Business Rights versus Employee Rights: The Discrimination Talk Side Project

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
Could be a great name for an emo band.

Anyway, I wanted to get away from the name calling (and the name calling about the name calling) and general talking over head in this pervious thread: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79036

What I want to discuss is the rights of business versus those of employees, and how the government fits into that. In the previous thread, some (in particular bmulligan) took a strict laissez-fair approach to capitalism, and argued that a business has and deserves the freedom to operate as it pleases (in that thread, speaking strictly about hiring). Others (well, probably only myself, but I digress) instead argued that widescale discrimination against a minority group is contrary to our individual freedoms as Americans.

So, as the 24-hour news is constantly buzzing about the West Virginia miners, I was thinking about that thread, and those who think that the government shouldn't interfere in business; after all, the market will take care of itself.

Then I considered 8-hour workdays, minimum wage, overtime pay, OSHA standards, and other forms of government intervention in the workplace that we often don't realize the source of. I think of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," and think of how powerful one novel was, exactly 100 years ago, that sanitation standards and other workplace policies were put in place to ensure that workers, and the products they worked on, remained safe and sanitary.

I'd like to consider this extension of the affirmative action discussion to focus on the extent to which you think government should be involved in business, and how that relates to the rights of people as workers and the rights of businesses as corporate bodies.

I'll even start: I don't see how safety standards would be the way they are today, if not for the intervention of government. Would we still be living in Upton Sinclair's infested Chicago? Perhaps not; but I would argue that progress would be far slower if the typically efficient businesses were left to their own devices.
 
Sinclair wrote The Jungle not to reflect sanitation standards or workplace policy/safety as a criticism of capitalism and endorsement, even if implied and not stated, of socialism in its place.

The uproar over the sanitary conditions of the meat packing industry was not the primary purpose of him writing the book and encompased fewer than 10 pages of the work. It was though the primary emphasis of the public outcry of his work from the public and government levels.

Safety of workers is in a businesses best interest in today's marketplace. There is not a huge unending pool of unskilled, uneducated workers to take on hazardous work. There just simply is not an employment situation that existed 100 years ago where people were desperate to do any kind of work if it puts food on the table for their family. As a result of those changed conditions it simply isn't financially viable to churn through 20-40% of your workplace annually due to repetitive stress injuries, on site accidents, disabiling injury or a having a workplace so unattractive as to attract few workers.

Also take into account that with press relations, investor relations and public perception a company that operated in the fashion as Sinclair's meat packing facility would be out of business from lack of investor confidence due to public perception of the product/company and ability to successfully market its product. None of those things today require government oversight.

8 hour workdays are a fictional example of government mandated workdays. There is no such thing. I've never held a job after I was 20 where 8 hours was even the norm. In media the norm for me was at least 10 hours a day. When I worked in financial services the mandated work week was 60 hours. Neither had any kind of overtime protections or provisions but were made abundantly clear before I was hired. Again, a function of the company that hired me, not the government. If advised of working hours and conditions before hired government is not a fallback that's legitimate for workers to cry to about working conditions.

I firmly believe that workers don't have rights as far as job security goes (Legal exceptions being made for race, religion, sexual orientation, sexual harassment, political affiliation etc.) , guaranteed wages, time off, benefits or promotion. It's completely in the rights of a company to hire who they want, pay them what they want, promote who they want, give them vacation as they want and disburse benefits as they see fit.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Safety of workers is in a businesses best interest in today's marketplace.[/QUOTE]

Tell that to the dead miners.
 
Well some safety hazards are probably in the companies interest, since the likelihood of severe injury is low enough that only a very few workers would be harmed and the cost of improving the conditions is much higher than replacing the small amount.

I firmly believe that workers don't have rights as far as job security goes (Legal exceptions being made for race, religion, sexual orientation, sexual harassment, political affiliation etc.)
Click to expand...

Hey, at least you don't think companies should be able to hire/fire people for being white/christian/republican etc. like mulligan does.
 
Personally, I have a distaste for christians and republicans, at least the evangelical ones. And will do anything in my power never to hire one. Unless, of course, my customer base of christians would grow to the point where hiring one would give me an advantage.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well some safety hazards are probably in the companies interest, since the likelihood of severe injury is low enough that only a very few workers would be harmed and the cost of improving the conditions is much higher than replacing the small amount. [/QUOTE]

In the past two years, the mine was cited 273 times for safety violations, of which about a third were classified as "significant and substantial," according to documents compiled by the Labor Department's Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Many were for problems that could contribute to accidental explosions or the collapse of mine tunnels, records show
Click to expand...

And how much in fines did the mine have to pay for these nearly 300 safety violations? Most of them were a whopping $60. There were a few for $250, and one massive fine - an entire $850. At these rates, letting workers die is a VERY profitable decision (and forget about large lawsuits for wrongful death charges - the (Republican controlled) state legistature in W. Virginia has in the past few years radically overhauled the state's lawsuit system, massively limiting how much money the families of the dead workers can recieve.)

I'm not saying that every death can be averted - life itself is a risk, and nothing can ever be completely safe - but basic steps can be taken to make things much safer. This company (and many, many, many others like it) didn't and won't take those steps because its less profitable to do so. Depending on corporations to keep their workers safe is outright stupid. Most of them would kill you in your sleep and sell your organs for profit if a second if they thought they could get away with it.
 
Government regulation will always be a joke. Companies make large contributions to politicians who then write, edit and assign penalties to government safety regulation. It seems far more important to be that the government offer understandable, easily accecesible information on potential workplace hazards rather than assign hundreds of pointless violations with pitiful fines.
 
[quote name='Drocket']And how much in fines did the mine have to pay for these nearly 300 safety violations? Most of them were a whopping $60. There were a few for $250, and one massive fine - an entire $850. At these rates, letting workers die is a VERY profitable decision (and forget about large lawsuits for wrongful death charges - the (Republican controlled) state legistature in W. Virginia has in the past few years radically overhauled the state's lawsuit system, massively limiting how much money the families of the dead workers can recieve.)

I'm not saying that every death can be averted - life itself is a risk, and nothing can ever be completely safe - but basic steps can be taken to make things much safer. This company (and many, many, many others like it) didn't and won't take those steps because its less profitable to do so. Depending on corporations to keep their workers safe is outright stupid. Most of them would kill you in your sleep and sell your organs for profit if a second if they thought they could get away with it.[/QUOTE]

Exactly what about your statement contradicts mine?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Exactly what about your statement contradicts mine?[/QUOTE]

Your post seemed to be implying that the cost to protect the miners would have been astronomical/ridiculously expensive. The far more likely source of the disaster, however, was that the company simply chose not to follow basic safety proceedures. Considering how many other mining companies ARE able to afford to follow these proceedures would clearly indicate that they are affordable, and that the mine in question was willfully putting their workers lives in danger for piddly amounts of money.

Most of the post was more directed at PAD and other insane conservaties that for some reason think that corporations will choose to protect their workers assuming that its reasonably cheap, when the reality is that most of them would happily let workers die to save a dime.
 
What I want to discuss is the rights of business versus those of employees, and how the government fits into that. In the previous thread, some (in particular bmulligan) took a strict laissez-fair approach to capitalism, and argued that a business has and deserves the freedom to operate as it pleases (in that thread, speaking strictly about hiring). Others (well, probably only myself, but I digress) instead argued that widescale discrimination against a minority group is contrary to our individual freedoms as Americans.
Click to expand...

Topically speaking, you have the freedom to go find a different job if you don't like the hiring practices of a particular employer. There's a reason they call it the "job market"

A job is a contract with 2 participants, employer and employee. Neither party should be forced into entering a contract. A government AA policy forces an employer to enter into a contract against their will. It is a trangression of their(company's) civil rights. Government 'companies' are a different story. Government jobs should always be held to non-descrimination standards as well as companies that are contracted by the government. Equal treatment under the law is the purpose of government, after all. Private companies, however, should be allowed to hire whomever they choose, for any reason they choose.

This does not give free reign to anyone and any company to be as racist as they want to be. Banks that borrow from the fed or that are insured by the fed could be forced to comply with a non-descrimination policy. Companies that borrow money from those banks could be forced to comply in order to receive loans. This is the legitimate way for government to enforce your favorite equalizing policy and I see nothing wrong with that.

To tell a private business owner that he has no right to hire whomever he wants means that the right to private property no longer exists. When we no longer have the right to private property, we become mere wards of the state and freedom and individuality become moot concepts.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Your post seemed to be implying that the cost to protect the miners would have been astronomical/ridiculously expensive. The far more likely source of the disaster, however, was that the company simply chose not to follow basic safety proceedures. Considering how many other mining companies ARE able to afford to follow these proceedures would clearly indicate that they are affordable, and that the mine in question was willfully putting their workers lives in danger for piddly amounts of money.

Most of the post was more directed at PAD and other insane conservaties that for some reason think that corporations will choose to protect their workers assuming that its reasonably cheap, when the reality is that most of them would happily let workers die to save a dime.[/QUOTE]

It was just saying that sometimes the cost isn't worth it due to the rarity of something going wrong. I have no idea what that cost would be.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']To tell a private business owner that he has no right to hire whomever he wants means that the right to private property no longer exists. When we no longer have the right to private property, we become mere wards of the state and freedom and individuality become moot concepts.[/QUOTE]
Rights to private property seem to conjure up ideas of access to resources (a major tenet of capitalism, to be sure). I think the fundamental thing that differs your view and mine is that I believe in actively trying to stop the racial differences in access to resources (this includes not only job discrimination/occupational segregation/steering, but also education, moneylending, homeownership, and certainly others I'm forgetting), while you think the market will work out the kinks eventually. You have certainty and patience that I lack both of.
 
Access to resources could be a whole other topic onto iself if we wanted to get into the jeffersonian liberal views of natural rights, but lets stick to the topic at hand.

Jobs created by individual business owners are not a resource to be distributed by government. They are created by the business owner and belong to the owner, not the government. Would you say that your house is part of the country's resources and should be distributed to those the government sees fit as to be fair? Would you allow the government to rent out your spare bedrooms to some homeless people or minorities ?

Suppose I argue that you are practicing discrimination becuase you will not allow a black family to occupy your basement. Do you think the government has the right to tell you what to do with your own home and determine whom should live there with you as the owner? A business is an extention of your person and is the same as if it were your own home. You own it and should be able to dispose of it as you see fit.

If you believe that jobs are part of the country's common resources, should I be forced to remain in business or can I close my business if I choose?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Suppose I argue that you are practicing discrimination becuase you will not allow a black family to occupy your basement. Do you think the government has the right to tell you what to do with your own home and determine whom should live there with you as the owner? A business is an extention of your person and is the same as if it were your own home. You own it and should be able to dispose of it as you see fit.[/QUOTE]
Discrimination in housing has been illegal since 1967 as a result of the Fair Housing Act (and I think a separate law was passed years later b/c of people like Robert Byrd, who "declawed" the act from being enforcable, and putting the burden of proof on the discriminant).

I understand and respect your point, but I think that you tend to argue from a micro perspective, and myself a macro. That could be a reason (one of many, of course) why we disagree. Of course, what perturbs me also includes false racial attributions ("blacks don't want to work" sorts of generalizations) that result from such discrimination. People can falsely infer a difference in race and motivation by looking at unemployment levels by race; they can infer differences in intelligence by race (Herrnstein and Murray's "The Bell Curve" comes to mind); they can make many assumptions that later become self-fulfilling prophecies. Discrimination leads to unemployment, that leads to misspecified conclusions (unemployment is high among blacks because they don't want to work), which, in turn, leads to further discrimination (the more benign type of racial discrimination, in which blacks are denied not because they are black per se, but because of the notion that, as an employer, you're taking a greater risk hiring a black). It is, to me, an inescapable and self-perpetuating cycle of inequality.

anyway, I'm rambling and need to let the dog out.
 
Allright, let me throw this one at you:

With your premise that being white gives one an advantage in society, does it logically follows that being white also give one an advantage as a business owner ?

Since there are more whites than minorities, it also give you an advantage in the marketplace. Suppose the government makes a policy that you cannot discriminate in your shopping practices. That you, as a white male, must do your part to end discrimination by buying more goods at minority owned businesses to equalize the disadvantages that minority owners have in the marketplace. is this fair and resonable to eliminate your personal choice?

In another vein, let's theorize that as a homeowner you will hire people to do work for you on your home such as remodeling, plumbing, furnace installation, lawn service, painting, etc. In effect, you are an employer. Under your AA plan to create a meritocracy, shouldn't you be held to the same standard of non-discrimination that any business would? Can you see people being fined and/or prosecuted becuase they refuse to hire a Mexican nanny for their white children ?

There is no difference between offering a position to wash my car and offering a position to stock my shelves. As a business owner, it's MY job to be offering, not the other way around. No one should be able to have a claim on the job I brought into existence. It's my idea and should be subject to the protections that any other idea I create would be.

Now let's tie the two analogies together. Suppose the government required all business to adhere to an affirmative action standard in purchasing. Is it fair to tell a business they must purchase xx% of goods from minority owned business to equalize the disadvantages that exist in the marketplace? Is there a difference in hiring an asset or purchasing an asset? No, there is no difference.
 
If the differences in opinion are due to the fact that I'm arguing from a micro viewpoint and you from a macro, then I can only relate that mine is the more powerful position. Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Government begins with the individual from the bottom up, not from the top down.

An argument for the existence of government that begins at the top is, in my opinion, invalid and should rightly be abolished. The constitution begins with the words "We, the People", and not "We the States", or "We the Government". There is a very distinct and important difference here.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Allright, let me throw this one at you:

With your premise that being white gives one an advantage in society, does it logically follows that being white also give one an advantage as a business owner ?

Since there are more whites than minorities, it also give you an advantage in the marketplace. Suppose the government makes a policy that you cannot discriminate in your shopping practices. That you, as a white male, must do your part to end discrimination by buying more goods at minority owned businesses to equalize the disadvantages that minority owners have in the marketplace. is this fair and resonable to eliminate your personal choice?

In another vein, let's theorize that as a homeowner you will hire people to do work for you on your home such as remodeling, plumbing, furnace installation, lawn service, painting, etc. In effect, you are an employer. Under your AA plan to create a meritocracy, shouldn't you be held to the same standard of non-discrimination that any business would? Can you see people being fined and/or prosecuted becuase they refuse to hire a Mexican nanny for their white children ?

There is no difference between offering a position to wash my car and offering a position to stock my shelves. As a business owner, it's MY job to be offering, not the other way around. No one should be able to have a claim on the job I brought into existence. It's my idea and should be subject to the protections that any other idea I create would be.

Now let's tie the two analogies together. Suppose the government required all business to adhere to an affirmative action standard in purchasing. Is it fair to tell a business they must purchase xx% of goods from minority owned business to equalize the disadvantages that exist in the marketplace? Is there a difference in hiring an asset or purchasing an asset? No, there is no difference.[/QUOTE]

You're talking about affirmative action in terms of quotas again; something, as I've pointed out, that is only one approach in terms of fixing racial inequality. While quotas are one method, I much prefer providing racial advantages in places where minorities are actually seeking jobs. The method you place in your hypotheticals (and this, i believe, is your point) puts undue stress on the business owner to adhere to arbitrary standards of "fairness," and waste resources seeking out people to fulfill a quota (that is, seeking out a character trait and not a skill set or educational background). The approach I prefer doesn't impose those artificial quotas; rather, it only affects places where minorities are seeking employment. I'm not a frothing-at-the-mouth "I will not stop until 12% of all employees everywhere are black" liberal. On the contrary, I recognize that, if we had a market devoid of discrimination, racial distribution wouldn't be so constant; it'd be "lumpy," in reality: lumps here and there, some here, none there. Knowing that, I don't demand quotas. I don't know if/how I can stress that more. The rest of your hypotheticals rely on quotas, and while some of them post interesting issues (the greatest being, "do whites stay away from "black" businesses; if so, how do they accomodate their new needs, and why do they do so?").

Actually, I would imagine that there are some "disadvantage correctants" (for a clumsy phrase) to being a "black" business; that is, in the sense that your local government recognizes the need to invest and support the "poor" part of town's businesses. Several businesses in the shitty part of Cincinnati here have received revitalization grants (though they're called something else, I believe). I'm torn on that myself, truthfully. I understand the arguments for and against it.

The big picture to me is that I *can* tell you that discrimination in hiring is rampant, and that I don't see this as something the market can or will correct by itself anytime soon. I don't know about usage of black businesses, or any of your other hypotheticals. I think you're attempting to see if I paint a consistent picture of seeking government corrections for market-based social ills. I'm not going to do that, and I hope that you avoid pushing the "hypocrite" button (that's too easy, anyway). I'm not going to do that because I don't know the reality of your hypotheticals, and my interest lies in reversing discrimination. I don't want to regulate business except in the sense that I want them to stop discriminating against minorities. That's all. There are regulations in effect to keep businesses from evading taxes, there are regulations in effect to keep them from committing crimes; it's not as if we live in a market in which aggregate-level social morals aren't yet imposed on businesses.

Now, about the micro/macro rift, you can say what you want about placing ultimate value on the individual. That doesn't make you morally superior any more than it does me. I've got little to say to your argument, primarily because you're resting on American social norms of individualism to defend individualism. It appears to me that the logic of your argument in that last post is borderline tautological. You may prefer the individual, but you can not argue that considering aggregate effects, and going after them as aggregates have no merit. I'm drawing a lot of blanks in considering examples, but I'll get them to you eventually today. I respect individualism, but I work in data and social patterns; patterns consist of individuals, yes, but they are not performed in isolation of each other, and thus should not be treated as such.

This may be another topic for another day, but how do you reconcile your individual emphasis with your demand for limited government? It seems to me that such an approach would demand more legislation as a direct results of its unwillingness to aggregate.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I much prefer providing racial advantages in places where minorities are actually seeking jobs. The method you place in your hypotheticals (and this, i believe, is your point) puts undue stress on the business owner to adhere to arbitrary standards of "fairness," and waste resources seeking out people to fulfill a quota (that is, seeking out a character trait and not a skill set or educational background).[/QUOTE]

The problem, as you stated, is that blacks are discriminated against by whites and the solution is to give a racial advantage to that group. But while you acknowledge that different areas require different degrees, what you don't consider is the basis for determining those degrees. That basis would be a unit of measure necessary to to determine whether or not the policy is working and gauge it's effectivness. That unit of measure becomes, de facto, a quota. Or do you plan to have a team of sociologists take weekly polls to guage racial attitues to determine wether or not the policy is working? There needs to be some sort of scalar value for the mind to grasp and maipulate, like the unemployment rate, the poverty rate, the per capita income, etc. Without these types of data, real analysis cannot be done, only felt.


[quote name='mykevermin']Now, about the micro/macro rift, you can say what you want about placing ultimate value on the individual. That doesn't make you morally superior any more than it does me. I've got little to say to your argument, primarily because you're resting on American social norms of individualism to defend individualism. It appears to me that the logic of your argument in that last post is borderline tautological. You may prefer the individual, but you can not argue that considering aggregate effects, and going after them as aggregates have no merit. I'm drawing a lot of blanks in considering examples, but I'll get them to you eventually today. I respect individualism, but I work in data and social patterns; patterns consist of individuals, yes, but they are not performed in isolation of each other, and thus should not be treated as such.[/quote]

Considering aggregate effects has it's purposes but even though patterns develop in groups and can be described, a group doesn't act as an autonomous entity. Certain individuals within the group act, the rest follow. Every thought begins with an individual. Every action begins with an individual.

You call reverence of the indivual an 'American social norm", I call it our moral foundation. What troubles me is how you dismiss it out of hand as trivial, or unworthy compared to any "group " of people. Rights aren't and should never be protected according to what group we belong to. There is no such thing as "group" rights, only individual rights. The saying "all for one and one for all" takes on a completely different meaning in this context, than the standard communist interpretation of everyone belonging to the whole.

This may be another topic for another day, but how do you reconcile your individual emphasis with your demand for limited government? It seems to me that such an approach would demand more legislation as a direct results of its unwillingness to aggregate.
Click to expand...

