White? Why not pay more?

[Kavagrad]

How about no because not all white people are rich and this is akin to outright stereotyping?

So you're saying that having an average income almost 3 times as high as blacks isn't an example of privilege?

For whites that actually have that income? Yeah, sure.

Hence the choice aspect. Convenient how everyone opposed to this seems to miss that part.

[Idzequitch]

What is being asked is that the white folks (who are more likely to be wealthy) feel the same financial strain from buying one meal as some of the non-rich (and more likely non-white) folks around them.

I'm not sure that's the goal, I think it's to place the onus of the clear average income gap onto the person.. that is to make the person who, on average at least, earns more than twice as much question as to why that's the case and if it's fair.

That's more or less what I meant. I just went at the issue from a standpoint of the more literal effects and failed to mention the more ideological desired effects.

The increased price allows them to more clearly see the plight of the lower income brackets, and causes them to think about why things are as they are, and whether they should be that way.

[The South Falls]

How about no because not all white people are rich and this is akin to outright stereotyping?

It should be a choice, for white or black, to pay 30 and then the money can be donated to a BLM movement that does something, or maybe a charity.

[Idzequitch]

How about no because not all white people are rich and this is akin to outright stereotyping?

You know what? It is stereotyping. But it is a stereotype with statistical backing and the ability to opt out of paying more if you're an exception to those statistics (and even if you're not).

Personally, I'm a white male who can't afford to pay $30 for my lunch. I wouldn't have paid it, and I think the shopowner wouldn't have wanted me to. Because shaming white people wasn't the point. The point was highlighting a problem that should change.

[Ors Might]

How about no because not all white people are rich and this is akin to outright stereotyping?

For whites that actually have that income? Yeah, sure.

Hence the choice aspect. Convenient how everyone opposed to this seems to miss that part.

Not sure how that relates to my post? I said earlier that I don’t mind as much because there’s a choice, though I still oppose it on the grounds that it’s dumb.

[Novowarsawianka]

No, it is not, the free market does not mold it's prices to things like race. It is why it is called the FREE market. The same service provided by the same operator in the same area has the same price for all customers, because profit does not see race.

Instead of raising prices for whites, why doesn't this guy just lower the prices for black customers? Oh right, I forgot, doing something actually cheritable ain't as much a sensation as race-baiting.

Or because businesses require profit to survive?

The wonders of Capitalism.

He has highlighted that he wants to do something to help the "black community", maybe being actually cheritable instead of having borderline racist policies might help more?

Now, the claim is that this price thing is because of income differences on average, then, how come that Americans of asian origin don't pay 34 or 35$? They on average earn more than American whites as well.

Instead of raising prices for whites, why doesn't this guy just lower the prices for black customers?

Wey offered to redistribute the extra money back to black patrons, the majority of whom did not take him up on the offer. Some, he said, asked if they could pay $30 too.

Oops..

I had no doubt that the vast majority of Americans, be they black, white, purple or what ever, would not fall for such fringe policies.

[Granluras]

How about no because not all white people are rich and this is akin to outright stereotyping?

It should be a choice, for white or black, to pay 30 and then the money can be donated to a BLM movement that does something, or maybe a charity.

BLM is the last thing you should be calling charitable or capable of doing something.

[Right wing humour squad]

The entire premise here falls under things that are stupid.

[Idzequitch]

The entire premise here falls under things that are stupid.

The financial wellbeing of low income Americans is stupid?

[Jackania yugo]

It should be a choice, for white or black, to pay 30 and then the money can be donated to a BLM movement that does something, or maybe a charity.

BLM is the last thing you should be calling charitable or capable of doing something.

Why?

(I know they have something to do with SJW's but what)?

[Granluras]

Okay, let’s do this: Sure let’s have some people pay a little extra based off of their wealth, thats good, give not just to blacks, but to any underpaid or unemployed individual.

They can then use this charity money to, through the assistance of some sort of affiliated employment agency, get employed, perfect their labor skills, and use the money they have left over and from their salaries to get better and more profitable jobs.

Eventually they can move up from weak lower class people to more properly funded middle class workers. That’s what America runs off of. Raising yourself up class-wise, capitalism, becoming greater, doing something with yourself, etc. **cough cough** American dream **cough cough**.

