Is New Hampshire too white?

[Ostroeuropa]

I'd rather go for "Unwillingly unemployed" or some equivalent, since that's surely the most relevant factor and allows for various concessions to be made. (Children, retired, disabled, rich, etc.)

It's also left-ish in that it shifts the focus toward getting those who want to work jobs, rather than being like "The unemployed, scroungers!!!"

Well if you're willingly unemployed, with no physical or mental health problems, then that presents its own dilemmas.

Agree in principle, disagree in terms of government practice mate because you're inevitably going to get into mental health shit. As long as unemployment benefits aren't lavish and merely cover mere existence, then it's not going to be a systemic problem and i'd argue the number of people taking advantage of that situation are worth putting up with so we assuredly cover those with mental problems. Given a means to differentiate accurately, i'm all in favor of telling them to fuck off, but we do not have such means.

[Ifreann]

Nothing in the article suggests anything of the sort. You were complaining about gaslighting five minutes ago when someone suggested there isn't an anti-white crew and now you're gaslighting yourself, inventing hatred when all there is is businesses trying to maintain a supply of labour.

I've elaborated. It's anti-white because it projects minorities racism onto whites and blames them for it. It does so because of progressive ideology and impulsive assumptions about the dynamics of prejudice.

If you're black and can't make friends with any white people in an entire fucking state, it's because you're a racist. No ifs ands or buts mate.

You're inventing racist people and saying that they're the problem. This is just stupid.

But it's put through the prism of progressive rationalizations and toxic ideology to blame whites for that and suggest we need more racist minorities so the racist minority won't feel lonely.

If a person likes speaking Spanish, and finds that there's no one to speak Spanish to in New Hampshire, and thus doesn't stay in New Hampshire, that's not racist. And businesses trying to find a way to attract that person back isn't a conspiracy against white people.

Wah wah, the loneliest klansman in africa.

Only progressive (Racist) minorities would agree with the article. That's the point.

Maybe you haven't realised yet, but the headline of the article isn't "Is New Hampshire too white?"

[Bakery Hill]

Well if you're willingly unemployed, with no physical or mental health problems, then that presents its own dilemmas.

Agree in principle, disagree in terms of government practice mate because you're inevitably going to get into mental health shit. As long as unemployment benefits aren't lavish and merely cover mere existence, then it's not going to be a systemic problem and i'd argue the number of people taking advantage of that situation are worth putting up with so we assuredly cover those with mental problems. Given a means to differentiate accurately, i'm all in favor of telling them to fuck off, but we do not have such means.

That's very true.

[Galloism]

I'd rather go for "Unwillingly unemployed" or some equivalent, since that's surely the most relevant factor and allows for various concessions to be made. (Children, retired, disabled, rich, etc.)

It's also left-ish in that it shifts the focus toward getting those who want to work jobs, rather than being like "The unemployed, scroungers!!!"

Well if you're willingly unemployed, with no physical or mental health problems, then that presents its own dilemmas.

Well, willingly unemployed people don't get unemployment benefits in general terms in the US (due to structure), or, even if they wrangle it somehow, only get it for a limited time.

Willingly unemployed would overwhelmingly be comprised of wealthy people who are being supported either by personal wealth or familial wealth. There would probably be a few thirty year olds living with their parents in there, but it would probably make up a relatively small percentage of the population.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've elaborated. It's anti-white because it projects minorities racism onto whites and blames them for it. It does so because of progressive ideology and impulsive assumptions about the dynamics of prejudice.

If you're black and can't make friends with any white people in an entire fucking state, it's because you're a racist. No ifs ands or buts mate.

You're inventing racist people and saying that they're the problem. This is just stupid.

But it's put through the prism of progressive rationalizations and toxic ideology to blame whites for that and suggest we need more racist minorities so the racist minority won't feel lonely.

If a person likes speaking Spanish, and finds that there's no one to speak Spanish to in New Hampshire, and thus doesn't stay in New Hampshire, that's not racist. And businesses trying to find a way to attract that person back isn't a conspiracy against white people.

Wah wah, the loneliest klansman in africa.

Only progressive (Racist) minorities would agree with the article. That's the point.

Maybe you haven't realised yet, but the headline of the article isn't "Is New Hampshire too white?"

