George Floyd Protests

hedonist

what dreams said:

brianlux said:

what dreams said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/protecting-property-is-an-abstraction-growing-share-americans-who-own-nothing/

‘Protecting property’ is an abstraction to the growing share of Americans who own nothing

More than 1 in 5 U.S. families have zero or negative net worth, and the share is even larger among black and young Americans

A woman looks Thursday at artwork on plywood covering a window shattered in La Mesa, Calif., during protests over the death of George Floyd. (Gregory Bull/AP)

By 

Christopher Ingraham 

June 4, 2020 at 3:07 p.m. EDT

Authorities criticizing demonstrations against police brutality in the past week have often cited the need to protect property as one of the justifications for cracking down on protesters.

“Those who threaten innocent life and property will be arrested, detained, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” as President Trump put it Monday in a Rose Garden speech. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) similarly exhorted New York City to “use the police, protect property and people” after a night of looting.

Many national commentators have struck a similar tone. Most notoriously, a headline in the Philadelphia Inquirer made a ham-handed comparison between black lives and buildings to make a case against the destruction of property.

But the people making these appeals often overlook the simple, uncomfortable fact that, for a large and growing share of Americans, “property rights” are just an abstraction: More than 1 in 5 U.S. families have no wealth to speak of. Among black families and young Americans — the core protest demographics — the share is even larger.

The graphic above charts the share of Americans with zero or negative net worth from 1983 to 2016, as measured by the federal Survey of Consumer Finances and analyzed by New York University economist Edward N. Wolff. “Net worth” is a measure of what you own (real estate, stocks, business equity, savings) minus what you owe (student loans, mortgages, credit cards, auto loans). When net worth is negative, it means that an individual or family’s debts are greater than their assets.

Back in 1983, a little more than 15 percent of households had zero or negative net worth. As of 2016, more than 21 percent of households fall into that category, an increase of roughly one-third. Any change since then won’t be known until later this year, when the 2019 survey data is released. And even that data won’t illustrate the effects of shutdowns due to the coronavirus pandemic, which have cost more than 40 million Americans their jobs.

A positive net worth means safety and security. It means you can grow your wealth by investing or starting a business. It means you can make a down payment on large purchases such as homes. It means you have assets to pass on to your children when you die. It means that if you fall on hard times, you have financial reserves to draw on.

Families with zero net worth have none of those things. And families with negative net worth have to worry about paying down debts before they can even think about building a nest egg. If financial hardship strikes, they may be in serious trouble.

It’s worth noting that many families with zero or negative net worth do have financial assets of some sort — savings or 401(k) retirement accounts or perhaps a house on which they have a mortgage. These assets could be liquidated, with varying degrees of difficulty, in the event of a job loss or an unexpected financial burden. But doing so would put them even more in the hole, taking value from the positive side of their ledgers and adding it to their debts.

The 21 percent figure cited above is just a national average. Among key protest demographics, the share is much higher.

Among black families, for instance, the share with zero or negative net worth is 37 percent, according to Wolff’s calculations. In 2011, the Pew Research Center reported that a similar share of households headed by someone younger than 35 fell into this category.

It’s difficult to make an appeal to the sanctity of property ownership when you’re addressing people who don’t own any property to speak of. For many younger Americans, especially nonwhite ones, the traditional American Dream of homeownership and building a nest egg to pass on to your heirs seems increasingly out of reach.

Perhaps most worrying in the Survey of Consumer Finances data is that the percentage of Americans who own nothing is increasing. Couple that trend with the explosion of wealth-hoarding at the top of society and you arrive at a very concerning picture of a society increasingly divided between haves and have-nots.

Asking the people at the bottom of such a hierarchy to respect the property rights of the those at the top is only likely to become more difficult if these trends continue.

It's not an abstraction for those who make a modest or even very modest living through their small business.  And what, I'm supposed to consider used bookstore or record shop owners as "those at the top"?   

No, I would think you would be one of those people whom the article says could sell your property if you found yourself in a bind. I'm assuming you own the building that houses your bookstore. I'm also assuming you have insurance.  I'm not entirely comfortable getting into a debate with you about it because I don't think it's personal. Sorry if I offended you.

I happen to be a negative net worth person myself.  I have never attachment to material things, cars, clothes, phones, none of it. I just chose to have a different life experience than buying a house or acquiring other assets. I don't go around smashing people's things, but I can understand the conclusion of this article from the perspective of people with an anger that I don't have about being denied access to that pathway. I tend to believe that property and ownership are concepts that divide people, cause them to look on suspicion and jealousy of others, do things that harm the earth, like plowing perfectly beautiful fields and farms to build more condos. So . . . anyway. Have a good evening.  I'm going for a walk. 

To be fair, I own my home but don’t possess the qualities associated above ascribed to myself or others in a similar position. And we’re not wealthy, though if we were, I don’t believe it would change our core. 

darwinstheory

F Me In The Brain said:

RiotZact said:

This is probably my first contribution to AMT in years 😂.

That is what you circle?
Jk, I like this person's style.

Don't let it stop you from trying. She may pity you.

cutz

https://twitter.com/NBCPhiladelphia/status/1269330816741650433

nicknyr15

Some of these protestors are really out of control with their ideas. 

“Abolish the police, we can protect ourselves” 

really?? Am I the only one who is blown away by this? How is this even a solution? The lawlessness that took place over a few nights was very scary to witness. That’s just a tiny look at what would happen with no police. 

F Me In The Brain

darwinstheory said:

F Me In The Brain said:

RiotZact said:

This is probably my first contribution to AMT in years 😂.

That is what you circle?
Jk, I like this person's style.

Don't let it stop you from trying. She may pity you.

Hahahaha.
Nice.

bootlegger10

nicknyr15 said:

Some of these protestors are really out of control with their ideas. 

“Abolish the police, we can protect ourselves” 

really?? Am I the only one who is blown away by this? How is this even a solution? The lawlessness that took place over a few nights was very scary to witness. That’s just a tiny look at what would happen with no police. 

 I would drive 110mph on the highway for sure if I did not have to worry about the police.  

I don’t know what the goal is but it can’t be getting rid of police.  Certainly there needs to be a change to how they operate. 

oftenreading

nicknyr15 said:

Some of these protestors are really out of control with their ideas. 

“Abolish the police, we can protect ourselves” 

really?? Am I the only one who is blown away by this? How is this even a solution? The lawlessness that took place over a few nights was very scary to witness. That’s just a tiny look at what would happen with no police. 

Well, since that “lawlessness” took place with the police fully present as they currently operate, I don’t see that as a any sort of argument for what would happen in the absence of police. Almost the contrary, in fact. 

cincybearcat

oftenreading said:

nicknyr15 said:

Some of these protestors are really out of control with their ideas. 

“Abolish the police, we can protect ourselves” 

really?? Am I the only one who is blown away by this? How is this even a solution? The lawlessness that took place over a few nights was very scary to witness. That’s just a tiny look at what would happen with no police. 

Well, since that “lawlessness” took place with the police fully present as they currently operate, I don’t see that as a any sort of argument for what would happen in the absence of police. Almost the contrary, in fact. 

So then you are for abolishing the police? 

oftenreading

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

nicknyr15 said:

Some of these protestors are really out of control with their ideas. 

“Abolish the police, we can protect ourselves” 

really?? Am I the only one who is blown away by this? How is this even a solution? The lawlessness that took place over a few nights was very scary to witness. That’s just a tiny look at what would happen with no police. 

Well, since that “lawlessness” took place with the police fully present as they currently operate, I don’t see that as a any sort of argument for what would happen in the absence of police. Almost the contrary, in fact. 

So then you are for abolishing the police? 

That's quite a leap to make from my statement.

No. Just pointing out the incongruency in the post I responded to. 

oftenreading

To further my point, if you are going to try to prove the necessity of police, don’t use an example when they are at their worst and their least effective. 

Everyone needs to keep in mind that the appalling actions of police led directly to these events, and not just the actions of the past two weeks, but the actions of decades. 

brianlux

nicknyr15 said:

Some of these protestors are really out of control with their ideas. 

“Abolish the police, we can protect ourselves” 

really?? Am I the only one who is blown away by this? How is this even a solution? The lawlessness that took place over a few nights was very scary to witness. That’s just a tiny look at what would happen with no police. 

There are numerous "abolish the police" suggestion floating around.  That kind of talk is only going to cause more division.  No one is going to abolish the police.  It's unfortunate to hear this kind of rhetoric but really, it only comes from the fringe.  For example:  I recently signed on to a El Dorado Progressives, a local progressive Facebook group (I was mildly surprised to be accepted because when applying, I told them I agree with many perspectives of progressives but do not use labels for myself including "progressive".)  Someone on that page posted an "abolish the police" article and the vast majority of the progressives there thought otherwise, some strongly protesting the post.  That conversation post was eventually shut down.  Only the fringe are behind this idea.

So, no, most people do not see abolishing the police as an option.  But most clear thinking and aware people (including me) believe that a LOT need to be done to revamp police procedures and screening to reduce abusive and racist police.  A lot needs to be done to restore respect, faith in, and trust of police because right now it is very low.

bootlegger10

oftenreading said:

To further my point, if you are going to try to prove the necessity of police, don’t use an example when they are at their worst and their least effective. 

You would need to spend a lot more money on police and security if you expect a flawless handling of mass looting nationwide.   I imagine it is difficult to enforce the law when there are 300 protesters and 280 of the 300 are innocent, peaceful protesters and 20 are doing damage and hiding amongst the other 280 so cops have to stand down.

We have seen plenty of examples though in the last 10 days of cops going too far in their enforcement. 

cincybearcat

oftenreading said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

nicknyr15 said:

Some of these protestors are really out of control with their ideas. 

“Abolish the police, we can protect ourselves” 

really?? Am I the only one who is blown away by this? How is this even a solution? The lawlessness that took place over a few nights was very scary to witness. That’s just a tiny look at what would happen with no police. 

Well, since that “lawlessness” took place with the police fully present as they currently operate, I don’t see that as a any sort of argument for what would happen in the absence of police. Almost the contrary, in fact. 

So then you are for abolishing the police? 

That's quite a leap to make from my statement.

No. Just pointing out the incongruency in the post I responded to. 

It's just a question, not a leap.  Weird.

oftenreading

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

nicknyr15 said:

Some of these protestors are really out of control with their ideas. 

“Abolish the police, we can protect ourselves” 

really?? Am I the only one who is blown away by this? How is this even a solution? The lawlessness that took place over a few nights was very scary to witness. That’s just a tiny look at what would happen with no police. 

Well, since that “lawlessness” took place with the police fully present as they currently operate, I don’t see that as a any sort of argument for what would happen in the absence of police. Almost the contrary, in fact. 

So then you are for abolishing the police? 

That's quite a leap to make from my statement.

No. Just pointing out the incongruency in the post I responded to. 

It's just a question, not a leap.  Weird.

The phrasing "so then you are for abolishing the police?" implies that you believe that's my position. If it was simply a question, you would have said "Are you for abolishing the police?" 

what dreams

hedonist said:

what dreams said:

brianlux said:

what dreams said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/protecting-property-is-an-abstraction-growing-share-americans-who-own-nothing/

‘Protecting property’ is an abstraction to the growing share of Americans who own nothing

More than 1 in 5 U.S. families have zero or negative net worth, and the share is even larger among black and young Americans

A woman looks Thursday at artwork on plywood covering a window shattered in La Mesa, Calif., during protests over the death of George Floyd. (Gregory Bull/AP)

By 

Christopher Ingraham 

June 4, 2020 at 3:07 p.m. EDT

Authorities criticizing demonstrations against police brutality in the past week have often cited the need to protect property as one of the justifications for cracking down on protesters.

“Those who threaten innocent life and property will be arrested, detained, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” as President Trump put it Monday in a Rose Garden speech. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) similarly exhorted New York City to “use the police, protect property and people” after a night of looting.

Many national commentators have struck a similar tone. Most notoriously, a headline in the Philadelphia Inquirer made a ham-handed comparison between black lives and buildings to make a case against the destruction of property.

But the people making these appeals often overlook the simple, uncomfortable fact that, for a large and growing share of Americans, “property rights” are just an abstraction: More than 1 in 5 U.S. families have no wealth to speak of. Among black families and young Americans — the core protest demographics — the share is even larger.

The graphic above charts the share of Americans with zero or negative net worth from 1983 to 2016, as measured by the federal Survey of Consumer Finances and analyzed by New York University economist Edward N. Wolff. “Net worth” is a measure of what you own (real estate, stocks, business equity, savings) minus what you owe (student loans, mortgages, credit cards, auto loans). When net worth is negative, it means that an individual or family’s debts are greater than their assets.

Back in 1983, a little more than 15 percent of households had zero or negative net worth. As of 2016, more than 21 percent of households fall into that category, an increase of roughly one-third. Any change since then won’t be known until later this year, when the 2019 survey data is released. And even that data won’t illustrate the effects of shutdowns due to the coronavirus pandemic, which have cost more than 40 million Americans their jobs.

A positive net worth means safety and security. It means you can grow your wealth by investing or starting a business. It means you can make a down payment on large purchases such as homes. It means you have assets to pass on to your children when you die. It means that if you fall on hard times, you have financial reserves to draw on.

Families with zero net worth have none of those things. And families with negative net worth have to worry about paying down debts before they can even think about building a nest egg. If financial hardship strikes, they may be in serious trouble.

It’s worth noting that many families with zero or negative net worth do have financial assets of some sort — savings or 401(k) retirement accounts or perhaps a house on which they have a mortgage. These assets could be liquidated, with varying degrees of difficulty, in the event of a job loss or an unexpected financial burden. But doing so would put them even more in the hole, taking value from the positive side of their ledgers and adding it to their debts.

The 21 percent figure cited above is just a national average. Among key protest demographics, the share is much higher.

Among black families, for instance, the share with zero or negative net worth is 37 percent, according to Wolff’s calculations. In 2011, the Pew Research Center reported that a similar share of households headed by someone younger than 35 fell into this category.

It’s difficult to make an appeal to the sanctity of property ownership when you’re addressing people who don’t own any property to speak of. For many younger Americans, especially nonwhite ones, the traditional American Dream of homeownership and building a nest egg to pass on to your heirs seems increasingly out of reach.

Perhaps most worrying in the Survey of Consumer Finances data is that the percentage of Americans who own nothing is increasing. Couple that trend with the explosion of wealth-hoarding at the top of society and you arrive at a very concerning picture of a society increasingly divided between haves and have-nots.

Asking the people at the bottom of such a hierarchy to respect the property rights of the those at the top is only likely to become more difficult if these trends continue.

It's not an abstraction for those who make a modest or even very modest living through their small business.  And what, I'm supposed to consider used bookstore or record shop owners as "those at the top"?   

No, I would think you would be one of those people whom the article says could sell your property if you found yourself in a bind. I'm assuming you own the building that houses your bookstore. I'm also assuming you have insurance.  I'm not entirely comfortable getting into a debate with you about it because I don't think it's personal. Sorry if I offended you.

I happen to be a negative net worth person myself.  I have never attachment to material things, cars, clothes, phones, none of it. I just chose to have a different life experience than buying a house or acquiring other assets. I don't go around smashing people's things, but I can understand the conclusion of this article from the perspective of people with an anger that I don't have about being denied access to that pathway. I tend to believe that property and ownership are concepts that divide people, cause them to look on suspicion and jealousy of others, do things that harm the earth, like plowing perfectly beautiful fields and farms to build more condos. So . . . anyway. Have a good evening.  I'm going for a walk. 

To be fair, I own my home but don’t possess the qualities associated above ascribed to myself or others in a similar position. And we’re not wealthy, though if we were, I don’t believe it would change our core. 

Again, I'm not making a personal indictment of individuals. My beliefs are beliefs, generalized. The world is actually more complicated, including the fact that I own a cell phone and don't have to post from a public library (snarky comments noted).

The article makes a point . . . There are people in this world who don't have the same respect for property rights because this beloved concept of the American Dream, of owning property, has systematically been denied them. I don't find it hard to understand that.

The article also addresses that there are people, like you and Brian, with positive net worth who still live precariously. That's part of the problem, too. Everyone except a handful are being squeezed, and there is no radical shift in our future whatsoever for this to improve. I read in another book this afternoon that the top 20% of income earners account for 60% of consumer spending. Our economy no longer even needs a middle class to sustain itself. 

I don't know how long anyone thinks we can maintain this system without the working class and the abject poor, the other 80% that would be us, exploding. Like people are right now. These protests, in my view, are about economic repression as much as they are about police brutality. Race and class are intricately connected, and the police are the intermediaries between those who have all the power and the rest of us. Defending the institution simply because they defend our property upholds the system, in my view. I know it's not a popular one, and it's evolving as I read more about the challenges of our racialized capitalism, our debt economy, our security state. 

Jackie Wang, in this book I'm reading, asks, "How can we imagine ourselves outside a box that we don't even know we're stuck inside?" I'm tired of being stuck in this box. It's killing people. It's starving people. It's destroying our planet. 

F Me In The Brain

I think that you have some very interesting points....however I think that this unrest is about race and police misconduct.
I think the idea that there is economic repression is a separate issue. 
This is mixing ideas - I think the focus needs to stay on the real issue here.  Intentionally or not, my read on your post is to take something black and broaden it to include everyone in a certain  economic status vs. a race of people dealing with extraordinary situations.
This, to me, is the same as saying All Lives Matter.
Just because the statement is correct doesn't mean it is following what is happening, and applies.

pjl44

what dreams said:

hedonist said:

what dreams said:

brianlux said:

what dreams said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/protecting-property-is-an-abstraction-growing-share-americans-who-own-nothing/

‘Protecting property’ is an abstraction to the growing share of Americans who own nothing

More than 1 in 5 U.S. families have zero or negative net worth, and the share is even larger among black and young Americans

A woman looks Thursday at artwork on plywood covering a window shattered in La Mesa, Calif., during protests over the death of George Floyd. (Gregory Bull/AP)

By 

Christopher Ingraham 

June 4, 2020 at 3:07 p.m. EDT

Authorities criticizing demonstrations against police brutality in the past week have often cited the need to protect property as one of the justifications for cracking down on protesters.

“Those who threaten innocent life and property will be arrested, detained, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” as President Trump put it Monday in a Rose Garden speech. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) similarly exhorted New York City to “use the police, protect property and people” after a night of looting.

Many national commentators have struck a similar tone. Most notoriously, a headline in the Philadelphia Inquirer made a ham-handed comparison between black lives and buildings to make a case against the destruction of property.

But the people making these appeals often overlook the simple, uncomfortable fact that, for a large and growing share of Americans, “property rights” are just an abstraction: More than 1 in 5 U.S. families have no wealth to speak of. Among black families and young Americans — the core protest demographics — the share is even larger.

The graphic above charts the share of Americans with zero or negative net worth from 1983 to 2016, as measured by the federal Survey of Consumer Finances and analyzed by New York University economist Edward N. Wolff. “Net worth” is a measure of what you own (real estate, stocks, business equity, savings) minus what you owe (student loans, mortgages, credit cards, auto loans). When net worth is negative, it means that an individual or family’s debts are greater than their assets.

Back in 1983, a little more than 15 percent of households had zero or negative net worth. As of 2016, more than 21 percent of households fall into that category, an increase of roughly one-third. Any change since then won’t be known until later this year, when the 2019 survey data is released. And even that data won’t illustrate the effects of shutdowns due to the coronavirus pandemic, which have cost more than 40 million Americans their jobs.

A positive net worth means safety and security. It means you can grow your wealth by investing or starting a business. It means you can make a down payment on large purchases such as homes. It means you have assets to pass on to your children when you die. It means that if you fall on hard times, you have financial reserves to draw on.

Families with zero net worth have none of those things. And families with negative net worth have to worry about paying down debts before they can even think about building a nest egg. If financial hardship strikes, they may be in serious trouble.

It’s worth noting that many families with zero or negative net worth do have financial assets of some sort — savings or 401(k) retirement accounts or perhaps a house on which they have a mortgage. These assets could be liquidated, with varying degrees of difficulty, in the event of a job loss or an unexpected financial burden. But doing so would put them even more in the hole, taking value from the positive side of their ledgers and adding it to their debts.

The 21 percent figure cited above is just a national average. Among key protest demographics, the share is much higher.

Among black families, for instance, the share with zero or negative net worth is 37 percent, according to Wolff’s calculations. In 2011, the Pew Research Center reported that a similar share of households headed by someone younger than 35 fell into this category.

It’s difficult to make an appeal to the sanctity of property ownership when you’re addressing people who don’t own any property to speak of. For many younger Americans, especially nonwhite ones, the traditional American Dream of homeownership and building a nest egg to pass on to your heirs seems increasingly out of reach.

Perhaps most worrying in the Survey of Consumer Finances data is that the percentage of Americans who own nothing is increasing. Couple that trend with the explosion of wealth-hoarding at the top of society and you arrive at a very concerning picture of a society increasingly divided between haves and have-nots.

Asking the people at the bottom of such a hierarchy to respect the property rights of the those at the top is only likely to become more difficult if these trends continue.

It's not an abstraction for those who make a modest or even very modest living through their small business.  And what, I'm supposed to consider used bookstore or record shop owners as "those at the top"?   

No, I would think you would be one of those people whom the article says could sell your property if you found yourself in a bind. I'm assuming you own the building that houses your bookstore. I'm also assuming you have insurance.  I'm not entirely comfortable getting into a debate with you about it because I don't think it's personal. Sorry if I offended you.

I happen to be a negative net worth person myself.  I have never attachment to material things, cars, clothes, phones, none of it. I just chose to have a different life experience than buying a house or acquiring other assets. I don't go around smashing people's things, but I can understand the conclusion of this article from the perspective of people with an anger that I don't have about being denied access to that pathway. I tend to believe that property and ownership are concepts that divide people, cause them to look on suspicion and jealousy of others, do things that harm the earth, like plowing perfectly beautiful fields and farms to build more condos. So . . . anyway. Have a good evening.  I'm going for a walk. 

To be fair, I own my home but don’t possess the qualities associated above ascribed to myself or others in a similar position. And we’re not wealthy, though if we were, I don’t believe it would change our core. 

Again, I'm not making a personal indictment of individuals. My beliefs are beliefs, generalized. The world is actually more complicated, including the fact that I own a cell phone and don't have to post from a public library (snarky comments noted).

The article makes a point . . . There are people in this world who don't have the same respect for property rights because this beloved concept of the American Dream, of owning property, has systematically been denied them. I don't find it hard to understand that.

The article also addresses that there are people, like you and Brian, with positive net worth who still live precariously. That's part of the problem, too. Everyone except a handful are being squeezed, and there is no radical shift in our future whatsoever for this to improve. I read in another book this afternoon that the top 20% of income earners account for 60% of consumer spending. Our economy no longer even needs a middle class to sustain itself. 

I don't know how long anyone thinks we can maintain this system without the working class and the abject poor, the other 80% that would be us, exploding. Like people are right now. These protests, in my view, are about economic repression as much as they are about police brutality. Race and class are intricately connected, and the police are the intermediaries between those who have all the power and the rest of us. Defending the institution simply because they defend our property upholds the system, in my view. I know it's not a popular one, and it's evolving as I read more about the challenges of our racialized capitalism, our debt economy, our security state. 

Jackie Wang, in this book I'm reading, asks, "How can we imagine ourselves outside a box that we don't even know we're stuck inside?" I'm tired of being stuck in this box. It's killing people. It's starving people. It's destroying our planet. 

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what most people ultimately want from police. It's not simply about defending property. We want someone to call if we're under the threat of physical violence. We want someone with authority to find a missing or kidnapped person. Not every law that we want upheld involves theft or burglary. And it's not that they're necessarily more capable than the average citizen, but we want an empowered third party that is acting with the law on their side. The fact that the last part is upside down at this point is why we see a massive protest movement. 

what dreams

F Me In The Brain said:

I think that you have some very interesting points....however I think that this unrest is about race and police misconduct.
I think the idea that there is economic repression is a separate issue. 
This is mixing ideas - I think the focus needs to stay on the real issue here.  Intentionally or not, my read on your post is to take something black and broaden it to include everyone in a certain  economic status vs. a race of people dealing with extraordinary situations.
This, to me, is the same as saying All Lives Matter.
Just because the statement is correct doesn't mean it is following what is happening, and applies.

I appreciate the response. I am far from an All Lives Matter person. I'm just steeped in some reading right now about the intersection of policing, race, and capitalism and the way we have criminalized poverty in this country, how the ownership elites turned poor whites against the welfare function of government by connecting welfare to being black, etc. One of the first things one of my African American friends said to me when I talked to her about current events was "I'm so angry. Between the virus killing us, the economy killing us, and now this [meaning G Floyd], I'm so angry." She herself connected the dots.
So yes, you're right, the protests are immediately about specific police brutality. But when you listen to African Americans talk about crime, like I heard Kamala Harris say again today, economic justice and opportunity is the first thing they will talk about. 

what dreams

pjl44 said:

what dreams said:

hedonist said:

what dreams said:

brianlux said:

what dreams said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/protecting-property-is-an-abstraction-growing-share-americans-who-own-nothing/

‘Protecting property’ is an abstraction to the growing share of Americans who own nothing

More than 1 in 5 U.S. families have zero or negative net worth, and the share is even larger among black and young Americans

A woman looks Thursday at artwork on plywood covering a window shattered in La Mesa, Calif., during protests over the death of George Floyd. (Gregory Bull/AP)

By 

Christopher Ingraham 

June 4, 2020 at 3:07 p.m. EDT

Authorities criticizing demonstrations against police brutality in the past week have often cited the need to protect property as one of the justifications for cracking down on protesters.

“Those who threaten innocent life and property will be arrested, detained, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” as President Trump put it Monday in a Rose Garden speech. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) similarly exhorted New York City to “use the police, protect property and people” after a night of looting.

Many national commentators have struck a similar tone. Most notoriously, a headline in the Philadelphia Inquirer made a ham-handed comparison between black lives and buildings to make a case against the destruction of property.

But the people making these appeals often overlook the simple, uncomfortable fact that, for a large and growing share of Americans, “property rights” are just an abstraction: More than 1 in 5 U.S. families have no wealth to speak of. Among black families and young Americans — the core protest demographics — the share is even larger.

The graphic above charts the share of Americans with zero or negative net worth from 1983 to 2016, as measured by the federal Survey of Consumer Finances and analyzed by New York University economist Edward N. Wolff. “Net worth” is a measure of what you own (real estate, stocks, business equity, savings) minus what you owe (student loans, mortgages, credit cards, auto loans). When net worth is negative, it means that an individual or family’s debts are greater than their assets.

Back in 1983, a little more than 15 percent of households had zero or negative net worth. As of 2016, more than 21 percent of households fall into that category, an increase of roughly one-third. Any change since then won’t be known until later this year, when the 2019 survey data is released. And even that data won’t illustrate the effects of shutdowns due to the coronavirus pandemic, which have cost more than 40 million Americans their jobs.

A positive net worth means safety and security. It means you can grow your wealth by investing or starting a business. It means you can make a down payment on large purchases such as homes. It means you have assets to pass on to your children when you die. It means that if you fall on hard times, you have financial reserves to draw on.

Families with zero net worth have none of those things. And families with negative net worth have to worry about paying down debts before they can even think about building a nest egg. If financial hardship strikes, they may be in serious trouble.

It’s worth noting that many families with zero or negative net worth do have financial assets of some sort — savings or 401(k) retirement accounts or perhaps a house on which they have a mortgage. These assets could be liquidated, with varying degrees of difficulty, in the event of a job loss or an unexpected financial burden. But doing so would put them even more in the hole, taking value from the positive side of their ledgers and adding it to their debts.

The 21 percent figure cited above is just a national average. Among key protest demographics, the share is much higher.

Among black families, for instance, the share with zero or negative net worth is 37 percent, according to Wolff’s calculations. In 2011, the Pew Research Center reported that a similar share of households headed by someone younger than 35 fell into this category.

It’s difficult to make an appeal to the sanctity of property ownership when you’re addressing people who don’t own any property to speak of. For many younger Americans, especially nonwhite ones, the traditional American Dream of homeownership and building a nest egg to pass on to your heirs seems increasingly out of reach.

Perhaps most worrying in the Survey of Consumer Finances data is that the percentage of Americans who own nothing is increasing. Couple that trend with the explosion of wealth-hoarding at the top of society and you arrive at a very concerning picture of a society increasingly divided between haves and have-nots.

Asking the people at the bottom of such a hierarchy to respect the property rights of the those at the top is only likely to become more difficult if these trends continue.

It's not an abstraction for those who make a modest or even very modest living through their small business.  And what, I'm supposed to consider used bookstore or record shop owners as "those at the top"?   

No, I would think you would be one of those people whom the article says could sell your property if you found yourself in a bind. I'm assuming you own the building that houses your bookstore. I'm also assuming you have insurance.  I'm not entirely comfortable getting into a debate with you about it because I don't think it's personal. Sorry if I offended you.

