If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   "Households without any cash savings are twice as likely to be wealthy as poor." LOLWUT   (theatlantic.com) divider line 64
    More: Fail, paycheck to paycheck, cash savings, Suze Orman, a good school, paychecks, saves, poor people  
•       •       •

5206 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Mar 2014 at 9:28 AM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-24 09:01:19 AM
I learned the term 'house-poor' growing up. Big house, no furniture inside. Also, was this whole article just a reason to push school-vouchers?
 
2014-03-24 09:06:31 AM
I guess "wealth" doesn't mean what it used to these days.
 
2014-03-24 09:32:38 AM
It means instead of letting their money sit idle doing nothing, they're putting their money to work (via investments) to make more money.
 
2014-03-24 09:33:25 AM
Rich people have Roth IRAs, news at 11.
 
2014-03-24 09:36:03 AM
If you have $50,000 in investments and other illiquid savings (as the article mentions), you're probably also going to have one or more empty credit cards to use in case of emergency. At worst, you could cash in a CD or an IRA in case of a real emergency, or even get a plain old loan from the bank.
 
2014-03-24 09:36:04 AM

Guelph35: It means instead of letting their money sit idle doing nothing, they're putting their money to work (via investments) to make more money.


Not having a buffer for monthly expected expenses and not having an emergency fund in cash or MMAs (i.e. living paycheck-to-paycheck) is not being a wise investor.  It's gambling.
 
2014-03-24 09:36:57 AM
The difference between the poor and "wealthy" then is that the "wealthy" have liabilities which they mistakenly believe to be asserts.
 
2014-03-24 09:38:24 AM
AngryDragon:
Not having a buffer for monthly expected expenses and not having an emergency fund in cash or MMAs (i.e. living paycheck-to-paycheck) is not being a wise investor. It's gambling.

...but it's gambling that, if you miss a paycheck, you can put it on a credit card for a week or so or wait a couple of days to cash in some of your other assets.

Note that "not having a buffer" isn't a big deal if you're employed, and if you have investments or other assets, you can always liquidate them in case of a real emergency.
 
2014-03-24 09:39:07 AM

AngryDragon: Guelph35: It means instead of letting their money sit idle doing nothing, they're putting their money to work (via investments) to make more money.

Not having a buffer for monthly expected expenses and not having an emergency fund in cash or MMAs (i.e. living paycheck-to-paycheck) is not being a wise investor.  It's gambling.


Nah.... It doesn't take more than 30 days to pull money out of investment vehicles. Credit cards are fine
 
2014-03-24 09:40:25 AM

cirby: If you have $50,000 in investments and other illiquid savings (as the article mentions), you're probably also going to have one or more empty credit cards to use in case of emergency. At worst, you could cash in a CD or an IRA in case of a real emergency, or even get a plain old loan from the bank.


You would be wrong. The numbers say you have maxed out your credit and are living paycheck to paycheck hoping that you don't get fired.
 
2014-03-24 09:42:36 AM

Gwyrddu: The difference between the poor and "wealthy" middle class then is that the "wealthy" middle class

 have liabilities which they mistakenly believe to be asserts.


FTFU. You are welcome.
 
2014-03-24 09:43:30 AM
How do I do it?

3.bp.blogspot.com

 I'm in debt up to my eyeballs!
 
2014-03-24 09:53:40 AM
Slaves2Darkness:
You would be wrong. The numbers say you have maxed out your credit and are living paycheck to paycheck hoping that you don't get fired.

Which numbers?

I'm going off the ones that say (for the middle class) that credit card debt has gone down over the last few years, and that the typical credit card debt for middle-income families is about $2600. Compared to the $50,000 or so in investments mentioned in the article above (for 2/3 of middle-class families), it's hard to imagine "living paycheck to paycheck" being a huge issue. People living paycheck to paycheck don't have investments.