There is no reason to push for demographic diversity for linguistic talent. Their rationales are racist, unless they are suggesting Hispanics in the rest of the country won't take a white person speaking spanish as seriously as they would a Hispanic speaking spanish, in which case, why blame whites again?

[Bakery Hill]

Well if you're willingly unemployed, with no physical or mental health problems, then that presents its own dilemmas.

Well, willingly unemployed people don't get unemployment benefits in general terms in the US (due to structure), or, even if they wrangle it somehow, only get it for a limited time.

Willingly unemployed would overwhelmingly be comprised of wealthy people who are being supported either by personal wealth or familial wealth. There would probably be a few thirty year olds living with their parents in there, but it would probably make up a relatively small percentage of the population.

Oh yes, in America I imagine doing that without a large body of wealth behind you is next to impossible. God bless the idle rich.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well if you're willingly unemployed, with no physical or mental health problems, then that presents its own dilemmas.

Well, willingly unemployed people don't get unemployment benefits in general terms in the US (due to structure), or, even if they wrangle it somehow, only get it for a limited time.

Willingly unemployed would overwhelmingly be comprised of wealthy people who are being supported either by personal wealth or familial wealth. There would probably be a few thirty year olds living with their parents in there, but it would probably make up a relatively small percentage of the population.

Bakery is British (I think), and here we tend to have a more lax approach. J.K rowling wrote the harry potter series while on welfare and this was accepted as something she was allowed to do. The Tories have somewhat rolled back that trend and started cracking down, but when Labour is in office, it tends to be a more "Are you looking for work? No? Okay, have fun barely above the poverty line." approach, rather than the tory; "WE THINK YOU'RE SCAMMING US, STARVE, PEASANT!"

[Ifreann]

You're inventing racist people and saying that they're the problem. This is just stupid.

If a person likes speaking Spanish, and finds that there's no one to speak Spanish to in New Hampshire, and thus doesn't stay in New Hampshire, that's not racist. And businesses trying to find a way to attract that person back isn't a conspiracy against white people.


Maybe you haven't realised yet, but the headline of the article isn't "Is New Hampshire too white?"

There is no reason to push for demographic diversity for linguistic talent. Their rationales are racist.

Their rationale is that non-white people are set to become a majority in the US, and therefore they need to figure out how to get them to move to New Hampshire before the opioid crisis and ageing population leaves them with a state full of people who can't work and need care. That's not racist, no matter how badly you want it to be.

[Bakery Hill]

Well, willingly unemployed people don't get unemployment benefits in general terms in the US (due to structure), or, even if they wrangle it somehow, only get it for a limited time.

Willingly unemployed would overwhelmingly be comprised of wealthy people who are being supported either by personal wealth or familial wealth. There would probably be a few thirty year olds living with their parents in there, but it would probably make up a relatively small percentage of the population.

Bakery is British (I think), and here we tend to have a more lax approach. J.K rowling wrote the harry potter series while on welfare and this was accepted as something she was allowed to do. The Tories have somewhat rolled back that trend and started cracking down, but when Labour is in office, it tends to be a more "Are you looking for work? No? Okay, have fun barely above the poverty line." approach, rather than the tory; "WE THINK YOU'RE SCAMMING US, STARVE, PEASANT!"

Strayan, but what you're saying is still quite accurate here unfortunately.

[Ostroeuropa]

There is no reason to push for demographic diversity for linguistic talent. Their rationales are racist.

Their rationale is that non-white people are set to become a majority in the US, and therefore they need to figure out how to get them to move to New Hampshire before the opioid crisis and ageing population leaves them with a state full of people who can't work and need care. That's not racist, no matter how badly you want it to be.

Why focus on non-white applicants? Is there a particular reason to racialize their need for immigrants in such a way as to exclude white applicants?

[Ifreann]

Their rationale is that non-white people are set to become a majority in the US, and therefore they need to figure out how to get them to move to New Hampshire before the opioid crisis and ageing population leaves them with a state full of people who can't work and need care. That's not racist, no matter how badly you want it to be.

Why focus on non-white applicants? Is there a particular reason to racialize their need for immigrants in such a way as to exclude white applicants?

If a workplace was 94% women, would it be wrong for them to focus on attracting more men?

[Ostroeuropa]

Why focus on non-white applicants? Is there a particular reason to racialize their need for immigrants in such a way as to exclude white applicants?

If a workplace was 94% women, would it be wrong for them to focus on attracting more men?