I happen to be a negative net worth person myself.  I have never attachment to material things, cars, clothes, phones, none of it. I just chose to have a different life experience than buying a house or acquiring other assets. I don't go around smashing people's things, but I can understand the conclusion of this article from the perspective of people with an anger that I don't have about being denied access to that pathway. I tend to believe that property and ownership are concepts that divide people, cause them to look on suspicion and jealousy of others, do things that harm the earth, like plowing perfectly beautiful fields and farms to build more condos. So . . . anyway. Have a good evening.  I'm going for a walk. 

To be fair, I own my home but don’t possess the qualities associated above ascribed to myself or others in a similar position. And we’re not wealthy, though if we were, I don’t believe it would change our core. 

Again, I'm not making a personal indictment of individuals. My beliefs are beliefs, generalized. The world is actually more complicated, including the fact that I own a cell phone and don't have to post from a public library (snarky comments noted).

The article makes a point . . . There are people in this world who don't have the same respect for property rights because this beloved concept of the American Dream, of owning property, has systematically been denied them. I don't find it hard to understand that.

The article also addresses that there are people, like you and Brian, with positive net worth who still live precariously. That's part of the problem, too. Everyone except a handful are being squeezed, and there is no radical shift in our future whatsoever for this to improve. I read in another book this afternoon that the top 20% of income earners account for 60% of consumer spending. Our economy no longer even needs a middle class to sustain itself. 

I don't know how long anyone thinks we can maintain this system without the working class and the abject poor, the other 80% that would be us, exploding. Like people are right now. These protests, in my view, are about economic repression as much as they are about police brutality. Race and class are intricately connected, and the police are the intermediaries between those who have all the power and the rest of us. Defending the institution simply because they defend our property upholds the system, in my view. I know it's not a popular one, and it's evolving as I read more about the challenges of our racialized capitalism, our debt economy, our security state. 

Jackie Wang, in this book I'm reading, asks, "How can we imagine ourselves outside a box that we don't even know we're stuck inside?" I'm tired of being stuck in this box. It's killing people. It's starving people. It's destroying our planet. 

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what most people ultimately want from police. It's not simply about defending property. We want someone to call if we're under the threat of physical violence. We want someone with authority to find a missing or kidnapped person. Not every law that we want upheld involves theft or burglary. And it's not that they're necessarily more capable than the average citizen, but we want an empowered third party that is acting with the law on their side. The fact that the last part is upside down at this point is why we see a massive protest movement. 

Agreed those instances you speak of are important law enforcement functions. I'd have to go back and review all the prominently reported killings of African Americans to see what the initial call or stop was for. In the Floyd case, it was a financial transaction. Eric Garner, financial transaction, selling contraband cigarettes, if I remember correctly. Henry Louis Gates, trying to get inside his own house (came out alive, of course). Curious what the others were and if there is a pattern. 

I keep wondering what the shop owner who called the cops on Floyd is thinking right now. I know he made a statement at one point about how sorry he was for the consequence. I bet he's really struggling.

F Me In The Brain

what dreams said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I think that you have some very interesting points....however I think that this unrest is about race and police misconduct.
I think the idea that there is economic repression is a separate issue. 
This is mixing ideas - I think the focus needs to stay on the real issue here.  Intentionally or not, my read on your post is to take something black and broaden it to include everyone in a certain  economic status vs. a race of people dealing with extraordinary situations.
This, to me, is the same as saying All Lives Matter.
Just because the statement is correct doesn't mean it is following what is happening, and applies.

I appreciate the response. I am far from an All Lives Matter person. I'm just steeped in some reading right now about the intersection of policing, race, and capitalism and the way we have criminalized poverty in this country, how the ownership elites turned poor whites against the welfare function of government by connecting welfare to being black, etc. One of the first things one of my African American friends said to me when I talked to her about current events was "I'm so angry. Between the virus killing us, the economy killing us, and now this [meaning G Floyd], I'm so angry." She herself connected the dots.
So yes, you're right, the protests are immediately about specific police brutality. But when you listen to African Americans talk about crime, like I heard Kamala Harris say again today, economic justice and opportunity is the first thing they will talk about. 

Makes more sense (and more about the black experience vs all experience) reading this.