Sounds more like you're confusing the actual situation for poor people with what you want middle class people to be suffering. Sure, there are some middle class families in pretty bad shape - but they're nowhere near a majority.
 
2014-03-24 09:58:49 AM

InterruptingQuirk: I learned the term 'house-poor' growing up. Big house, no furniture inside. Also, was this whole article just a reason to push school-vouchers?


The phrase I learned was "land rich, cash poor."  Still applies to most of the people living in McMansions around here.
 
2014-03-24 10:10:04 AM

cirby: If you have $50,000 in investments and other illiquid savings (as the article mentions), you're probably also going to have one or more empty credit cards to use in case of emergency. At worst, you could cash in a CD or an IRA in case of a real emergency, or even get a plain old loan from the bank.


Wealthy people can take a signature loan for amounts that would blow that journalists' mind. Not to mention most will have a line of credit for general use etc.
 
2014-03-24 10:16:05 AM
Income =/= wealth

If you make $250,000/year and spend $300,000/year, you aren't wealthy.
 
2014-03-24 10:18:49 AM

AngryDragon: Guelph35: It means instead of letting their money sit idle doing nothing, they're putting their money to work (via investments) to make more money.

Not having a buffer for monthly expected expenses and not having an emergency fund in cash or MMAs (i.e. living paycheck-to-paycheck) is not being a wise investor.  It's gambling.


Well they can't touch your retirement and generally not even your house if you file bankruptcy so there really isn't much risk to the whole thing.  Risk what?
 
2014-03-24 10:40:43 AM
TheGreatGazoo:
If you make $250,000/year and spend $300,000/year, you aren't wealthy.

...and, oddly enough, most people who make that sort of money don't spend like that. Some do, but they tend to fall off the charts pretty quickly when things go wrong.

Of course, that's also upper-class income, but you knew that, right?
 
2014-03-24 10:49:18 AM

shaddix: AngryDragon: Guelph35: It means instead of letting their money sit idle doing nothing, they're putting their money to work (via investments) to make more money.

Not having a buffer for monthly expected expenses and not having an emergency fund in cash or MMAs (i.e. living paycheck-to-paycheck) is not being a wise investor.  It's gambling.

Nah.... It doesn't take more than 30 days to pull money out of investment vehicles. Credit cards are fine


Most investments can be transferred to your checking account in three days.  And how many emergencies only allow payment in cash nowadays?  The only risk is a market crash that halves your savings and then you sell at a loss.  But even the 2008-2009 crash took 6 months and you can claim losses on your taxes.  And most of these people don't have 100% of their savings in risky tech stocks, but a more diversified portfolio including bonds.
 
2014-03-24 10:50:36 AM

Wendy's Chili: Rich people have Roth IRAs, news at 11.


Where you can take out *contributions* anytime, penalty- and tax- free.
 
2014-03-24 10:52:52 AM
FTA:  Basically, that everyone follows Suze Orman's advice, and builds up an eight month emergency fund before putting any money into investments.

This just in. Your emergency fund can also be an investment that is easily accessible, that you do your best never to touch.
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/VGSTX/f?t=VGSTX

I'll replace my diversified investment account with a savings account just as soon as you can show me one returning an average of 10%, including market downturns thanks to the real-estate bubble bursting.
 
2014-03-24 10:58:19 AM

shaddix: Nah.... It doesn't take more than 30 days to pull money out of investment vehicles. Credit cards are fine


This is maybe the first time I've heard someone else say this, but I agree. People tell me to have 6 months worth of cash in a savings account, but that seems crazy to me. It's just wasteful. I can put my money somewhere productive and have it back out to pay the card before the interest hits if I need it.

Just because my assets aren't cash doesn't mean I don't have access to cash.
 
2014-03-24 10:59:48 AM

thurstonxhowell: shaddix: Nah.... It doesn't take more than 30 days to pull money out of investment vehicles. Credit cards are fine

This is maybe the first time I've heard someone else say this, but I agree. People tell me to have 6 months worth of cash in a savings account, but that seems crazy to me. It's just wasteful. I can put my money somewhere productive and have it back out to pay the card before the interest hits if I need it.

