Race and Conspicuous Consumption
| AR Articles on Racial Differences |
|---|
| Race and Psychopathic Personality (Jul. 2002) |
| Race and Teenage Pregnancy (Feb. 2002) |
| The Biological Reality of Race (Oct. 1999) |
| Why Race Matters (Oct. 1997) |
| Race and Health (May 1996) |
| A New Theory of Racial Differences (Dec. 1994) |
| Search AmRen.com for Racial Differences |
| More news stories on Racial Differences |
{snip}
Some groups, such as blacks and Hispanics, seem to spend more on such emblems of success than others. Or is that just a stereotype?
Comedian Bill Cosby has long condemned his own black community for spending too much on flashy goods at the expense of children’s education. He has been roundly criticized by some and praised by others, but there hasn’t been much evidence to show whether his claims are true. Those who believe spending patterns vary among racial and ethnic groups typically invoke cultural differences, but there hasn’t been much solid evidence of that, either.
{snip}
In looking deeper at the subject, Roussanov and his collaborators, Kerwin Kofi Charles and Erik Hurst of the University of Chicago, found some truth to the ethnic stereotypes on spending, but they concluded that the explanation lies in economics, not culture. Their work is described in a paper titled, “Conspicuous Consumption and Race.”
“If you’re a middle-class black, it seems like, in order to be perceived by whites and other blacks as relatively well off, you have to show you have money,” Roussanov says. “You have to spend more on things that are observable.”
{snip}
Visible items are those others can see when one is in public. The researchers found that blacks and Hispanics do not spend more than whites on items such as home furnishings that could serve as status symbols but aren’t seen by as many people.
Alabama vs. Massachusetts
While Roussanov and his colleagues acknowledge that cultural preferences may play a role in these spending choices, they tested that theory by subdividing blacks, Hispanics and whites by income level and state of residence. This caused the differences in spending patterns to disappear. What really matters, Roussanov, Charles and Hurst found, is not one’s race but one’s economic situation relative to the “reference group”—people in the immediate community. “This is not really about race, in the end. It is simply about what we observe about you and what peer group you belong to,” Roussanov says.
Poor blacks and poor whites both spend more on visible goods if they live in poor communities, because such spending gives them more status relative to others in the community. But poor blacks and poor whites living among wealthier people do not devote extra portions of income to visible expenditures, since they are too far behind to get more status from the extra spending they can afford. Moreover, the very fact of belonging to a particular group provides observers with information about one’s likely income (e.g. blacks are, on average, poorer than whites).
A low-income white person in Alabama, for example, is likely to spend more on visible goods than a low-income white person in Massachusetts. That’s because white people are generally poorer in Alabama; in wealthy Massachusetts, spending more on visible goods is a waste of money, since it does not boost one’s status.
Blacks and whites appear to have different spending habits only because blacks tend to be concentrated in poor communities more than whites, Roussanov says. Nationally, the poor white is likely to be surrounded by many whites who are not as poor, so he or she cannot afford to use conspicuous consumption to compete for status. But a black person of the same income is more likely to be surrounded by others of similar income, making this competition feasible.
{snip}
The research suggests that Cosby and others are wrong to blame cultural reasons for spending priorities—or are oversimplifying the matter. But that does not mean these critics are wrong about the consequences. Money spent on conspicuous consumption must be diverted from other uses, and many studies have shown that blacks and Hispanics save less toward goals like college expenses and retirement than whites with the same income.
Roussanov and his colleagues find that blacks and Hispanics spend 16% and 30% less, respectively, on education than whites of similar income. They spend 50% less on health care. Spending on health and education is not as visible to as many people as spending on cars and clothes, so it does not contribute as much to one’s status.
Status vs. Fashion
The research indicates that spending habits are heavily influenced by a deep-seated yearning for status rather than transient fashion following. That could make the behavior harder to change, assuming that education, health and savings should come before shoes and jewelry.
{snip}
Marketers advertising cars, clothes and jewelry have long known of the higher demand for flashier products in poorer communities, Roussanov says. But the new insights might be useful, he notes, to companies marketing mutual funds or other financial services products that have yet to catch on in minority communities. The fact that saving and stock-market participation is lower among minorities could be potentially linked to their greater spending on cars and other visible items.
A mutual fund investment is not the kind of possession that can be displayed on the street, making sales difficult for a company trying to sell funds to people who prize visible emblems of prosperity but are less tempted by the financial rewards far in the future.
{snip}
(Posted on May 23, 2008)
Comments
A few years ago, I made an effort to date educated and reasonably successful black women. Figured they were a largely untapped source of quality females.
Figured wrong. Seems like I was never more than two steps away from a troublesome person. Even if the woman herself had it together, there was ALWAYS a parent, a sibling, or an offspring who was causing complications in her life and making her more of a drag than an asset to have around.
What was most salient about these women as a group, though, was their petty materialism, which naturally clashed with my low-key approach. I OWN stuff and would as soon potential troublemakers—frivilous lawsuit filers and other shakedown artists—not know I do.
Typically, I’d endure snide comments about the car I drove, the wine I drank and such, then tell the women to get lost. One who hung around awhile brought her BMW over to one of my rentals to pick a basket of oranges off the fruit trees with me. She asked what I was doing the next weekend, and I told her I had to go out to Arizona to work on two other rentals I had there.
She dropped everything and asked how in the heck somebody like ME could have so much money. I told her it was all a matter of what one chooses to spend it on and sent her on her way.
That was the end of my Noble Experiment, dating black women.
Posted by Kevin at 6:36 PM on May 23
“You have to spend more on things that are observable.”
Yeah..right. You have to.. you have no choice in the matter. “Sorry junior, you can’t go to college because daddy needs to buy a Cadillac with $4000 rims so it makes daddy look rich to the white folks”.
That’s why when rap stars, athletes and other black celebrities attain wealth they abandon the need for flashy spending.
Posted by Lucas M at 7:13 PM on May 23
“If you’re a middle-class black, it seems like, in order to be perceived by whites and other blacks as relatively well off, you have to show you have money,”
Yes, blacks are always concerned about the way other races view them (sarcasm on). More brilliant investigative reporting.
Posted by last white person here at 7:34 PM on May 23
This is non-news to most people who have been around blacks. It’s hard for me to believe that blacks buy the kind of tacky “bling bling” they like for status; monogrammed chains, diamond studded teeth, clown clothes, pimped out cars, etc. It looks to me like they’re trying to get attention. I’ve also noticed the class lines among blacks are more blurred than among Whites. Upper class blacks don’t seem to think twice about fraternizing, mingling or dating with their lower class counterparts.
Posted by at 7:50 PM on May 23
The standard that I have is always refered back to is the guy I saw who was glancing at his Diamond and Platinum Rolex every 2 minutes to see how long till the next bus comes…
Posted by Tim Mc Hugh at 8:21 PM on May 23
Can’t miss ad campaigns:
“Mutual funds is da bomb.”
“Whufo you ain’t go no mutual funds, sucka?”
“Wif evy ten C notes you put ina mutual bond, we goin give you one spinner for your ride, man.”
A good rule of thumb for do-gooders: If poor Whites won’t do it, Blacks definitely never will.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 8:26 PM on May 23
Advertisers have long known who buys what, and why. As much money as is involved in advertising, they’d be complete fools not to. Even automakers know they are not merely selling vehicles; they are selling a lifestyle, or at least the image of one.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 8:47 PM on May 23
“Comedian Bill Cosby has long condemned his own black community for spending too much on flashy goods at the expense of children’s education. He has been roundly criticized by some and praised by others, but there hasn’t been much evidence to show whether his claims are true.”
No? Well, where I live, I see a lot of late model SUVS with dark-tinted windows, 20” Chromed rims (some spinning) and sound (I wouldn’t dare call it “music”) systems blaring out.
Both the sound system and rims probably cost more than the car itself and all of them together probably cost as much as their house. Oh, and, I almost forgot, it’s blacks and hispanics that I see driving them. I guess my eyes must be lying to me.
Posted by at 9:33 PM on May 23
“Roussanov and his colleagues find that blacks and Hispanics spend 16% and 30% less, respectively, on education than whites of similar income. They spend 50% less on health care. Spending on health and education is not as visible to as many people as spending on cars and clothes, so it does not contribute as much to one’s status.”
Interesting, very interesting; since, when I was in graduate school, drawing speculative inferences from data (a rather fancy term for educated guessing) required looking at every possible angle and then also looking at their equally
provisional interactions, to form tentative conclusions. Here, the tentative conclusion is that “visibility,” is the alpha and omega of resource priorities among the races, and not such things as: delaying gratification, crisis planning, or generational sacrifice, between the races.
Thus, the flaw in this “study.”
If whites and nonwhites, are equally focused on “visibility” at the lower end of socioeconomic considerations, then why do whites universally spend more on education and health care regardless of income, then their nonwhite income peers?
For speculative interpretive example: is it that these things are “invisible” to nonwhites at all socioeconomic levels, when compared to whites; or that nonwhites feel that the government should provide these free of charge to them, while whites do not expect the same?
Well, to quote Hamlet: “That is the question…”
As always, God help us all!
Posted by John PM at 9:59 PM on May 23
“Roussanov and his colleagues find that blacks and Hispanics spend 16% and 30% less, respectively, on education than whites of similar income. They spend 50% less on health care. Spending on health and education is not as visible to as many people as spending on cars and clothes, so it does not contribute as much to one’s status.”
Interesting, very interesting; since, when I was in graduate school, drawing speculative inferences from data (a rather fancy term for educated guessing) required looking at every possible angle and then also looking at their equally provisional interactions, to form tentative conclusions. Here, the tentative conclusion is that “visibility,” is the alpha and omega of resource priorities among the races, and not such things as: delaying gratification, crisis planning, or generational sacrifice, between the races.
Thus, the flaw in this “study.”
If whites and nonwhites are equally focused on “visibility” at the lower end of socioeconomic considerations, then why do whites universally spend more on education and health care regardless of income, then their nonwhite income peers?
For speculative interpretive example: is it that these things are “invisible” to nonwhites at all socioeconomic levels, when compared to whites; or that nonwhites feel that the government should provide these free of charge to them, while whites do not expect the same?
Well, to quote Hamlet: “That is the question…”
As always, God help us all!
Posted by John PM at 10:05 PM on May 23
Blacks are focused on status. Poor impulse-control and little capacity for delayed gratification are also factors in their consumer purchases. Blacks tend to like showing off and this desire shows in their choice of clothes, cars, etc. I have to work with a lot of blacks at my place of employment and am often amazed at what they spend (waste would probably be a better word) their money on. None of them even think about savings.
Posted by at 10:43 PM on May 23
“If you’re a middle class black, it seems like…”
That was all I needed to read. “It seems like??” This is research??
We know well black perception is about a skewed as any could be, with perceived racial wickedness and all manner of sleights lurking around every corner. Black do what they do because of who they are, not how much they earn. One need look no further than the obscenely overpaid professional sports or “hip-hop” worlds to see this in action.
Posted by HH at 10:51 PM on May 23
Whenever blacks (and now hispancis) want to throw their weight around, they talk about their buying power.
Blacks always claim billions of dollars. I never hear what the white buying power is.
If blacks buying power is x number of dollars, certainly white buying power must be x times 5 (give or take).
Posted by sbuffalonative at 11:21 PM on May 23
Blacks who buy gold teeth, expensive car rims, and zircon encrusted pendants the size of dinner plates are not angling for status in society at large, but in their own subculture. Outside of the black subculture, such flashy items scream low class, low intelligence, and at best only a few degrees of separation from criminal behavior, if not outright criminality. So culture is an important factor after all. And one factor shaping cultural differences are racial differences.
Posted by at 1:13 AM on May 24
In the education field, there are many seminars educationg teachers about “The Culture of Poverty”. We pull our hair out and do handstands about how we as teachers “fail” these kids. Kids and their parents who have poor impulse control.
They come in with the latest shoes and bling, but not a pencil or dictionary in the house to study with.
Posted by Mikey at 4:00 AM on May 24
In England the same behaviour is exhibited by Asians (ie Indians and Pakistanis).
Posted by stephen at 6:46 AM on May 24
Impulsive, live for the moment, don’t think of the consequences of actions, don’t save for the future, spend money on flashy things just for show.
Not a stereotype. Reality.
Posted by at 7:04 AM on May 24
It all comes down to the idea that blacks don’t understand that some things you pay for don’t have tangibility. That’s why they don’t spend much on health care and education. If they can’t see it and touch it, to them it doesn’t exist.
