California panel approves reparations proposal of up to $1.2 million EACH for black residents...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12055465…

Do you guys think this is really gonna pass? This has to be a new high in insanity. The whole reparation thing is total bullshit, but how would this not bankrupt the state. I can't imagine common sense people, let alone white or hispanic people are gonna accept this, even in California.

28 Comments
 

I really need someone to explain to me how I'm racist for thinking these people are scumbags that should be openly mocked and ridiculed. These are people who were never slaves, whose parents were never slaves, whose grandparents were never slaves. They are arguing they deserve to take money from people who didn't own slaves, whose parents didn't own slaves, whose grandparents didn't own slaves, many of whose family in fact probably did not even live in the US when slavery existed. And it's all happening in a state that never had slavery. The only argument they have is maybe if they were descended from a small group of slaves brought into CA during the gold rush, but since there were no laws enforcing that they were technically freed people as soon as they entered the region and good luck proving it in the first place. Give these people an inch, they'll vote to take away your constitutionally protected rights and drain the state coffers to placate a bunch of idiots.

Flip side of the argument I suppose is that by giving these mouth breathers what they're asking for you are effectively stimulating your state's economy. God knows few if any of these people will invest/save this money intelligently, they're just going to be dumb spenders so you'll get the money back within a few years and simultaneously secure the black vote for the foreseeable future because who doesn't like free money. From that perspective (assuming the logic holds) this is actually a brilliant move.

And people wonder why folks are leaving the state in droves.

"If you don't have any enemies in life you have never stood up for anything" - Winston Churchill | "It's a testament to the sheer belligerence of the profession that people would rather argue about the 'risk-adjusted returns' of using inferior tooth cleaning methods." - kellycriterion
 
PrivateTechquity 🚀GME+BBBY💀

I really need someone to explain to me how I'm racist for thinking these people are scumbags that should be openly mocked and ridiculed. These are people who were never slaves, whose parents were never slaves, whose grandparents were never slaves.

Well it depends on the person, of course, but these are people who lived through Jim Crow, whose parents and grandparents certainly lived through Jim Crow, whose entire lives are negatively affected by the impact of institutional bigotry in this country.  These are people who were denied mortgages due to the color of their skin, who were handed disproportionately harsh prison sentences because of the color of their skin, who face a hundred and one issues in their day to day life that someone who isn't black couldn't possibly imagine.

So while I hear and agree with you that "there are people who were never slaves," that's just the shorthand for "black people are more likely to be stuck in a cycle of poverty because the same people who owned slaves (and many who didn't) made it so that black Americans would always be second class citizens."  You are so focused on the supposed injustice of having to pay someone else that you aren't stopping to think about whether there might be some justification for it.  You're only successful because previous generations put the time and the effort into setting up the conditions that allow you to thrive - and they did that, often, on the backs of people with dark skin.  

These kinds of idiotic, do-nothing proposals would stop happening if there was any appetite among most Americans to stand up and actually take some responsibility for some of the bigoted shit we've done as a country.  I mean, I've heard you say that teaching the history of black folks in America is somehow a bad thing (a.k.a. Critical Race Theory).  For as long as people like you are unwilling to admit that the USA has treated it's minority populations really horribly, unwilling to even let that be a subject of education, then of course you'll see people angrily demanding a more unreasonable form of compensation.

They are arguing they deserve to take money from people who didn't own slaves, whose parents didn't own slaves, whose grandparents didn't own slaves, many of whose family in fact probably did not even live in the US when slavery existed. And it's all happening in a state that never had slavery. The only argument they have is maybe if they were descended from a small group of slaves brought into CA during the gold rush, but since there were no laws enforcing that they were technically freed people as soon as they entered the region and good luck proving it in the first place. Give these people an inch, they'll vote to take away your constitutionally protected rights and drain the state coffers to placate a bunch of idiots.

Lol.  This is the abrogation of Constitutional rights your worried about?  Not all the voting restrictions, not the imposition of Christian theocracy, none of that?  Your worried that you have to pay a couple dollars extra in taxes?  Here's a thought - tax houses of worship and give the proceeds to pay reparations.  You don't pay a dime, we get rid of an actual infringement on the Constitution, everyone wins.

Every year the federal government, as well as state and local governments, spend a ton of money on awful shit to placate a bunch of idiots.  If you only care about that when it's something you disagree with, then we can all safely ignore your complaints as mere special pleading.

Flip side of the argument I suppose is that by giving these mouth breathers what they're asking for you are effectively stimulating your state's economy. God knows few if any of these people will invest/save this money intelligently, they're just going to be dumb spenders so you'll get the money back within a few years and simultaneously secure the black vote for the foreseeable future because who doesn't like free money. From that perspective (assuming the logic holds) this is actually a brilliant move.

And people wonder why folks are leaving the state in droves.

No one wonders why people are leaving California.  High housing costs.

 
Most Helpful

Tbh I am 100% in favor of reparations. That said, I would want there to be a ‘reparations’ fund which gets funded by a one-time tax to everyone alive today who the state can prove is descended from slave owners and who nowadays has a net worth above 5M and/or annual income above 6 figures. Then those funds are available to the public. If you want your piece, you have to submit proof that you are descended from slaves and it needs to get verified by the state. This is my rough idea. There are many asterisks of course. How much would you take from the slave owners? How much would you give to every individual descendant of slaves? I would also tax people who provably descended from people who worked in the slave trade yet did not own slaves themselves. If a law like this passed tomorrow I would cheer, clap, and also chill, because I know that I do not fall in either category. But TBH if your family owned slaves you gotta pay up my man. What is the argument against that?

 

#Walloftextincoming

Hölder

Tbh I am 100% in favor of reparations. That said, I would want there to be a 'reparations' fund which gets funded by a one-time tax to everyone alive today who the state can prove is descended from slave owners and who nowadays has a net worth above 5M and/or annual income above 6 figures. Then those funds are available to the public. If you want your piece, you have to submit proof that you are descended from slaves and it needs to get verified by the state.

What completely arbitrary numbers you've chosen. This works perfect though because everyone who happened to have a slave owner somewhere in their family tree directly benefitted from generational wealth and managed to compound it up till today right? Do you have any idea how shitty you would have to be with money to have a verifiable unbroken chain of ownership in assets that has been compounded from the 1800s till today and only be worth a few million? Most "generational wealth" is wiped out within 1-2 generations so more than likely all you're doing is penalizing people who built their wealth from scratch coming out of one of the numerous economic collapses of the 20th and 21st century. What a magnanimous person you are.

This is my rough idea. There are many asterisks of course. How much would you take from the slave owners?

You're taking 0 from slave owners because there haven't been any for 100+ years in the US.

How much would you give to every individual descendant of slaves?

Is there cap on this out of curiosity? Like if an NBA player making millions a year has a slave in his family tree somewhere does he get to partake in this? And referencing back to the arbitrary numbers you chose, why should poor decedents of slave owners get a pass? Is this about righting a historical wrong (in which case all decedents should be held culpable to be morally consistent) or are you ready to admit this is just a money grab by people too lazy to work and instead demanding a hand out from people who have actually done something? 

I would also tax people who provably descended from people who worked in the slave trade yet did not own slaves themselves. If a law like this passed tomorrow I would cheer, clap, and also chill, because I know that I do not fall in either category. But TBH if your family owned slaves you gotta pay up my man.

Ah yes, guilt by participation in one of the most widespread forms of commerce in human history. Of course you would cheer for it, because it's super easy to vote for something that gives you a position of moral grandstanding when you know (or at least think, because how far can you really trace your family lineage?) it doesn't effect you. No problems with having other people get their assets seized from them whatsoever. What virtuous person you are. 

What is the argument against that?

Easiest argument ever.

  1. The sins of the father are not those of the son. There is no benefit for society to penalize people who did not commit a crime for a crime that was committed 100+ years ago by a family member they certainly never met, and then pass benefits along to someone who is multiple generations removed from said crime. While acknowledging that slavery is wrong from our moral & legal standpoint in the modern day, the fact is it wasn't a crime then so all you are doing is retroactively applying laws and mortality to try and make one group feel better about their situation today. This is something we do not do under any other circumstances because we recognize how stupid it is to say "well it's illegal to do X today so anyone who did it 20+ years ago is now a criminal". And in this case it's even more extreme because everyone who involved has been dead for over 100 years. It's utter nonsense.
  2. The legal implications. Doing something like this from a legal standpoint would open the door to people being punished for the actions of their ancestors across all sorts of issues. Did you know that the first slaves in America were not even black? They were Irish. Are we going to track them down and give them reparations? Or because they are white does it not count? Do Italians now get to sue for employment discrimination their grandparents faced? What about the Chinese workers who built the railroads, can their grandkids sue for the injustices committed against them? What about the children of homosexuals (certainly a small group if it exists) that were institutionalized and systematically abused by the government for their sexuality? This is not a Pandoras box worth opening under any stretch of the imagination because all it makes people do is focus on injustices they themselves never experienced and go after people who never committed them in the first place - wokeism in a nutshell, rather than focus on what you can do about your situation today instead obsess over what you "deserve" from someone else.
  3. This is a pointless attempt to right historical wrongs and it is impossible to properly attribute the "correct" amount of reparations. Every society in human history has directly or indirectly benefitted from slavery, not to mention there are more slaves alive today than there were when it was legal in the US so one could argue they still are benefitting. It was the economic model of pre-industrial nations - conquer other people and enslave them to use for labor at scale and generate surplus which is then used to fuel economic & population growth. That's not a justification, it's a fact of how the world of today developed. We all stand on the blood and bones of millions who came before us. All you do by enforcing wealth distribution under the excuse of "well your great great grandaddy did a bad thing so now you have to pay for it" is deepen animosity between already politically divided Americans. Not to mention it's literally impossible for you to calculate proper attribution of how owning slaves benefitted certain people over others. What about all the people who lost everything in one of the multiple recessions we've had in the last 100 years and rebuilt their wealth from nothing? Do they still get penalized even though that "generational wealth" was wiped out? This is one of the core reasons this is such a stupid idea, because you cannot properly define damages on the side of the descendants of slaves because that would propose you can predict what all their ancestors subsequent to those who were slaves would have been done with said wealth. This is childish what-if scenario of imagining "well if I went back in time and gave my great grandfather 100 dollars he would've put it all in X stock and I would be a multi-billionaire". 
  4. Wasting resources, blatant bribery to curry political favor, and not even going after the ultimate guilty party. Just giving money to these people does nothing to solve this "wealth" problem everyone's talking about. Look at the lottery, >70% of winners go broke within 2-3 years. Just handing people in poverty (assuming we're targeting actual people in need of economic assistance) who manage prove that somewhere in their family tree there was a slave accomplishes nothing but giving them an immediate payday. Money that, if you are claiming managed to be held onto and compounded 150+ years till today could otherwise be invested or put to some other use but instead you would suggest it be used to essentially buy votes. You are never going to get any person to willingly part with a single dollar of their money just because you prove their ancestor did something bad, so you are basically proposing the government either use force (so you are advocating for confiscation of assets for an "ancestral wrong" just like the Nazis, the Communists, [insert bad guys throughout history here]) or that itself should foot the bill, which of course just spreads the tax across everyone whether their ancestors owned slaves or not. Well done.
    • Not to mention, if anyone should pay slave-descended black people reparations it's the rich Africans who are descended from the tribes that conquered and enslaved them in the first place, then subsequently sold or traded them to the British/Spanish/Muslim merchants in exchange for gold & guns. Those are the actual slavers who created the market in the first place, this idea of raving bands of white men storming the African continent to abduct every black person they found is Hollywood fantasy. And the irony is that Africa is still the largest hub for slavery in the world today, but we'll just gloss over that inconvenient fact.
  5. Finally, and likely my most controversial argument: The fact many black Americans do not have meaningful generational wealth is their own family's fault. How can you claim to be the ultimate victim when you and your family have lived for generations in what has been the de facto richest country in the world for nearly 100 years now and have nothing to show for it. Even the poorest black family living in the US at the start of the 1900s was living to a standard actual Africans could have only dreamed of. There are literally thousands of examples of immigrants from Asia, Latin & South America, and Africa who come to this country with literally nothing but the clothes on their back, in many cases not even speaking English, and within 1-2 generations find themselves comfortably in the middle to upper-middle class. Is this because the big bad white man only hates black people who have grown up in this country? Or could it be that the culture of black America has taken a dive off a cliff, particularly in the last 60-70 years? The early 20th century black divorce rate was lower than the white divorce rate, and whether you want to admit it or not having an intact family is the single most important component of creating and passing on generational wealth. Since the implementation of the welfare state you have seen a massive rise in single motherhood across all races, but the worst effected by far has been the black community which in turn has directly translated to higher crime rates, incarceration rates, and now the incredible stat that more black babies are being aborted than born. Explain to me how any of that is the fault of slave owners who have been dead for over a century.

And before the inevitable mouth-breathing leftist replies accusing me of being some white guy afraid of having to pay for what my ancestors did, my immediate family traces to late 19th century German and Asian immigrants so I don't even have a dog in this fight. I also happen to have a black grandmother (not blood-related) that can in fact trace her family lineage back to slave plantations, and she is even more disgusted by this new generation demanding reparations than I am. She married her husband (an African immigrant) 50+ years ago and had 2 children. And wouldn't you know it, they worked their asses off to send them both to school and now they are both successful and married (no divorces on that side of the family and they are by far the most successful by whatever measures this forum cares to fixate on). It's almost as though having an intact family is a perquisite to the generational success everyone these days seems to think they're entitled to.

"If you don't have any enemies in life you have never stood up for anything" - Winston Churchill | "It's a testament to the sheer belligerence of the profession that people would rather argue about the 'risk-adjusted returns' of using inferior tooth cleaning methods." - kellycriterion
 
PrivateTechquity 🚀GME+BBBY💀

#Walloftextincoming

  1. The sins of the father are not those of the son. There is no benefit for society to penalize people who did not commit a crime for a crime that was committed 100+ years ago by a family member they certainly never met, and then pass benefits along to someone who is multiple generations removed from said crime. While acknowledging that slavery is wrong from our moral & legal standpoint in the modern day, the fact is it wasn't a crime then so all you are doing is retroactively applying laws and mortality to try and make one group feel better about their situation today. This is something we do not do under any other circumstances because we recognize how stupid it is to say "well it's illegal to do X today so anyone who did it 20+ years ago is now a criminal". And in this case it's even more extreme because everyone who involved has been dead for over 100 years. It's utter nonsense.

This is only valid insofar as it applies to slavery.  We had a century of Jim Crow, enforced at the point of a gun, which violated black Americans' Constitutional rights.  I bring this up because I know your opinions on Affirmative Action and similar policies rely on the same justifications as your position on reparations, and I think you'd do better to consider the reparations issue to be addressing a series of historical iniquities instead of a very specific single instance.

And for what it's worth, if you can prove that harm was knowingly caused then I'm not sure it matters whether the action in question is or was illegal or not.  Cigarette companies were held liable for their products causing cancer, despite there being no law at the time requiring them to disclose this fact to the public.  Similarly, if you can show that Dixiecrat governments deliberately crafted policies meant to keep minority populations as poor, second class citizens (which has also been done) then I don't see why you wouldn't have a similar case, at least from a logical or ethical perspective.