Just because my assets aren't cash doesn't mean I don't have access to cash.


Yup. I can sell investments and have my cash in my bank account within a week.
 
2014-03-24 11:00:57 AM
I can see it.  I make a decent amount, but beyond a modest cash-buffer for things like household or car repairs, most of my savings go to a 401k or mutual funds in a brokerage account.  I have little "cash savings" in the strictest sense of the term.
 
2014-03-24 11:10:03 AM
Trying to save enough so you can retire before you're 70, carrying student loan debt into your 40's, two car payments, and with an average of 15k in credit card debt, no you're not wealthy because you have a home.

People could try to live more within their means, but the chinese finger trap that is our modern economy will pretty much collapse in that scenario.
 
2014-03-24 11:10:29 AM

cirby: Slaves2Darkness:
You would be wrong. The numbers say you have maxed out your credit and are living paycheck to paycheck hoping that you don't get fired.

Which numbers?

I'm going off the ones that say (for the middle class) that credit card debt has gone down over the last few years, and that the typical credit card debt for middle-income families is about $2600. Compared to the $50,000 or so in investments mentioned in the article above (for 2/3 of middle-class families), it's hard to imagine "living paycheck to paycheck" being a huge issue. People living paycheck to paycheck don't have investments.

Sounds more like you're confusing the actual situation for poor people with what you want middle class people to be suffering. Sure, there are some middle class families in pretty bad shape - but they're nowhere near a majority.


Is that $2600 carried debt? I get up to around 2200/mo, but I pay it all off every month. Just wondering if that's debt people are paying interest on or what.
 
2014-03-24 11:21:56 AM

joness0154: thurstonxhowell: shaddix: Nah.... It doesn't take more than 30 days to pull money out of investment vehicles. Credit cards are fine

This is maybe the first time I've heard someone else say this, but I agree. People tell me to have 6 months worth of cash in a savings account, but that seems crazy to me. It's just wasteful. I can put my money somewhere productive and have it back out to pay the card before the interest hits if I need it.

Just because my assets aren't cash doesn't mean I don't have access to cash.

Yup. I can sell investments and have my cash in my bank account within a week.


The point of keeping an emergency buffer is so that you don't have to sell your investments if it is a bad time to do so.  Suppose the economy goes south and you lose your job for a few months.  You don't want to sell stocks because the market tanked along with the rest of the economy.  If you leave your money in there, it will regain its value but if you sell at that time you may have to take a loss.  Sure, it's fine if the market is up but you are more likely to need emergency money when the market is down (more likely to be laid off, etc.).  That being said, this advice might not apply to other investment vehicles but counting on selling stocks if the chips are down can be a bad idea.
 
2014-03-24 11:37:37 AM
kitsuneymg:
Is that $2600 carried debt? I get up to around 2200/mo, but I pay it all off every month. Just wondering if that's debt people are paying interest on or what.

It's supposedly carried debt.

Of course, if they have good credit, that means 10% or so interest, or about $260 interest per year. If you're middle class, $20-$25 a month isn't exactly crippling.
 
2014-03-24 11:41:56 AM
CorruptDB:
The point of keeping an emergency buffer is so that you don't have to sell your investments if it is a bad time to do so.

If you have a decent bank, you probably won't have to do that - banks love to lend money to people with money.

On the other hand, a savings account (with a massive 1% interest paid out) is a guaranteed 9% loss per year, compared to a good investment.

At worst, someone with a good investment portfolio is better off taking out a short-term cash loan at 10% if something unusual comes up less than once a year.
 
2014-03-24 11:47:17 AM

jshine: I can see it.  I make a decent amount, but beyond a modest cash-buffer for things like household or car repairs, most of my savings go to a 401k or mutual funds in a brokerage account.  I have little "cash savings" in the strictest sense of the term.


