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

[JoeB131]

[

Irrelevant to the topic of affirmative action. I am very pro raising the minimum wage. Has nothing to do with telling me who i can and can't hire.

You know, I used to think like that.

Then I watched how most bosses actually hire, and how people with experience get passed over for someone's cousin or someone's drinking buddy.

You see, here's the problem. YOu didn't build that, as a wise man once said. If you have a business, it's because the rest of us enabled you to have one. Your customers, your employees, and even folks who just pay for the infrastructure that allows your business to thrive even though they never did any business with you.

If the rest of us have to subsidize the contract law and patents and infrastructure and police and fire protection and utilities that make your business thrive, then it's not unreasonable that we ask you to be fair in your employment and hiring practices.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I'm sure that shit flies on Stormfront.

No, diversity doesn't damage society. Lots of nations have diverse societies, and they are just fine.

What causes problems is income inequality. It's what happens when 1% controls half the wealth and still doesn't think they have enough. It's what happens when the richest country in the world lets children go to bed hungry or poor people die of treatable diseases.

No, it flies at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc. It's now a well established finding in social science that diversity destroys society.

That income inequality that you don't like today was caused by flooding the labor market with immigrants. The golden age you refer to, the 50s to late 60s, when income inequality was at its lowest was also the period of time when foreign born people comprised the lowest percentage of total population.

Here is the problem, it's been clearly identified for you on a number of occasions, so has the solution, but you want to cling to open immigration and multiculturalism more than you want to lower income inequality. Only a child wants two mutually contradictory things at the same time. Here in the real world you have to pick ONE outcome and one outcome only.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I'm too busy working my ass off to pay $106K in federal income tax a year to hatching plans to "get" some guy in a "corner office" Joe

Why is it that all you guys claim to be soooo rich always show up on the internets...

No, seriously, I've met more "millionaires" on the internet than I've ever met in real life.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[

Irrelevant to the topic of affirmative action. I am very pro raising the minimum wage. Has nothing to do with telling me who i can and can't hire.

You know, I used to think like that.

Then I watched how most bosses actually hire, and how people with experience get passed over for someone's cousin or someone's drinking buddy.

You see, here's the problem. YOu didn't build that, as a wise man once said. If you have a business, it's because the rest of us enabled you to have one. Your customers, your employees, and even folks who just pay for the infrastructure that allows your business to thrive even though they never did any business with you.

If the rest of us have to subsidize the contract law and patents and infrastructure and police and fire protection and utilities that make your business thrive, then it's not unreasonable that we ask you to be fair in your employment and hiring practices.

again, that has NOTHING to do with affirmative action Joe

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[

I'm too busy working my ass off to pay $106K in federal income tax a year to hatching plans to "get" some guy in a "corner office" Joe

Why is it that all you guys claim to be soooo rich always show up on the internets...

No, seriously, I've met more "millionaires" on the internet than I've ever met in real life.

I can't explain other people. Myself, I married a wealthy woman .

Deal with it.

 

[JoeB131]

[
No, it flies at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc. It's now a well established finding in social science that diversity destroys society.

That income inequality that you don't like today was caused by flooding the labor market with immigrants. The golden age you refer to, the 50s to late 60s, when income inequality was at its lowest was also the period of time when foreign born people comprised the lowest percentage of total population.

Here is the problem, it's been clearly identified for you on a number of occasions, so has the solution, but you want to cling to open immigration and multiculturalism more than you want to lower income inequality. Only a child wants two mutually contradictory things at the same time. Here in the real world you have to pick ONE outcome and one outcome only.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The neighborhood I grew up in the 1960's, was full of white immigrants from Poland, Ireland, Italy. My own father was born in Germany before WWII. So I'm not sure where you think this morotorium on immigrants was, exactly.

There was a golden age, but it was because.
1) 33% of the workforce was unionized.
2) The super rich were paying confiscatory tax rates.
3) The government heavily invested in infrastructure.

 

[JoeB131]

[Q


again, that has NOTHING to do with affirmative action Joe

It kind of has everything to do with it.

Here's the thing I keep repeating and you all keep ignoring.

The main beneficiaries of "Affirmative Action" have been- wait for it - white women. Affirmative action gave them access to the workplace they never had before. And they've done very well with it.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[Q


again, that has NOTHING to do with affirmative action Joe

It kind of has everything to do with it.

Here's the thing I keep repeating and you all keep ignoring.

The main beneficiaries of "Affirmative Action" have been- wait for it - white women. Affirmative action gave them access to the workplace they never had before. And they've done very well with it.

And here's what you don't understand. Affirmative action has KILLED wages.

It's put more people in the work force AND forced companies to hire people who are not qualified to meet quotas and so wages are down.

 

[JoeB131]

[
And here's what you don't understand. Affirmative action has KILLED wages.

It's put more people in the work force AND forced companies to hire people who are not qualified to meet quotas and so wages are down.

Guy, I've never met the mythical "unqualified minority" you all keep talking about.

I've met the Daughter of the friend of the lady who was blowing the Regional Manager.

I've met the guy from the loading dock who was drinking buddies with the GM who got promoted to production scheduler.

Also, I don't see putting "more people in the work force" as a bad thing. Quite the contrary, when Clinton had unemployment under 4%, it was kind of an awesome time to be working. You could pretty much send out a resume written in Crayon and get a better job offer.

 

[MaryL]

Well, I would like to chime in here and say that the media fanned the flames of racial hate in Ferguson. The media focused on the singular issue of race. Even thought blacks themselves are their own worst enemies, but when two white reporters get their heads chopped off by Muslim extremists, the media dropped Ferguson and the riots STOPPED dead in it's tracks the next day. Shame on the press. We notice stuff like this, don't let the media lead you around by the nose.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, I would like to chime in here and say that the media fanned the flames of racial hate in Ferguson. The media focused on the singular issue of race. Even thought blacks themselves are their own worst enemies, but when two white reporters get their heads chopped off by Muslim extremists, the media dropped Ferguson and the riots STOPPED dead in it's tracks the next day. Shame on the press. We notice stuff like this, don't let the media lead you around by the nose.

Um, actually, the demonstrations were mostly over before the beheadings became a big thing.

And, yes, when a white cop shoots a black kid in the middle of the street when he was trying to give up, and then the police force is caught repeatedly lying about it, that's kind of an issue.

 

[Rikurzhen]

[
No, it flies at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc. It's now a well established finding in social science that diversity destroys society.

That income inequality that you don't like today was caused by flooding the labor market with immigrants. The golden age you refer to, the 50s to late 60s, when income inequality was at its lowest was also the period of time when foreign born people comprised the lowest percentage of total population.

Here is the problem, it's been clearly identified for you on a number of occasions, so has the solution, but you want to cling to open immigration and multiculturalism more than you want to lower income inequality. Only a child wants two mutually contradictory things at the same time. Here in the real world you have to pick ONE outcome and one outcome only.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The neighborhood I grew up in the 1960's, was full of white immigrants from Poland, Ireland, Italy. My own father was born in Germany before WWII. So I'm not sure where you think this morotorium on immigrants was, exactly.

There was a golden age, but it was because.
1) 33% of the workforce was unionized.
2) The super rich were paying confiscatory tax rates.
3) The government heavily invested in infrastructure.

The Immigration Act of 1924 was operational until superseded by the Immigration Act of 1965 and that opened the floodgates wide:

The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, and Jews, in addition to prohibiting the immigration of Arabs, East Asians, and Indians. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity".[1] Congressional opposition was minimal.
​

Look at these two graphs. Think about them. Apply your knowledge of economics to the situation.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, guy, you'd be a riot on Stormfront, but the real world, not so much.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Again, guy, you'd be a riot on Stormfront, but the real world, not so much.

You've made your choice - you want to keep flooding the labor markets with immigrant workers. This lowers the bargaining power of labor and results in increased income inequality.

Now quit your bitching about the income inequality that YOU'RE CAUSING.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[
And here's what you don't understand. Affirmative action has KILLED wages.