  1. The legal implications. Doing something like this from a legal standpoint would open the door to people being punished for the actions of their ancestors across all sorts of issues. Did you know that the first slaves in America were not even black? They were Irish. Are we going to track them down and give them reparations? Or because they are white does it not count? Do Italians now get to sue for employment discrimination their grandparents faced? What about the Chinese workers who built the railroads, can their grandkids sue for the injustices committed against them? What about the children of homosexuals (certainly a small group if it exists) that were institutionalized and systematically abused by the government for their sexuality? This is not a Pandoras box worth opening under any stretch of the imagination because all it makes people do is focus on injustices they themselves never experienced and go after people who never committed them in the first place - wokeism in a nutshell, rather than focus on what you can do about your situation today instead obsess over what you "deserve" from someone else

In your haste to go after "woke-ism" you are committing the same sin that every person does who tries to escape culpability for an evil they didn't perpetrate: focusing only on yourself.  Sure, you personally didn't enslave anyone, you personally didn't pass laws that restricted the right to vote, you personally didn't make redlining a major policy point for lending institutions - but the society in which you live, did (except the last one).  You're so intent on proving that you aren't guilty that you are ignoring the fact that there are millions of people who live in adverse circumstances because of the deliberate actions of the society in which you live.  If you want the benefits of that society, I think it's incumbent on all of us to bear some of that responsibility.  In your haste to play the victim, you've forgotten that there actual victims here, and no, you aren't one of them.

  1. This is a pointless attempt to right historical wrongs and it is impossible to properly attribute the "correct" amount of reparations. Every society in human history has directly or indirectly benefitted from slavery, not to mention there are more slaves alive today than there were when it was legal in the US so one could argue they still are benefitting. It was the economic model of pre-industrial nations - conquer other people and enslave them to use for labor at scale and generate surplus which is then used to fuel economic & population growth. That's not a justification, it's a fact of how the world of today developed. We all stand on the blood and bones of millions who came before us. All you do by enforcing wealth distribution under the excuse of "well your great great grandaddy did a bad thing so now you have to pay for it" is deepen animosity between already politically divided Americans. Not to mention it's literally impossible for you to calculate proper attribution of how owning slaves benefitted certain people over others. What about all the people who lost everything in one of the multiple recessions we've had in the last 100 years and rebuilt their wealth from nothing? Do they still get penalized even though that "generational wealth" was wiped out? This is one of the core reasons this is such a stupid idea, because you cannot properly define damages on the side of the descendants of slaves because that would propose you can predict what all their ancestors subsequent to those who were slaves would have been done with said wealth. This is childish what-if scenario of imagining "well if I went back in time and gave my great grandfather 100 dollars he would've put it all in X stock and I would be a multi-billionaire". 

Sure, and I think the idea of reparations is practically unworkable.  The flip side to that is you have people like yourself who won't acknowledge even the remotest possibility that you (and I mean that generically in this case) might owe some of your current circumstance to a policy that your grandfather voted for which raised him up on the back of someone else.  Look at some of the opinions about CRT on this site and this country in general.  As long as huge swathes of the population are going to go ballistic merely at the thought of teaching the fact that black people were, in fact, an oppressed minority, you're going to have their counterparts who will demand compensation for it.  If we as a country had thirty years ago adopted the idea that maybe an integral lesson of American history is that this country was founded on the idea that certain humans were less human than others, we'd have (a) a more equitable and well informed society, and (b) fewer calls to right those wrongs in more active ways.  I don't know that I'm explaining myself well, but the basic idea is that if you want your opposite numbers to stop behaving like lunatics and demanding unreasonable things, you should yourself meet halfway.