Anytime you sell out of your brokerage account, the tax man takes a bite. Well, not necessarily but at the very least you'll have to declare the sale on that year's tax return (schedule D).

I have cash reserves spread across both a high yield saving account and a stock-mutual-fund brokerage account. I keep enough in the savings portion to cover all near term projected expenses like the $10k new roof the house will need this year.
 
2014-03-24 11:52:03 AM

cirby: If you have $50,000 in investments and other illiquid savings (as the article mentions), you're probably also going to have one or more empty credit cards to use in case of emergency. At worst, you could cash in a CD or an IRA in case of a real emergency, or even get a plain old loan from the bank.


Yes and no.  This is quite adequate for dealing with the day-to-day emergencies but it's not a shield against job loss.  Living at your limit isn't a good idea no matter how much money you have.
 
2014-03-24 11:53:19 AM

robbrie: Anytime you sell out of your brokerage account, the tax man takes a bite. Well, not necessarily but at the very least you'll have to declare the sale on that year's tax return (schedule D).

I have cash reserves spread across both a high yield saving account and a stock-mutual-fund brokerage account. I keep enough in the savings portion to cover all near term projected expenses like the $10k new roof the house will need this year.



I do roughly the same, and do have a savings account for smaller, near-term expenses.  I understand that if I make returns, then yes, I'll have to pay capital gains tax on that -- but the same would apply to a savings account if it generates significant interest.  It's not fun, of course, but one can only avoid taxes to a certain extent (legally).

/ though hopefully no new roof this year
 
2014-03-24 11:53:20 AM
P.S.  My previous post doesn't address the case of those who are cash-poor because they invest anything that's not immediate spending.  That's being wise, not foolish.
 
2014-03-24 11:56:41 AM

AngryDragon: Not having a buffer for monthly expected expenses and not having an emergency fund in cash or MMAs (i.e. living paycheck-to-paycheck) is not being a wise investor.  It's gambling.


For the wealthy, the buffer is credit.  If you can write a check against your HOLOC for six month's of expenses, why in the world would you keep six months of savings sitting in a damned near interest free account?
 
2014-03-24 11:59:52 AM
Loren:
Yes and no. This is quite adequate for dealing with the day-to-day emergencies but it's not a shield against job loss. Living at your limit isn't a good idea no matter how much money you have.

If you have a significant amount of money tied up in long-term investments, you're not "living at your limit." You're just making more money off of interest than the guy who sticks his cash in a below-inflation savings account.
 
2014-03-24 12:02:12 PM

cirby: Slaves2Darkness:
You would be wrong. The numbers say you have maxed out your credit and are living paycheck to paycheck hoping that you don't get fired.

Which numbers?

I'm going off the ones that say (for the middle class) that credit card debt has gone down over the last few years, and that the typical credit card debt for middle-income families is about $2600. Compared to the $50,000 or so in investments mentioned in the article above (for 2/3 of middle-class families), it's hard to imagine "living paycheck to paycheck" being a huge issue. People living paycheck to paycheck don't have investments.

Sounds more like you're confusing the actual situation for poor people with what you want middle class people to be suffering. Sure, there are some middle class families in pretty bad shape - but they're nowhere near a majority.

*Sigh*


http://www.statisticbrain.com/american-family-financial-statistics/
http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/credit-card-data/average-credit-card- de bt-household/

And I did not even have to look all that hard.

Current as of March 2014
U.S. household consumer debt profile:
Average credit card debt:  $15,252
Average mortgage debt:  $152,209
Average student loan debt:  $32,986
In total, American consumers owe:

$11.52 trillion in debt
An increase of 1.6% from last year
$856.5 billion in credit card debt
$8.05 trillion in mortgages
$1,080.0 billion in student loans
An increase of 11.8% from last year


By the numbers US Households have saved some for retirement, but are deeply in debt on average. Which leads to a picture of most Americans being one paycheck from total financial disaster.
 
