What is white privilege?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Caracus2k said:
Most countries, including most in Europe, dont rely on a state run health care provider to provide the actual health care. The state in these countries often provides (sometimes partial) funding for the citizen to get their own treatment from private providers.... A bit like schooling with school vouchers.
Click to expand...

Do these private providers restrict access to those on the lowest incomes by making them jump through pointless hoops? No. What's your point?

Caracus2k said:
The evidence suggests that services provided by the state frequently actually provide rather poor value for money.

By building an infrastructure for such a scheme your promote competition between providers that may assist in driving down the end user costs and /or improving the service provided.

As above your argument is the one that leads to inferior and expensive services.
Click to expand...

All great theory, practice tends to see private companies making government projects go wildly over budget and delivered very late. Or in the case of healthcare, people get saddled with crippling debt for fairly basic medication.
 
Caracus2k said:
The evidence suggests that services provided by the state frequently actually provide rather poor value for money.
Click to expand...

Maybe cite said evidence?

By building an infrastructure for such a scheme your promote competition between providers that may assist in driving down the end user costs and /or improving the service provided.
Click to expand...

May assist?

As above your argument is the one that leads to inferior and expensive services.
Click to expand...

Again, evidence?
 
Mushy Peas said:
The most obvious one that comes to mind is access to the Internet at their homes, for example. Comparatively, we have a fairly cushy ride in the UK when it comes to the cost of ISP packages as we're largely no subjected to use caps. We have an unbundled loop so that providers are free to compete, whereas in the US a lot of geographies are subject to monopolies from the big players who built local infrastructure, meaning there is no price competition. You also have a former big telco lobbyist running the FCC, so none of that is going to change anytime soon either.

Now, households with access to broadband services in the US has trended up in recent years to around 80% but that is still 20% of the US without household access to broadband and I don't think it's controversial to suggest these are not the wealthiest Americans. Couple that with the fact that we're in the midst of a global recession where people are losing their jobs and being forced to make decisions over whether to pay for their groceries or broadband, you have a potential problem.

There is always the argument that those 20% without household broadband could use local facilities like their library and that's a fair point for Americans living close to towns and cities, but America is a big country and a lot of it is very rural, meaning that there is significant travel involved and if your kids aren't in school right now then that means either dragging them over a few bus trips to go to a public library or hiring somebody to look after them, which costs money that, if you could afford you probably wouldn't be without home broadband.
Click to expand...

The data you've linked to does not have enough granularity for you to draw your conclusion on why some people do not have access to home broadband. Also do you have a source that states the only way to claim these vouchers is via the internet only?

From what i saw in the document i linked above, these vouchers were for allowing students to attend private schools. I would be surprised if a family who had the knowledge to realise that sending their child to a private school is better than a state school would lack the knowledge to be able to claim these vouchers.
 
Mushy Peas said:
The Democrats bill (HEROES Act) pledges circa $100bn in spending for the state education system. The Republican bill (HEALS Act) pledges vouchers for schools to the tune of around $106bn. The Democrats are opposing school vouchers because voucher systems rely on claimants to actually claim them, which is fraught with problems like lower income families not necessarily having access to the systems required to claim the vouchers. Both are still proposing substantial school funding, but the mechanism by which they do it is vastly different.

To give you an analogous situation - the government is pleding £x billion (I forget the figure) for the roll out of superfast broadband in the UK. The catch is, you have to arrange and pay for an Openreach survey and end up forking out sometimes tens of thousands of pounds to actually get the Superfast broadband. But you get a voucher towards the cost of the installation. In my case, I have to pony up just shy of £8,000 after VAT is factored in to help the government meet its funding target with a voucher of £2,500. The voucher system isn't lying, but it conveniently glosses over some major 'gotchas' that make it inaccessible to a lot of people who may have voted for it; usually those of lower means.

ETA: this is totally ignoring the HEALS act slashing support for individuals and families most economically hurt by the pandemic and it's not a wild logical leap to suggest these people are going to be the most economically vulnerable in society.
Click to expand...

Vouchers are a better system because the money follows the child rather than the other way around, just pouring money into a failing system never really helps. I don't agree with the argument that lower income families wouldn't have access to the system to claim them, the same bogus claim is made about voter ID which ~80% of blacks support but the democrats are saying the republicans are trying to suppress minorities because they can't get ID, pretty much every black person has ID.
 
Coca Cola going all in, on empowerment - #openlikeneverbefore ?
https://youtu.be/aKa0hqu28jc?t=97 article

with the LA images at start, and reference to using ones vote ... a veneered Trump reference, equally, new normal, seemingly hijacked, as a post Floyd metaphor,
am I reading too much into it ?

I'm probably the wrong demographic, never drink it, but had thought it was an athlete (even Fara) who I'd failed to recognise.
 
Yeah, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some effect of "majority privilege" in some cases... though increasingly when it comes to important things like employment etc.. you're more likely to have BAME privilege given the focus on diversity hiring. Likewise in plenty of cases, in early career stage employment, female privilege is more likely (save for perhaps very female dominated careers like nursing and/or very male dominated manual jobs). Male privilege mostly kicks in due to child birth etc... and woman who doesn't plan to have kids at all can have a huge advantage in say the tech industry (especially if not in a deeply technical role but more people skills oriented - project management etc..).