It's put more people in the work force AND forced companies to hire people who are not qualified to meet quotas and so wages are down.

Guy, I've never met the mythical "unqualified minority" you all keep talking about.

I've met the Daughter of the friend of the lady who was blowing the Regional Manager.

I've met the guy from the loading dock who was drinking buddies with the GM who got promoted to production scheduler.

Also, I don't see putting "more people in the work force" as a bad thing. Quite the contrary, when Clinton had unemployment under 4%, it was kind of an awesome time to be working. You could pretty much send out a resume written in Crayon and get a better job offer.[/QUOTE]


But blame whitey instead.

Well, that clears up why you can't get ahead...

 

[Oldstyle]

You have to understand where Joe B is coming from...he got fired from a job and ever since he has a knee jerk hate towards anyone that owns a business.

Now he wants Government to protect him from the mean 'ole owners!

No, i was illegally let go for a medical issue. And they spent a year trying to get around the legal protections that were there to keep them from doing exactly what they did.

And, yes, I want the government to protect me from people who would screw me over.

I want government to protect me from people who would put carcinogens in my workplace, so I'm not coughing up chunks of my lungs like my dad was at 56.

I want the government to make sure businesses aren't importing lead poisoned toys from China that my nieces and nephews might play with.

I'm just not sure why you don't. Although I am sure your answer will involve "Freedom" or some other such garbage you heard on Hate Radio.

Gee, Joe...here's a RADICAL concept...why don't you leave the job where people screw you over and go work for people who don't? Or better yet...why don't you start your own business and then you can run it the way you think it should be!

 

[rightwinger]

Affirmative Action answers a basic question....

How do you know that someone can't do something if you don't let them try?

I tried using that logic on women and they just didn't buy it - "Hey honey, how do you know that I'm not the love of your life unless you come to my place and have hot torrid sex with me?"

It could have been my delivery, but I suspect that it was the screwed up logic you're pushing.

You miss the effectiveness of affirmative action

It opened up thousands of opportunities to minorities and women. In the beginning, many failed because they were ill prepared. But enough succeeded that you hardly notice any more

Affirmative action was a major success

 

[JoeB131]

Again, guy, you'd be a riot on Stormfront, but the real world, not so much.

You've made your choice - you want to keep flooding the labor markets with immigrant workers. This lowers the bargaining power of labor and results in increased income inequality.

Now quit your bitching about the income inequality that YOU'RE CAUSING.

I'd be all for enforcing the labor rules. But we dont' do that. Instead what we do is tell rednecks and yokels that we done gunna build us a fence and keep the wetbacks out.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Gee, Joe...here's a RADICAL concept...why don't you leave the job where people screw you over and go work for people who don't? Or better yet...why don't you start your own business and then you can run it the way you think it should be!

Or here's a more radical idea. Instead of trying to figure out how many douchebags work at a company based on one or two 30 minute interviews, we just change society where working folks have protections from douchebags.

Naw. That's too simple. Rich people should totally have the right to fuck over people who work for them. I mean, "Freedom". Er. "Founding Fathers". Ummm... "Liberty". That's the "Conservative Way", flipping through your copy of Ayn Rand.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Also, I don't see putting "more people in the work force" as a bad thing. Quite the contrary, when Clinton had unemployment under 4%, it was kind of an awesome time to be working. You could pretty much send out a resume written in Crayon and get a better job offer.[/QUOTE]


But blame whitey instead.

Well, that clears up why you can't get ahead...

Um, no, I just point out the obvious. Stuff was pretty good under Clinton.

IN 2000, I got fed up with Civilian Job #2, because they fired a friend of mine for the horrible crime of showing up at the Company Holiday Party with her life-partner. who happened to be another chick. And even though I wasn't really terribly qualified for the next job I applied for, I still got the foot in the door. That was the joke I was trying to emphasize. I'm sorry it went over your head. It was a 20% pay increase on day one. Sweet.

Not to worry, Bush managed to screw that one up pretty quickly.