Tom Iron…
Posted by Tom Iron at 9:11 AM on May 24
The standard that I have is always refered back to is the guy I saw who was glancing at his Diamond and Platinum Rolex every 2 minutes to see how long till the next bus comes…
Posted by Tim Mc Hugh at 8:21 PM on May 23
For me, the current standard is the four droopy-drawered, gold-chain-dripping NBA enthusiasts I witnessed pushing their highly-polished, heavily-chromed, still-under-warranty Cadillac Escalade SUV up the hill toward the Chevron station. Apparently, after spending so much bank on their Sean Johns and their pimped-out ride, they had nothing left to fill the tank with.
Ordinarily, I’d offer to help a motorist — ANY motorist, ANY color — who’s run out of gas. But these dopes clearly had nobody to blame but themselves.
Posted by The Incredible Shrinking White Man at 9:31 AM on May 24
There is a term that really tells the whole story about blacks and how they pretend to be rich when they get a little windfall of cash .. I can’t remember exactly what it is, maybe another reader of AR will fill us in? It;s right on target and its only two words. _____ Rich
Posted by Ted at 10:05 AM on May 24
Ted,
The term you are thinking of is “nouveau riche”.
From Wikipedia;
Nouveau riche (French for “new rich”), or new money, refers to a person who has acquired considerable wealth within his or her generation.[1] This term is generally to emphasize that the individual was previously part of a lower socioeconomic rank, and that such wealth has provided the means for the acquisition of goods or luxuries that were previously unobtainable. The term can also be used in a derogatory fashion, for the purposes of social class distinction, to describe persons with newfound wealth and who are viewed as lacking the experience, finesse, or taste to use wealth in the same manner as old money - persons from families who have been wealthy for multiple generations
Posted by at 11:22 AM on May 24
“If you’re a middle-class black, it seems like, in order to be perceived by whites and other blacks as relatively well off, you have to show you have money,” Roussanov says. “You have to spend more on things that are observable.”
Yeah, right. As if we weren’t aware of things like Bokassa coronationhttp://www.amazon.com/Dark-Age-Political-Odyssey-Emperor/dp/0773524185
For every nonsense that comes out of “Liberal” theories (that “all people are equal”), they quickly come up with even bigger nonsense to rationalize it out.
Posted by A Reader at 4:19 PM on May 24
Also, the author confused the cause with the effect. Blacks are not flashy because they are poor but they are poor because they are flashy and spend their income rather than saving and investing. This difference between white protestants and black “instant gratification” self-indulgers explains, according to Max Weber, why America has emerged as a successful capitalist country while Zimbabwe has not.
Posted by A Reader at 4:25 PM on May 24
For once, the liberal ivory towers of academia got something correct.
http://chicagoist.com/images/2004_08_donjuan.jpg
http://www.killedthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/crunkrock.jpg
Posted by Winston Smith at 5:54 PM on May 24
Every time I see a Cadillac Escalade with tinted windows and flashy rims, there is a black driving it. And I mean EVERY time! I saw one with spinning rims at a stoplight in a dumpy part of town yesterday and I laughed out loud - you know the black guy driving that car is leasing it and spending half his income just to put on a ridiculous show for other drivers. He probably lives with his mama just so he can act “rich”. Pathetic. He probably also has kids without child support or college funds, but at least Daddy has a fly ride!
I wonder if Cadillac is nervous about that trend? If Cadillacs become overly identified with trashy blacks, middle class whites will walk away from the brand for good. I would NEVER drive an Escalade; it screams “I Worship Rap Thugs”
It’s amusing to watch poor/dumb people act out the way they THINK rich people live, meanwhile they wouldn’t know what real rich people look like if they walked right by them. Old money doesn’t chase brand names and flashy cars! Ghetto-rich homies probably think the Hearst family drives around with spinning rims. I saw a clip from “MTV Cribs” where rapper “50 Cent” admits that he has a Ferrari that he doesn’t drive so that when he sees “another rich person” with a Ferrari he can say “I have one too!”
I routinely see hispanics driving around in 20 yr old Honda Civics with flashy rims that cost THREE TIMES as much as the car itself. Although I sometimes see that with blacks, it seems like more often blacks would rather lease an expensive new vehicle while hispanics would rather buy a cheap vehicle and then “fix it up”. I wonder why that is?
Posted by Jill at 6:06 PM on May 24
In my middle class upbringing it was considered rude and pretty crass if you asked someone (1) where they bought something. (2) How much it cost. A few weeks ago I was flipping through one of those low class hollywood type magazines while waiting in the grocery store line when I saw an article about JLo’s mother shopping for her twin grandchildren. This low class woman told another woman just how much everything she was buying cost, when the woman remarked about her earrings, she said “my daughter got these for me and they cost 25,000”. I was just disgusted at the excess and the need to brag about it.
