Rand Paul, Racism and 1965 Civil Rights Act

[MrFun]

Because you have defended Clinton-era regulations prohibiting red-lining.

Uh, so? How does prohibiting discrimation by making red-lining illegal mean that you have to provide houses to minority members who cannot afford particular houses?

I know, let me spell this out for you in baby steps so that even YOU can understand what I'm talking about.


Black family #1: They come to a mostly white neighborhood, seeking to buy a new home. They are of upper middle class and can clearly afford to buy the home. But the realtor denies them because the realtor is racist.

Black family #2: They come to a mostly white neighborhood, seeking to buy a new home. They are of lower working class and clearly cannot afford to buy the home. On the basis of this financial information, the realtor turns them down.

[OzzyKP]

Interesting note from the libertarian Reason Magazine which agrees that the market wouldn't have desegregated if left to its own devices and that civil rights laws may have been necessary to fix the mess of racism:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/24/bruce-bartlett-explains-how-li

[David Floyd]

There's nothing wrong with Civil Rights laws. Blacks shouldn't be forced to sit in the back of government funded buses, as that kind of rule quite obviously violates Equal Protection.

The same can't be said for private discrimination - the government has NO valid power to curtail that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Uh, so? How does prohibiting discrimation by making red-lining illegal mean that you have to provide houses to minority members who cannot afford particular houses?

That's exactly what red-lining does. It establishes standards which apply to everyone. Unfortunately because black people make less money than white people on average, they were considered to be 'discriminatory' standards because they were more likely to reject black people, despite the fact that the same standards applied to everyone.

So the mortgage agents were instructed to take race 'into consideration' when making loans, meaning that equally qualified black and white applicants were treated differently. This raised the homeownership ratios up for blacks and other minorities, and resulted in the housing crash shortly afterwards.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ozzy, why are you lying?

Undoubtedly, changing mores would have broken down some of this over time

Direct quote from the article.

So he's arguing that the market would, if left to it's own devices, sorted it out over time.

[MrFun]

Yes - maybe the market would have moved to desegregation by 2150 if left to its own devices.

[David Floyd]

Then again, if the market doesn't support anti-discrimination, as you allege, then let's be honest - is anti-discrimination a good thing for business? Note that I'm not making one argument or the other, it just seems like a question worth asking...

After all, if anti-discrimination isn't good for business, but rather a "social good", then everyone who currently clamors for "diversity" and "diverse workforces", etc., are probably full of **** if they try to tie diversity to greater business results, yes?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes - maybe the market would have moved to desegregation by 2150 if left to its own devices.

Why then did black families double their earning power from 1940-1960 despite Jim Crow?

Assuming there was no Jim Crow, I can't see an argument that significant racial discrimination would have held out past 1940. Jim Crow just extended it for another 25 years.

[Hauldren Collider]

The relevant question at this point is: Do we still need these regulations given that the market is, from what I can tell, basically not racist*?

*That is to say, race is not a factor among equally qualified candidates--disparity in average qualifications of certain races is a different issue

[MrFun]

Then again, if the market doesn't support anti-discrimination, as you allege, then let's be honest - is anti-discrimination a good thing for business? Note that I'm not making one argument or the other, it just seems like a question worth asking...

After all, if anti-discrimination isn't good for business, but rather a "social good", then everyone who currently clamors for "diversity" and "diverse workforces", etc., are probably full of **** if they try to tie diversity to greater business results, yes?

In some ways, anti-discrimination can be a positive good for business, as this increases the consumer market for businesses. And in terms of employment, this increases the likliehood of hiring persons with valuable skills/abilities.

But in so many historical instances (occasionally even today), businesses still discriminated against race minority members.

[giblets]

Why then did black families double their earning power from 1940-1960 despite Jim Crow?

The great depression had a disproportionately strong effect on black people thanks to racist hiring and firing practices, so of course by the end of the great depression (1940) most black people were destitute. A large part of the gains made by black people after 1940 was merely a recovery from the depression.

[Ben Kenobi]

And in terms of employment, this increases the likliehood of hiring persons with valuable skills/abilities.

Not necessarily. Black and hispanic people consistantly report that they would rather be served by white employees.

What value would a black employee bring to a business, if customers, both white and minority express preference for white people?

This is why it has to be left up to the market. If the government is distorting demand through 'diversity' policies, they are, by definition, working against market forces.

[David Floyd]

In some ways, anti-discrimination can be a positive good for business, as this increases the consumer market for businesses. And in terms of employment, this increases the likliehood of hiring persons with valuable skills/abilities.

So if that's the case, it sounds like you are arguing that a true free market DOES support anti-discrimination.

[Ben Kenobi]

The great depression had a disproportionately strong effect on black people thanks to racist hiring and firing practices, so of course by the end of the great depression (1940) most black people were destitute. A large part of the gains made by black people after 1940 was merely a recovery from the depression.

If it were racist policies that fired them in the first place, wouldn't we expect to see the black standard of living lag further behind whites as the recovery started? Instead, blacks actually outpaced whites over this period. So it's not just the depression, there were fundamental changes which occurred after 1940. One of these is the relocation of black people to the north from the south. Because of this, they were able to obtain employment. This is an example of how market forces work to stymie employment laws, because people move to where the jobs occur.

[giblets]

If it were racist policies that fired them in the first place, wouldn't we expect to see the black standard of living lag further behind whites as the recovery started? Instead, blacks actually outpaced whites over this period. So it's not just the depression, there were fundamental changes which occurred after 1940. One of these is the relocation of black people to the north from the south. Because of this, they were able to obtain employment. This is an example of how market forces work to stymie employment laws, because people move to where the jobs occur.

You don't know anything about this.

http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover..._01_00017.html

As the "Last Hired and the First Fired," African Americans entered the Depression long before the stock market crash in 1929, and they stayed there longer than other Americans. By 1933, African Americans found it all but impossible to find jobs of any kind in agriculture or industry.

. . .

Black urban unemployment reached well over 50 percent, more than twice the rate of whites. In southern cities, white workers rallied around such slogans as, "No Jobs for ******s Until Every White Man Has a Job" and "******s, back to the cotton fields—city jobs are for white folks." The most violent episodes took place on southern railroads, as unionized white workers and the railroad brotherhoods intimidated, attacked, and murdered black firemen in order to take their jobs. Nearly a dozen black firemen lost their jobs in various parts of the South. As one contemporary observer succinctly stated, "The shotgun, the whip, the noose, and Ku Klux Klan practices were being resumed in the certainty that dead men not only tell no tales, but create vacancies." For their part, in the North and South, black women were forced into the notorious Depression era "slave market," where even working-class white women employed black women at starvation wages, as little as $5 per week for full-time laborers in northern cities.

Racism caused much of the high unemployment during the great depression to be pushed onto black people.