If New Hampshire were 94% women, yes, it would be. But i'll credit you with a flicker of doubt.

[Bakery Hill]

There is no reason to push for demographic diversity for linguistic talent. Their rationales are racist.

Their rationale is that non-white people are set to become a majority in the US, and therefore they need to figure out how to get them to move to New Hampshire before the opioid crisis and ageing population leaves them with a state full of people who can't work and need care. That's not racist, no matter how badly you want it to be.

I would say the rationale is probably more "the labour market is too restricted, and to keep wages down we need to ship in more workers, preferably desperate ones." This is much easier for the state to do than to say, fix the mammoth opioid crisis destroying communities. Just let them destroy themselves and ship in warm bodies from wherever to replace them as you need. Does that sound a bit dodgy? Ah well, slap some identity politics on and culture war rhetoric on top. Now you're a progressive! Great PR move.

[Ostroeuropa]

Their rationale is that non-white people are set to become a majority in the US, and therefore they need to figure out how to get them to move to New Hampshire before the opioid crisis and ageing population leaves them with a state full of people who can't work and need care. That's not racist, no matter how badly you want it to be.

I would say the rationale is probably more "the labour market is too restricted, and to keep wages down we need to ship in more workers, preferably desperate ones." This is much easier for the state to do than to say, fix the mammoth opioid crisis destroying communities. Just let them destroy themselves and ship in warm bodies from wherever to replace them as you need. Does that sound a bit dodgy? Ah well, slap some identity politics on and culture war rhetoric on top. Now you're a progressive! Great PR move.

I think sometimes my anti-progressivism obscures my ability to notice my anti-capitalism. You're entirely right here and it's more convincing than my approach.

[Infected Mushroom]

And why would this be a bad thing?

[Ifreann]

If a workplace was 94% women, would it be wrong for them to focus on attracting more men?

If New Hampshire were 94% women, yes, it would be. But i'll credit you with a flicker of doubt.

So you don't think that traditionally female dominated industries should reach out to men? I'm surprised.

---

Their rationale is that non-white people are set to become a majority in the US, and therefore they need to figure out how to get them to move to New Hampshire before the opioid crisis and ageing population leaves them with a state full of people who can't work and need care. That's not racist, no matter how badly you want it to be.

I would say the rationale is probably more "the labour market is too restricted, and to keep wages down we need to ship in more workers, preferably desperate ones." This is much easier for the state to do than to say, fix the mammoth opioid crisis destroying communities. Just let them destroy themselves and ship in warm bodies from wherever to replace them as you need. Does that sound a bit dodgy? Ah well, slap some identity politics on and culture war rhetoric on top. Now you're a progressive! Great PR move.

But then there isn't insidious anti-white bigotry lurking in every boardroom, and where's the fun in that?

[Mechadopeland]

Yes, New Hampshire is far too white. I fully support micro-managing the ethnic population of any given state in the Union. If you don't, you are probably racist or something.

[Ostroeuropa]

If New Hampshire were 94% women, yes, it would be. But i'll credit you with a flicker of doubt.

So you don't think that traditionally female dominated industries should reach out to men? I'm surprised.

---

I would say the rationale is probably more "the labour market is too restricted, and to keep wages down we need to ship in more workers, preferably desperate ones." This is much easier for the state to do than to say, fix the mammoth opioid crisis destroying communities. Just let them destroy themselves and ship in warm bodies from wherever to replace them as you need. Does that sound a bit dodgy? Ah well, slap some identity politics on and culture war rhetoric on top. Now you're a progressive! Great PR move.

But then there isn't insidious anti-white bigotry lurking in every boardroom, and where's the fun in that?

Where men are a sizeable part of the area? Yes, they should. If 94% of the employed in new hampshire were white and only 50% of the population was, i'd be angry too.

[Bakery Hill]

I would say the rationale is probably more "the labour market is too restricted, and to keep wages down we need to ship in more workers, preferably desperate ones." This is much easier for the state to do than to say, fix the mammoth opioid crisis destroying communities. Just let them destroy themselves and ship in warm bodies from wherever to replace them as you need. Does that sound a bit dodgy? Ah well, slap some identity politics on and culture war rhetoric on top. Now you're a progressive! Great PR move.

I think sometimes my anti-progressivism obscures my ability to notice my anti-capitalism. You're entirely right here and it's more convincing than my approach.