2014-03-24 12:23:14 PM

Slaves2Darkness: By the numbers US Households have saved some for retirement, but are deeply in debt on average. Which leads to a picture of most Americans being one paycheck from total financial disaster.


Ha. I could retire next year if I needed to.

/ for about a year and a half...
 
2014-03-24 12:28:31 PM
Well, duh. Kids have no money and live paycheck-to-paycheck. Then they grow up and get a little money (about the same as they would have got in 1965) and have children to house, clothe an educate, which is very expensive. Few people can afford any substantial liquid savings. How do you think the uber-wealthy became uber-wealthy? Most people have to live paycheck-to-paycheck in a society owned and operated by capitalist.
 
2014-03-24 12:50:15 PM
I guess this describes us - and we were also interviewed in a lengthy government survey late last year and so might be very directly part of this data. They asked about credit cards, we have "a lot", but only use a couple regularly, paying off the balance in full. Questions came up about "emergency savings", and my estimate of what an emergency might demand was much higher what we had in liquid funds. The followup was, so what would you do? Remember all those credit cards? We have immediate access to tons of money in the unlikely event we need it. And would almost definitely be able to pay all of them off within a month.

Just looking at our checking account, we live just about "paycheck to paycheck" because we try not to leave much there earning half a percent interest. When SHTF, we would surely stop stashing so much in savings and probably start liquidating some if the hardship lasted long enough.
 
2014-03-24 01:07:28 PM
Slaves2Darkness:
And I did not even have to look all that hard.

You certainly didn't - to completely fail to find MIDDLE CLASS credit card debt, instead of debt for all financial strata, including rich and poor.

Your cites don't even agree with each other: one says $2200 average credit card debt, the other says $15,252.

By the way: the $15,252 number is wrong. That's debt per indebted household. That's the average for households that keep a balance on their cards. Less than half of households that have credit cards maintain a balance: 46%. If you look at the median for all incomes, you end up with about $3300.

When you look into middle class numbers only, that number changes a lot. As I pointed out above, the actual average credit card debt for middle class families is just $2600 or so.

The nerdwallet article makes a huge (and flawed) assumption, too: that the large drop in credit card debt came from write-offs instead of people tightening their belts and paying off cards - which is the opposite of my experience. A lot of folks (me included) started paying down their existing debts a few years back, and the practice has accelerated in the last year or so.

Oh - and one of the reasons people have credit card balances? Because they used those cards during periods of unemployment or other financial stress - exactly what I've been claiming in this thread.
 
2014-03-24 01:13:09 PM

robbrie: jshine: I can see it.  I make a decent amount, but beyond a modest cash-buffer for things like household or car repairs, most of my savings go to a 401k or mutual funds in a brokerage account.  I have little "cash savings" in the strictest sense of the term.

Anytime you sell out of your brokerage account, the tax man takes a bite. Well, not necessarily but at the very least you'll have to declare the sale on that year's tax return (schedule D).

I have cash reserves spread across both a high yield saving account and a stock-mutual-fund brokerage account. I keep enough in the savings portion to cover all near term projected expenses like the $10k new roof the house will need this year.


The only times the tax man takes a bite are when you have gained value on your investment. That applies to your HYSA too, except you are forced to square up on those gains every year and they are extremely likely to be much less than you would have gained on sensible investments at your brokerage. So you are outwitting the taxman by not making profitable investments. That's not a great strategy.
 
2014-03-24 01:16:33 PM
If you actually read the poorly-written article, the problem is these "wealthy" people have all their "wealth" tied up in one asset, their house.

The problem is the lack of financial education and people are afraid of investing, especially after the 2008 crash. So they "invest" in their house.

You're house isn't a true investment, if something isn't generating income (via rent, etc) it isn't an investment.

The real estate agents and home pr0n design shows have convinced the working and middle classes that the house is an investment so they can take bigger commissions/sales. It's bullshiat.
 