Posted by Spartan24 at 8:42 PM on May 24
I will have to say this from first hand experience. I was in the music industry in KC some years back. Blacks will let the rent slide and kids go hungry for music and a nice ride. Time and time again they would come into the store with nasty looking kids in tow to buy a rap or R&B tape or cd. They even tried to pay for music with food stamps which was illegal or sexual favors. Then they would all pile into the new ride (which was generally a Nissan Maxiuma in those days) and head back to their Section 8 apartments whch were several blocks away from our store. That job was the turning point in my liberal way of thinking. Familarity does breed contempt and that is a fact.
Posted by at 9:03 PM on May 24
Personally I believe the way blacks handle, or mishandle, their money is enough in and of itself to explain their situation. Just a generation or two ago the Irish were staggeringly poor (see the movie Angela’s Ashes). Likewise many European immigrants from the Ellis island era eked out truly miserable lives in east coast sweatshops but they got by. Blacks are not a future-focused people. They have a ‘live for today’ impulsiveness that doesn’t suit the long-term horizon it requires to accumulate wealth. I don’t see how any group of people could be successful if they handled their money the way blacks do, INDEPENDENT of any other consideration.
Posted by at 12:01 AM on May 25
I worked with a Hispanic man who has a young daughter. He was constantly complaining about how much child support was eating him alive. One time his daughter needed dental work. He kept saying that he didn’t have $500 to get her teeth fixed. Within a couple weeks he bought an expensive set of rims for his Honda Civic. I couldn’t believe it. He didn’t have his daughter listed on our company health and dental insurance plans because he said his ex could get it through the state welfare.
Posted by Jen at 12:57 PM on May 25
Jill at 6:06 PM on May 24
I saw some advertisements a while ago on a white nationalist site, where Cadillacs were explicitly promoted as a white person’s car, with implications of superior taste, class and achievement. They looked about 1950’s vintage. I wondered whether they were genuine. Does anybody know?
Posted by AnalogMan at 2:37 PM on May 25
Blacks are notoriously bad with money. They can’t think, plan ahead or delay gratification. That’s why they buy frivolous things with their welfare checks like jewelry and fancy cars. Meanwhile, they have nothing in the bank and nothing for the future. Instead, they rely on others to support them.
George Manuelian
San Jose, CA
Posted by george Manuelian at 8:08 PM on May 25
I had a Hispanic girl in my class with a big scar running across her face. I never asked anyone, but I imagine she got sliced up in a car wreck. Her father spent thousands of dollars on getting the best seats at basketball games, but was willing to let his child go through life with a disfigured face.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 9:18 PM on May 25
“I saw some advertisements a while ago on a white nationalist site, where Cadillacs were explicitly promoted as a white person’s car, with implications of superior taste, class and achievement. They looked about 1950’s vintage. I wondered whether they were genuine. Does anybody know?”
I’m assuming you’re serious with this question, so I’ll answer it for you. I grew up in the 1950’s and the answer is yes, these ads were genuine.
Posted by at 9:30 PM on May 25
AnalogMan at 2:37 PM: In the 1930s, Cadillac dealers were forbidden by the company to sell to Blacks. Rich Blacks would have to pay a White to buy the car and sign it over. I don’t know when Cadillac dropped this enlightened policy.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 11:59 PM on May 25
“Blacks and Hispanics spend up to 30% more than whites of comparable income on visible goods like clothing, cars and jewelry, the researchers found.”
Uhhh, pardon me, but didn’t the researchers just prove that there is empirical evidence that the “conspicuous consumption” stereotype is true?
Posted by ktx at 3:36 AM on May 26
I’ve been around a lot of blacks and have yet to see a “poor” one. Blacks just LOVE their bling. They’ll spend tons of money on weaves, big fake nails and gold chains while they hop into their shiny new car. At work, they eat out all the time. All the while claiming “whitey” be keeping them down.
Posted by KC at 6:56 AM on May 26
Tim Mc Hugh wrote:
“The standard that I have is always refered back to is the guy I saw who was glancing at his Diamond and Platinum Rolex every 2 minutes to see how long till the next bus comes…”
Too funny, Tim.
Probably more like checking to see if the cheap knock-off “Rolex” is still working!
