Hate is absolutely natural. Just like steeling or lying, hate doesn’t need to be taught.
When people realize they have wants and needs that require competition they become jealous and coveting. That leads to hatred. The only way to fix it is teach people the world doesn’t revolve around them and to do unto others …
> Research in the 1990s found that in California, Latino students scoring above the 90th percentile on standardized tests had only about a 50% chance of being placed in college preparatory classes, while Asian and white students with similar scores had more than a 90% chance.
The data is split by community ( Black, Latino, White, ...). Whites and Asians fare the best (see also their fig. 6.1). Kids from other communities are prevented from getting the same opportunities as kids from these two communities performing equivalently.
So it is not that Asian kids don't matter, it is that the data indicates that Asian kids already seem to be treated reasonably well.
It just seems arbitrary to me. Split the groups of people into "good results" and "bad results" and then treating everyone in both groups the same seems so reductive as to not just be useless but convince me there's some kind of background reason for doing so.
They did not
treat "results" as a binary "good" vs "bad" variable. In the article they take pains to justify their methodology in assessing students' chances of success in 8th grade algebra as a continuous variable:
> EVAAS is a statistical tool that could predict with remarkable accuracy which students would succeed in advanced courses.
Then
> The table demonstrates a strong correlation between EVAAS predictions and actual student performance. Students were grouped into probability ranges based on their predicted likelihood of success in 8th grade Algebra I, and their actual performance was then tracked.
So both the input (EVAAS predictor) and output (success in 8th grade algebra) are continuous variables (as shown in the first and last columns of the table mentioned in the quote), and they use this strong correlation to study access to 8th grade algebra against non-academic factors by using the EVAAS predictor as a control variable. I am not a professional statistician but honestly it looks pretty solid to me, or at least far more rigorous than most education science I have come across.
What they are then saying is that if you control for probability of success, Black and Hispanic children are significantly less likely to be admitted in 8th grade Algebra than White and Asian students. Looking at racial differences is not a particularly contentious way of studying bias in American society.
Of course they could have looked at other factors: economic and social class, gender, etc. This is the tragedy of sociology: you can't study social bias without being accused of introducing bias in how you study it...
From my perspective this is like doing a study on how much the average person can bench and then concluding that society is unfair towards women because they bench less. That is to say I just don't take it for granted that the conclusion is "society is unfair (in this particular regard)."
You mean that you believe that Black and Hispanic kids are being blocked from taking Algebra in middle school because Blacks and Latinos are bad at Algebra compared to Whites, just as women cannot bench press as much as men?
Surely you can't be surprised that not everyone shares that belief??
I don't know the reason for the disparity, but I do know we've spent... how many decades at this point? trying and failing to correct for it. At some point I feel compelled to consider the possibility that our scope is wrong.
Beware the logical fallacy. "A implies B" does not mean that "not A implies not B".
Workers who earn too little to pay taxes (A) will not benefit from a tax cut (B).
But workers who earn enough (not A) may still not benefit (not B), for example because their employer indirectly pockets the difference. That is actually being argued in the article.
So this is indeed the appropriate way of formulating the statement: at least 40% of workers will demonstrably not benefit from this.
I can't read this article because of the paywall. Are they saying that taxable tips are subject to payroll taxes (which employers pay out of pocket)? That would actually benefit both employers and employees in some sense.
Some tipped workers, like bartenders, can make more in tips than a junior software engineer lol. Less taxes definitely helps their cause.
If you are concerned with indirect effects, there's quite a few pros and cons that you could extrapolate from the no tax on tips policy. These arguments are far less compelling in general.
The Democrat's point isn't that workers shouldn't get tax cuts, but that he gave a $6,000 tax break to top earners, and gave even larger cuts to the wealthy overall.
That's...not how it works, like, at all. It's a tax credit, not actual money that you pocket additionally from your existing paycheck. It also only lasts until 2028.
> I can't read this article because of the paywall
I just turned on reader mode in Firefox and then refreshed the page and got the article. I'm surprised how often it works. It often doesn't but sometimes it does.
In that case B would be "is not taxed on the income" and A is "part of the 40%" making the statement not B implies no A: "If you are taxed on your tips that implies you are not part of the 40%".
That seems correct. It's a pretty useless statement, but it is true.