2014-03-24 01:55:46 PM

shortymac: If you actually read the poorly-written article, the problem is these "wealthy" people have all their "wealth" tied up in one asset, their house.

The problem is the lack of financial education and people are afraid of investing, especially after the 2008 crash. So they "invest" in their house.

You're house isn't a true investment, if something isn't generating income (via rent, etc) it isn't an investment.

The real estate agents and home pr0n design shows have convinced the working and middle classes that the house is an investment so they can take bigger commissions/sales. It's bullshiat.


Yeah, but that's the 2-income trap for you.

Of course, the 2-income trap was deliberately created by Baby Boomers (and their parents) and NIMBY's.  Because after a decade of riots, they were some racist mofos, and a house that whitey can barely afford is one that black people can't afford period*, but.  And then the net effect of NIMBY's is to drive property values through the roof so that a townhouse is $1.2 Million (while existing on Prop 13 so they only pay out $300/year in property taxes).

*And the black people who *can* afford it probably aren't the ones who were busy stealing your bikes, beating up your kids, and breaking into your house before you said "F*ck This" and left.
 
2014-03-24 02:04:08 PM
We live paycheck to paycheck - in fact, we live my paycheck to his paycheck some weeks!  We have no cash laying around, and have such a tight budget on "extras" that some of our family members think we are misers.  We are both on the high end of income, and spend every penny of it.

However - it's not how much you spend, it's what you spend it ON.  We own a mortgage on our (arguably too expensive, but I love it) home - and we also own five more mortgages on multi-unit houses in the city, each with $70,000 equity or more, each of which produces a small bit of positive income (not much, not for another fifteen years).  Our money goes into buying, renovating, maintaining, and more maintaining.  We have a line of credit for emergency LARGE maintenance issues, like furnaces and roofs.  We use credit cards for most other expenses and pay it off with rental income - we don't put any of our own personal expenses or fun stuff on the credit cards unless it can be paid off before interest is incurred.

It's horribly illiquid, and really we are massively in debt, to the tune of over a million dollars in mortgage debt.  But here's the kicker - if one of us lost our jobs, we have the financial standing to walk into the bank and secure 6 months worth of funding in a loan or line of credit, with a handshake and a thanks for your business afterward.  Which would give us the time to find a new job or restructure our current situation.

I find that position more secure than six months worth of cash stuffed in a mattress, because the mattress cash runs out, and nothing changes.
 
2014-03-24 02:07:09 PM

cirby: Oh - and one of the reasons people have credit card balances? Because they used those cards during periods of unemployment or other financial stress - exactly what I've been claiming in this thread.


So pay interest rates on your credit card much larger than the interest you lose by putting money in the bank? Plus it isn't like people who have some liquid funds set aside couldn't also use credit cards as an additional buffer as well. Either way you look at you are at somewhat greater risk by not having some small reserve of cash on hand, Whether that risk is worth the extra potential income is something only each person can decide, but you can't make an intelligent decision on the matter if you ignore the potential problem.
 
2014-03-24 02:11:02 PM
When that red line above the most recent post has special meaning in a thread. "Let me show you a lovely place a few streets over"

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-24 02:15:31 PM

Civchic: I find that position more secure than six months worth of cash stuffed in a mattress, because the mattress cash runs out, and nothing changes.


First off, nobody but poor people without ID's stuff money in mattresses, that's what banks are for. Secondly, everything after that six months worth of cash would go to investment same as you. Third, the cash on hand is to buy yourself time so you can make whatever changes you need. If six months pass and nothing changes either it is your own fault or everyone is screwed anyway.
 
