which community is more diverse in thought? Rural or Urban...

I do agree that all humans have an intrinsic value. However that does not mean that some healthy humans should be allowed to slack off and free load while others carry the load.

This may make a post later but here is the short version. An older woman and her adult son avoided paying ~$1300 in rent to my parents and moved. Which you may applaud since my Parents are wealthy... (ie stick it to the man...) However after this they moved on to free load on a local community supported café, the local gas station and an elderly rather poor couple who was just renting out their deceased sister's house instead of selling it immediately. None of these folks can afford big losses...

Now you would apparently argue that the elderly woman and the adult son deserve free stuff from others. I am just happy that Dad knows his way around small claims court and the garnishment system after decades of renting to low income folks... Some of whom try to run out on their commitments. :-) Unfortunately I do not know if the café, station or that elderly couple have the money and knowledge to recover their money. Fortunately Dad can help them...

Laurie,
Your as bad as Moose... How do you want to determine:
- who is "over paid"?
- who is "under paid"?

Anonymous said...

"However that does not mean that some healthy humans should be allowed to slack off and free load while others carry the load."

You have no evidence that this is happening on anything other than a tiny scale. It's all make believe.

Your examples are almost always pointless. I don't recall saying anything about skipping out on contracts or commitments.

Moose

Laurie said...

overpaid: the average CEO pay was $13.8 million per year
underpaid: the federal minimum wage of $7.25

(people who make 1 million per year would also pay a higher tax rate, as would people who make $500,000) In fact I would raise taxes on everybody making more than $100,000 - in a progressive way)

John said...

Moose,
If only 3% of Americans are "free loading" that is still ~10,000,000 people who should be working harder to be independent.

And if each of them costs working tax payers $20,000 per year... That adds up to an extra burden of $200,000,000,000 per year that the working Americans are paying.

That little 3% seems pretty significant.

Laurie,
The low income folks already get more back than they pay in each year... And the well to do pay 25+% average effective rate depending what state they are in.

John said...

Laurie,
How do you place value on the transaction?

If the basketball player is paid $10,000,000 but generates $100,000,000 in ticket sales and revenue? Is he still over paid?

If that CEO earns profits for the investors, grows the company and allows employees to pursue their passions? Is she still over paid?

If that 17 year old is sitting in the city warming house making sure no one damages it. Is that $7.25 still under paid?

Laurie said...

yes

Anonymous said...

"If only 3% of Americans are "free loading" that is still ~10,000,000 people who should be working harder to be independent."

More make believe from you? Show me some evidence.

Moose

John said...

Moose,
Do you truly believe that 3 out of 100 people are not milking the system?

I mean just consider:
- the people on welfare with more kids than they can afford to raise
- people who are just lazy
- people striving to steal your identity
- people shop lifting
- people committing credit card fraud
- people who are addicted to gambling, drugs, etc
- people who are gang members and committing worse crimes
- people trying to avoid paying their bills

Do you think all these folks are above trying to fraudulently apply for Medicaid, food stamps, etc?

John said...

Laurie,
Hopefully the Dem Socialists like yourself do not get in power anytime soon... :-)

John said...

Moose,
Apparently 29.5% of Americans have a criminal record and you still think 3% wouldn't free load?

Anonymous said...

100% of asylum seekers at our southern border now have criminal records. Your point is...well...pointless.

What you or I believe to be true is irrelevant. What are the facts?

Moose

John said...

Incorrect. Only people who enter without permission (ie illegally) are charged.