• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

"Hip hop has done more damage than racism"

I just didn't watch much tv at that age. That was the real deal. Basically Jerry Springer copied and neutered that kind of action and made millions. Those guys weren't playing around.
 
Watching it again I remember we were specifically impressed with the Sean Penn looking guy
 
Dr. Dre/Snoop the Chronic basically introduced young white suburban kids to a bit of black culture. This thread is just ugh. Let me know when Ice Cube kills a couple million Jews by writing a song and get back to me.
 
11065890_845166385576417_4271365083448124484_n.png
 
Point? Hip hop has raised household incomes?
 
What point? $5000 over 35 years in which dual income households increased significantly?
 
knowell said:
Still undefeated. Never concede the point if you want to stay undefeated.
Click to expand...

yeah what was the point? That aint jack shit and it doesn't disprove anything.

Are you going to take on the income situation in America in this thread? This should be good, Mr. Conservative. Please, tell us how good the working class has it.
 
PhDeac said:
What point? $5000 over 35 years in which dual income households increased significantly?
Click to expand...

That's an 11% increase even after adjusting for inflation, and the average family size has gone down, not up. Your graphic tries to make the point that the "typical worker" made $73,000 a year in the past. Not true.
 
Last edited:
UNCG Deac said:
That's an 11% increase even after adjusting for inflation, and the average family size has gone down, not up. Your graphic tries to make the point that the "typical worker" made $73,000 a year in the past. Not true.
Click to expand...


Hip-Hop is more responsible for decreasing the average family size...thx planned parenthood, i mean Eazy-E.
 
UNCG Deac said:
That's an 11% increase even after adjusting for inflation, and the average family size has gone down, not up. Your graphic tries to make the point that the "typical worker" made $73,000 a year in the past. Not true.
Click to expand...

How does that 11% over 35 years compare to real GDP growth over the same time period? Also household size doesn't address the question of dual income homes being much more prevalent now. What does the median employee earn today versus 35 years ago in real dollars?
 
I can't decide which position I enjoy more - the "hey look income inequality is a made up populist issue for liberals to use" or the "it's the poor/working class' fault because ______..."
 
Just to be fair, I don't think stagnant wages are all due to greedy shareholders keeping the man down. It's also a lot more expensive to insure employees with a large portion of that paid by the employer and never really seen by the employee. Also globalization has certainly driven down wages since it's more economically feasible to hire cheap labor overseas.
 
Our problem is everything is a race to the bottom. Consumers by and large treat everything like a commodity. Chicken is chicken so if a farm can squeeze more birds in the house and pay the farmers a little less they can drop prices to gain market share and make up for their slimmer margins with volume. Same goes for damn near everything we buy. The cheaper products are oftentimes a result of more efficient practices, meaning less wages being paid.
 
bmoneydeac said:
How does that 11% over 35 years compare to real GDP growth over the same time period? Also household size doesn't address the question of dual income homes being much more prevalent now. What does the median employee earn today versus 35 years ago in real dollars?
Click to expand...

Curious as to why you think GDP and median income should be linked.

Also by adjusting for inflation he was giving you the real dollars figure.

Not arguing ether side but am curious as to why GDP and median income would be linked. GDP is going to naturally rise as population rises. Doesn't really seem to have any meaningful correlation to median income. I could be missing something you see though.
 
bmoneydeac said:
Just to be fair, I don't think stagnant wages are all due to greedy shareholders keeping the man down. It's also a lot more expensive to insure employees with a large portion of that paid by the employer and never really seen by the employee. Also globalization has certainly driven down wages since it's more economically feasible to hire cheap labor overseas.
Click to expand...

The table has been tilted away from the American worker for 35 years. Cheap labor overseas IS greedy shareholders keeping the man down. I know I know....

So who lobbied congress and financed elections to pass laws to access cheap labor more easily?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top