2014-03-24 02:29:17 PM
The article makes some valid points. It's keeping up with the Joneses shiat. When Mrs. Pilates and I recently moved back to our hometown with a second Junior Pilates on the way, we purposely did not choose the EHRMAGERD TERP SCHERL DERSTRICT everyone blathers on and on about. Instead, we wanted to go down to one income, for my wife to stop working for a while to focus on being a mom. So we chose to live in the district with more average overall "performance" (but that offers all the same AP classes, extracurriculars, etc.). Why? Because that town has a much lower tax rate than the top performing pressure cooker districts everybody wants to move to. AND lower home prices on top of that. So we got a bigger, newer house than we would in the more affluent towns, for much less money.

OK, so there are more brown people and free/reduced lunches in this district. We'd rather our kids grow up knowing what the world really looks like anyway.

At the end of the day, our household income is about 60% what is was before. We've had to ax some luxuries from the budget. But we're making ends meet and couldn't be happier. And our kids don't have to be in daycare 50 hours a week anymore.
 
2014-03-24 02:30:02 PM

meyerkev: shortymac: If you actually read the poorly-written article, the problem is these "wealthy" people have all their "wealth" tied up in one asset, their house.

The problem is the lack of financial education and people are afraid of investing, especially after the 2008 crash. So they "invest" in their house.

You're house isn't a true investment, if something isn't generating income (via rent, etc) it isn't an investment.

The real estate agents and home pr0n design shows have convinced the working and middle classes that the house is an investment so they can take bigger commissions/sales. It's bullshiat.

Yeah, but that's the 2-income trap for you.

Of course, the 2-income trap was deliberately created by Baby Boomers (and their parents) and NIMBY's.  Because after a decade of riots, they were some racist mofos, and a house that whitey can barely afford is one that black people can't afford period*, but.  And then the net effect of NIMBY's is to drive property values through the roof so that a townhouse is $1.2 Million (while existing on Prop 13 so they only pay out $300/year in property taxes).

*And the black people who *can* afford it probably aren't the ones who were busy stealing your bikes, beating up your kids, and breaking into your house before you said "F*ck This" and left.


The arena goes dark....OMG! RACISM!'s entrance music hits the PA....the house lights come up and there in the middle of the ring is a perfectly good thread laid out by a steel chair.
 
2014-03-24 02:43:08 PM

InterruptingQuirk: When that red line above the most recent post has special meaning in a thread. "Let me show you a lovely place a few streets over"

[img.fark.net image 850x49]


You clearly need to chat with your parents/aunts/uncles/grandparents more.   I'm not saying it was right, I'm saying that that model* explains a LOT about Eastern Half politics (Heck, view the mass transit fights in every major city.  It basically boils down to "I'd really love to not have to drive in traffic" vs. "But *those* people can ride it the other way").

*Whites are racist partly because whites are racist, and partly because they got chased out of their lovely mansion at Livernois and 7 Mile, losing their shirt in the process AFTER getting mugged a bunch of times and watching the schools go to shiate.  So they're choosing a heuristic (Blacks are probably evil, blacks who can't afford a really expensive house and cars are definitely evil) that gives off WAY too many false positives in the name of "Nope, we're not doing that shiat again".

Black a block:  http://astro.temple.edu/~ruby/opp/3qrpt02/finalversion.pdf

And the Baby Boomers are the sort who would then write this:

You'll see that the east side of Austin Boulevard (Chicago), where my wife grew up, is now virtually all black, while the west side of the street (Oak Park), where my father grew up, is quite white.

It's not like there's a cliff there or something. Frank Lloyd Wright's Oak Park houses are called Prairie Style because it's dead flat.

No, it's like this because the government of Oak Park back in the 1960s passed laws to let in some respectable blacks, but definitely not too many. People in Oak Park like to celebrate this as a triumph of liberal integrationism, which I guess is one way of putting it. But mostly they don't like to talk about it. Personally, I think it's a fascinating solution that has mostly been stuffed down the memory hole.


/Though holy shiat, false positive.  Seriously, the black murder rate is 7x the white one.  Which means that 9999 out of 10000 blacks isn't going to murder anyone this year (and that's a high number assuming there's no serial killers).
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report