No, this is exactly the topic. The individual and limited government do not need reconcilliation, they are linked and neither can exist without the other. Read the Constitution carefully. It is not a document that gives us rights.

The Constitution is a limitation of government. Our rights exist independent of the government or any piece of paper. But that paper is a contract for the government not to trespass on our freedoms. When every president, federal judge, serviceman, and congressperson swear an oath to uphold it, they are swearing an oath to protect your freedom as an individual from the power given to them by the Constitution. The more powers we grant them, the more they impede on our freedom. The more power we curtail, the more freedom we can enjoy.

Another topic for another day would be whether Bush has broken this oath or not.
 
2 things....

If the government focuses on legislation that ensures a fair market and protects the basic rights of employees (health, safety wise, and perhaps minimum wage) doesn't everything shake out fine without race ever becoming a factor because employees become the most important resource and are activitely competed over?


Myke mentions many stereotypes that influence hiring practices and says that they become self-fulfilling prophecies. That is true in the sense that there are very, very many black people who don't want to work as a result of these practices (many of these poeple have never been a victim of these practices, but have parents and grandparents who have been). Now employers are hesitating to hire black people not because they always thought blacks were lazy, but because most of the blacks they've hired have been lazy. When I'm an employer, I will only hire individuals, never someone who acts like he lives in a world that is ready for UPN (or Beverly Hills 90210 for that matter). Does a government that seeks to regulate hiring practices based on race promote the individualism that must be fostered in someone who has such a bad racial model, allowing that person to break the stereotype by stepping beyond his race? No. It always reminds that person of his race. And surely you don't think that a racist is no longer racist because you've forced him to hire a black? That person's in a worse situation than if they'd just been turned down and looked elsewhere. You can force them to hire, but you can't force them to promote or cultivate something they hate. Nor would the employee ever feel that they were hired on their own merits.

In closing, if Mr. Drummond had taken the boys in because of racial obligations, those boys would have turned out just as badly as they did in real life.
 
Well, they may be worse off if just one guy is racist, but it is a little more widespread than that. Often its not even consciously racist, more assumptions people give to certain characteristics (not necessarily something they are aware of) that happen to be race related. When you show up to an interview you want to make a good impression. They're not going to make their decision on the strength of your handshake, or how you sit, but it all goes into making a connection with the person and making a good impression. Unfortunately though, one of the worst things someone can do at an interview is to show up black.

I'd also dispute the charge that most blacks people hire are lazy. Another problem with beliefs is people often focus on whatever fits their belif system. For example, if I believe all italians are loud, I'm going to view loud italians as examples of their group, while those who aren't loud are likely to be viewed as the exception. Because you can always find members that fit stereotypes, the stereotype is easily validated.

Though I think a key difference between mike and mulligan here is their view on government. Myke seems to view government as simply one force that has power, while corporations, civilian society etc. are all forces that shape and have tremendous power over society, such as limiting freedoms societes possess. Mulligan seems to view government as something unique in its ability to hinder freedoms, that no corporation can reach a similar result because it does not exercise the direct, absolute control that government does.

If the government focuses on legislation that ensures a fair market and protects the basic rights of employees (health, safety wise, and perhaps minimum wage) doesn't everything shake out fine without race ever becoming a factor because employees become the most important resource and are activitely competed over?
Click to expand...

Our nations history shows that companies do not simply compete for the best employees regardless of color.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Our nations history shows that companies do not simply compete for the best employees regardless of color.[/QUOTE]

As they shouldn't. Companies should compete for the best employees because if they don't their competition will drive them into the ground with them. As you seem to forget there are far far far more poor as uneducated white people who no one outside of WalMart will give a job to than blacks. But hey it's okay to descriminate against hicks because they're white.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']The problem, as you stated, is that blacks are discriminated against by whites and the solution is to give a racial advantage to that group. But while you acknowledge that different areas require different degrees, what you don't consider is the basis for determining those degrees. That basis would be a unit of measure necessary to to determine whether or not the policy is working and gauge it's effectivness. That unit of measure becomes, de facto, a quota. Or do you plan to have a team of sociologists take weekly polls to guage racial attitues to determine wether or not the policy is working? There needs to be some sort of scalar value for the mind to grasp and maipulate, like the unemployment rate, the poverty rate, the per capita income, etc. Without these types of data, real analysis cannot be done, only felt.[/quote]

I'm going to be brief, but only because I'm very very tired. Apologies in advance (though it may be preferred).

I'd recommend audit studies for measuring discrimination. I'd not dare point the finger at company x for hiring a white person over a black person with the exact same qualifications (the premise of audit studies, in case you aren't familiar). OTOH, a repeated pattern of discrimination over time would serve as concrete evidence of discrimination. That certainly doesn't mean discrimination was intentional, but I don't consider overt intent to be of much importance in an era of "benign discrimination."

Considering aggregate effects has it's purposes but even though patterns develop in groups and can be described, a group doesn't act as an autonomous entity. Certain individuals within the group act, the rest follow. Every thought begins with an individual. Every action begins with an individual.

You call reverence of the indivual an 'American social norm", I call it our moral foundation. What troubles me is how you dismiss it out of hand as trivial, or unworthy compared to any "group " of people. Rights aren't and should never be protected according to what group we belong to. There is no such thing as "group" rights, only individual rights. The saying "all for one and one for all" takes on a completely different meaning in this context, than the standard communist interpretation of everyone belonging to the whole.
Click to expand...
Not trivial, but legislatively it isn't pragmatic. That's my questioning of the apparent paradox between exalting the individual *and* small government. Not that they aren't compatible, but, rather, difficult to reconcile. Speed limits are a standard based on the aggregate. You may be an excellent driver at 65, and I may be, as Ralph Nader might call me, "unsafe at any speed," but the same laws apply. While it's not legislative, the idea of different insurance rates is the result of aggregated statistics. It's simply too impractical (if that's a word) to identify individual driving capabilities. OTOH, my gender, my age group, my driving distance, and my grades (if young) can help the insurance agent predict if I'm a reasonable risk to get into an accident, or if I'm as safe as can be. I imagine that several of us (certainly not I) were excellent drivers as young male adolescents; no tickets, no wrecks, and upright motorist-citizens in general. I can affect my rate via good driving or bad driving, but the base line for my policy is determined by patterns of behavior by those identified as similar to me. I suppose that's a bad example for several reasons (it isn't legislative, and it does apply to both aggregate and individual circumstances), but, dammit, I'm tired.

I'd say the short of it is that laws aren't written for individuals as much as they are for aggregates. Farming subsidies are written for farmers; academic standards (such as those implied in No Child Left Behind) set a level at which students are expected to acheive, lest the school lose funding; medicaire (or medicaid, I get them backwards too frequently) policies were just implemented that focus on general medical expenditures; the new bankruptcy laws affect you (who had to file because of cumulative medical expenses acquired via a work related injury) in the same way they do me (who blew my entire savings account betting on "Papa's Moustache" at the horse track). Contingencies can affect some legislative outcomes (judicial discretion in criminal courts comes to mind as one arena in which, while general standards exist for a particular crime, attention is given to the indivudal) at the individual level.

So, I suppose, there are policies and laws that focus on aggregates, and those that can be modified for individuals. This would make both of us right and wrong, then.

No, this is exactly the topic. The individual and limited government do not need reconcilliation, they are linked and neither can exist without the other. Read the Constitution carefully. It is not a document that gives us rights.

The Constitution is a limitation of government. Our rights exist independent of the government or any piece of paper. But that paper is a contract for the government not to trespass on our freedoms. When every president, federal judge, serviceman, and congressperson swear an oath to uphold it, they are swearing an oath to protect your freedom as an individual from the power given to them by the Constitution. The more powers we grant them, the more they impede on our freedom. The more power we curtail, the more freedom we can enjoy.

Another topic for another day would be whether Bush has broken this oath or not.
Click to expand...
I imagine that my above response would apply to these thoughts of yours as well (and I've typed far more than I thought; but I digress). I don't think that I agree with the notion that "the more power we curtail [in gov't], the more freedom we can enjoy." I suppose this will go back to the beginning of the argument, that capitalism succeeds because of its "to the victors go the spoils" approach to control over resources. In that regard, I would argue, freedom (in the sense of opportunities at multiple levels) is not freely distributed; as such, it has long-lasting ramifications ("durable inequalities" that persist and reproduce themselves from generation to generation, as Charles Tilly might say) that make me hesitant to embrace sweeping statements about freedoms.

[quote name='atreyue']If the government focuses on legislation that ensures a fair market and protects the basic rights of employees (health, safety wise, and perhaps minimum wage) doesn't everything shake out fine without race ever becoming a factor because employees become the most important resource and are activitely competed over?[/quote]
If this were true, then no white person would have been employed in the north after the great migration in the early 20th century. Same-skilled people shooting for jobs, with a readily-available supply of employees willing to work for far less than whites? History would have been completely different in the labor force. I just read some conservative anti-feminist making this argument (there is no such thing as gender disparity in wages - the fact that women make $0.76 for every $1.00 men earn in similar jobs, on average - because if it were true, men everywhere would be out of a job). Regrettably, (I think it was an interview on CNN - it could still be posted on newsbusters' front page), this argument, while theoretically sound, assumes a constantly rational (between themselves, anyway) hiring process. The woman disregards data that prove the wage disparity, the lack of promotion of women, and other evidence of gender discrimination in the workforce. I would *adore* a market where people were hired based upon acheivement alone. I lament that we don't have one. If you're interested, William Julius Wilson's "The Declining Significance of Race" is a good book (from 1977) that claims the racial gap in wages and job status will make class a better marker of stratification than race in the future. His later works ("When Work Disappears," and another before that I can't recall the name of) seem to show how his argument in "Declining Significance" failed to come to fruition in the 28 years since.

I've not the slightest idea what you're arguing in that second paragraph, but it could just be that I'm tired. I'll try again in the morning.

Lastly, go take a look at what happened to those Drummond boys; they didn't turn out so well after all (though markedly better than Dana Plato! ;) )
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']As they shouldn't. Companies should compete for the best employees because if they don't their competition will drive them into the ground with them. As you seem to forget there are far far far more poor as uneducated white people who no one outside of WalMart will give a job to than blacks. But hey it's okay to descriminate against hicks because they're white.[/QUOTE]

Numbers such as "which group has more X" don't matter when there are significantly more of one group than another.

But we are going to have a form of discrimination one way or the other. If leaving everything up to the individual results in more racism, why not go for the alternative? Unless you think the government is what makes the civilian population discriminate.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Numbers such as "which group has more X" don't matter when there are significantly more of one group than another.

But we are going to have a form of discrimination one way or the other. If leaving everything up to the individual results in more racism, why not go for the alternative? Unless you think the government is what makes the civilian population discriminate.[/QUOTE]

I'd much prefer individual racism to societal racism. The individual who is being discrimated against is much more easily able to deal with individual racists than with everyone thinking they need extra help because obviously they can't do it on their own. If the government pushes for affirmative action, it's not because they assume blacks are being discriminated against in the workplace, not it this day and age, anyway. It's because they think that because most all blacks are poor and uneducated, it's really hard for them to get jobs that tend to hire not poor educated system. You can't say "We're all the same and equal" and then institute a program which only factors in race, completely ignoring econmic class. Considered in this light, you can see that Zionofire's comment makes a lot of sense and doesn't really hinge on the proportions of eithnic groups at all.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
But we are going to have a form of discrimination one way or the other. If leaving everything up to the individual results in more racism, why not go for the alternative? [/QUOTE]

I could argue if anything AA increases racism as the sucess of any black can always be assumed to be the result of such AA and not personal skill. So yes why not go for the alternative and give scholorships based on talent and let the workforce fix itself.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I could argue if anything AA increases racism as the sucess of any black can always be assumed to be the result of such AA and not personal skill. So yes why not go for the alternative and give scholorships based on talent and let the workforce fix itself.[/QUOTE]
That's just a hegemonic racist viewpoint (notice, I'm calling the viewpoint racist, not you; I'm doing my damndest to keep the ad hominems out of here).

Essentially, we focus on which racial classifications need "help." We assume successful blacks are tokens (though perhaps that is a reflection of the concentration of minorities as you go higher up the work heirarchy) that would have, in the absence of racially preferential policies, not gotten the job. One corollary of that, which very few, if any people, consider, is the idea that white people get jobs because they are white. While people decry AA as reverse racism, they tend to overlook the fact that being white helps people get jobs (above and beyond skills and credentials). Being black hurts job chances just as much as being white helps; it is impossible to separate those two ideas. So, while a successful black is conciously considered as a token and a result of policy, white workers, who may only have a job as a result of the discrimination that's proven to exist against blacks, aren't held to such scrutiny.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's just a hegemonic racist viewpoint (notice, I'm calling the viewpoint racist, not you; I'm doing my damndest to keep the ad hominems out of here).

Essentially, we focus on which racial classifications need "help." We assume successful blacks are tokens (though perhaps that is a reflection of the concentration of minorities as you go higher up the work heirarchy) that would have, in the absence of racially preferential policies, not gotten the job. One corollary of that, which very few, if any people, consider, is the idea that white people get jobs because they are white. While people decry AA as reverse racism, they tend to overlook the fact that being white helps people get jobs (above and beyond skills and credentials). Being black hurts job chances just as much as being white helps; it is impossible to separate those two ideas. So, while a successful black is conciously considered as a token and a result of policy, white workers, who may only have a job as a result of the discrimination that's proven to exist against blacks, aren't held to such scrutiny.[/QUOTE]

Of course it's a racist point of view, but it's one that is promoted by the existance of AA. AZ wishes to demonstrate that it decreases racism while I say that it if anything it results in more of it.
 
No no no; I'm saying that the racism is just in viewing blacks as tokens and incapable of self-acheivement. I'm saying that the racism lies in the inability to recognize how whites get ahead precisely because they are white. While AA isn't a perfect solution, if more people were willing to accept the existence of white privelege head on, we'd have more diverse and useful minds recommending policy solutions, the kind of which would make AA look like the primoridial Jim Crow legislation it is. As it stands, the idea of a worker getting the job they did because they were white is, for the most part, unfathomable.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] I'm saying that the racism lies in the inability to recognize how whites get ahead precisely because they are white. [/QUOTE]

First off even if true that wouldn't be racism but rather ignorance.

Other than that there are far and a way more poor white people in this country than blacks, I don't see them getting ahead because of their race.
 
[quote name='atreyue'] If the government pushes for affirmative action, it's not because they assume blacks are being discriminated against in the workplace, not it this day and age, anyway.[/QUOTE]

You must not like statistics, since there's little evidence out there suggesting minorities are not discriminated against int he workplace when taken as a whole.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']First off even if true that wouldn't be racism but rather ignorance.

Other than that there are far and a way more poor white people in this country than blacks, I don't see them getting ahead because of their race.[/QUOTE]

Which, in a country focused on meritocracy, is well and good, right?

I'm arguing that, taking two people of equal academic acheivements, marital status, pant size, literally *everything* is kept equal except for race, the white person consistently gets ahead in the marketplace, by a unnerving margin. I'm not talking about poor people. I'm talking about minorities who have everything that well-off white kids have, who don't get the same job opportunities because of race. That's the very premise of audit studies. One half of the coin is "blacks are discriminated against," and the other, less talked about half, is "whites are preferred." There is, in short, a penalty for being black and a boon for being white.

I'd argue that it is racism, as "white" is a race that has less cohesion based upon stereotypes; they are a race who does not recognize that they are until put in situations that require it (e.g., the LA riots, the OJ Simpson trial, the Cincinnati riots - perhaps I only recall that one ;) - and hurricane Katrina's aftermath). Amanda Lewis has pioneered "whiteness studies" in sociology; she argues that, even in the academic world, when people say "race," they too often mean "black." While other minority groups are studied, even scholars overlook whites as a race, and that's unfortunate and biased. Her work thus far aims at understanding how whites interpret their race (given that there is markedly less racial solidarity among whites).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Which, in a country focused on meritocracy, is well and good, right?

I'm arguing that, taking two people of equal academic acheivements, marital status, pant size, literally *everything* is kept equal except for race, the white person consistently gets ahead in the marketplace, by a unnerving margin.[/QUOTE]

Now you're just getting into statistics and accusing anyone of being racist for not interpreting statistics your way is just plain ignorant.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, then, how would you interpret the result of these audit studies?[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter, they are simply studies and calling everyone who doesn't agree with you, doesn't know about or simply doesn't care about them racist is the most idiotic thing I've heard all day and I just saw the end of the Pittsburgh Indy game.
 
Sounds to me like you're taking things far too personally and need to step away from this thread for awhile and cool your head off.

I don't care if I offend you; people's general inability or unwillingness to do anything about discrimination offends me. I'm prepared to discuss it (would that I were in a position of influence to actuall *do* something about it).

I will not, however, accept "It doesn't matter" as an answer. I imagine that you'd think something was fishy if you rolled a six-sided die 50 times, and every time it landed on 1. Likewise, when patterns don't emerge that you expect to statistically, then you have to deal with the reality that white privelege and black discrimination are not only logically necessary corollaries, but very real facts in our country.

Go smoke a cigar, or drink some green tea. Come back to the thread if you want, or don't at all. I'm not going to get into a fight over what you consider to be my "idiotic" sayings.

Jesus christ I hope Pittsburgh lost, after those sonsabitches took out Carson Palmer last week. EDIT: shit.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Sounds to me like you're taking things far too personally and need to step away from this thread for awhile and cool your head off.

I don't care if I offend you; people's general inability or unwillingness to do anything about discrimination offends me. I'm prepared to discuss it (would that I were in a position of influence to actuall *do* something about it).

I will not, however, accept "It doesn't matter" as an answer. I imagine that you'd think something was fishy if you rolled a six-sided die 50 times, and every time it landed on 1. Likewise, when patterns don't emerge that you expect to statistically, then you have to deal with the reality that white privelege and black discrimination are not only logically necessary corollaries, but very real facts in our country.

Go smoke a cigar, or drink some green tea. Come back to the thread if you want, or don't at all. I'm not going to get into a fight over what you consider to be my "idiotic" sayings.

Jesus christ I hope Pittsburgh lost, after those sonsabitches took out Carson Palmer last week. EDIT: shit.[/QUOTE]

I think it's pretty evident that the only actual racist in this thread is the one pointing the finger at everyone else. But hey if that's what gets you off, kind of sad that you needed to make yet another thread about it though.
 
You can make the choice to ignore this thread entirely; given the tone and content of your past few posts, that would probably be for the best anyway. I wanted this thread to actually be about what I brought up in the OP, but conversations have a way of weaving here and there, and this one ended back up where we started.

I can't figure out, for the life of me, what pushed your button. Is it the idea that people can act in racist ways without being conciously aware of it? I'm not looking to single you out or piss you off; I reserve that for DemolitionMan in the wrestling thread. I'm trying to explain my perspective on things, and I'm trying to back up my perspective with empirical research and theories of discrimination's origins and potential solutions. The latter is entirely up for debate, and that's what I'm looking to do.

I may not change your mind in the end, but I find no reason in this thread for you to act like a prat.
 
[quote name='Drocket']And how much in fines did the mine have to pay for these nearly 300 safety violations? Most of them were a whopping $60. There were a few for $250, and one massive fine - an entire $850. At these rates, letting workers die is a VERY profitable decision (and forget about large lawsuits for wrongful death charges - the (Republican controlled) state legistature in W. Virginia has in the past few years radically overhauled the state's lawsuit system, massively limiting how much money the families of the dead workers can recieve.)

