Rand Paul, Racism and 1965 Civil Rights Act

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Sigh.

Reread my post again.

Where exactly did I say this was not the case? You would have expected employment after the depression to lag, but that wasn't the case at all. Black families actually gained wrt to white people from 1940 to 1960. If it were racism, then you'd expect to see black employment improve, but continue to lag.

[giblets]

Sigh.

Reread my post again.

Where exactly did I say this was not the case? You would have expected employment after the depression to lag, but that wasn't the case at all. Black families actually gained wrt to white people from 1940 to 1960. If it were racism, then you'd expect to see black employment improve, but continue to lag.

My point is the effects of the great depression caused the position of black people relative to white people to decline because it had a disproportionately strong impact on black employment. Obviously when those effects ended the relative decline was reversed.

WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID?

[MrFun]

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

It's not a black or white issue (there's a pun there, but you know what I mean).

People often act irrationally, even in economic market systems. So no, it's not an absolute case that in every instance, the market will support anti-discrimination.

[David Floyd]

People often act irrationally, even in economic market systems. So no, it's not an absolute case that in every instance, the market will support anti-discrimination.

I completely agree. And in those cases, ASSUMING THAT anti discrimination is economically superior, businesses that do not adopt anti-discrimination measures will suffer poor business results.

Unless, of course, anti-discrimination is not NECESSARILY economically superior.

Which is it gonna be, buddy?

[MrFun]

I completely agree. And in those cases, ASSUMING THAT anti discrimination is economically superior, businesses that do not adopt anti-discrimination measures will suffer poor business results.

Unless, of course, anti-discrimination is not NECESSARILY economically superior.

Which is it gonna be, buddy?

Did you see my point earlier, that businesses can act irrationally, even when it's not in their best interest? Such as being racially discriminating, even though anti-discrimination could improve their profits and/or productivity?

[David Floyd]

Sure they can. And if you were a business owner, or had any business acumen whatsoever, you would understand that there are built in penalties for acting in a manner that actively degrades productivity and profitability.

[Berzerker]

The free market did a very poor job of weeding out racism historically.

You cannot look at several hundred years of slavery and the racist institutions accompanying it and blame the free market. There is no free market when people are enslaved and the govt makes laws requiring everyone to segregate. And then there was the KKK largely in the South acting as a quasi paramilitary arm of the state enforcing the segregation even in the absence of laws. That, and thats a lot, is what the free market had to overcome, but only when the free market had the chance to operate - and that only started recently. It will be the free market and not more state intervention that will continue lessening the effects of racism in society. In a free market, the only relevant color is green...

[Ben Kenobi]

My point is the effects of the great depression caused the position of black people relative to white people to decline because it had a disproportionately strong impact on black employment. Obviously when those effects ended the relative decline was reversed.

This would imply that the racist effect on employment ended in 1940, which is my contention.

If racism had continued, we would expect employment of blacks once the economy picked up to lag behind the employment of white people, because they would only hire black people when they had absolutely no other option. This, as you've said, isn't what happened.

[giblets]

This would imply that the racist effect on employment ended in 1940, which is my contention.

If racism had continued, we would expect employment of blacks once the economy picked up to lag behind the employment of white people, because they would only hire black people when they had absolutely no other option. This, as you've said, isn't what happened.

No... my assertion is that after the depression ended, employment more or less returned to the way it was before the depression. The assumptions I make are that racism was a constant factor before, during and after the great depression, and the effects of the great depression had a disproportionately strong impact on black people. The only thing ending in 1940 is the depression.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not even following the thread very closely, but I can tell you've made a terrible mistake in it, gribbler.

[giblets]

Talking to ben?

[KrazyHorse]

I would add the adverb "seriously" to that.

[Heraclitus]

I'm wondering when we will legislate civil acts to counteract lookism. I mean isn't beauty just a social construct? And aren't ugly people discriminated against even when their looks don't play a role in the job in question?

Also I don't think its fair a potentially very valuable employee can decide to refuse the job because his potential boss isn't the right race or religion. WE NEED LEGISLATION TO FIX THIS GREAT INJUSTICE!

Also people dating and marrying in clearly racist ways is unacceptable since we all know married people are better off (at least untill divorce) than those who remain unmaried. We also know kids coming from single parent homes are more dysfunctional and that the African American ilegitemacy rate is 70%, we need to squash this so every group in this great country has a exactly identical iligitemacy rate and in order to off set generations of good parenting whites who are so numbskulled to perpetuate racism by marrying in their race shouldn't get any goverment subventions.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm wondering when we will legislate civil acts to counteract lookism. I mean isn't beauty just a social construct? And aren't ugly people discriminated against even when their looks don't play a role in the job in question?

Are you claiming this is a social evil of similar magnitude to institutional racism? If so, go **** yourself with a rake because you're a moron.

[Heraclitus]

Are you claiming this is a social evil of similar magnitude to institutional racism?

No.

It is several orders of magnitude smaller.
It is however social evil of the same type as racism, classism, ageism or sexism.
I think that in magnitude it probably comparable to ageism.