Affirmative Action

[Lifesaver]

Even laws that aim to prohibit companies from hiring in a "discriminating fashion" are harmful to society, and should not exist either.
If a company will let their racism come before their profits, they will have disadvantages in the market.

By not allowing firms to hire whom they think is best more suited and to the job, but giving that role to the government (even if only in suing firms who hire "discriminatorily", something inherently unprovable), we'll have inneficient, unfair, bad, political choices, since it lacks both the information and the incentive to make the best choice, and has an incentive to do what will look good to voters.

 

[praying]

Some states have made progress to eliminate affirmative action programs.


In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, legislation that eliminated affirmative action in education, employment, and contracting throughout the state.

Washington voters passed Initiative 200 in November 1998, which restricts the use of race/ethnicity in employment, education, and contracting decisions.

The only exception that I know of in California is contractors who get money from the federal government. Lockheed and many others continued their racial and gender preference programs in hiring and promotions.

States can't elminate AA, quotas were struck down by the Supreme Court but a state can not completely eleminate AA:

Employers And Other Entities Covered By EEO Laws
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) cover all private employers, state and local governments, and education institutions that employ 15 or more individuals. These laws also cover private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor management committees controlling apprenticeship and training.

http://www.eeoc.gov/

 

[sethad]

I agree with affirmative action but I think it needs to be done more on an economical and location basis rather then race. because for the poor white kids living in stereotypical minority locations and going to bad schools are screwed.

 

[praying]

Even laws that aim to prohibit companies from hiring in a "discriminating fashion" are harmful to society, and should not exist either.
If a company will let their racism come before their profits, they will have disadvantages in the market.

Then how did the US economy survive for all the years we lived in a apartheid society, history tells a different story.

By not allowing firms to hire whom they think is best more suited and to the job, but giving that role to the government (even if only in suing firms who hire "discriminatorily", something inherently unprovable), we'll have inneficient, unfair, bad, political choices, since it lacks both the information and the incentive to make the best choice, and has an incentive to do what will look good to voters.

Why is proving discrimination unprovable?

 

[Lifesaver]

Then how did the US economy survive for all the years we lived in a apartheid society, history tells a different story.

It would have faired better if people weren't racist when hiring.
The US economy "survived" even through the New Deal. A wrong measure does not usually cause the collapse of the entire society and brings people back to a state of hunting and gathering, but it makes things a lot worse than they would otherwise be.

In this case, by prohibiting firms to hire whoever they think is best, they harm everyone who is benefited by the firms involved, and all the people that would have been hired but that won't be under the new conditions.

Why is proving discrimination unprovable?

There are many factors which come into play when hiring someone. The government tries to make it seem something simple, and usually states that the only things that matter are the experience and education. Reality is far more complex. Those who are hiring take all kinds of information into consideration, even information which they can't yet communicate.
The way the person behaves, how they look on their photograph, etc. If they make the right choice, the company will have a slight advantage over its competitors; if they make a bad choice, the situation of the firm will be a little worse off.
It is impossible to tell if the decision to hire one person and not the other one was racism or not.

But I re-state, even if it were possible, the firm is not harming anyone when they do not hire them for whatever reason. Even if the reason is racism, sexism, heightism, etc.

 

[BrownCoat]

So you think market forces will stop people from making racist decisions?

It's probably a more effective option than the whim of a few hundred guys thousands of miles away.

If a person is bound and determined to make a stupid decision, nothing is going to stop it.

Making laws are a good way to create a propaganda tool for any racists that are savvy enough to take advantage of it though.

 

[praying]

It would have faired better if people weren't racist when hiring.

It did pretty well, how much better it would have done is completely subjective. We can only go by the evidence, it is possible to operate an aprtheid state and do well economically. Of course the majority are doing well at the expense of the minority but what is a small thing regading morality got to do with economics.

In this case, by prohibiting firms to hire whoever they think is best, .

That is not what AA does. If that was the case, and firms always acted in their best interest and hired, promoted and fired based on what is "best" the need for EEOC/AA would be non-existant.

There are many factors which come into play when hiring someone. The government tries to make it seem something simple, and usually states that the only things that matter are the experience and education. Reality is far more complex. Those who are hiring take all kinds of information into consideration, even information which they can't yet communicate.
The way the person behaves, how they look on their photograph, etc. If they make the right choice, the company will have a slight advantage over its competitors; if they make a bad choice, the situation of the firm will be a little worse off.
It is impossible to tell if the decision to hire one person and not the other one was racism or not.

I suggest you Google do Black names matter, however that is why most cases of discrimiantion are based on historical data and not on individual claims.

But I re-state, even if it were possible, the firm is not harming anyone when they do not hire them for whatever reason. Even if the reason is racism, sexism, heightism, etc.

The firm is not harming anyone, and how do you come to that conclusion?

 

[Diane_Windsor]

should be used for neither employment nor college acceptence

 

[sethad]

should be used for neither employment nor college acceptence

and why do you think that?

 

[Lifesaver]

It did pretty well, how much better it would have done is completely subjective. We can only go by the evidence, it is possible to operate an aprtheid state and do well economically. Of course the majority are doing well at the expense of the minority but what is a small thing regading morality got to do with economics.

"Pretty well" is completely subjective...
Plus, you put your own case in danger by making this claim.
According to you, firms are not being harmed for acting discriminatorily. So, according to you, their discrimination is based on real relevant differences, because if it weren't the firms would suffer for it (they would not be as profitable as they could be).

That is not what AA does. If that was the case, and firms always acted in their best interest and hired, promoted and fired based on what is "best" the need for EEOC/AA would be non-existant.

By interfering in any way with someone's rights to hire whomever they want for a job the EEOC/AA is doing something wrong.
If I wanted to hire a painter and chose a blind man for the job, it would be completely within my rights. I could also hire someone who didn't know the first thing about painting, and if any coercitive agency interfered and forced me to hire another candidate because he was the "best choice" and was "harmed" by my choice (or because he had some trait that was discriminated against) that would be a complete violation of my right to choose among the applicants that which I prefer, and it would harm the individual I would have hired if the government had not forced me to do otherwise.

I suggest you Google do Black names matter, however that is why most cases of discrimiantion are based on historical data and not on individual claims.

When someone offers a job it is within their rights to give it to whomever candidate they choose for whatever characteristic they choose.
Even if they choose by name, or by the grandparents' name, it is their job offer and they may hire whomever they choose among the candidates.

The firm is not harming anyone, and how do you come to that conclusion?

The offering of an extra possibility can never be harmful. Let's say I have 0 job possibilities. Then a job possibility is offered to me. Sadly, another candidate is chosen over me. I am back to my original state, and the man who got hired is better than he was before (or else he wouldn't have accepted the deal).
Even if I were not hired because of some physical trait I have, I was not harmed by the firm's choice, since the job was only being offered because the firm chose to do so.

Every single imposition on the labour market can only generate more unemployment, for it destroys possibilities of job contracts that would exist if the law was not passed.

 

[praying]

"Pretty well" is completely subjective...

That is my description but no one would deny that America has done well economically since its' inception.

Plus, you put your own case in danger by making this claim.

No, it just means what it means, you can operate albeit in a morally bankrupt state and do well, look at drug dealers.

According to you, firms are not being harmed for acting discriminatorily. So, according to you, their discrimination is based on real relevant differences, because if it weren't the firms would suffer for it (they would not be as profitable as they could be).

The question isn't whether the firms are being harmed the question is are the individuals and depending on the extent of the discrimination, society as a whole. Obvioulsy the harm is more than just economic.

 

[Lifesaver]

No, it just means what it means, you can operate albeit in a morally bankrupt state and do well, look at drug dealers.

Is it immoral for firms to hire who is best for the job?
According to you, they were hiring who was best, or else they wouldn't have performed "pretty well"...

The question isn't whether the firms are being harmed the question is are the individuals and depending on the extent of the discrimination, society as a whole. Obvioulsy the harm is more than just economic.

I have no idea of what you mean by "economic harm".
As I have already showed, no-one is harmed nor are their rights' violated by not being hired, and whoever offers a job can use whatever criteria they choose to select the candidate.
Trying to impose limitations will only diminish the quantity of jobs, plus it will harm the people who would be hired by the firm had it not been forced to act otherwise.

Affirmative Action is immoral as it violates people's rights and it is terrible for society, as it increases unemployment and does not allow individuals to allocate their own resources as they think is best.

 

[Jetgirl]

The question isn't whether the firms are being harmed the question is are the individuals and depending on the extent of the discrimination, society as a whole. Obvioulsy the harm is more than just economic.

It could be proposed that society and various individuals are harmed every time a business owner makes ANY bad decision.

The questions is, how far do we want to go in preventing people from having the capablity to make decisions that are considered "bad".

I've also noticed that businesses who choose to hire only minorities at the exclusion of white people somehow get a free pass from this discussion.

How do you feel about exclusionary policies on the other side? Are they as bad a businesses that will only hire whites?

 

[praying]

It could be proposed that society and various individuals are harmed every time a business owner makes ANY bad decision.

The questions is, how far do we want to go in preventing people from having the capablity to make decisions that are considered "bad".

Good question, but like I stated I think we can give up AA in hiring except perhpas in construction. I don't think the AA programs in terms of promotion and pay should be eliminated .

Affirmative action refers to the aggressive recruitment programs, mentoring, training, and family programs that work to recruit and retain qualified individuals.

I've also noticed that businesses who choose to hire only minorities at the exclusion of white people somehow get a free pass from this discussion.

How do you feel about exclusionary policies on the other side? Are they as bad a businesses that will only hire whites?

I don't think anyone should be exclusionary.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Affirmative action refers to the aggressive recruitment programs, mentoring, training, and family programs that work to recruit and retain qualified individuals.

IF they truly were qualified individuals, then AA would be redundant.

Fact remains that almost inevitably, businesses and colleges end up choosing less qualified applicants because they are scared into making up quotas. The hypothetical situation of two absolutely identically qualified candidates rarely if ever arises.

 

[Citizen of Earth]

Affirmative Action is a horrendous idea because it results in divisions and antagonism within the working class, which is a strong motive for the Republicrats to keep it alive.

With a divided working class, it becomes impossible to unite for better wages, working conditions, and job security for all.

 

[Jetgirl]

Good question, but like I stated I think we can give up AA in hiring except perhpas in construction. I don't think the AA programs in terms of promotion and pay should be eliminated .

I just don't see how using race as a factor at all in a promotion or pay situation is any better than discrimination as it was before.

I really do think we're reaching the point of diminishing returns, where any more implementation of race-factoring promotions or pay is simply going to create more racism where there may not have been any before.

 

[praying]

I just don't see how using race as a factor at all in a promotion or pay situation is any better than discrimination as it was before.

Race is not a factor in promotions and pay. AA programs at that level are to ensure that minorites, women, and the disabled are not passed by when they shouldn't be and are receiving equal pay for equal work.

 

[praying]

IF they truly were qualified individuals, then AA would be redundant.

And how do we account for discrimination. ARe you saying descrmiantion doesn't and never existed?

Fact remains that almost inevitably, businesses and colleges end up choosing less qualified applicants because they are scared into making up quotas.

Quotas in college requirment was outlawed by the supreme court, and to my understanding quotas are not used for employment.

The hypothetical situation of two absolutely identically qualified candidates rarely if ever arises.

Yes that's true, what is your point?

 

[Lifesaver]

Race is not a factor in promotions and pay. AA programs at that level are to ensure that minorites, women, and the disabled are not passed by when they shouldn't be and are receiving equal pay for equal work.

In other words, violating people's rights to hire whom they choose, making it so that the preferred candidates don't get the job they would have voluntarily accepted and harming the rest of society as a result.