Well, to be fair, the IRS considers the average tip to be 8% for taxation purposes.
The whole "I get taxed whether you tip me or not", "I have to pay to serve you if you don't tip"? No, not so much. If you can show (there's even a hugely burdensome IRS form that might take as much as 3-4 minutes a month for cash tips) that you earned less than that 8% average, then that's what you get taxed. But most servers don't want to fill that form out, because they get ... rather more than that, and are being undertaxed already.
it will absolutely affect the wage they are paid, it will be used as a constant excuse to not pay more than the legal minimum (2.13/hr as long as tips are greater than $7.25/hr)... probably used to justify additional tip stealing that happens pretty much everywhere, people will tip less because of it
This is nonsense for most jobs, and it's nonsense here too. Very rarely are any jobs treated on pure merit of good vs bad performance. Ultimately it ends up being mostly the luck of having reasonable management and good opportunities. Reasonable management is very hard to come by in the restaurant industry.
And either way, if you wanted to believe the merit-based approach, you're talking maybe the top 5% of servers anywhere making "good" money. Wage theft in the industry is colossal.
I will be pleasantly surprised if the removal of tax on tips does absolutely anything to move the needle for the bottom 95% of servers.
The restaurant industry has been lobbying for this to further avoid the pressure of raising wages and the complication of reporting taxes — the reasoning is out there in the open.
This is the sort of modern shell game where corporate interests further obscure costs to trick the lower class into thinking it's a good deal. It's akin to the math on maintenance Uber drivers tend to fail to do when they're calculating their wages... they're absolutely getting hosed and most of them don't even understand how.
You can just look this up, it's not a secret. Median total pay, including tips, in the US is $32k for waiters. In France, it's €22k. The UK is £23k. Even factoring in health insurance costs — ~4.5k/year for an Obamacare plan — waiters make more in America.
Waiters in the US make significantly more than their British and French counterparts, due to tipping: the US minimum wage is lower than the British and French minimum wages, and despite American waiters being paid at an even lower hourly rate than the US minimum wage, they end up making more due to tips, performing the same job.
The upper 25% of waiters in the US make over $40k a year. Your 95% estimate is very off base.
$32k = 27.5k€, and if we include the insurance numbers you provided: $27.5k = 23.5k€
> waiters make more in America
By apparently 1.5k€ per year? Not a strong argument as it stands and we haven't even begun talking about the lifestyle and workplace differences between the two countries.
Waiters in the U.S. make more, due to tips, despite the U.S. having a lower minimum wage. Do you think American waiters want to make $2k/year less? That's nearly 10% of their income.
And that's before even factoring in the tax benefits, which is exactly what this article is about! No tax on tips means nearly all of that income is untaxed. French waiters pay 11% taxes, and British ones are in a 20% tax bracket. The difference widens even further.
Tips allow American waiters to earn more, and no tax on tips makes them take home even more. Hand-wringing about how the American system pays less than the European one is innumerate.
No, the bottom rate in the American tax system is 10%, it's not untaxed... And that's only for income up to $11k, so the median American waiter is actually in the next bracket up (12%) for the majority of their income (they get $11k at 10%, and $21k at 12%). Similarly, the bottom rate in France is 11%, and is not untaxed. The UK has a 0% bottom rate, but it jumps to 20% well before you get to waiter wages.
No tax on tips will positively affect American waiter wages at basically every level. It's pretty simple math.
The tax system is graduated. If 40% don’t make enough to hit a band where income is taxed, then you can assume it’s a gentle ride from paying no taxes to not paying much taxes. And anyways, payroll taxes are by far the higher burden for service workers than income taxes.
Sure, but TFA makes clear that any benefit to workers from tax-free tips is laughable compared to the numbers of times the restaurant lobby has fucked them over, by repeatedly killing attempts to keep wages low. It's not even throwing workers scraps, it's more like throwing them crumbs.
any kid that has unlimited porn is a kid with poor parents, and they were gonna get into things much worse than porn anyway since parents aren't around and being negligent.