  1. Finally, and likely my most controversial argument: The fact many black Americans do not have meaningful generational wealth is their own family's fault. How can you claim to be the ultimate victim when you and your family have lived for generations in what has been the de facto richest country in the world for nearly 100 years now and have nothing to show for it. Even the poorest black family living in the US at the start of the 1900s was living to a standard actual Africans could have only dreamed of. There are literally thousands of examples of immigrants from Asia, Latin & South America, and Africa who come to this country with literally nothing but the clothes on their back, in many cases not even speaking English, and within 1-2 generations find themselves comfortably in the middle to upper-middle class. Is this because the big bad white man only hates black people who have grown up in this country? Or could it be that the culture of black America has taken a dive off a cliff, particularly in the last 60-70 years? The early 20th century black divorce rate was lower than the white divorce rate, and whether you want to admit it or not having an intact family is the single most important component of creating and passing on generational wealth. Since the implementation of the welfare state you have seen a massive rise in single motherhood across all races, but the worst effected by far has been the black community which in turn has directly translated to higher crime rates, incarceration rates, and now the incredible stat that more black babies are being aborted than born. Explain to me how any of that is the fault of slave owners who have been dead for over a century.

I mean, this requires an independent discussion, but I'll point out that banks were colluding to deny mortgages to black people as late as the 70s.  They're still doing it, in fact.

Generically speaking, what makes more sense.  That millions upon millions of black Americans were so bad at managing their money that their wealth as a demographic now lags white Americans so substantially?  Or that there are institutional factors that were and still are at play to keep those people poor?  Frankly, the latter option is far more likely when viewed under any lens.  It's just less comfortable to admit that maybe the reason white people are better off, as a whole, than black people is because our government and social institutions have made it so.

 It's almost as though having an intact family is a perquisite to the generational success everyone these days seems to think they're entitled to.

Great.  You've made this argument before.  To which I've responded, the American justice system hands out harsher sentences (when controlling for crime and circumstance) to black people than to white people by a meaningful amount.  You've never addressed that.  After all, jailing someone is definitely one way to break up a family.  And here we have the literal justice system acting in a manner that, consciously or not, is keeping black people in broken homes and therefore poverty.

That is the fundamental issue with anyone who argues that there is some other factor in play which explains the massive wealth and attainment gap between white people and black people in the United States.  At the end of the day, that other reason can be traced back to a policy or attitude on the part of a powerful institution which has conspired to keep black families mired in poverty.  If the literal justice system is demonstrably broken in this regard, how can you possibly dismiss an allegation against any other part of government/society?  Again, this is the basis of CRT, by the way - if we don't teach the fact that all this shit happens, we can never as a society properly come to terms with it and understand why we should be making amends

 

You make very eloquent arguments. However the issue is that the law is not a form of absolute morality. The law should serve its people. And the reality is that nowadays african americans are a large ethnic group in the united states. That ethnic group appears (I say appears because I am not one of them so I cannot speak for them, I can only relay) to have a massive issue with the enslavement of their ancestors and they also appear to want some kind of financial compensation. Is that 'correct'? That is a pointless argument. They are millions of people and if the law does not accommodate a group that big then their only alternative is violent revolution (all revolutions happened because the current law was not aligned with what the people wanted). As such out of the principle of 'the law should serve its people' I agree with them and hope they get the compensation they wish. If you do not agree then instead of fighting it, you should convince them otherwise. If tomorrow none of them wanted compensation anymore then the issue would die out. Politics is not objective, it is about people and their interests. I am now reminded of how Julius Caesar justified his genocide of the Gauls in ~50 BC as a counterattack to the invasion in 390 BC. The roman people cheered. Was that 'correct'? No Gaul killed by JC was alive when Rome was sacked. As you say, they probably lost the stolen wealth through the generations. But still the genocide happened. Was it good? Not for the Gauls, certainly. But Caesar was given the highest honor for this labors: a triumph. Was that 'correct'? Who knows. What I know is that a majority of romans wanted it to happen and as such the law, wielded by Caesar's legions, made it happen. Not even because people voted for it, but because Caesar knew that implicitly they all wanted it and so he gave it to them. A million dead and a million in slavery. For a crime that happened 300 years ago. Was that 'correct'? Historical consciousness is a real driver of history and politics. You can try to hide from it with your eloquent arguments but it still lingers. The people have a voice of their own. Such is the reality of politics. Accept it or ignore it, it will still be there.