I'm not saying that every death can be averted - life itself is a risk, and nothing can ever be completely safe - but basic steps can be taken to make things much safer. This company (and many, many, many others like it) didn't and won't take those steps because its less profitable to do so. Depending on corporations to keep their workers safe is outright stupid. Most of them would kill you in your sleep and sell your organs for profit if a second if they thought they could get away with it.[/QUOTE]

Someone seemed to point out in another topic that lawyers end up balancing this equation out when the impending lawsuit happens.
My opinion in all this reflects the argument the Yes Men made about slavery which was brilliant. They basically laid out that slavery shouldn't have been abolished because the market would work it out and determine that a free man is cheaper than a slave since you don't have to pay for their fcod, medical treatment, etc. Just let them die and replace them with someone else unless it becomes widespread enough and I'm talking about in certain areas, CERTAINLY not the U.S. where this shit couldn't be gotten away with. This is the mentality of the Corporation if the workforce is big enough and there's a large pool of unemployed workers.
Btw b much respect that you wouldn't hire the "Wet Dream" end of the world White Christian Evangelicals.
edit: Myke I disagree with Hurricane Katrina somewhat. Yes to an extent it was because they were Black but also because they're poor and George Bush ain't gonna do SHIT for them if they're poor less they can do something for him and last I checked most minorities, Blacks included, don't vote Republican. Just wait for this to happen to a poor White area that's Blue and you'll see the SAME thing.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Just wait for this to happen to a poor White area that's Blue and you'll see the SAME thing.[/QUOTE]

I really find that highly doubtful. Don't get me wrong - the Bush administration isn't exactly going to be breaking speed records to rescue poor white people. It just won't (/wouldn't have) taken them an eon and a day before they finally got around to maybe thinking about doing their jobs. You wouldn't have had the media reaction of 'uh-oh, a bunch of white people - there must be rioting, looting and raping going on!', which would have avoided delays in getting supplies in. And you CERTAINLY wouldn't have had hick sheriffs blocking the bridges out of town and firing over people's heads to prevent them from getting to safety.

Its ridiculous to blame the whole Katrina rescue fuckup on racism, but its just as ridiculous to say that there wasn't any racism at all involved in the mess. Overall, my own estimate is that problem was about 30% racism, 50% 'fuck the poor', and 20% sheer incompetence.

But of course, this is way off-topic.
 
Well Drocket you and I both know the mentality of people like Bush & Co. with money to those who don't or who have less of it. They don't understand or don't care. I mean fucking Barbara Bush revealed her ignorance when she made that comment about them being better off.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I've not the slightest idea what you're arguing in that second paragraph, but it could just be that I'm tired. I'll try again in the morning.

Lastly, go take a look at what happened to those Drummond boys; they didn't turn out so well after all (though markedly better than Dana Plato! ;) )[/QUOTE]

Basically, if someone refuses to hire me based on race, I learn that some people are jackasses and will refuse to see my worth because of my skin. I teach my kids that life isn't easy and some people aren't fair. If everyone hires me because of my race, I learn that all of my worth is my skin. I teach my kids their personal achievements don't matter toanyone because all people will ever care to see is the color of my skin.

When I filled out my FAFSA, I didn't receive more student loans because I'm black. It ws completely based on economic status and was, to my mind, fair. Now, getting accepted to college was a different story. You have no idea how bad it is be unsure of whether your own merits had anything to do with your acceptance as a Black person. By virtue of the simple existence of affirmative action, not one black person at my school or any other non-black college can claim success, because none of us can ever be certain that we personally acheived anything. That is far more demeaning and does inestimably more damage to black people and our futures that any racist can do in this day and age.

As for the different Strokes comment, I was saying that they turned out well on the show as opposed to real life because they were individually nurtured, but I understand that you were tired.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']It doesn't matter, they are simply studies and calling everyone who doesn't agree with you, doesn't know about or simply doesn't care about them racist is the most idiotic thing I've heard all day and I just saw the end of the Pittsburgh Indy game.[/QUOTE]

Although I agree with myke's statistics, I can't agree with his conclusions. If AA's purpose is to give an advantage to a disadvantaged person, then we should determine which people, individually, are disadvantaged and not group them all into a catagory becuase of their race. This, in and of itself, is practically the definition of racism. (i.e., grouping people into a catagory based on the color of their skin and ascribing a stereotypical trait to their catagory) Individually speaking, not all blacks experience discrimination, yet myke wants to give advantages to an entire race based on statistics, or an average.

I hate to break this to you but not all blacks are disadvantaged and not all white people are racist. Myke's conclusions assume exactly the opposite when viewed in terms of aggregates and averages.

Lets say, for purposes of example, that there are 100 white people in my study group. 51 of them are convicted killers and 49 of them are law abiding citizens. Statistically, the group as a whole is more prone to violent, illegal behavior. But that doesn't mean that every one in the group in all cases would be prone to such behavior. This is something Myke can't grasp becuase he can only see people by how they fit into a catagory and how they add up as a statistical average. What you can call that viewpoint I'll leave to your imagination.

While statistically you can say that blacks suffer disadvantages and stastistically whites exibit racist attitudes, you can't say this is true in all cases. Your self-fulfilling prophecy is spelled out in AA. It assumes that all blacks are disadvantaged on the assumption that all whites, or "the system", are racist. It does not take into account individual cases. It groups people according to race, stereotypes them, then treats them differently based on their race. It is the antithisis of everything Myke claims to stand for.
 
[quote name='atreyue']You have no idea how bad it is be unsure of whether your own merits had anything to do with your acceptance as a Black person. By virtue of the simple existence of affirmative action, not one black person at my school or any other non-black college can claim success, because none of us can ever be certain that we personally acheived anything. That is far more demeaning and does inestimably more damage to black people and our futures that any racist can do in this day and age.
[/QUOTE]

You are a champion among men. But according to Myke, you are a token or a statistical anomaly.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Although I agree with myke's statistics, I can't agree with his conclusions. If AA's purpose is to give an advantage to a disadvantaged person, then we should determine which people, individually, are disadvantaged and not group them all into a catagory becuase of their race. This, in and of itself, is practically the definition of racism. (i.e., grouping people into a catagory based on the color of their skin and ascribing a stereotypical trait to their catagory) Individually speaking, not all blacks experience discrimination, yet myke wants to give advantages to an entire race based on statistics, or an average.

I hate to break this to you but not all blacks are disadvantaged and not all white people are racist. Myke's conclusions assume exactly the opposite when viewed in terms of aggregates and averages.

Lets say, for purposes of example, that there are 100 white people in my study group. 51 of them are convicted killers and 49 of them are law abiding citizens. Statistically, the group as a whole is more prone to violent, illegal behavior. But that doesn't mean that every one in the group in all cases would be prone to such behavior. This is something Myke can't grasp becuase he can only see people by how they fit into a catagory and how they add up as a statistical average. What you can call that viewpoint I'll leave to your imagination.

While statistically you can say that blacks suffer disadvantages and stastistically whites exibit racist attitudes, you can't say this is true in all cases. Your self-fulfilling prophecy is spelled out in AA. It assumes that all blacks are disadvantaged on the assumption that all whites, or "the system", are racist. It does not take into account individual cases. It groups people according to race, stereotypes them, then treats them differently based on their race. It is the antithisis of everything Myke claims to stand for.[/QUOTE]
It's logically impossible to be a self-fulfilling prophecy if the conclusion exists prior to the cause (if you suggest that AA will lead to discrimination).

At any rate, let's take your individualist argument for a moment. How would you go about implementing it? What would you do? What potential problems would you forsee in implementing this policy/these policies?

I don't know how far this conversation will go; initially, your outrage was directed at my suggestion that the market has done little to nothing over 40 years since the CRA to reduce wage gaps, status gaps, and unemployment gaps among races. The discussion has shifted to whether or not policy should be aimed at the individual or the aggregate. While I'm certain you still have faith that the market will even things out, I'd like to hear what you think, in regards to policy, would be a better means of reducing/eliminating acts of discrimination.

And as for atreyue, well, he's talking about school, not the workforce. I'll withold judgment until he enters the workforce. I don't know very much about school admissions (though they tend to emphasize quotas as a policy). Your psychological uncertainty is unfortunate; I would imagine, however, that your academic acheivements would serve as evidence of your capabilities. While your admission may have been weighed because of race, your grades certainly aren't.
 
Before I forget the clearest example of the fusion of individual and aggregate: the electoral college. At the state level and below, the individual rules in all elections. As for federal elections, my individuality ceases to matter once my state's popular vote goes to Bush. He gets all the electoral votes, and Gore/Kerry none. There *are* some states that split electoral votes (I think there are some; perhaps I'm just mistaking this for a lone dissenting electorate in a northern state this past election; that's another story about abusing one's power as a representative altogether), but the vast majority play the "all or none" game. In 2000 (yes, yes, it's tired, but I'm going there), if our system exalted the individual vote, Gore would have won by an unquestionable margin (500,000+ votes). However, we are beholden to the electoral college; with that in mind, regardless of how contentious you view the 2000 outcome, it is unequestionable that individual votes don't matter as much as aggregates based on state.

Hell, the very structure of government itself is an aggregate. Oklahomans voted for Tom Coburn to represent them in the Senate, as New Yorkers did for Charles Schumer (well, a plurality of both anyway). While individuals choose the elected, the populace does not serve directly as members of the government (though, in the end, that's what we are). That's the reason that we learn early on the difference between a *democracy* and a *representative democracy*.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']At any rate, let's take your individualist argument for a moment. How would you go about implementing it? What would you do? What potential problems would you forsee in implementing this policy/these policies?
[/quote]

That's just it myke. I don't want to make a policy. I don't want to force people to think a certain way. I don't need to engineer a utopian society by fiat. I'll leave that to the Socialist countries who dominate every aspect of culture to create their version of a "common good".

I don't know how far this conversation will go; initially, your outrage was directed at my suggestion that the market has done little to nothing over 40 years since the CRA to reduce wage gaps, status gaps, and unemployment gaps among races. The discussion has shifted to whether or not policy should be aimed at the individual or the aggregate. While I'm certain you still have faith that the market will even things out, I'd like to hear what you think, in regards to policy, would be a better means of reducing/eliminating acts of discrimination.
Click to expand...

You cannot and will not ever eliminate discrimination, no matter how hard you try to make policy. Unless you institute martial law, people will remain free to make their own prejudices about others. You are not God. Why you focus on race as the do all and end all of discrimination is beyond me. If you really cared about discrimination, you would gladly give up your job and salary to a woman, vote for a woman president, and demand an affirmative action program be instituted to equalize the wealth and millenea of disadvantage women have suffered.

Before I forget the clearest example of the fusion of individual and aggregate: the electoral college. ... However, we are beholden to the electoral college; with that in mind, regardless of how contentious you view the 2000 outcome, it is unequestionable that individual votes don't matter as much as aggregates based on state.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm pretty familiar with the electoral college. It's a bad analogy. Actually, maybe it's a good one in disguise, but it's the exact reverse of how you intended it.

Let's say a blatantly racist candidate gets 51% of the vote of a particular State and the other 49% of the people who voted did so for a rational thinking candidate. We, as an aggregate, voted for the racist. Yet individually, we aren't all racists, only our representative is. You assume the aggregate result is an average or a statistical nominal sampling of the whole. As if we all share responsibility in the racism of the candidate. On an individual basis, we aren't all racists, but you as the French commentator can claim we are becuase our representative is a racist bastard and he represents all the people.

By instituting an AA policy that treats all people the same regardless of individual circumstance, you are saying that all blacks are disadvantaged as an aggregate. That "extra help" is required becuase of the disadvantages imposed upon them by the aggregate whites. Unfortunately, the aggregate whites aren't all responsible, yet they all have to pay the price. And all blacks profit regardless of whether they have ever been disadvantaged.
 
My point was that the exaltation of the individual you so often bring up in constitutional terminology is invalidated by the very notion of the electoral college. It isn't the 51% who get the power, or even the 49%; it is the persons they elected to represent them. I wasn't discussing how individuals act so much as I was further elucidating that our government is not as beholden to the individual as you might like. Even the constitution.

Please, explain to me how "all whites" have to "pay the price," and "all blacks profit." Not every person will apply for a job where there are competing races; not every person will seek housing in a neighborhood that is racially heterogeneous.

My biggest problem is that you admit there is a problem with racial discrimination, and whether you think it is individual, aggregate, or something in between, you express *zero* interest in doing something about it. That's the beautiful thing about being white; no need to hope or work for change in any way, shape, or form if the status quo benefits us, right?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And as for atreyue, well, he's talking about school, not the workforce. I'll withold judgment until he enters the workforce. I don't know very much about school admissions (though they tend to emphasize quotas as a policy). Your psychological uncertainty is unfortunate; I would imagine, however, that your academic acheivements would serve as evidence of your capabilities. While your admission may have been weighed because of race, your grades certainly aren't.[/QUOTE]

I'm actually 6 years out of college, and things are no different in the workforce. School was simply an analogy. My 'psychological uncertainty' is due to the pervasive idea that you and most other 'learned' (this is more of a socioeconomic stratification than any kind of cut on you, btw) people have that blacks just can't do it without your help, or at least your consideration of our special circumstances. How can I measure my academic achievements? By my grades? When the english teacher grades me differently from the white kids in the class because he knows or thinks that I haven't had as much exposure to grammatical correctness, he's not helping me because he's not teaching me the correct way. Nor are my grades an accurate representation of my achievements. That's no different from the fact that most workplaces will allow a black person to curse, have outbursts, sexually harrass women, show up late to work, dress inappropriately, threaten physical violence, spend less time on work, etc. because 'that's just what they do' or 'they don't know any better', so the white person should really 'be more tolerant of cultural differences'. No one outgrows the childhood habit of trying to see just how much you can get away with before a line is crossed, so this lack of true objectivity black people in the workforce as well. The only way to make a positive change is to get rid of the entire idea of helping everyone else o damn much. Welfare has damaged the black community immensely. Anyone who thinks differently should move to the ghetto for a while to see things realistically instead of through the comfortable lens of mutable statistics and self serving rationale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top