That's an interesting line you're drawing. I'd not say my parents were negligent or that I'm any worse off for having a computer to myself
I heard later they talked about porn and decided that if I seek it out, I'm probably ready for it and otherwise, if I find it icky (I remember feeling that way as a child), I'll just not go back to it. Looking back, for me at least, I think it really was that simple: some things are icky to me still today and I don't seek them out, but I don't remember ever wishing I hadn't seen something that I had looked up
The second thing is that my mom was concerned about my computer use, but then at some point saw that I also created things (probably HTML pages). She later told me that this was when she decided it could be good for my development to continue down this path and learn more about computers. I now work in IT. I don't think she was wrong
Keeping my computer use supervised just isn't feasible when it's most of my free time (after maybe 13 years old, idk). I don't think these considerations mean my parents were "not around". They were 100% there for me when I needed them and then some. You can call this negligent but that's neither their nor my opinion, more than ten years after leaving their supervision and looking back at it and how others are raising children currently
What seems harmful to me is the helicopter parenting style that movies and online (news) media portray the USA as doing. Idk to what extent that's actually real though, a lot of it seems really far out there
Just to double check, this is a joke right? Because you suggested upthread (if I'm reading the sarcasm right) that consumption must be curtailed, but clearly this comment about not having a right to be a non-tech-savvy parent is a joke...or?!
It’s definitely sarcasm, expecting the average parent to administer their home network and outmaneuver adult website operators is unreasonable.
Plus comparing how to parent in the days when the only internet access point was a desktop computer in the living room vs now when everyone has multiple hand held devices is not helpful.
It’s ridiculous that any President (whether he’s from your favorite team or not) has to appease 300+ judges is ridiculous. There will always be biased judges who will only rule to obstruct.
Those 300 judges are only a temporary check. They get to say 'hold on, we're going to put this on pause while we make sure it's constitutional'. The 9 people that determine what are legal can then unpause that pause at any time if it is not based on sound thought.
Do you feel that temporary checks (that can be easily reversed) to ensure the government is behaving in a constitutional way are ridiculous?
And they are wrong to do so. Right now a child born in one district in the U.S. will have birthright citizenship while children in every other district won’t. This is an inherently stupid state of affairs.
Yes, this is literally the entire job description of a judge: to "judge" if someone broke the law. Details on what judges have jurisdiction over differ (in some countries they can't rule on constitutional matters), but this is basically how it works everywhere. You have appeals processes and whatnot to deal with mistakes. This is civics 101 separation of powers stuff.
What was issued was a temporary restriction from implementing the executive order until the matter is decided. No one issued an order declaring the executive order illegal.
You mean like the President? The President of the United States of America whom is deciding that parts of our constitution, our founding legal document isn't actually legally binding?
When that one person, who is part of the judicial branch and operating within its jurisdiction, has a trial placed in front of them? Yes. That's literally their job.
The quote is from a landmark case that established the judiciary as being the ultimate arbiters of the interpretation of the laws that have been passed by the legislature and signed by the executive.
An injunction is not a judgment. It is temporary. A new rule or law is passed. It might be unconstitutional or otherwise not enforceable. Until this can be sorted out sometimes the law/rule is blocked until it is sorted out. Since the law/rule was not in place before the suit it is sometimes ok to temporarily block the rule until it’s legality can be determined. One goes by the principle of causing least harm.
It causes the least harm to block the birthright executive order until it’s legality can be determined. Therefore it should be blocked nationwide.
Two reasons I'd guess: Trump has signed as many EOs as biden did in his entire presidency already [1]. Presumably when your executive order contradicts existing law you're more likely to be hit by an injunction.
Limiting and doing away with them aren't the same thing.
I'd love to see higher requirements for issuing them, and an expedited appeals process to review them. I'd like to see protections against judge shopping (as endorsed by both Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/11/judge-shopping-texas...) We know SCOTUS can move very fast when they feel like it.
Systemic racism isn't about consciously-held beliefs. That's just plain "racism".
Systemic racism is the kind of racism you participate in without realizing it. A really clear example: calling for the end of affirmative action in college applications, but not considering things like legacy admissions. Legacy admissions favor people who were not discriminated against in the past. So by being "not racist", it promotes racism.
You want admissions? Yeah, lots of things I do end up participating in systemic racism. My theater troupe is pasty white, and one reason for it is that we were already pasty white. It doesn't look like a welcoming place for people of color.
We tried to do something about that, and we didn't do a great job of it. We put other things ahead of solving that problem. That's systemic racism. Nobody held explicitly racist beliefs, but the effect was discriminatory.
