d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Official Political Picture Thread
Prev1261826192620262126225001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Jan 18 2019 01:37pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 18 2019 01:36pm)
who the FUCK is interested in a quasi-internship that lasts a whole 12 months and only pays a salary that will actually NOT be enough to cover living expenses in London?


it says salary = london living wage, tho.
Member
Posts: 2,621
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 0.00
Jan 18 2019 01:42pm
Quote (Beowulf @ Jan 18 2019 03:34pm)
better for whom might I ask?


Persons of lower socioeconomic status. Poor white and poor black people are the same thing: poor.
Member
Posts: 70,459
Joined: Feb 3 2006
Gold: 28,299.69
Jan 18 2019 01:47pm
Quote (joncomgree @ Jan 18 2019 12:42pm)
Persons of lower socioeconomic status. Poor white and poor black people are the same thing: poor.


it was organized specifically to build up a person from a underrepresented group

if anything we can appreciate the honesty as opposed to shadily ignoring all of the applicants from underrepresented groups which has been going on for decades

Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Jan 18 2019 01:48pm
Quote (joncomgree @ Jan 18 2019 01:42pm)
Persons of lower socioeconomic status. Poor white and poor black people are the same thing: poor.


better would depend.

you'd need to calculate what % of each subgroup is "poor" and then find out the difference in creating opportunities in total by targeting each experimental group.

for some programs it would for sure be more effective to target "the poor" to helps the most poor people, and for some it's better to target blacks, who are largely poor, to help the most poor people, who also all happen to be black.

the only reason to disagree would be if you think it's unfair to help only poor blacks really, which means you care more about skin color than poverty, if more poor are helped overall.

but when you look at the % success rate of programs targeted generally at the poor, they're terrible. compared to specific targeted projects, such as a single state targeting black female students with STEM major scholarships. the % success rate is an order of magnitude higher.
Member
Posts: 54,189
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Jan 18 2019 04:56pm
Quote (thesnipa @ 18 Jan 2019 20:37)
it says salary = london living wage, tho.


yeah, and thats a lie. it specified the hourly salary, and the 10 pounds and some pennies per hour that they offer will not cover the cost of living in london.
with that kind of salary, you'll be living far far faaar away from inner london and spend 3-4 hours a day commuting from the outer suburbs.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 18 2019 04:56pm
Member
Posts: 70,459
Joined: Feb 3 2006
Gold: 28,299.69
Jan 18 2019 05:03pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 18 2019 03:56pm)
yeah, and thats a lie. it specified the hourly salary, and the 10 pounds and some pennies per hour that they offer will not cover the cost of living in london.
with that kind of salary, you'll be living far far faaar away from inner london and spend 3-4 hours a day commuting from the outer suburbs.


The survivors of the white oppression really dodged a bullet on that one
Member
Posts: 44,262
Joined: Jun 22 2007
Gold: 2,680.00
Jan 18 2019 05:21pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Jan 18 2019 03:48pm)
better would depend.

you'd need to calculate what % of each subgroup is "poor" and then find out the difference in creating opportunities in total by targeting each experimental group.

for some programs it would for sure be more effective to target "the poor" to helps the most poor people, and for some it's better to target blacks, who are largely poor, to help the most poor people, who also all happen to be black.

the only reason to disagree would be if you think it's unfair to help only poor blacks really, which means you care more about skin color than poverty, if more poor are helped overall.

but when you look at the % success rate of programs targeted generally at the poor, they're terrible. compared to specific targeted projects, such as a single state targeting black female students with STEM major scholarships. the % success rate is an order of magnitude higher.


Those programs are great, I remember sneaking into a similar exam review session back in school, learned a ton b4 getting kicked out.

This post was edited by obisent on Jan 18 2019 05:22pm
Member
Posts: 70,459
Joined: Feb 3 2006
Gold: 28,299.69
Jan 18 2019 09:06pm
Member
Posts: 54,060
Joined: Jun 1 2010
Gold: 1.74
Jan 18 2019 09:09pm
Do these people not have any savings from their cushiony gov jobs?
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Jan 18 2019 09:21pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Jan 18 2019 03:48pm)
better would depend.

you'd need to calculate what % of each subgroup is "poor" and then find out the difference in creating opportunities in total by targeting each experimental group.

for some programs it would for sure be more effective to target "the poor" to helps the most poor people, and for some it's better to target blacks, who are largely poor, to help the most poor people, who also all happen to be black.

the only reason to disagree would be if you think it's unfair to help only poor blacks really, which means you care more about skin color than poverty, if more poor are helped overall.

but when you look at the % success rate of programs targeted generally at the poor, they're terrible. compared to specific targeted projects, such as a single state targeting black female students with STEM major scholarships. the % success rate is an order of magnitude higher.


Black people are worse off now than they were 20 years ago

Welfare, divorce, and affirmative action are all failures in any form
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1261826192620262126225001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll