Affirmative Action

[John Dibble]

So long as consumers don't discriminate based on race(say, for instance, a customer who refuses to go to restaraunts that hire blacks), the market in general tends to go against employment discrimination. If a lot of employers discriminate, the wages for the group discriminated against goes down(simple law of supply and demand of labor) and people who capitalize on these lower wage rates will have lower costs and therefore lower prices - effectively putting the other guys out of business, or at least taking a bigger share of the pie. I say let anyone foolish enough to discriminate do it.

As far as class based affirmative action - it's a stupid, communistic idea. Think about it - by hiring the poor, you might just be forcing someone else into a lower income bracket, possibly even making them poor. Defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

If I was an employer, I would hire the best people for the job - I'm a capitalist, I don't give a damn about race, class, or gender.

[John Dibble]

In order to treat some people equally, we must treat them differently.

That's a logical fallacy if I've ever heard one. Rich people are our equals, so we should tax them a greater percentage of their earnings. Eqaul, right? Perfect equality is a pipe dream, it shall never be attained, especially economically.

There's only one equality I care about - equality under the law. It shouldn't matter what race, class, or gender you are - the law should treat you the same. Privately owned businesses are not the law - they are privately owned, and the private owners should be allowed to set whatever policy they damn well please. As I said, as a general rule discrimination will make their competitors more profitable and themselves less profitable - let the free market weed them out.

[John Dibble]

I strongly support class-based AA because I feel that everyone deserves equal opportunity. People who come from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are at a fundamental disadvantage when it comes to getting a job as opposed to someone from a wealthy background. In addition, society will be better off with the poor getting more jobs than if the wealthy get those same jobs, because the poor need the good job more.

Ok, you seem a bit confused about how the frikkin world works. First off, the wealthy don't get jobs, not the ones the poor even try to get anyways - if they work at all they are high ranking executives or something that pays a lot(thus making them NOT POOR), they didn't get wealthy by doing low level work(unless they worked their way up the ranks, like most motivated people try to do). The main competition for the low economic class will be themselves and the low-middle class. So, by instituting a policy of class-based affirmative action, you'll only be making some people in the low class into low-middle class and low-middle class into low class(since they can't get a job), thus defeating the entire purpose of the whole frikkin idea. You'll merely shift who is in what class, not to mention I shudder to think of the bureacracy that would be needed to keep track of that information. And you neglect that those who are better qualified for a job getting that job is better for society - reason being they produce more than lesser qualified workers, and higher production can mean cheaper goods for all. Since this idea pretty much just shifts who is in a class around and it produces less than is optimal, this idea is BAD for society.

[John Dibble]

A piece of wisdom for everyone:

"Wizard's Second Rule: The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.  It sounds a paradox, but kindness and good intentions can be an insidious path to destruction.  Sometimes doing what seems right is wrong, and can cause harm.  The only counter to it is knowledge, wisdom, forethought, and understanding the First Rule.  Even then, that is not always enough." - Terry Goodkind, 'Stone of Tears'

[John Dibble]

Silly us - we thought the whole point of AA was to give a leg up to a group of people who were economically disadvantaged and less likely to get hired. Of course, if it is your way, it's an even worse law - it's attempting to force tolerance. Not to mention it would have the opposite effect of the intent - if a white man doesn't get a job because a black man got it by affirmative action, do you think he's going to like blacks?

[John Dibble]

Oh, I know. But there's another piece of wisdom I like to follow:

"Wizard's Sixth Rule: The only sovereign you can allow to rule is reason.  The Sixth Rule is the hub upon which all rules turn.  It is not only the most important rule, but the simplest.  Nonetheless, it is the one most often ignored and violated, and by far the most despised.  It must be wielded in spite of the ceaseless, howling protests on the wicked." - Terry Goodkind, 'Faith of the Fallen'

[John Dibble]

Let me get this straight, because someone's parents have money, they should not get a job because someone else from a lower economic class applies, even if they are more qualified? Once you are in the workforce, the money your parents have is not generally going to you - they own it, you don't.

Also, you need to understand something - there really aren't that many wealthy people. Rich is not the same thing as wealthy - Bill Gates is wealthy, a millionaire is not. A millionaire can lose his money easily, so isn't going to be likely to let his kids mooch when they are at working age - they'll get jobs to support themselves. You make the assumption that Let's also not forget the fact that the wealthy and the rich do not make up a majority population - they are a minority and are a very small portion of the job market.

Also consider there are many, many scholarships for poorer students who excel, while for rich kids at any level scholarships are virtually non-existant. Many of these are privately funded, by *gasp* the wealthy and *dare I say it* corporations. The reason is is that the wealthy and corporations all normally have workers, and they want high quality workers, they don't care what class those workers come from. This allows poor students who have high potential to receive training on a similar level to students of rich parents. There's tons and tons of college money out there for poor students to get if they apply themselves in high school, which only takes a little talent and drive as you said. Plus there are student loans, which anyone can get and pay pack once they are employed.

On implementation - how do you know that just because the person has rich parents that they don't need the job. Maybe the parents don't give the person money unless they do work, or maybe the parents disinherited them. The entire idea of class based AA as you are suggesting it is punishing people for being born to rich families. You can't judge people by their parents, that's stupid. A person can be more successful or less successful than their parents, it is not set in stone. When students are fresh out of college, potential employers look at both what schools the person went to and their performance at the school - and if a rich kid was lazy and got bad grades he is not likely to be hired, but if he got good grades from a prestigious school(which usually have high academic standards) then he is not lazy and may be deserving of the job.

Oh, and if you didn't notice, Dazzleman acknowledged that implementation of class based AA would be difficult and likely have limited effects due to the problems I mentioned before. Don't read selectively.