In other news - Mayoral privilege seems to be a thing - Chicago Mayor has banned protests at her home, never mind that loads of other residents have been affected by the BLM riots & protests... thes local officials in the US are happy to get the police to back off when it doesn't affect them directly, now it's her home... that's different. (also got a haircut in lockdown - special exemption because she's the Mayor).

 
dowie said:
. . . and woman who doesn't plan to have kids at all can have a huge advantage in say the tech industry . . .
Click to expand...
Really?

REALLY?

How exactly do you think an employer is going to ascertain whether or not a woman is going to have children? Make her have a hysterectomy?

Whatever job you may be doing or have been doing, I suspect that it hasn't involved any significant contact with HR in the last 30 years.
 
My decision to be self employed was made when I saw the way HR was going, donkey's years ago. You can't stop a woman deciding to have chidren but you could, with a change in the law, make her sign a contract where time off for childbirth and child minding was unpaid. It would save the country a fortune. I have never been able to understand why women should be continued to be paid for a duration when having and rearing kids.
 
stockhausen said:
Really?

REALLY?

How exactly do you think an employer is going to ascertain whether or not a woman is going to have children? Make her have a hysterectomy?

Whatever job you may be doing or have been doing, I suspect that it hasn't involved any significant contact with HR in the last 30 years.
Click to expand...
It's not about the company knowing whether the staff member will choose to have children or not. I think what Dowie means (and hopefully I'm not putting words into his mouth - sorry if I am) is that many women take a break later in their career to have children. This naturally harms their progression because they are out of the workplace for a year or two and then have the difficulties of juggling a hectic industry with being a parent. It's one reason why the pay "gap" and lack of women in more senior roles makes some people feel there is discrimination. To address it there has been a push by many companies, particularly in the Tech industry, to hire and promote women above an equally capable man. But if a woman (particularly in Tech) chooses not to have children then they are getting the advantage of "positive" sex discrimination without the anchor of life choices holding them back.

This just highlights that a major factor in what was perceived by some people as discrimination against hiring and promoting women actually comes down in part to the life choices the woman would make.
 
stockhausen said:
Really?

REALLY?

How exactly do you think an employer is going to ascertain whether or not a woman is going to have children? Make her have a hysterectomy?

Whatever job you may be doing or have been doing, I suspect that it hasn't involved any significant contact with HR in the last 30 years.
Click to expand...

What does the employer ascertaining whether or not someone will have children have to do with anything here?

Do you imagine that career trajectories are set in stone after some consultation in HR with a crystal ball?

Do you really not follow that having children means taking time out of work and reducing the ability to be flexible/work long hours (at least in the short term)?

Do you not understand the impact that can have on a career currently?

Do you not follow that if someone doesn’t have those interruptions then they have an advantage?

What does any of that have to do with an employer ascertaining knowledge of whether someone intends to get pregnant or not in advance?

Let’s see if you can reply with a coherent argument instead of misplaced contempt as a result of projecting your own very flawed reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Hades said:
It's not about the company knowing whether the staff member will choose to have children or not. I think what Dowie means (and hopefully I'm not putting words into his mouth - sorry if I am) is that many women take a break later in their career to have children. This naturally harms their progression because they are out of the workplace for a year or two and then have the difficulties of juggling a hectic industry with being a parent. It's one reason why the pay "gap" and lack of women in more senior roles makes some people feel there is discrimination. To address it there has been a push by many companies, particularly in the Tech industry, to hire and promote women above an equally capable man. But if a woman (particularly in Tech) chooses not to have children then they are getting the advantage of "positive" sex discrimination without the anchor of life choices holding them back.

This just highlights that a major factor in what was perceived by some people as discrimination against hiring and promoting women actually comes down in part to the life choices the woman would make.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, higher chance of getting hired (both desire to increase representation in general and special initiatives/programs to hire more women), plus if the obvious career interruptions are removed then...

Also I guess the diversity effect can continue later in career too - desire for increased “representation” in senior roles and a possibly even scarcer pool of qualified women.
 
mmj_uk said:
What I don't get is the majority of people saying that a statue of x person needs to be ripped down and books/people wiped from history for something they did 300 years will be voting the US Democrat party later in the year and yet they were the party of racism for hundreds of years, they lynched both black and white Republican senators, created the KKK and held back black civil rights in the USA well beyond that of the UK and other civilised nations. How can you support a group like BLM whilst voting for a historically highly racist political party?
Click to expand...

Shhhh mmj, you are talking far to much truth, facts and sense here. We are not supposed to realise that. It’s about banging on the same old repetitive woke outrage and in reality, say it enough and people will believe it.
The lefts biggest tool, indoctrination.
 
mmj_uk said:
What I don't get is the majority of people saying that a statue of x person needs to be ripped down and books/people wiped from history for something they did 300 years will be voting the US Democrat party later in the year and yet they were the party of racism for hundreds of years, they lynched both black and white Republican senators, created the KKK and held back black civil rights in the USA well beyond that of the UK and other civilised nations. How can you support a group like BLM whilst voting for a historically highly racist political party?
Click to expand...

Most likely not the same people...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom