Leevan

I don't know if this would be the case. Given the current status of the black community in the USA, publicly ignoring race wouldn't eliminate discrimination that's based on race. A significant portion of the black community would still have problems, and this would continue to result in discrimination. People will react based on their observations.

I should note that by not making due payments to (most of your) debts, your credit history and scores will be damaged. This might sound trivial, but I assure you, it's not. People with bad credit will only be able to borrow money on bad terms. Your interest will be higher, which means you will likely pay the cost your education--it will just be via another bill down the road. It balances out. Nothing is free.

I work in the lending 'industry'; and, when I first started, I was shocked by how accurate stereotypes turned out to be. I looked into it, and the Federal Reserve has even done a study on race and credit (scores). They found that Asians tend to have the best credit, followed by whites, hispanics, and blacks. Black people were found more likely to have horrible credit risks. They even were found to underperform predictions while Asians tended to overperform. At the best point in the average black American's credit life (in his 70's), he can be expected to have credit that might mirror a white person in their 30s. (Credit tends to rise with age. So, a white person's credit at 30 is about half of what it will likely be in his 70s. Anyway, if one had the oppurtunity to discriminate in lending (in a free society), do you think it would be ethical to do so? Given the facts, it might be the prudent thing to do. What impact might this have on society?

Even with inflation though, the employee can't be undercompensated for long. The unit of exchange is perceived as a constant from both perspectives. The employer values the pay as much as the employee values it. While everything you said is certainly true, I don't really see how it applies to income inequality. Like, perhaps, if we were all living off savings accounts, inflation would be a significant factor in inequality. But income is a constant. Income must constantly reflect the value of labor. If labor is undercompensated, labor can stop. If labor cannot stop, for need of the compensation and lack of other oppurtunities, labor's compensation is adequate. If it is not a "iving wage", it is the responsibility of the employee to provide reason for an increase in pay.

One can control his value. He can educate himself. He can improve. He can innovate. I just wish people would stop whining about what they don't have and started working toward what they want. People have been convinced that they are being cheated, and it's unhealthy on multiple levels.

Appearance impacts first impressions. First impressions can derail or fuel interactions. Be mindful of how you appear to others. Your clothing choices, hair, etc. shape perceptions; and, for those who do not know you well, it is everything.

Exactly. I just want to assure people that they are not bad for making assumptions based on appearance. It's natural, and it comes from reason and evidence. Yeah, it will result in the occasional unarmed black teen getting gunned down by trigger happy cops, but those cops' actions are in part a reaction to the physical cues displayed by the teen. The cues are seen as dangerous or negative because so many people who exhibit them are dangerous. Discriminatory actions will never cease. The only way to resolve the problems inherent in them is by improving communities. If the cues are not seen as dangerous, those who exhibit them will not be seen as dangerous.

I don't see a problem with it if you trust the co-op. I don't see how it could be applied to anything else. Although, people can and do invest in businesses together via the stock market.

Discrimination is a mind being efficient. Absent additional information, the individual makes an assumption. For example, if I take my car to three female mechanics, and it ends up leaking oil after each visit, I will have reason to assume that men are better mechanics (if a visit to a male mechanic results in no leak.) It doesn't make my discriminatory behavior entirely accurate; but, perhaps, statistically I'm better off. Racism, sexism, and every other form of discrimination are often, but not always, rooted in empiricism. No one should be made to feel bad about utilizing their grey matter and operating off of data that, while not 100%, gives the actor a better chance at achieving his ends than if he were to simply block out the characteristics of another.

Appearance is very important. You react based on visual stimulation. It shapes your perception of the individual/s, and thus it changes how you relate to people. For example, I prefer to use my photo when communicating online, however, I've found that my age and how I look handicaps me. Even online, even with a single snapshot image, people end up profiling. It's part of how our brain is designed. An attractive man makes you assume X. An old man makes you assume Y. A fat man...etc.

I don't think it's relevant. The funds were loaned because he agreed to the contract. How the lender obtained the funds is of no consequence to the transaction. The lender could have done anything with the funds, but they chose to lend to him. Does theft justify theft? Perhaps. But the means of his theft is actualized and concrete. The means of his lender's alleged theft are questionable. We do not know how the funds were derived. We do not know to what extent they were inappropriately gained. No, I don't see how the funds' origin is of any relevance.

I find your character questionable if you are capable of fulfilling your contract but refuse to do so.

That is a bag. Bags can't talk.

Income inequality is a recent point of focus in the news flavored opinion media. Wages for most of the population have stagnated or slightly declined while the "1%" have seen their profits grow. This is provoking tensions among the people. As politicos and pundits on the far left stoke the embers of envy and resentment, they tempt an all-consuming blaze. Well-meaning but misguided groups are emerging in an attempt to claim what they believe they deserve. Masked men threaten digital domination. Unions are attempting to expand their tentacles to the fast-food industry. And communism/socialism/liberalism/leftist/democratic policies and politicians are coming into vogue. I don't challenge the claims of growing income inequality. It is a fact. I do, however, disagree with the reactions provoked by highlighting it. Those who are concerned with stagnating or falling wages are misplacing their energy and efforts. Their go-to argument is that productivity has increased and that wages should mirror that growth. This is just not a fact within the bounds of our economic reality. While it is true that in the past productivity and wages were correlated, this was only the case because productivity and employee value were in close relation. This is no longer the case. Two centuries ago ten women could make ten blankets in ten days. Today, ten women are not as limited as they were in the past. Ten women might have access to ten machines that can create ten blankets every ten minutes. Technology vastly increases an individual's productivity while decreasing their value. Trade is an exchange of value. Labor creates value for an employer. The employer trades money for the value that the employee provides. (Money is [supposed to] represent value. Rather than bartering what we value, we use money. When one has enough money, or accumulated value, one can exchange it for something of equal value.) Value, of course, is subjective, but its subjectivity is predictable within a free market. In a free society, I can assure you, most of the jobs of today would pay much, much less. However, this would spur innovation and progress, things might equalize, and society would evolve at a faster rate. If you feel as if you are underpaid, you should express that sentiment to your boss. If he refuses to raise your pay, and you are unable to find a position that pays what you feel you deserve, your current compensation adequately matches the value that you provide. The only ways to increase your pay is either by force or by increasing the value that you provide. If you want more, if you want financial security, if you want to grow, you have to increase the value that you provide to your employer and your fellow man.

I'm not concerned about my impact on others. I've grown to recognize my actions' futility. Everyone. No, it's all a game. I do whatever I can as long as I can until the person is either gone or fails to respond to my actions. I don't care who deserves what. It has nothing to do with anyone else. I do it for me. I've come to the conclusion that there is no point in it. I think I might be depressed, but I'm sure it's for the best. I know right from wrong, I just don't care. Regarding what I'm talking about--everything. I see relationships as one might see a chessboard.

I'm a psychopath. I lack empathy and sympathy. I find manipulating others to be endlessly gratifying, and over the years I've become skilled at it. Conducting a symphony of events into a climactic conclusion is an experience with no parallel. Wielding control over others allows me to experience emotional echoes, and these (personally) rare perceptions can, I suppose, be equated to flashes of lightning on a dark night. They allow me to briefly get an idea of what it is to 'feel'. It's quite addicting and destructive; and, as a result, I tend to have a habit of exploiting people. I've recognized the unhealthy impact my personality disorder has on my life and society in general. I don't know how to change. I don't think I can change. I think, whatever makes me the way I am, is neurological. While intellectually I understand the psychopathy is bad, I cannot seem to rid myself of it. I've decided that the best course of action is to live a life isolated from as many people as possible. This tactic is not at all appealing, but I see no other logical route. I assume that this board is comprised of deep thinkers. Does anyone see a better solution? What should society do with its defanged monsters?