Well there are people who are advocating this because of their genuine ideology. But I think the stuff that actually gets done is most often driven by capital and for very different reasons

[Bakery Hill]

The feeling that is driving the other people (the non-white people/groups featured in the article, not the business groups) is also understandable. A lot of migrants I've known tend to feel isolated and homesick in places filled with foreign people with foreign ways of doing things. Though they might try to fit in and make local friends, there's still that feeling if maybe there were a few more people from home or like them they wouldn't feel so alone. I can definitely understand that, it's a feeling that's been expressed to me personally quite often and it cannot be ignored. I just think it's perverse (though hardly surprising) that capital is using this to push its own agenda, which really runs counter to those of most of the non-white people it purports to be championing.

[Ifreann]

So you don't think that traditionally female dominated industries should reach out to men? I'm surprised.

---

But then there isn't insidious anti-white bigotry lurking in every boardroom, and where's the fun in that?

Where men are a sizeable part of the area? Yes, they should. If 94% of the employed in new hampshire were white and only 50% of the population was, i'd be angry too.

Businesses in New Hampshire can employ anyone who can legally work in the United States. There's hundreds of millions of people out there they can be advertising positions to, why limit themselves only to the people already in the state?

[Ostroeuropa]

Where men are a sizeable part of the area? Yes, they should. If 94% of the employed in new hampshire were white and only 50% of the population was, i'd be angry too.

Businesses in New Hampshire can employ anyone who can legally work in the United States. There's hundreds of millions of people out there they can be advertising positions to, why limit themselves only to the people already in the state?

They shouldn't, but that's irrelevant to whether New hampshire should be changed. Hire out of state all you want, and so on.

[Renoa]

Well, I read the NYT article, and then I read it again, and while the language used in it is driving me to (figuratively) drink, and I think the ideas presented in it would be kind of naive and questionably effective in practice, the idea that it's promoting white genocide or anything of the sort is incredibly disingenuous.

[San Lumen]

Well, I read the NYT article, and then I read it again, and while the language used in it is driving me to (figuratively) drink, and I think the ideas presented in it would be kind of naive and questionably effective in practice, the idea that it's promoting white genocide or anything of the sort is incredibly disingenuous.

The term white genocide always comes up among the far right. They say diversity is code or anti white or some mass conspiracy to eliminate white people.

The whole concept of a town, city, state or organization being too white is absurd for the most part. Things like police departments should look the community however the job should be based on merit and fitness for the job not ones skin color.

[Tatshwen]

I've elaborated. It's anti-white because it projects minorities racism onto whites and blames them for it. It does so because of progressive ideology and impulsive assumptions about the dynamics of prejudice.

If you're black and can't make friends with any white people in an entire fucking state, it's because you're a racist. No ifs ands or buts mate.

You're inventing racist people and saying that they're the problem. This is just stupid.

But it's put through the prism of progressive rationalizations and toxic ideology to blame whites for that and suggest we need more racist minorities so the racist minority won't feel lonely.

If a person likes speaking Spanish, and finds that there's no one to speak Spanish to in New Hampshire, and thus doesn't stay in New Hampshire, that's not racist. And businesses trying to find a way to attract that person back isn't a conspiracy against white people.

Wah wah, the loneliest klansman in africa.

Only progressive (Racist) minorities would agree with the article. That's the point.

Maybe you haven't realised yet, but the headline of the article isn't "Is New Hampshire too white?"

Primarily, the only people in NH who do well are tradesmen and small business owners. Having lived near the Mass NH border, 40 percent of the people living there traveled to Boston for work because the pay was so much better for what they were doing. Even if you didn't travel to Boston all the small businesses before Boston paid way better.The cost of living is pretty much the same in NH, except real estate which is quite a bit less. But the nonsense about no sales or income taxes is totally wiped out by property taxes and having to pay for services like having your trash picked up. The small businesses saying they cant find help cant find it because there is no state minimum wage so they try to hire people for the federal minimum of $7.75/hr. Experienced people get an offer of 9 - 12/hr. At $1,400 and up for a 1000 sq/ft apt you would think the businesses might consider giving the help a living wage so they can afford to stay in the state and raise their families, (produce a labor core.) This to me is just globalism on a smaller scale. "If they won't work for $7.75/hr. lets bring in a bunch that will work for less.