Posted by Superman at 1:01 PM on May 26
“If you’re a middle-class black, it seems like, in order to be perceived by whites and other blacks as relatively well off, you have to show you have money,” Roussanov says. “You have to spend more on things that are observable.”
It is as predictable as the sunrise that, if some academics making a study end up clearly finding an undeniable weakness in “minority” character, all non-white human flaws and deficiencies must be somehow made the fault of whites.
No matter how convoluted the phony connection to white responsibility (e.g., “in order to be perceived by whites”), some kind of connection to white guilt must be made, to give non-whites an out and keep the study “respectable”
Practiced by treacherous, craven, hypocritical white leftist scholars, making scapegoats of white people is potentially deadly (i.e., when whites finally do become a minority in the West) and is ultimately an undiluted evil.
Posted by DTF at 1:03 PM on May 26
The most amusing aspect of that Rolex is that even a real one will not keep time as well as a Seiko quartz watch. A Rolex is pure bling.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 11:31 PM on May 26
“Poor blacks and poor whites both spend more on visible goods if they live in poor communities, because such spending gives them more status relative to others in the community. But poor blacks and poor whites living among wealthier people do not devote extra portions of income to visible expenditures, since they are too far behind to get more status from the extra spending they can afford. Moreover, the very fact of belonging to a particular group provides observers with information about one’s likely income (e.g. blacks are, on average, poorer than whites).”
Notice that the author does not hold blacks accountable for choosing to live in poor neighborhoods, nor does the author give non-rich whites credit for choosing to put their money into a house in a good neighborhood, an appreciating asset, rather than “visible goods.” Where people live is considered a given, as if they had no choice in the matter. That is the flaw in this whole theory.
Posted by sofita at 9:20 AM on May 27
“Even automakers know they are not merely selling vehicles; they are selling a lifestyle, or at least the image of one.”
Whoever came up with the ad campaign that promoted the Jaguer as the quinitessential “Sophisticated Black Man’s Automobile” in my opinion is a freakin’ GENIUS!
Posted by at 11:26 AM on May 27
This one’s easy to pile on. But there’s another cultural aspect that hasn’t gotten a mention. Blacks and other colored types can themselves feel their differences from whites, racially (naturally!); they know they don’t really fit in to the white man’s world. This, let us be honest, is a burden. And in order to deal with it they feel a need to differentiate themselves from whites, which, in practical terms, means observable white culture. Thus if whites dress neatly, blacks and hispanics will dress baggy and messy; if whites are attentive, blacks will be dispruptive (even if they are, on occasion, capable of understanding the material); if whites follow rules, blacks and others will break them. Culture does matter, though I don’t say this as an attempt to lay a (yet another) guilt trip on whites; it’s just natural consequence of groups so thoroughly different as whites and blacks trying to live together. The best solution — for all — is separation.
Posted by Michael T at 2:33 PM on May 27
Many years ago when I was college age I had a mind which was somewhat in harmony with the liberal left education I was receiving. I knew a black with a fancy new car but lived in a shack. I could not understand why he could not care about how he lived so shabily so one day I asked him and he said and I quote ” you can sleep in your car but you cant drive your house”. That was my first inkling that they really are not like us, quite in contrast to the wonderful multicultural lessons taught in the classroom. KF
Posted by kingfish at 4:45 PM on May 27
My husband and I wonder how people can afford such flashy vehicles when they are elligible for things like section 8 and state sanctioned dental and medical care. Are they paying cash or on some sort of a high interest payment plan? Maybe perpetrating identity theft. My husband makes 50-60,000 a year and we do not go out and get a new car every year.
Posted by Spartan24 at 6:56 PM on May 27
“Even if the woman herself had it together, there was ALWAYS a parent, a sibling, or an offspring who was causing complications in her life and making her more of a drag than an asset to have around.”
That is so true. That is why working with blacks is so stressful. Their relatives are always causing problems and the black women are on the phone all day yakking about the problems instead of working.
And of course, it is a pain to listen to other people’s problems 6 or 7 hours a day.
Posted by at 10:19 PM on May 27
Reply to 10:19 PM poster:
Your post describes my work condition precisely. Black women always on the phone, their various (usually illegitimate) children talking to them about their issues, etc. When off the phone they think nothing of unloading their burden on me about their various problems. Working with black females is one of the most draining, unrewarding experiences I have ever endured.
Posted by at 5:39 PM on May 28