What role does Affirmative Action play in the events playing out in Ferguson?

[Oldstyle]

Many years ago I took an economics class at Amherst College with Thomas Sowell. I remember quite vividly Sowell's objections at that time to Affirmative Action and the reasons WHY he said that it would ultimately fail for low income people. I went back to see if I could find anything online from Sowell on that topic and found the following:



That was from almost forty years ago. Affirmative Action worked amazingly well for Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett...but hasn't done a THING for young black males like Michael Brown.

 

[Oldstyle]

Sowell's point back then was that Affirmative Action makes it much more likely for blacks with degrees or established job skills to be hired...thus making it a great thing for upper class blacks...but would make it less likely that a young black male with no job skills would be hired. This was a view that was vigorously attacked at that time and yet four decades later the unemployment rate for young blacks is through the roof and cities like Ferguson are filled with young men who have no job opportunities.

 

[Bush92]

Affirmative Action was an issue that allowed Democrats to get minority votes, then ignore them. Affirmative Action does not work, it's socialized favoritism that doesn't ensure that the hardest working, best and brightest, rise to the top. Problem in Black community is Blacks. Raise your children, value education, stop looking for an excuse for failure, and STOP excusing bad behavior like that of M. Thug Brown.

 

[Bush92]

It does favor those that have a college degree over those who do not because white collar jobs have an exposure to more aggressive affirmative action policies. Universities have aggressive policies that get minorities on to the campus, but often they come from sub-standard school districts and cannot finish a BA.

 

[Oldstyle]

For decades now well intentioned liberals have patted themselves on the back for the "success" of Affirmative Action but when you really examine what the program has done...what you find is that it really helped blacks that had already ascended the economic ladder because as Joe Biden put it:


"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

What Biden was saying in his typically idiotic fashion is the underlying truth that most liberals don't want to admit...that Affirmative Action is a boon for "bright and clean" blacks because they are viewed by whites like Biden as safe but doesn't work for street kids that REALLY need help getting a first job.

 

[Oldstyle]

So for blacks like Obama, Holder, Rice and Jarrett...Affirmative Action is a GREAT program! For black kids like Michael Brown, Affirmative Action is something that exists for people from a whole different social strata.

 

[Bush92]

So for blacks like Obama, Holder, Rice and Jarrett...Affirmative Action is a GREAT program! For black kids like Michael Brown, Affirmative Action is something that exists for people from a whole different social strata.

Again, however, in the case of youth like Brown affirmative action is not the answer. Cleaning up the whole culture of government dependency is. We also need more manufacturing jobs for unskilled labor. Jobs that many low income background youths of all races can perform and lift themselves out of the cycle of government dependency .

 

[EverCurious]

^ I agree. However, technology has automated a lot of those jobs with good reason - they do a consistent better job than humans and they are cheaper to operate.

That said, the only unskilled labor jobs that require 'human' workers I can think of off the top of my head are construction, maybe packing/moving companies. Neither of which, I'd imagine, are as needed in big cities. There's local stores that are going to need clerks and stuff like that, but there you get into job skills; handling cash, running a register, customer service, etc. Janitor maybe? There's just really not a lot of 'unskilled' jobs, period.

I think we would be better off weaning folks off government dependence and putting that money toward something... like starting up a government run business in the neighborhood; something like a warehouse store; and they 'only' hire people who are on welfare. That way instead of just handing out welfare checks, they have to be earned; it'll give the workers job skills that can get them into a better job, plus incentive folks out of the free money culture/mentality. It wouldn't be a quick fix by any means, but in the long run I think it would help a lot more than the system we have in place right now.

Another facet of the issue is that crime pays, and I have no idea how we could fix that. Even if we legalized ALL drugs (which I don't see happening) there would still be stealing property and so forth that can ultimately be more profitable than working a bottom tier job would be.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Many years ago I took an economics class at Amherst College with Thomas Sowell. I remember quite vividly Sowell's objections at that time to Affirmative Action and the reasons WHY he said that it would ultimately fail for low income people. I went back to see if I could find anything online from Sowell on that topic and found the following:



That was from almost forty years ago. Affirmative Action worked amazingly well for Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett...but hasn't done a THING for young black males like Michael Brown.

Michael Brown only just graduated 'highschool' everyone else is in their 50s or so. Ya, that's roughly equal to draw a conclusion.

 

[Oldstyle]

^ I agree. However, technology has automated a lot of those jobs with good reason - they do a consistent better job than humans and they are cheaper to operate.