 

Not an argument against but a refinement - limiting reparations to slaveholder progeny only leaves out the civilizational aspect.  MOST white people benefited even if indirectly and MOST black people were held back, even long after slavery ended.  Even today, lingering racism is holding black people back.

When folks argue against this they're either ignorant or racist, the above statements are backed by mountains of studies that anyone with any initiative can google.

Get busy living
 

It is not only about slavery. Many black people had their homes taken from them to make room for white families. In Palms Springs, CA an entire homes of black residents were burned down to make room for hotels and resorts. That is generational wealth stolen from blacks that their white peers were able to capitalize on. This is to make things more equitable. But to answer your question, no this will not pass. This is just a recommendation from the panel

 

There are lots of huge sections of cities, and entire cities, in the U.S. that used to be almost entirely white. But when a significant number of black people moved in and crime spiked in the 1960s, the cities became so unsafe that the white people had to leave en masse, leaving behind the neighborhoods they had built and essentially rebuilding them in the suburbs. That was a traumatic and expensive process, but it isn't acknowledged much today (except as "white flight", i.e. blaming the victims).

 

NotGaryGensler

Many black people had their homes taken from them to make room for white families. In Palms Springs, CA an entire homes of black residents were burned down to make room for hotels and resorts. That is generational wealth stolen from blacks that their white peers were able to capitalize on.

That is bold-faced lie. Desert Sun Sep 2016

The most valuable square of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians’ checkerboard-shaped reservation is Section 14, a one-mile stretch of desert just east of downtown Palm Springs. It’s home to the tribe’s namesake hot spring, which is central to the tribe's traditional life and attracted the desert’s first wellness resorts in the 1880s.

Discriminatory housing practices kept African-American and Latino families from living in better-developed parts of the city. So the tribe’s landowners rented Section 14 land to families of color, generating some revenue and giving the city’s blue-collar workforce a place to live. 

This was “the other Palm Springs,” as an Agua Caliente Cultural Museum exhibit dubbed it last year, where the resort town’s low-income workforce lived apart from the rest of the city — at least until the city's leaders sought to develop the land. Over the course of a decade, families were asked to leave, then ordered to leave, and ultimately, their houses destroyed. With nowhere else to go, they scattered to outlying parts of the city.  

They were renting the land from the Native American tribe that owned it. They never truly owned those homes or the land they were on, so there was no "generational wealth" being destroyed because it wasn't theirs to pass on in the first place. Does is suck? Yes. Is it unfair? Life's unfair. But you can't lay claim to something that was never yours to begin with. Have fun reconciling with your despicable wokeness blaming white people for what a native tribe decided to do with their land.  

"If you don't have any enemies in life you have never stood up for anything" - Winston Churchill | "It's a testament to the sheer belligerence of the profession that people would rather argue about the 'risk-adjusted returns' of using inferior tooth cleaning methods." - kellycriterion
 

Non ipsa libero officiis tempore quo tempora. Architecto nulla tempora aut labore. Expedita consequatur esse id ea vitae fuga quas et. Praesentium doloremque quam sit odit nam fugit. Delectus tempore saepe officia ratione et ipsa.

Ut porro aliquid consequatur illum rem. Explicabo mollitia deserunt dolorem voluptatibus ipsa distinctio. Sed nobis occaecati ea quidem officia dolorem.

Quaerat sed dolore dolores tenetur et. Rerum dolorum facilis sit voluptatibus. Ipsam ex repellat quis vero. Qui quia nesciunt qui modi.

Dignissimos doloribus enim illo sunt et rerum est. Magni aliquid maiores autem quibusdam maiores eligendi. Accusamus neque vel tenetur ut magnam.

Get busy living

Career Advancement Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.8%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.2%
  • Guggenheim Partners 01 97.7%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Morgan Stanley 01 98.8%
  • Evercore 01 98.2%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.6%
  • Banco Santander 01 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Evercore No 98.8%
  • Morgan Stanley 05 98.2%
  • JPMorgan No 97.7%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (14) $434
  • Associates (43) $259
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (22) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (13) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (75) $151
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (68) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”