[Right wing humour squad]

The entire premise here falls under things that are stupid.

The financial wellbeing of low income Americans is stupid?

Basing wealth off race. There may be indicators and probability, but it’s not an accurate way to measure.

[Free Republics]

Isn't this just your typical free-market price discrimination?

That being said, inb4 white ancaps and neoliberals flood this thread to oppose this, I guess.

I don't see how this is any different from the affirmative action bake sales that college conservatives have long done to point out the absurdity of affirmative action. I don't have any problem with liberals running an affirmative action bake sale of their own.

[The South Falls]

It should be a choice, for white or black, to pay 30 and then the money can be donated to a BLM movement that does something, or maybe a charity.

BLM is the last thing you should be calling charitable or capable of doing something.

Or anything, I swear. Just not keeping the money, as that is very dickish.

[The Great-German Empire]

Of what I've seen of this thread, nothing has convinced me that this venture isn't just another example of using sweeping demographics to polarize people. Kavagrad says 'raising awareness'? I call it 'inflaming tension and prejudice'. The disdainful message is there despite the optionality of the extra fee, and while I certainly agree it's fully legal and permissible, I also hold that it's a brainless act of unjustified shaming.

[The South Falls]

Of what I've seen of this thread, nothing has convinced me that this venture isn't just another example of using sweeping demographics to polarize people. Kavagrad says 'raising awareness'? I call it 'inflaming tension and prejudice'. The disdainful message is there despite the optionality of the extra fee, and while I certainly agree it's fully legal and permissible, I also hold that it's a brainless act of unjustified shaming.

I believe that if everyone had the option, then that would be untrue. But, since the white people are the only ones asked, that's prejudice, in all the ways possible. While they are not forced to do it, it's still just White=Rich and Black=Poor, as stereotype that shouldn't be perpetuated.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Isn't this just your typical free-market price discrimination?

That being said, inb4 white ancaps and neoliberals flood this thread to oppose this, I guess.

Because black ancaps would wholeheartedly support this?

[Ohioan Territory]

Voluntary inflated payment = okay.

Encouraged voluntary inflated payment = okay.

This is fine--solely in terms of "fairness," I guess you could call it. I'm not really sure what it's intended to accomplish, though. Does seem quite polarizing.

Anything that forcibly and unfairly discriminates against a certain color or creed of people for the sake of any sort of "equality" = not okay.

EDIT: meant to add "forcibly"

[Chill beats LLC]

Why based on race? White =/= well-off and Black =/= poor. Do it based off of income.

Are you going to just whip out your tax returns, and people would pore through it? How about anyone being able to pay 30, and the extra 18 being donated to charity!

Oh, I like that. Much better idea.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

It's racist preachy and annoying, but it isn't violating anyone's rights, as they are only suggesting whites pay more rather than forcing them to, so I'll let it slide.

[The Great-German Empire]

It's racist preachy and annoying, but it isn't violating anyone's rights, as they are only suggesting whites pay more rather than forcing them to, so I'll let it slide.

Same here. I'll let it slide - but I won't miss the chance to grumble about it. Beecause that's how I am, fam.

[Bombadil]

Are you going to just whip out your tax returns, and people would pore through it? How about anyone being able to pay 30, and the extra 18 being donated to charity!

Oh, I like that. Much better idea.

I would but I'm being audited.

[The South Falls]

Are you going to just whip out your tax returns, and people would pore through it? How about anyone being able to pay 30, and the extra 18 being donated to charity!

Oh, I like that. Much better idea.

If it's sarcasm, these kind of 'everyone can pay more' are everywhere. If it's not sarcasm, then it's quite effective, and you're right. Whipping out my three-hundred page taxes of the last six years sounds great!

Oh, I like that. Much better idea.

I would but I'm being audited.

I've been audited ever since the summer of '95.

[Granluras]

I wrote a very well worded statement about this topic a few posts, would someone be kind to show me that what I said and proposed is a good proposal?

[Bombadil]

Of what I've seen of this thread, nothing has convinced me that this venture isn't just another example of using sweeping demographics to polarize people.

The sort of polarising sweeping demographics that have a $63K average wage over a $26K average wage.. is it not worth thinking about?