That said, the only unskilled labor jobs that require 'human' workers I can think of off the top of my head are construction, maybe packing/moving companies. Neither of which, I'd imagine, are as needed in big cities. There's local stores that are going to need clerks and stuff like that, but there you get into job skills; handling cash, running a register, customer service, etc. Janitor maybe? There's just really not a lot of 'unskilled' jobs, period.

I think we would be better off weaning folks off government dependence and putting that money toward something... like starting up a government run business in the neighborhood; something like a warehouse store; and they 'only' hire people who are on welfare. That way instead of just handing out welfare checks, they have to be earned; it'll give the workers job skills that can get them into a better job, plus incentive folks out of the free money culture/mentality. It wouldn't be a quick fix by any means, but in the long run I think it would help a lot more than the system we have in place right now.

Another facet of the issue is that crime pays, and I have no idea how we could fix that. Even if we legalized ALL drugs (which I don't see happening) there would still be stealing property and so forth that can ultimately be more profitable than working a bottom tier job would be.

Governments shouldn't be in the business of business, EverCurious! They invariably do it badly. You want to wean people off of government dependence by giving them a government job? I know that sounds like a fix but in reality you're simply taking away private sector jobs by replacing them with government subsidized jobs. The private sector can't survive against subsidized competition because the public sector doesn't need to make a profit to survive...they can go for years losing money hand over fist. The Post Office is a prime example of that.

The reason that young black males like Michael Brown have little future is BECAUSE of well intentioned government programs like Affirmative Action. Thomas Sowell pointed out forty years ago that AA would benefit upper class minorities but actually hurt lower class minorities and he was 100% correct in his assessment.

Why was Barack Obama such a sought after "prize" coming out of Harvard Law School? Quite simply...he was a safe hire. Large corporations (or in his case a law firm) wanted to hire a minority to be compliant with Affirmative Action. They wouldn't hire a Michael Brown to work at an entry level job in their firm because he would be viewed as an "iffy" employee who might or might not work out and if he didn't work out then they would be faced with having to fire a minority and face a wrongful termination lawsuit. As Sowell pointed out, businesses would be more apt to hire whites in those entry level positions because they could be let go with fewer complications if they didn't work out. Why? Because the Federal Government now has so many laws designed to "help" minorities from being discriminated against that they have made unskilled entry level minorities dangerous for employers to hire.

 

[Oldstyle]

Michael Brown only just graduated 'highschool' everyone else is in their 50s or so. Ya, that's roughly equal to draw a conclusion.

I'm sorry, Delta...I'm not following what your point is here.

 

[EverCurious]

Governments shouldn't be in the business of business, EverCurious! They invariably do it badly. You want to wean people off of government dependence by giving them a government job? I know that sounds like a fix but in reality you're simply taking away private sector jobs by replacing them with government subsidized jobs. The private sector can't survive against subsidized competition because the public sector doesn't need to make a profit to survive...they can go for years losing money hand over fist. The Post Office is a prime example of that.

The reason that young black males like Michael Brown have little future is BECAUSE of well intentioned government programs like Affirmative Action. Thomas Sowell pointed out forty years ago that AA would benefit upper class minorities but actually hurt lower class minorities and he was 100% correct in his assessment.

Why was Barack Obama such a sought after "prize" coming out of Harvard Law School? Quite simply...he was a safe hire. Large corporations (or in his case a law firm) wanted to hire a minority to be compliant with Affirmative Action. They wouldn't hire a Michael Brown to work at an entry level job in their firm because he would be viewed as an "iffy" employee who might or might not work out and if he didn't work out then they would be faced with having to fire a minority and face a wrongful termination lawsuit. As Sowell pointed out, businesses would be more apt to hire whites in those entry level positions because they could be let go with fewer complications if they didn't work out. Why? Because the Federal Government now has so many laws designed to "help" minorities from being discriminated against that they have made unskilled entry level minorities dangerous for employers to hire.

I hear you, and I even agree to a point, but I also don't agree that we are just handing out free money through welfare. When there is no compromise on the existing welfare program, instead of arguing and complaining about it I try to find a solution that might actually solve the situation instead.

That said, I'm not saying the gov. takes over private sector businesses at all, trust me I'm not that kind of idiot. lol

I'm gonna hide the rest cause it's a bit off topic heh

Spoiler: spoiler

Thing is I don't think any business owner in their right might would actually operate the "business" I propose because it's too risky so it almost has to be gov. run. It's got to be a) close to the 'ghetto' so they have easy ready access to it and b) it's 'hiring' people who have little to no job skills and questionable histories. No private sector business owner would touch it with a ten foot pole. So lets call it... the "Warehouse Welfare" program right?

It's not giving them a "government job" so much as making them WORK for government assistance, while simultaneously providing the poor with job skills they can use to get out of the situation they are in once and for all. Think of it more like an offshoot of education, and not just 'raw' education, but a more subtle education in some ways; because if you have to work 40 hours a week to get a welfare check, why not work 40 hours a week and get paid more, if that makes sense. It based on the "You can give a man a fish and feed him for a day, or you can teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime" theory.

The reason I picked a 'business' is because they need JOB SKILLS, you can't learn those unless you are working in a "business." The reason I settled on "warehouse" is because they'll be a good mix of skilled and unskilled jobs; hauling things around, sorting and organizing bulk shipments, running computers, customer service, even operating fork lifts; all skills that are desirable in the private job market. Ultimately, it would 'hopefully' make some profits that could be used to supplement, and hopefully eventually pay for, the costs of the 'new welfare program', it could increase the local economy of the 'ghetto', as well as bringing a glimmer of hope to the community, which the people clearly want since we've had 8 years of voting on "hope and change." Hell run it as a non-profit for all that matters, the point is like I said, instead of handing them money, lets teach them to 'earn' money.

 

[jwoodie]

This is another example of the decline of Marriage as a desirable social institution. Children of unwed or divorced parents are much more likely to have emotional problems for which our society pays the price.

 

[Oldstyle]

This is another example of the decline of Marriage as a desirable social institution. Children of unwed or divorced parents are much more likely to have emotional problems for which our society pays the price.

When I was a kid...the expression "Wait until your father gets home!" was uttered by my mother quite often. I shudder to think about what little bastards we would have been if the threat of a spanking from dad wasn't in the mix. Probably wouldn't be the person I am now...

 

[Mathbud1]

^ I agree. However, technology has automated a lot of those jobs with good reason - they do a consistent better job than humans and they are cheaper to operate.

That said, the only unskilled labor jobs that require 'human' workers I can think of off the top of my head are construction, maybe packing/moving companies. Neither of which, I'd imagine, are as needed in big cities. There's local stores that are going to need clerks and stuff like that, but there you get into job skills; handling cash, running a register, customer service, etc. Janitor maybe? There's just really not a lot of 'unskilled' jobs, period.

I think we would be better off weaning folks off government dependence and putting that money toward something... like starting up a government run business in the neighborhood; something like a warehouse store; and they 'only' hire people who are on welfare. That way instead of just handing out welfare checks, they have to be earned; it'll give the workers job skills that can get them into a better job, plus incentive folks out of the free money culture/mentality. It wouldn't be a quick fix by any means, but in the long run I think it would help a lot more than the system we have in place right now.

Another facet of the issue is that crime pays, and I have no idea how we could fix that. Even if we legalized ALL drugs (which I don't see happening) there would still be stealing property and so forth that can ultimately be more profitable than working a bottom tier job would be.

Part of the problem is that it is just getting harder and harder to create a low-skilled job. People are pushing for higher and higher minimum wages. If you are required to pay a minimum wage, every worker is going to have to be worth paying a minimum wage to. Every worker is going to have to do a minimum wage worth of work. And as T. Sowell pointed out in the video, if you aren't sure someone is going to be worth that minimum wage and you have to take a risk by hiring them to find out, you aren't going to take that risk on a minority. If you take that risk on a minority and find out they aren't willing or able to do that "minimum wage" worth of work, firing them opens you up to liability based on Affirmative Action. If you have to take a risk, you're going to minimize that risk by hiring the risky white guy over the risky black guy. Every time you push the minimum wage higher you make the risk of hiring a low skilled worker higher as well. With Affirmative Action that risk is stacked higher against minorities.

 

[Oldstyle]

^ I agree. However, technology has automated a lot of those jobs with good reason - they do a consistent better job than humans and they are cheaper to operate.

That said, the only unskilled labor jobs that require 'human' workers I can think of off the top of my head are construction, maybe packing/moving companies. Neither of which, I'd imagine, are as needed in big cities. There's local stores that are going to need clerks and stuff like that, but there you get into job skills; handling cash, running a register, customer service, etc. Janitor maybe? There's just really not a lot of 'unskilled' jobs, period.

I think we would be better off weaning folks off government dependence and putting that money toward something... like starting up a government run business in the neighborhood; something like a warehouse store; and they 'only' hire people who are on welfare. That way instead of just handing out welfare checks, they have to be earned; it'll give the workers job skills that can get them into a better job, plus incentive folks out of the free money culture/mentality. It wouldn't be a quick fix by any means, but in the long run I think it would help a lot more than the system we have in place right now.

Another facet of the issue is that crime pays, and I have no idea how we could fix that. Even if we legalized ALL drugs (which I don't see happening) there would still be stealing property and so forth that can ultimately be more profitable than working a bottom tier job would be.

Part of the problem is that it is just getting harder and harder to create a low-skilled job. People are pushing for higher and higher minimum wages. If you are required to pay a minimum wage, every worker is going to have to be worth paying a minimum wage to. Every worker is going to have to do a minimum wage worth of work. And as T. Sowell pointed out in the video, if you aren't sure someone is going to be worth that minimum wage and you have to take a risk by hiring them to find out, you aren't going to take that risk on a minority. If you take that risk on a minority and find out they aren't willing or able to do that "minimum wage" worth of work, firing them opens you up to liability based on Affirmative Action. If you have to take a risk, you're going to minimize that risk by hiring the risky white guy over the risky black guy. Every time you push the minimum wage higher you make the risk of hiring a low skilled worker higher as well. With Affirmative Action that risk is stacked higher against minorities.

Affirmative Action was a godsend for upscale minorities. If you're someone like Barack Obama, who was raised by his white mother's parents and attended an elite prep school...you are the PERFECT candidate for an Affirmative Action appointment to either an elite college or a prestigious law firm. Why? Because as Joe Biden pointed out when he blurted out his reaction to Barack Obama...he's an upscale minority that isn't going to create problems. He's well spoken, he's "clean", he isn't scary. When Harvard named Obama as it's first President of the Harvard Law Review...they did so because they saw him as a safe way to address allegations that they discriminated against minority workers at the college. "How can you say we don't treat minorities well when we just made a guy named Barack Obama the President of the Law Review!!!"

That was the point that Doctor Sowell was making 40 years ago when he said that Affirmative Action would NOT create jobs for low income minority kids from urban areas.

 

[Mathbud1]

^ I agree. However, technology has automated a lot of those jobs with good reason - they do a consistent better job than humans and they are cheaper to operate.

That said, the only unskilled labor jobs that require 'human' workers I can think of off the top of my head are construction, maybe packing/moving companies. Neither of which, I'd imagine, are as needed in big cities. There's local stores that are going to need clerks and stuff like that, but there you get into job skills; handling cash, running a register, customer service, etc. Janitor maybe? There's just really not a lot of 'unskilled' jobs, period.

I think we would be better off weaning folks off government dependence and putting that money toward something... like starting up a government run business in the neighborhood; something like a warehouse store; and they 'only' hire people who are on welfare. That way instead of just handing out welfare checks, they have to be earned; it'll give the workers job skills that can get them into a better job, plus incentive folks out of the free money culture/mentality. It wouldn't be a quick fix by any means, but in the long run I think it would help a lot more than the system we have in place right now.

Another facet of the issue is that crime pays, and I have no idea how we could fix that. Even if we legalized ALL drugs (which I don't see happening) there would still be stealing property and so forth that can ultimately be more profitable than working a bottom tier job would be.

Part of the problem is that it is just getting harder and harder to create a low-skilled job. People are pushing for higher and higher minimum wages. If you are required to pay a minimum wage, every worker is going to have to be worth paying a minimum wage to. Every worker is going to have to do a minimum wage worth of work. And as T. Sowell pointed out in the video, if you aren't sure someone is going to be worth that minimum wage and you have to take a risk by hiring them to find out, you aren't going to take that risk on a minority. If you take that risk on a minority and find out they aren't willing or able to do that "minimum wage" worth of work, firing them opens you up to liability based on Affirmative Action. If you have to take a risk, you're going to minimize that risk by hiring the risky white guy over the risky black guy. Every time you push the minimum wage higher you make the risk of hiring a low skilled worker higher as well. With Affirmative Action that risk is stacked higher against minorities.

Affirmative Action was a godsend for upscale minorities. If you're someone like Barack Obama, who was raised by his white mother's parents and attended an elite prep school...you are the PERFECT candidate for an Affirmative Action appointment to either an elite college or a prestigious law firm. Why? Because as Joe Biden pointed out when he blurted out his reaction to Barack Obama...he's an upscale minority that isn't going to create problems. He's well spoken, he's "clean", he isn't scary. When Harvard named Obama as it's first President of the Harvard Law Review...they did so because they saw him as a safe way to address allegations that they discriminated against minority workers at the college. "How can you say we don't treat minorities well when we just made a guy named Barack Obama the President of the Law Review!!!"

That was the point that Doctor Sowell was making 40 years ago when he said that Affirmative Action would NOT create jobs for low income minority kids from urban areas.

Right, because at the skilled level the risk of having to fire someone for poor performance is lessened. At the skilled level, prospective employees have credentials to back them up: experience, degrees, certifications, etc. At that level minorities can get an advantage from Affirmative Action. The low-to-no-skilled level is more risky. That risk is what makes AA work against minorities for lower wage areas.

 

[EverCurious]

Part of the problem is that it is just getting harder and harder to create a low-skilled job. People are pushing for higher and higher minimum wages. If you are required to pay a minimum wage, every worker is going to have to be worth paying a minimum wage to. Every worker is going to have to do a minimum wage worth of work. And as T. Sowell pointed out in the video, if you aren't sure someone is going to be worth that minimum wage and you have to take a risk by hiring them to find out, you aren't going to take that risk on a minority. If you take that risk on a minority and find out they aren't willing or able to do that "minimum wage" worth of work, firing them opens you up to liability based on Affirmative Action. If you have to take a risk, you're going to minimize that risk by hiring the risky white guy over the risky black guy. Every time you push the minimum wage higher you make the risk of hiring a low skilled worker higher as well. With Affirmative Action that risk is stacked higher against minorities.

Edit: In rereading I missed your point on "racially inspired firing liability" and I concur with that as well. Especially in a time when one can get sued for spilling hot coffee on themselves.

I concur and can even example it. Back in the day, when I started working, you had a well defined set of 'jobs' even in small businesses - you had your secretary, you had your receptionist, you had your accountant, you had your manager, you had your assistant manager. Today you often don't even have an assistant manager at all in a smaller business, often times your secretary is a receptionist and even bookkeeper. And the manager usually has to be able to perform ALL those jobs so they can fill in for hours that the secretary is off (where as in the past they'd try to hire a second person, even if part time.)

I disagree that the 'hiring risk' is limited to minorities. If anyone has a flaw on their record, it is often not worth a businesses time to train them; a short employment term with another place, getting fired from a job, something on their background check, a poor credit report in some jobs, or even the innocent misuse of wording on a resume/poorly formatted resume. They say that the average time a resume is viewed is 30 seconds; you have to be affluent enough to make them want to pick you in that time or your resume is getting passed over. That is generally not a skill that low skilled workers have picked up yet, regardless of race.

Combine all of the above with a tight job economy and you end up with skilled people competing for low skill entry-level jobs, and obviously the businesses are going to hire the skilled prospective over the 'unknown' prospective.

 

[Mathbud1]

Edit: In rereading I missed your point on "racially inspired firing liability" and I concur with that as well. Especially in a time when one can get sued for spilling hot coffee on themselves.

I concur and can even example it. Back in the day, when I started working, you had a well defined set of 'jobs' even in small businesses - you had your secretary, you had your receptionist, you had your accountant, you had your manager, you had your assistant manager. Today you often don't even have an assistant manager at all in a smaller business, often times your secretary is a receptionist and even bookkeeper. And the manager usually has to be able to perform ALL those jobs so they can fill in for hours that the secretary is off (where as in the past they'd try to hire a second person, even if part time.)

I disagree that the 'hiring risk' is limited to minorities. If anyone has a flaw on their record, it is often not worth a businesses time to train them; a short employment term with another place, getting fired from a job, something on their background check, a poor credit report in some jobs, or even the innocent misuse of wording on a resume/poorly formatted resume. They say that the average time a resume is viewed is 30 seconds; you have to be affluent enough to make them want to pick you in that time or your resume is getting passed over. That is generally not a skill that low skilled workers have picked up yet, regardless of race.

Combine all of the above with a tight job economy and you end up with skilled people competing for low skill entry-level jobs, and obviously the businesses are going to hire the skilled prospective over the 'unknown' prospective.

I'm pretty much a first-hand example of that last part. I just started a part-time second job yesterday. After my interview with the store manager they couldn't hire me fast enough. I'm not saying I'm any kind of star, but a little bit of intelligence was obviously more than they had expected to get from any applicants. A clean-shaven face, tucked-in shirt, and modicum of intelligence had them practically falling all over themselves to get me hired.

 

[JQPublic1]

Affirmative Action has done what it was designed to do: promote the hiring of QUALIFIED Blacks and White women. With cries of "reverse discrimination" and "unqualified minorities" ringing in their ears, it was no wonder that employers sought the cream of the crop among Blacks....Blacks who had experience or training for the type of skill needed. Now, in this forum I am hearing an entirely different objection to AA. In harmony with Sowell, some of you are now agonizing over the success of AA in creating a vibrant Black middle class. Well, those Blacks who were not qualified and could not be trained to compete were left behind...that's life. The best went on to better things as planned!